Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive (June–October 2016)

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Rif Dimashq offensive (June–October 2016), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Syria Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 13 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by requester. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rif Dimashq offensive (June–September 2016) → Rif Dimashq offensive (June 2016) – The offensive never ended, it is still ongoing. There was only a temporary ceasefire from 12 - 18 September. Yet the article for unkown reasons says it has ended on 12 September, even though the battles are still clearly ongoing. I request the second month ie., September 2016 be removed the title with only June 2016 left in place until the offensive actually ends. 59.90.72.60 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First, the established Wikipedia template is to name an ongoing offensive (for example) (June 2016–present). Second, leaving only June in the title implies the offensive only took place in June, and not in subsequent months as well. Third, the continues offensive that took place from June till 12 September is separate from the current one. The current offensive has been called a totally new offensive, which would warrant a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made a restructuring of the article that I think is a proper compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the move per your suggestion. Regarding it being a new offensive, on 12 September in Rif Dimashq just like other areas in Syria because of the temporary ceasefire brokered by US and Russia. Ceasefires are usual in battles, that doesn't mean battles are ended just because a ceasefire takes place. If no conflict occured a long time, then it would make sense to call it a "new offensive". But something that was stalled only for less than a week cannot be termed new. Regardless, if you please can create a new page for the offensive beginning from 18 September 2016, I'll withdraw the move request. 59.90.72.60 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the change earlier. I don't know the rules. Is it allowed to change the name of the move in the request? 59.90.72.60 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which offensive are you referring to starting from 18 September? If you are referring to the operations in East Ghouta that restarted on that date there is no need for a new article since we integrated it into this one. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent move to June -October 2016 , but I think it is better if it is shifted to June 2016- present just so we don't have to change it again if the offensive continues. 117.215.225.136 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to present but I couldn't because June 2016-present already exists from before as a redirect. An administrator would have to move it. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I'll like to withdraw this move as I agree with EkoGraf's statement. Please close this move, so I can request a move to the already existing Rif Dimashq offensive (June 2016 - present). 59.89.42.148 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion How about Rif Dimashq offensives (June 2016 - present) Plural. They are multiple offensives, but think an article each would be overdoing it.79.74.4.64 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which other offensives are you talking about? This one never ended. Besides the Rif Dimashq is for eastern part of Eastern Ghouta, not any other region. 117.199.90.205 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's probably thinking about the offensive in Western Ghouta that started recently? Its a separate one from this one. For that we would need a new and separate article. EkoGraf (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if you want to start it and have enough material for it. 61.0.201.245 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting the article

The article has again been closed. The offensive is still ongoing though. I suggest instead of closing again and again, this article be split into before mid-September ceasefire Rif Dimashq offensive (June–September 2016) and after mid-September ceasefire Rif Dimashq offensive (September 2016). That will go well with when this article was closed for the first time. It will solve the problems. 117.199.93.238 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with that. Let's see what the others think before making any changes. EkoGraf (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. I am scrapping and withdrawing it. There was no end to the offensive, ceasefire are usual. 45.122.145.195 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New split proposal

So Syrian Army recently has begun a new offensive it seems. I scrapped the earlier split from September. In September there was only a temporary ceasefire. I think it is better to instead split it from November as that is when the new offensive began per sources. We should do as the sources say. But right now, there's not enough material. Let's wait. 45.122.145.195 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree to a new article for the new offensive (when there is enough material) starting from the date that it was announced (14 November). However, in regard to the end date of the offensive which is the subject of this article, there is no evidence provided to confirm that the 8 November assault on the western farms of Rayhan was part of the same operation. The last clashes that were confirmed as part of the offensive that started in June 2016 was the capture of Tal Kurdi when it was clearly stated (per the sources) it was part of 50 days of continues fighting. And previously, sources confirmed the starting attack on Tal Kurdi was part of the long-running offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. By the way 45.122.145.195, EkoGraf is right. The Al Masdar source said clearly the fighting was only for a duration for a few hours. According to what the source means I think, the SAA instead of keep the fighting ongoing, had withdrawn after rebels recaptured Western Al Rayhan in late October and a few days later attacked the western farms to cut them off instead of advancing on the western part of the town. In addition, it also never said the fighting was ongoing since 30 Oct. Sorry but you don't have a source that the fighting on 8 November was part of the same. I will undo it. But I agree with you on the matter of split. Right now though the material is too short as you said. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Jarba

Could someone with verifiable sources verify whether the town of Jarba is in rebel or regime hands? Wikipedia's map is the only one in the entire internet that shows the town in rebel hands and I am assuming that this is based on a source(which I can't find) as the last mention of the town is in 2013 when the army recaptured the town. Every other map shows the town in regime hands. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GERALD710 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]