Talk:Deir ez-Zor offensive (2016)

Page move

In regards to the moving and creating of something 100% copied from here, ive merged it back here. FYI, the move to remove the 2016 is fine by me. I was considering it shortly after creating, but I stayed off the page.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

false Syrian regime propaganda

this so called massacre never actually occurred

reliable anti-ISIS activists in syria have confirmed this

https://twitter.com/DeirEzzor24

http://en.deirezzor24.net/isis-still-controls-al-bughayliya-and-no-evidence-that-the-group-perpetrated-a-massacre-against-civilians-in-the-town/

ISIS still controls Al-Bughayliya and no evidence that the group perpetrated a massacre against civilians in the town Date: 17 / 1 / 2016

A number of pro-regime social media pages published reports yesterday that ISIS carried out a massacre against civilians in Al-Bughayliya in the western countryside of Deir Ezzor. The reports said that at least 250 civilians fell victims to the massacre after ISIS seized the town; however, our correspondent in the region along with other local sources denied any reports of massacres against civilians in al Bughayliya.

>however, our correspondent in the region along with other local sources denied any reports of massacres against civilians in al Bughayliya.

and the article cites the BBC source : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35337440# which actually says: However the activists told the BBC there had been no killings or abductions on a large scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PAGE MUST BE DELETED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"our correspondent" and you cite twitter? Yes, you're clearly free of COI.

FYI, even the anti-govt SOHR is indicating over a 100 civilian casualties and that it would rise. They also mention 400 kidnapped and fear of their status.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

i cited reputable anti-IS activists deir ezzor 24 who are based in the city (and I included their twitter) who report no such massacre occured the BBC is the most respected news outlet in the world (their correspondent not mine) and again, they report that activists told them no such massacre occured

its very obvious that this page is about something that never happened and I provided you with two entirely reliable sources proving that the only COI of here is clearly with you who want to keep Assad propaganda here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

the fact that this page is still here speaking of a massacre despite me having provided conclusive unbiased sourcing that the massacre didn't occur just shows how biased and inaccurate wikipedia editors are

this page is STILL here and referring to events that didn't happen!!!

I find it suspicious that all of the civilian fatalities are attributed to ISIL and none to Russian air strikes or the Syrian Arab Army. Usually air strikes will cause civilian fatalities. UltimateLiberty (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RS

I have some concerns about self-punlished WP:PRIMARY sources. Its best to have it verified (or at least regurgitated) elsewhere. Plus the dubious bit is not mentioned in the main article, just the infobox.

@Mr.User200:@Sukhoi 24:Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and Article Name

Someone just moved the name of this article to massacre instead of offensive. I think that since this article is focused on the entire ISIS offensive against Deiz ez Zor that is still ongoing that it should be changed back to offensive. I dont see any discussion regarding the move. Likewise since this article is primarily about a military conflict, the battle box should likewise be returned.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This was the ORIGINAL NAME. SOmene moved to offensive without consensus, as you allege the move was there. As you say, there is no discussion about the move against the original the ONUS is on seeking consesnsus.

And uits not about the battle as edit summaries have said. It deals with the events on the 16th. Kindly discuss it first and gain consensus for the move. That's why it als o has a civil conflict box.

Likewise, you changed this without consensus. Kindly revert it till consensus is gained, as you called for just above.Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The offense itself has lasted longer than the 16th and involves much more than the massacre, when other editors have tried to make articles about the offensive apart from this one, you deleted them merging them into this. This is a large military campaign, the battle box is exactly what is called for here.XavierGreen (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with @XavierGreen:. The massacre was only one part of a larger event - a military offensive/operation currently being conducted by ISIS. As such this article should be called Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2016) or some-such, with the massacre event being a subsection of the article. ISIS conducted many massacres previously during large battles, such as with the Tabqa air base offensive, but we did not create an article specifically for the massacre (which was only one part of that battle), instead we had an article that covered that whole operation (with the massacre being dedicated its own section). EkoGraf (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with XavierGreen, the offensive is still ongoing and deserves a full article rather than just mentioning the massacre that happened during it. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering 4 out of 5 editors don't agree the article should be called Deir ez-Zor massacre (counting LoveToLondon downstairs) I have thus moved the article to its previous title. EkoGraf (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Then get move request for a consensus.Lihaas (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You requested no move be made before a consensus is reached on the discussion page. Consensus was reached. You did not ask for an official move request to be made. I think @XavierGreen:@SkoraPobeda: can confirm this. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, I'm going to propose, what I proposed on @Lihaas:'s talk page. Considering most are in agreement the offensive itself needs an article, we can have two separate articles. One article (this one) for the larger offensive and one small article for the killings/massacre. The massacre article would thus be a sub-article of the larger offensive article. We would leave a small summary about the killings in the main article on the offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Source handling problems

• Claims that at least 85 civilians were kille seems to be only in older sources referring to the SOHR - which does not (anymore?) make any such claim. Based in the SOHR there might be 0 civilian casualties.
• It is also problematic how much reporting is based on information by the SOHR, which is one guy in the UK with known biases like sometimes counting rebel fighters as civilians.
• The article mustn't be named massacre when there is no confirmed information that a massacre actually happened. Despite the massacre title, even the section Initial assault and massacre does not mention any massacre.

LoveToLondon (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

SOHR, the govt and RS report over a 100 deaths.

If you want a move then propose one.Lihaas (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Where does the SOHR report over 100 civilians dead? Apart from the Syrian government, noone is claiming that over 100 civilians died or that a massacre happened. And the RS are only repeating that as claim from the government, not as something they support themselves. There seems to be agreement that over 100 combatants from both sides died during the battle - these are not civilians, and fighters dying in a battle is not a massacre. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

SOHR has reported ISIS killed 85 civilians [1]. This is a fact, its not repeating government claims. And SOHR has been declared to be an authoritative source by RS repeatedly over the years. So its reliability is not in doubt. So, we got both the government and opposition reporting a massacre occurred. However, like I stated in the discussion above, the massacre was only one part of the larger ISIS offensive and thus the article should not be called Deir ez-Zor massacre, which most seem to agree. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• You failed to read what I wrote. This is a fact. Please read my very first item at the top. Where does the SOHR make such a claim today?
• Your statement SOHR has been declared to be an authoritative source by RS repeatedly over the years is not true. Just look at the BBC source in this article. The BBC calls them an opposition monitoring body and lists their claims just like all other claims that are available (including claims that contradict what the SOHR says) - and the term opposition monitoring body also makes it absolutely clear that the BBC does not consider them to be a reliable neutral observer.

LoveToLondon (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

the sources in the article before the tendentious pov editor (jsut abov) who adds nothing to WP cited over a 100. AND more than 400 kdinappings for simple reasons of their political affiliations.Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Source [2] for the authoritative part. Anyway, the issue at hand is the title of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Should al-Masdar really be used as a source? It's a pro-Iranian and pro-Assad news source, and cannot be expected to give reliable information 108.28.192.131 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

All points of view need to be presented for the sake of balance and neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No civilian mention in source

"russian bombing" is stated to have killed x civilians here, and x more the next day. This is a) counting the same possible deaths twice, and b) the source absolutely does not say civilians, ISIS is targeted. 80.42.16.147 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Front change map

Would it be possible to make a map reflecting the change between current front line and the one before 16 January? 46.234.76.178 (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2016). 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/20160128214835/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/islamic-state-kills-dozen/2433078.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/islamic-state-kills-dozen/2433078.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2016) → Deir ez-Zor offensive (2016) – It's unnecessary to put the month of the offensive. Operation 0 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.