Talk:Battle of Tabqa

French Participation

Where's the source for France? So far, according to all of the reports I have seen so far, the only Coalition country actually involved in ground operations is the US. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the section, at least until reliable sources can be provided. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2017

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: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Battle of Tabqa Dam (2017) → Battle of Tabqa (2017) – Half of Tabqa Dam and the airbase has already been captured by the SDF and Tabqa city is now besieged. "Battle of Tabqa" is a better name for the operation which includes the airbase, the dam, and the city. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Support for given reasons – Applodion (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak oppose, I'm not convinced the SDF + co want to take the town. If they do eventually, then renaming is correct, but renaming now seems a bit crystal ball-ish. Batternut (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, the wikipedia article on the town is al-Thawrah, although Tabqa gets there via a DAB. Batternut (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Support - Both the SDF and the US-led Coalition have repeatedly stated their desire to take Al-Thawrah (Tabqa) city, as well as the rest of the surrounding region. Al-Thawrah city may have been specifically named only recently, but the SDF and the Coalition already stressed the importance of holding the region, and right now, the SDF has a full siege on the city. They will probably storm it by the time that Tabqa Dam is fully secured. Aside from all this, this is not just the battle for the dam, but the battle for the entire region. Please rename. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - if it is the battle for the entire region then why not name it so? Batternut (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The article has always been about the battle for the entire region, to begin with. I did try to rename it when the SDF captured the airbase and began surrounding the city, but then someone reverted the move. Here is a source clearly indicating the SDF's intent to capture Al-Thawrah city (the current total siege on the city makes it rather obvious at this point.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose As above, the battle has, for the last four months or so, centred on the dam. There's not necessarily any move to attack the town, so it's not appropriate to rename this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The SDF already has a full siege on the city for nearly a week now, and numerous sources have stated their intent to capture the city (probably after the dam is secured). Regardless, when it happens, the battle for Tabqa (Al-Thawrah city) will be included in this article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Support. at-Tabqah is completely surrounded, SDF already attacks Ayd al-Saghir, which is a western suburb that merges directly into at-Tabqah. The battle is definitely about Tabqah and not only the dam, the fighting for the dam is only part of this big battle.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've found 2 sources expression direct intent to capture Tabqa city [1][2] by Coalition officials. That being said, the total siege of the city and earlier statements by the SDF make the intent quite obvious. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Support SDF today advanced into Tabqa city itself, the dam is no longer the focal point of fighting. GroundlessAir (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Wrong date of the end of the battle

The battle is not finished. There are still fights in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

An user falsified source and no one noticed it

• Hongon (talk · contribs)
• edit:100 killed (U.S.claim)
• source:A video about Armed Forces Day!

I really wonder how many so-called "sourced" info like this exists in the articles that are related to Syrian civil war. Don't you check the sources?! By the way, this user Hongon(probably a banned sock) also should be watched in order to prevent further disruptions. 185.3.166.35 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I urge active editors on this topic like @Applodion:,@Editor abcdef: and others to control the sources which are added especially by ips and new accounts to prevent further misinformation and vandalism. 185.3.166.35 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, if you watch at the timeframe 27:50 (in the "Mattis, Dunford Host News Conference on Defeating ISIS" video that is) of the video in the citation you will see Dunford clearly talk about the battle of Tabqa where he says the SDF suffered 100 killed. A direct quote from Dunford "One of the preconditions for seizing Raqqa was the isolation of Raqqa which included just recently completed a very difficult fight in an area called Tabqa, and I think you are familiar with that, were the Syrian Democratic Forces actually had a hundered killed" //Hongon (talk · contribs)

Updates

Just spent a long time writing an update to the January and March sections of this page only to lose it to an error. If anyone else feels like it, in addition to the NYT article here are sources for: January 14th near-dam bombing & projected fallout of the dam's collapse, further information on the saving of the dam & local fallout, and details on the March 27th drone strike and its misreporting here, here, and here. The BLU-109 bomb has its own wikipedia page, but Task Force 9 does not. The most informative section I can find on the site instead covers its Talon Anvil unit. Based on their similar behavior described here they may end up being connected to this. ok good luck have fun — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)