Talk:Northern al-Bab offensive (September 2016)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern al-Bab offensive (September 2016) 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 Northern al-Bab offensive (September 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!

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.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

WP:OR in rebel casualties

EkoGraf has made WP:OR edits. Turkish claims and SOHR count is not always the same. In addition, Turkey hasn't given any figure of casualties in rebel ranks after 16 September. Also there is no source where SOHR said that 5 rebels died on 16 September. If SOHR did, then add a source for it. The sources are of 2 rebel death on 18 September and 1 death on 19 September. Needless to say, there is no source of Turkish claims of death toll on 18 and 19 September. EkoGraf has overlapped Turkish and SOHR figures from different days and has presented it as "Turkish and SOHR claim". This is pure original research on his side. This is distortion of sources and isn't the first time this thing has happened. Then EkoGraf claims I'm being uncivil for pointing out his faults. Newsboy39 (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboy39 First, I would please ask that you cancel your last revert of me, because it violates Wikipedia's 1RR policy in regard to articles related to ISIL or the Syrian civil war (no more than 1 revert in less than 24 hours, you made 2) and can lead to a block. Second, I would ask that you continue discussing the issue instead of making reverts (edit warring). I did not overlap anything. The Turkish claim, as you said, was only for one day (September 16th, 5 dead). The two SOHR reports were for September 17-18th (2 dead) and September 19th (1 dead). So there is no overlapping, it would have been if I was using a SOHR report for September 16th, but I didn't. As for me using two sources for the figure, that is the reason I put Turkish and SOHR claims in brackets beside the figure. So there is no distortion, everything is properly sourced and cited. So, please cancel your second revert of me, and continue discussing the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS And yes, making accusations against your fellow editors from the start (as you have done in the past) is against WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. So, please stick to constructive discussions. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: You did overlap Turkish and SOHR claims. You have no source anywhere for Turkish figure of rebel casualties after 16 September. Nor do you have any source for SOHR's figure on 16 September. Turkey is in the favour of rebels (non-neutral), you can't combine its figure of 5 rebels killed on 16 September with the figure of 2 rebels and 1 rebel by SOHR on 18 and 19 September respectively to say 8 rebels in total have been killed per Turkey and SOHR. That suggests according to both Turkey and SOHR's claims 8 rebels have been killed (even though there never was such a cumulative count in their reports). That is WP:OR.

Besides how many times I have told you to keep article-related stuff on the article's talk page. I'll self-revert because I didn't notice it was less than 24 hours. But it's useless as I'll be reverting you again once the limit expires. It is ironic that you claim badfaith and uncivility on other person's side when you yourselves have a problematic editing behavior. You have repeatedly distorted sources despite them being crystal clear. My statements about you caring only about what you think were made because of your editing behavior, instead of trying to deflect it with meaningless arguments of bad faith, I suggest again you improve your editing behavior. And from now on keep off my talk page. If I exceeded the revert limit, inform me on an article talk page. But everything I have said about your behavior is true to the word.

Asides from that, your edits are perfectly OR. Do you have any source for death toll of rebels on 18 and 19 September? Do you have any source for SOHR's death toll of rebels in the offensive on 16 September? If not, then your edits should be removed which I will tomorrow unless you source your edits. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboy39 First, like I already said, twice, it would have been overlapping if I used both a Turkish and a SOHR claim for Sep. 16, which I didn't. Second, again, like I already said, because I used two sources, I left in brackets that its per Turkish and SOHR claims. Third, you say because Turkey is in favor of the rebels I cann't combine it with SOHR, but you forget that SOHR is also a pro-opposition (rebel) activist organisation as well. Fourth, I have never distorted sources intentionally. That you think me mixing up dates from sources unintentionally and thus incorrectly putting them into the Sirte article problematic editing behavior is your personal bad faith and unconstructive POV. And I really have no idea why you are rehashing old problems that were resolved in the end through discussion. Fifth, I am obligated by Wikipedia to put the 1RR warning on your talk page, not on the article discussion page. Also, making threats of further edit warring without trying to find a compromise solution isn't looked upon favorably by administrators (fair warning). Sixth, if you really want to talk about problematic editing behavior I would remind that you yourself violated 1RR not once but two or three more times in the past and you were warned of this not just by me but by other editors as well. So again, I ask you to cancel your revert and continue to discuss the issue on the talk page until a compromise solution is found. And I would also ask you to keep the discussion constructive so we can find a solution. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboy39 Thank you for your revert. I saw it just now. Between, I just made a compromise edit and hope you will be satisfied with it (because it addresses your overlapping issue). But, again, I would ask in the future you stick to constructive, good faith and civil discussions with your fellow editors and not violate 1RR (or even possibly 3RR) as you have done in the past. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edit/compromise is ok. I was thinking so of doing it myself. Thank you. But still even if you do comment on my talk page, do not drag the article disputes there. The talk page of the article is meant for that thing. Asides from that, as I already said your edit is ok. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Villages recaptured by ISIL weren't captured by rebels in al-Bab offensive

EkoGraf None of the villages that ISIL has recaptured were captured in this al-Bab offensive. Likely they were captured in earlier offensives by Syrian rebels. Here's an updated listing of villages recaptured by ISIL (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-rapidly-recapturing-villages-turkey-backed-militants-northern-syria/). And here is the listing of villages captured during the al-Bab offensive (http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=50822). As you can see, they are not the same at all. I think I saw the names of some of the villages recaptured by ISIL while editing Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. The statement regarding villages recaptured by ISIL should be shifted to the Turkish military intervention article as they weren't captured by Syrian rebels in this offensive. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote recaptured because the source said recaptured, if they were taken by the rebels in some other offensive than fine, I'm ok with it being changed to just captured or seized or some-such. But it still needs to be mentioned in this article because they took the villages near al-Rai, which is the rebel/turkish launching point for this offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2016 al-Bab offensive

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2016 al-Bab offensive's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Tastekin":

From Free Syrian Army: "US backing ensures Arab-Kurd alliance in Syria will survive". Al-Monitor. 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
From Turkish military intervention in Syria: "Operation 'Euphrates Shield' ends ISIL rule in Jarablus". Al Jazeera. 2016-08-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboy39

Newsboy39 First, I was the one who restored the recapture into the article, not someone else. Second, our personal talk pages exist so editors can talk to one another, discuss issues and find compromises. There is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting editors to talk to one another via talk pages. You can report to an administrator if someone is making harassing personal attacks against you. But, I hardly think any administrator is going to consider me trying to discuss issues with you not related to articles (me trying to point out your non-civil hostile behavior for example), or make you aware of Wikipedia's policies in regards to this, or us trying to work out our differences (which Wikipedia requires us), for which personal talk pages exist. If anything, you have made a number of hostile remarks towards me during the course of our discussions (and a few other editors have pointed this out during our Sirte discussion) which themselves could be seen as personal attacks. I have attempted, in a civil manner, to point out several Wikipedia policies to you, since you obviously started editing Wikipedia just recently and have not familiarized yourself with all the rules. But, since you consider this me making harassing attacks against you, I will simply stop talking to you all-together because I obviously can not reasonably talk to you without you thinking I'm making an attack against you. EkoGraf (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "someone else" it meant someone other than me ie, I didn't restore it. I said it because I simply didn't check who restored it, I never said it wasn't you. Instead of long explanations and alleging that I'm being hostile to you, you should realise thay your edits have created needless disputes. Do you realise you just restored back the exact same thing whose removal we argued over? You do not deserve to be on Wikipedia because you are a disruptive editor. That's it.

If somehow me stating plainly what is wrong with your edits is uncivil, then it isn't me who is being hostile, but you taking needless offence to my comments and reacting in a hostile manner to them. I have already told you to stay off my talk page, and no matter what you say, you cannot comment on my talk page ever again. When you've been told multiple times to stay away, I cannot consider it anything except pure harrassment if you still comment. Wikipedia rules clearly say you shouldn't. And ANY administrator will see that you left messages on my talk page even though I have told you not to. This will be your final warning, if you comnent on my talk page again, then I will report you to the administrators. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboy39 I restored it in a slightly altered version, plus restored the content that you carelessly deleted (stalled part), and frankly I simply can not argue with you anymore since you obviously can not discuss an issue without being hostile all the time. As far as I remember all the needless disputes start with you reverting me. I have never been uncivil or hostile towards you, but you have made several uncivil and hostile comments towards me. Like claiming I was being bossy or threatening you for pointing out 1RR and other WP policy. Like I said, a few other editors pointed out at the Sirte discussion that such comments are not proper behavior. If you had just state plainly what is wrong with my edits we wouldn't have a problem. We would resolve the issue. But each time you make accusations towards me that I am intentionally being disruptive (contrary to WP:ASSUMEGOODFATIH). That is both uncivil and hostile however you try and look at it. Editor talk pages exist so editors can work out their differences. Your strong behavior regarding your talk page is strange, but if that's how you want it than fine. We will talk on article talk pages only in the future as you have requested. But if you do continue to make, frankly, threatening and hostile comments towards me, I myself will have to talk to someone. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf I already knew all of the policies you "informed" me of, you yourself know that. I already told you to inform me on the article's talk page not my own. I myself correct my mistakes after I am informed. Despite telling you to stay off my talk page, you still comment. That IS pure harrassment. Besides it is not me who is assuming bad faith, it is you who is assuming bad faith by falsely accusing me of bring "uncivil" and "hostile" every time I point out a mistake of your edits. When you needlessly create issues over something like this where you yourself added back (even in a "slightly altered form"), keep violating rules by commenting on user talk page despite being told not to and keep harassing others, keep overruling your edits over others', what will they call you except "bossy" and "threatening"? I have stated plainly many times "what is wrong with your edits", unfortunately you still keep causing disruption. If you do not improve this disruptive behavior, then you'll leave me no choice but to report you and have you topic-banned. I am only telling this to you for the good of the Wiki, please improve your behavior. There's nothing else left to discuss, good bye. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards Again!

How can this offinsive be an IS victory? First the offinsive toward al-Bab is still ongoing, second FSA recaptured all what was lost during IS counter-offinsive and captured more towns (look at the maps), so change the results to FSA Victory or at least "offinsive stalled, Minimal FSA gains (although I don't think it's minimal at all), remember Northern Raqqah offensive were u marked villages in Aleppo as Raqqah while the fact is YPG attack on Northern Raqqah was repelled and focus was shifted toward Manbij. 3bdulelah (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have separate articles for the Manbij offensive and the Northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016), the same reason that the al-Bab offensive and the Dabiq offensive have separate articles. I don't know why are you arguing against your own logic here. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have separate articles, but the Northern Raqqah article says: offinsive stalled, didn't say "ISIL victory" 3bdulelah (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i changed it already. Also this is what the aftermath section says: In the immediate aftermath of the aborted offensive towards al-Bab, the rebels and Turkey launched a new offensive towards the ISIL-held town of Dabiq. Needbrains (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]