Talk:2015 al-Hawl offensive

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 al-Hawl 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

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

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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

Merger of two articles

I would like to suggest that we merge these two articles Southern Al-Hasakah offensive (2015–16) and Al-Hawl offensive because it would seem it was one and the same operation/offensive. As stated by this source here [1] from the Kurds themselves, the operations that started south of Al-Hasakah, on the same day as operations in the Al-Hawl area ended, were in fact an expansion of the Al-Hawl offensive. Also, according to de Syracuse [2] the operations at Al-Hawl and Hasakah city were in fact part of the same 3-axis offensive. I would name the merged article as East Hasakah offensive (October–November 2015) since de Syracuse called it the East Hasakah offensive. Your opinion? EkoGraf (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing new happens in the next week or two, then let's merge all of the existing content into the Al-Hawl offensive article, and then retitle the second article Southern Al-Hasakah offensive (2016). Even though the advances from October through November last year appear to be part of one continuous offensive, the SDF has repeatedly stated that they plan to remove ISIL from Al-Shaddadi and the rest of the Al-Hasakah Province very soon. The first article should keep the name Al-Hawl offensive, since we currently have another "East Hasakah" offensive article, and because Al-Hawl was the primary focus of the offensive in question. If we rename the first article, it could result in some reader confusion (since the first "East al-Hasakah offensive" article deals with a slightly different region) and create an unnecessary redirect. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SDF has stated that they plan to remove ISIL from Al-Shaddadi and the rest of the province, but they have not initiated any kind of operation thus far in this regard, and per WP: NOTCRYSTALLBALL we are not allowed to create articles on potential future events until they actually happen. As for the title of the merged article, I'm fine with it remaining Al-Hawl offensive. Also, we can wait another week before moving the info from that other article into this one, although 44 days have already past since the SDF's advances were halted south of Hasakah city. As for creating an article titled Southern Al-Hasakah offensive (2016), lets hold off until it actually happens, but generally I agree with the name. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, but I would still like somewhere to hold the information more specific to the second offensive. (It could be merged into the "Aftermath" section of the first article; if not, I could try to create a sandbox to act as a repository.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Aftermath. EkoGraf (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge the articles sometime this weekend. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I merged the two articles and removed all the links to the other article that I could find at the moment. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Transferred original article move discussion to talk page, for future reference. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: Thanks for merging the articles, but how would your recent page move, which overturns a recent, uncontested move request, qualify as non-controversial? If you think it should be named 2015 Al-Hawl offensive, then please file a new move request, so we can discuss the pros and cons. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 January 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: moved. Unopposed for over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hawl offensive → Southern Al-Hasakah offensive – The article Southern Al-Hasakah offensive (2015) has recently been merged into this one on the basis that it was a single offensive which I agree it was. The name "Al-Hawl offensive" however only refers to the first part of the offensive. We'll see what the history books say one day, but until then this should receive an appropriate name referring to the whole area seized. -- PanchoS (talk) 10:23, 24 January 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Al-Hawl 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/20151117033054/http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/the-syrian-democratic-forces-seize-the-town-of-al-hol-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-al-hasakah/ to http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/the-syrian-democratic-forces-seize-the-town-of-al-hol-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-al-hasakah/

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) 05:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

inaccuracies

there is some inaccuracies,like Arisha wasn't captured during this offensive.Alhanuty (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]