Talk:2014 Eastern Syria offensive

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Eastern Syria offensive article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2014 Eastern Syria offensive, 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!

Syria 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War

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:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

121th regiment

i am sure that the 121th regiment is under the control of IS.Alhanuty (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Yes they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.151.190 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tabqa air base

Significant battle in terms of losses to both sides, and complicated history. Might justify standalone to flesh out. -- GreenC 21:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it feels like too much trouble to reconstruct how to create a URL for comparing two articles (as opposed to the routine, handily-packaged comparison of revisions of the same article). Instead, i've copied the source of the current (half-day old) revision of the accompanying article into the edit window for the current revision of "Battle for Tabqa Air base" (as if i contemplated replacing the former by the latter, tho i have no such intention) in order see conveniently, quickly, and error-resistantly how they differ. I find that the {{Infobox military conflict}} data in the respective lead sections differ appropriately, and the "...Offensive..." article's section on the battle tracks closely the other's "The Battle" section.
I note the following minor differences between the similar passages:

4th 'graph: ref named "heavylosses" provides, in the "battle" article, the lk REPORTS: SYRIA TROOPS KILL SCORES OF JIHADIS, while in the "offensive" article that link has been established as a named reference in a previous section
5th: ref named "republican" is absent in the accompanying "offensive" article, and i thus presume it constitutes an improvement made only to the "battle" article
7th:
- refs "tabqafallen" and "monitor" are at the same position within the prose contexts, tho their order is opposite
- as with "heavylosses" in the "4th-'graph" bullet point above, so with "tabqafallen" in the 7th
- "AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles" in the "offensive" article corresponds to "[[K-13 (missile)|Atoll missiles]]" in the "battle" one. The K-13 article clarifies the close relationship of the Sidewinder, to the Atoll that apparently had actually been supplied to Syria by USSR or Russia.
10th: the adjacent 1st pair of refs are in opposite order in the two articles

I conclude that divergence of the content of the section and the article it was copied to are all harmless, and the situation calls for no effort to merge anything from the original location in one page's section to the other page's content.
--Jerzy•t 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

("evacuated" or "routed"?)

Pictures released by IS show at least four maybe five MiG 21Bs captured. Base clearly looks overrun, so it was not evacuated but routed. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/08/islamic_state_photos.php --Tgoll774 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Well:
The subtopic content Tgoll implicitly refers to is no longer part of the accompanying article, but now appears as part of Battle for Tabqa Air base. Talk responses concerning it should be contributed (below and subordinate to the copy there of the immediately preceding talk contrib, and below --but not necessarily subordinate to-- my verbose effort to document clearly my repair of the unusual situation) at talk:Battle for Tabqa Air base#"Evacuated" or "routed"?.
--Jerzy•t 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much detail on air-base battle?

The air-base battle was initially covered in detail at 2014_Eastern_Syria_offensive#Battle_of_Tabqa_air_base, but the proposal was made on the page's talk page, and carried out IIRC about a month later, to create a separate article for that battle. There was no discussion about how that would change the article on the offensive that includes the battle, but we've long been clear that covering the same ground, in the same depth, in multiple articles creates chaos; the question of how much difference in depth there should be is, as far as i can see, not subject to a formula, and i'm not even going to propose a long-term "depth" for the offensive's article's coverage of the battle. I doubt greatly that simply a link to the battle's coverage would be optimum, but IMO it's a good starting place, and i'll settle for that rather than get deeper into the question than i can quickly go, mostly leaving it to others to decide what balance among the aspects of the battle deserve priority.
--Jerzy•t 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with my foregoing intent is that it appears the section heading, however it may have begun, is not descriptive of its content: rather, the battle may be just the biggest event during its duration, and other material related only chronologically is dumped in with it. (Maybe that's the best that amateurs can muster.)
I will say again what i do know: the article and the section of a larger that corresponds to it can't have the same depth of coverage, and reducing the latter all the way to a link to the former is a step in the right direction. Some material in the battle's article may be related (other than chronologically) to the rest of it, or it may need to moved back into sections whose best possible titles might be "Events between xyz and Battle of Tabqa air base".
--Jerzy•t 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2014 Eastern Syria offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 Eastern Syria offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826122451/http://citizen.co.za/afp_feed_article/more-than-500-dead-in-battle-for-syrias-tabqa-airport-ngo/ to http://citizen.co.za/afp_feed_article/more-than-500-dead-in-battle-for-syrias-tabqa-airport-ngo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]