Jump to content

Talk:Raqqa offensive (2016)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  checkY Merger complete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor abcdef, Applodion, EkoGraf, MrPenguin20, Mehmedsons, Jewnited, merging Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016) into this? The game-changing offensives like Manbij offensive should have a suitable name, me thinks. I have imported the "background" section from that other article into this. Whatever you think is fine with me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger - obviously the same subject. Whether the final name actually specifies 'Northern' seems a minor point. What's northern about it? Batternut (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger into the northern Raqqa offensive, since the name is consistent with the northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016) and is the second Raqqa offensive in 2016. Whether this is "game-changing" is not up to us to decide. It's better to wait until they actually capture Raqqa. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, but don't you think the scope and approach here is more comparable to the comprehensive Manbij campaign than to the some-village-game of Western Al-Bab or the proxy attack on the Northern Raqqa frontline back in May? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to distinguish between Raqqa city and Al-Raqqah Governorate, and the vagaries of the declared scope of the Northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016) have caused confusion here. The Northern Raqqa offensive seems only to have taken place in the north of Raqqa Governorate, and suggestions made by observers that the target was Raqqa City were either just over-optimistic or perhaps deliberate misinformation. In contrast, the stated aim of the current offensive is the taking of Raqqa City, for which reason it should be known as the "Raqqa Offensive". But perhaps it would be uncontentious and simpler to use the name "Operation Euphrates Wrath". Batternut (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This offensive is clearly said to be an "isolation operation". As of now, there is little difference in rhetoric between this one and the last offensive in May. Even in the latter people were optimistic that they will take Raqqa city or at least a large area of land in the Raqqa Governorate. It didn't happen and Wikipedia articles are not authorized to speculate on the future. Also the "Raqqa offensive" is a far more common name than something like "Operation Euphrates Wrath". Code names are rarely used for article titles unless the usage of them outnumbers other terms. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the SDF/US stated aim of isolating Raqqa city not make this significantly not northern, regardless of its eventual success? See also Battle of Warsaw (1920). Batternut (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger into northern Raqqa for the sake of article name consistency. EkoGraf (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger - for me obviously that is it a same subject. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to wind this discussion up (even though only 19 hours old)? Consensus clearly with 'Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016)'. Batternut (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits in "Rojava" article, including deletion of reference to SDF offensives

[edit]

Not directly the topic here, but would some of you folks take a look at the talk page of the "Rojava" article? There is an IP making disruptive edits (inter alia including several attempts to delete of the sole paragraph concerning SDF offensives), while seeking to justify them with the fact that few people bother to express opposition to his claims on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]