Talk:Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011 – March 2012)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011 – March 2012) 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 Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011 – March 2012), 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 not 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.

It is requested that an image or photograph of 2011 Idlib clashes be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Syria may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Scope of this article

It needs to be made clear what this article is about.
Is it about all protests and violence since the beginning or is it only about clashes between the SA & FSA?
Whenever that's decided, it should be made clear and all off-topic information should be removed. ~Asarlaí 07:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Asarlaí proposed to merge the Siege of Idlib and October 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya clashes into this article. The proposal was initially illegally closed on Siege of Idlib page without any discussion. The vote will be held for 1 week beginning Feb. 14, as the proposal is relisted.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Oppose merge - "Siege of Idlib" might be renamed "July 2011 Siege of Idlib city", while the clashes were various smaller events throughout the Idlib governorate - some of them notable, especially the December 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya massacres.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support - "Siege of Idlib" doesn't have sufficient sources to verify a specific event, which possibly never happened - it therefor may be merged. October 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya clashes on the other hand should remain.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I propozed merging the articles owing to their shortness. The Siege of Idlib article has only one line about the siege itself: "Tanks were first reported to be moving toward Idlib city on 4 July, after massive anti-Government protests took place at the province. Yet, nightly protests still continued despite the siege". Likewize, October 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya clashes has only one line about the clashes themselvs: "The clashes were between the Syrian Army and deserting soldiers (or possibly opposition militants). It was reported that five militants (or deserted soldiers) and seven Syrian Army soldiers were killed". Unless theze articles can be expanded a lot then they should be merged. ~Asarlaí 19:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to emphasize that article "shortness" is not a proper reason for merger per WP:MERGE. If it would have been so, many new article stubs would have been merged and wikipedia would be a very boring and slowly developing encyclopedia. The question is notability - whether the event is important enough per wikipedia guidelines. I herewith think your merge proposal is not made for correct reasons.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic". The events may be noteworthy, but two lines of information doesn't need its own article. If they'r expanded a lot then I'm sure myself and others will support them remaining as standalone articles. ~Asarlaí 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, however even in this case we might have an argument of whether more info can be added "within a reasoanable amount of time". In my experience with articles of this type, there are often good sources popping up, even though sometimes they are in other languages. Today, Syria is mainly covered by Arabic speaking sources, but i believe many of them are being translated. This is largely ongoing developments to remind - in my opinion the question is event notability, not the amount of sources and info. Certainly, we don't need an article on every single engagement of small scale, but when dozens die and later sources relate to the event - we have a notability threshold surpassed. December 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya massacres are definately "not news" and notable from this perspective. Regarding "Turkish-Syrian border incident", the reason to make an article on this issue was mainly due to the political sensetivity of such an event - it might not withstand the notability guidelines, but "October Jabal al-Zawiya clashes" were among the first notable engagements of FSA against Syrian Army, which makes them notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - Just 3-4 sentances don't warrant an entire article. EkoGraf (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge And add that recent 2012 Idlib offensive to it is well while renaming it to 2011-2021 Idlib Governorate compaign/siege/whatever. Just don´t create unlimited number of forks in order to have another article. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with EllsworthSK, merge all Idlib articles into one. EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge I don't think this merge proposition has any logic given that there is alreay several others subarticle on Idlib. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ar you saying the articles should be kept just because ther ar other articles about Idlib Province? ~Asarlaí 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying this.

Comment - since all parties expressed opinions, i herewith conclude that there is a majority to merge "Siege of Idlib" into this article, though "October Jabal al-Zawiya clashes" have no consensus for merger. Asarlai, you may proceed with the merge i reverted (sorry for that), but now it is made according to the official procedure.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over?

Even though there s a nominal ceasefire, why is this even considered over? It is not. Fighting is still going on. Since the ceasefire we have seen the rebels gain most of Idlib governorate and Northern Hama Governorate except the Qaalat al-Madiq citadel, Muhradah and Halfaya, western Jabal al-Zawiyah, Qastoun, and Jisr al-Shigur, and the city center of Idlib. Otherwise it is under rebel control. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ceasefire now, Fighting is going on all the time, and the UN montioring mission has been suspended. I agree, by now, that this never was over. The "ceasefire" never has taken effect in the area. Many articles about Idlib say the exact same thing.Goltak (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Control map?

Maybe it's an idea to make some kind of a map of northern Syria (Idlib, northern Hama and Latakia) marking the area under rebel control? I can't make it myself, but it would be a visual aspect of this article of clashes and control over settlements. A rough idea: the FSA control's almost all of Idlib and northern Hama districts, expect the citadel of Qalat-al-Madiq, Muhradah, Halfaya, the western half of the Jabal-al-Zawiyah mountains, the centres of Idlib and Jisr al-Shigur. Also, in the recent two weeks, rebels have moved into the Latakia district, clashing near Al-Haffah and the Kurdish Mountains. Does anybody have the tools to make such a map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could work, map would be North of Hama and Aleppo Province:

Area under Assad control:

All of Latakia province execpt all area north and east of Salma
Temasah extending north to Kafar Naboudah (Area from east of Salhab to east of Qalaat al-Madiq)
Qalaat al Madiq citadel
Muhrada, Halfaya, and Tayyibat al-Imam
West Jabal al Zawiya (including Kafr Nabl, Kafr Oweid, Kansafra, Al-Bara, Ablin, Qastoon, Ariha, Urum al-Joz, and Jisr-al Shugur)
Idlb city centre
Freeway from Saraqib to Aleppo (including Taftanaz), then South of Aleppo, and Aleppo Proper

All the rest is under FSA control including main bases of

Qalaat al-Madiq
Ltamenah
Khan Shaykhun
Maarat al-Numan
Shnan (East Jabal-al Zawiya)
Saraqib
Binnish (For Thrown out Idlib city rebels)
Kafar Takharim
al-Janoudiyah
Bdama
Salma
Atareb
Bab al-Hawa
Dar Tai'izzah
Anadan
Azaz
Marea
Turkmen Bareh
Al-Bab
Manbij

Thanks, Jacob102699 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels have put a map about the area they claim to control in Syria, which would be around 10%, but nobody can confirm this http://americansyrians.com/syria/image.axd?picture=2012%2f6%2fsafe+zones+fsa.jpg

As for the Idlib governorate article I am against including a map. Why? Because it would be out of date very quickly. The Syrian Army is about to laucnh a big offensivve on there and the rebels held towns will diminish quickly. Khan Sheikhoun was taken yesterday for exemple.--DanielUmel (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. There is no big offensive, exept from the rebels. They have taken control of the Bab al-Hawa border crossing, Armanaz and Atarab. At this point it seems the army only controls Idlib-city, Jisr ash-Shigour, Khan Shaykun and some army bases near Ma'arat al-Numan and Saraqib. Around 70% of the Idlib governate is in FSA hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SANA??

Lately, some vandels began posting messages reporting from SANA, the official Syrian News Agency. This is clearly governement propaganda, and totaly untrue. I refer to the time period between 21 June and 30 June about rebels being captured or killed:

21 June: tens of rebels (+30?) 23 June: 13 rebels 27 June: 4 rebels 30 June: +40 rebels

This would mean that in one week, the Syrian Army kills and captures more than 85 rebels in Idlib alone, while at the same time it is confirmed that large parts of Idlib governate are under FSA control. The contradiction is this: if rebel casualties are so high in contrast to the Syrian Army, which also has heavier weapons, why then is it so that 70% of Idlib is in rebel hands? It's clearly governement propaganda, and shouldn't be uploaded in this article daily.

I advise people not to upload SANA articles, because they are even less trustworthy than normal BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera opposition sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.144 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know how much is government propaganda and how much is the truth. For Wikipedia to maintain a neutral standpoint we need to present both sides points of view. We have used dozens of sources exclusivly coming from the opposition. Some of them may have been simple propaganda but we used them anyway. In that context we also use SANA sources. Wikipedia's neutrality must be preserved. In reply to your talk about the numbers. Look at the oppositions reports for each day that on a daily bases 100 civilians, 50 soldiers and 1-2 rebels die. A kill ratio of 50 well armed and highly trained soldiers against 1-2 poorly armed and trained rebels? The most notable of all opposition groups, SOHR, which has recently been the main group to report on the death tolls, has said on several occasions that they count rebels that were not military defectors as civilians. Back in April an FSA brigade commander stated that just his unit lost 2,000 fighters since August of last year. Source here [1]. I think that answers your question. We will be using the SANA reports just as we use the opposition reports. And we always note from where the reports are coming from so the readers can form their own opinion on the matter. It is not up to us to deny them the views of both sides. That is the basic principle of Wikipedia. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is suprising? A lot of rebels are being killed. They have no tanks no armured vehicles, no protections and lack any form of training. There have been 150-200 soldiers killed per week during the last month while the army is much better equipped. The casualties of rebels is probably higher than the one of the military due to the difference of training and weapons.

The report of SANA will be added daily like the report of the opposition which claims "dozens of soldiers killed" "X tanks destroyed" or "200 soldiers defected".--DanielUmel (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Sidenote, anonymous user, please do not call other editors of being vandals, that is simply inflammatory language which is not in line with Wikipedia policy on civility. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idlib city

SOHR gives the impression that government forces are not in control of most of the city. Are there any non-partisan sources reporting this as well? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is the source stating that Idlib city is under siege since Jan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.161 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been updates in the international media about the liberation of parts of the Idlib prison complex, the attack on seven checkpoints and shelling inside Idlib city. It's pretty clear the Free Syrian Army and it's allies are trying to push into the city, and are on the outskirts of it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These indicate 'fighting' around Idlib city, not a siege.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15th Division

There are many pages (including the one about the division, which I have since fixed) which use the HRW report (here) about the fighting, to provide the SF regiments under command of the 15th Division. However, this report shows 6 SF regiments, these are all the SF regiments the report deals with, they are not part of the 15th Div. (except the 35th regiment). This Div. has 2 SF regiments (the 35th and 127th) and an armored regiment (the 404th). The other regiments stated belong to the 14th SF Div. and the SF Command.

If any one has any other sources about this issue, then I can understand, but all these pages cite the same source and have miss-read it. please if any one could check this issue out and fix the problem. Jakednb (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011–March 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011–March 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140529024211/http://www.theprovince.com/news/world/Syrian+army+offensive+near+Turkish+border+report/6245716/story.html to http://www.theprovince.com/news/world/Syrian+army+offensive+near+Turkish+border+report/6245716/story.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011–March 2012). 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, 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) 00:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011 – March 2012). 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, 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) 12:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]