Talk:Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019)

TFSA Involvement

The TFSA is figthining as well. Why isn't it in the infobox? --109.92.111.54 (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• While I have heard of individual or small groups of TFSA fighters joining the fight on the side of the opposition, I haven't yet seen any evidence to point out that the TFSA is actively engaged in Idlib, which I doubt, since the TFSA was never in control of the Greater Idlib Province. Still, happy to change my mind, if I see a reputable source. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Goodposts:

1. https://twitter.com/ahraralsharqia/status/1130217771839754241
2. https://twitter.com/ahraralsharqia/status/1130227230766968833
3. https://twitter.com/alhamza_brigade/status/1135580607885561857
4. https://twitter.com/OmerOzkizilcik/status/1135634571112960001
5. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1127706753003606016
6. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1127721995049873413
7. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1127722460080685056
8. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1127767159730515968
9. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1129761464661753857
10. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1129815004742598658
11. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1129818846179876865
12. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130106265458356225
13. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130116062740197376
14. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130116307272294401
15. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130263208579817473
16. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130313607894458368
17. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130476050339827713
18. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1130557857760501760
19. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1133861358812966917
20. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1135372294530961409
21. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1135372297408327681
22. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1135592190179270656
23. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1135600959143448576
24. https://twitter.com/syria_map/status/1135665715162361863

• --109.92.111.54 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. I'd say go ahead and add them if you can find a secondary source to support most of the claims of the Syria map twitter account. Goodposts (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Excessively detailed and over-reliant on breaking and primary sources

Can i suggest that this article might be in danger of getting too detailed. The Second rebel counter-offensive section, for example, currently has 600 words to cover less than three days. Relevant policy includes WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TMI, WP:BREAKINGl, WP:DUST, and WP:USINGPRIMARY. Using Twitter sources and breaking news items to give a blow by blow account of each day's action is not encyclopedic. I'm not calling for anything to be deleted, just that we shouldn't rush to cover everything in detail, especially if the sources for the detail are not so reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article will become way too long if this offensive continues like this for months. Mainly due to the fact that this article is more like a timeline format, every day of the offensive is very detailed described. This is not a bad thing itself, but we might have to keep an eye out for the relevance of all the events described. For example i do not think it's that relevant for the reader to report the daily airstrikes, we know they are there, it is not that breaking of a news to report them every day, it will only make the article unnecessarily long. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually agree, the daily airstrike reports are getting old now. I was thinking of editing the page in such a way as to show the air and artillery strikes are ongoing, repeated and numerous, so that we don't need to report on them every day. Perhaps we can also only cover clashes if they led to the death of a considerable number of fighters, a notable figure, or resulted in the territorial changes. At the same time, we must keep in mind that in order to fully understand the meaning of certain events, which might otherwise seem minor, you need to first understand the context in which they occur. For this reason, a daily breakdown with a reasonable amount of detail ought to be considered a good thing, so long as the information is both notable and relevant. The Syrian Civil War is often cited as one of the most, if not the most well-documented war in history. This is an opportunity to create good encyclopedic content. I suggest those two measures outlined above as immediate measures, while at the same time keeping a good level of detail on the daily reports. They can then have their relevance reevaluated and be subject to pruning if necessary, after the offensive has ended. That way, all important information can be preserved with all it's nuances, while insignificant or irrelevent pieces of information can be safely removed. Twitter sources are an unfortunate necessity, as without them we would be limited to using mostly biased declarations of control, as most news agencies that publish articles containing granular information on things such as control over villages tend to be affiliated with one of the combatants. I try to avoid using them when I can, but this isn't always possible. So long as they are the official accounts of reputable agencies with a good track record of reporting verified information, I think they should be allowed to stay. Without them, the article would be very barebones and probably also affected by a considerable amount of source bias. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Status of the offensive

Personally i think this offensive is over, there have been no ground operations/advances for almost two weeks now. Both sides are most likely preparing and reinforcing their positions for the next battle, but for now i think this one is over. I'd like to hear from other users how you think about this whether you agree or disagree. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Support @I Know I'm Not Alone, EkoGraf, and Takinginterest01: In my opinion, the offensive is over and the situation is back to the period before April 30, 2019, so I think we should put an end perhaps in early June. In case of renewed offensive, we add that it is a second phase as we did in Deir ez-Zor campaign 2017-2019 or Battle of Ras al-Ayn.--Sakiv (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but it should be noted there still are confrontations and minor infiltration attempts on going, I can go either way on it though.Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I would wait longer. First, the last major SAA ground operation was on July 8 (1 day ago),[1][2] when they unsuccessfully attempted to recapture the territory that they lost. There have been constant heavy airstrikes and heavy shelling by both sides (so its not really like before April 30). Second, I would have probably said "maybe yes" on closing the article sometime soon if not for what happened today. Today, HTS-led rebels attacked SAA positions in the Latakia mountains (which is also within the area of the offensive's operations) and managed to temporarily seize a town and a hilltop before they were pushed back tonight. So, I think if no major operation is undertaken by either side in the next 10 days or so we can revisit the issue once again. In any case, in the past we usually waited up to three weeks to see if there is no activity before closing a battle article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also notable some new fighting has erupted in Latakia

Takinginterest01 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What is happening now is nothing but skirmishes like what happened throughout the truce period from September to April. However, I support the idea of waiting 10 days for the picture to become clearer.--Sakiv (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly skirmishes. Like I said, the SAA made an active attempt to retake the two villages it lost last month just two days ago. While the rebels made an actual ground advance yesterday and managed to capture some territory in Latakia before being beaten back. Before April 30th we had only skirmishes yes (occasional raids, infiltration attempts, some shelling, occasional airstrikes, half a dozen fatalities on a daily basis). But now we have continues heavy clashes (heavy shelling, airstrikes, attempts to advance and dozens of fatalities daily). Besides, Reuters here [3] talks about the continuing assault and makes no mention of it ending. We could only close the article if there is a source stating the offensive has ended, that what is happening now are only skirmishes or at least three weeks without any major ground operations (template on which we closed earlier battle articles). In any case, we will revisit the issue soon when, like you said, the situation becomes clearer. EkoGraf (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

New advance today by the rebels [4], two towns taken. EkoGraf (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Source [5] considering the assault to be ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

While the pace of the offensive has definitely slowed by a significant degree, we are still seeing major attacks and territory changing hands - it was only a couple of days ago that rebels took over Hamamiyat, before being driven away again by the SAA. I think the offensive should only be considered "over" if we have a source clearly stating that hostilities have ceased or a lasting ceasefire was reached. Either that, or if a considerable amount of time passes without any news of major clashes between the two sides. By "major clashes" I mean military maneuvers which resulted either in a large number of casualties, or in territorial changes. If we get to a point where the frontline becomes static, and the only casualties are as a result of shelling/airstrikes/infiltration attempts, then I'd agree with declaring the offensive as over. I am generally on board with the idea of waiting a while longer. If we do close it, I'd rewrite the summary to two phases - a major movements stage starting from the initial SAA advance and ending in the rebel capture of Tell Malah, and a "clashes" stage starting immediately thereafter and ending whenever the clashes cease to be noteworthy. Goodposts (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Source that the offensive is over (which current sources contradict) and/or no territorial changes or major operations at the frontline for a period of at least a few weeks. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We are not required to have an official source announcing the end of this offensive in particular. What asserts that the military offensive that began April 30 is over is this source's statement that the Syrian army is reportedly preparing to launch a military operation in "the coming weeks". Until the army resumes its offensive, we must put an end to the offensive that began two months ago, because it is not logical to keep that it is still ongoing and no progress has been made by the two sides for a month.--Sakiv (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Muraselon, Al-Masdar, as well as some of Liveuamap's sources (even when taking into account Liveuamap is not a published source itself and does sometimes cite random twitter accounts), are reporting major SAA reinforcements arriving at the Ghaab plain in preparation for an offensive. Meanwhile, videos were released showing rebel forces demolishing bridges, apparently in an attempt to preempt such an attack. I'd say we should wait at least a week to see if anything comes of this. We can always edit the offensive as "over" with a back date, if it comes to it. Goodposts (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's been a week, and no significant development has happened. We must not be reluctant to put an end. We rely on the facts on the ground and do not follow governments to proceed according to their whims. And all the facts prove that this offensive is no longer ongoing.--Sakiv (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added several recent developments, all fully sourced. You deleted them. Yes, we don't follow the whims of government, but the facts on the ground are that violence is increasing, instead of decreasing or stagnating. The sources I've added show that very well. If you have sources which state the contrary, please add them. Goodposts (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Intermittent shelling and shooting is not a military operation itself. Even Al-Masdar News does not acknowledge that the military operation is continuous.--Sakiv (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, but there is a significant difference between intermittent shelling/small-scale clashes and major bombardment campaigns that lead to several hundred KIA within just a few days. Furthermore, the government has resumed ground operations, capturing two villages on 28 July. Goodposts (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Both sides have agreed upon a truce in northwestern Syria as of August 1st. Since then the air activity has also significantly dropped as per source: [6] If this continues in the coming days i propose the offensive to have ended on the 1st of August. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources [7][8][9][10] I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree The truce appears quite shaky at the moment, both sides have gone back to shelling eachother, although airstrikes and major military maneuvers have ceased. We should know within a couple of days if the truce holds or falls apart. Should it hold, I agree that we sould end the offensive, though I think it may be more appropriate to end it as of 2 August, as 1 August still saw non-negligible military operations, as well as a considerable amount of shelling/airstrikes. Goodposts (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Continues ground operations (since April 2019) have been taking place as late as yesterday. In the last several days the SAA managed to recapture the two villages that they lost in June, as well as seizing several new villages. However, with the newly announced ceasefire, IF it holds up for the next several days as Goodposts and I Know I'm Not Alone have said, I think we can close the article on the day of the announced ceasefire. But again, only if it holds up in the coming days and there are no new major ground operations. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

PS Another source considering everything since April as part of a continues three-month offensive [11]. But, it may be at an end now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

EkoGraf Agree. But according to SOHR is it another ceasefire agreement not a truce. But both sides still are violated of it.[12]Mehmedsons (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Updated SOHR source on 2nd day of the 'truce' only monitors sporadic shelling, warplanes still absent.[13] I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I was about to say that the violence had ended and the ceasefire/truce had held, and then HTS announced that they are categorically refusing to leave the DMZ, whcih was a core demand of the truce. There's a high probability that it is going to fal apart because of this. Goodposts (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems so. EkoGraf (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As expected, a day after the HTS refusal to leave the govt announced the end of the ceasefire and a resumption of military operations. The offensive isn't over yet. Goodposts (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, offensive resumed [14]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Renewed ceasefire started on August 31st, let's see how long this one lasts. [15] I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems promising at first glance, as both sides have stopped bombing eachother and conducting infiltration attempts. At the same time, considering that the four previous ceasefires ended in the exact same way, and the fact that HTS is now the only group controlling any serious amount of territory in Idlib besides the Syrian govt, I doubt the ceasefire will last for long. Perhaps it will hold this time, but I consider it more likely that it will fall apart within a week, just as the previous ones did, barring some Russo-Turkish diplomatic breaktrough. Goodposts (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hezbollah withdrawal

@Sakiv: How can one state that the Hezbollah withdrawal has nothing to do with the offensive, when just a few days ago, Hezbollah units were reported to have been stationed at the front lines? While Nasrallah was talking about a more general withdrawal from Syria, rather than a withdrawal from Northwestern Syria in particular, Northwestern Syria is still a part of Syria and news of a Hezbollah withdrawal are very relevant to an article, which features the group as one of the combatants, within the context of a civil war in a country that that said group is claiming to be withdrawing from. Hezbollah's withdrawal annoucement would have considerable implications on the balance of power, and as they are listed as a combatant of the offensive, that includes the offensive in particular. If nothing else, the reader should be informed of Hezbollah's annoucement. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts: This statement came in an interview with a Lebanese channel, and he did not mention Idlib or anything related to the offensive. He spoke in the past tense, meaning that the reduction in the number of troops may have occurred before the beginning of the offensive. According to what you said above, we should also mention all the events that took place in the Arabian Gulf concerning Iran as it is also a belligerent in this attack. So is the detention of the oil tanker in Gibraltar, right?--Sakiv (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sakiv: he specifically mentioned Syria. The Arabian Gulf is not a part of Syria. Had Iran got into a confrontation in Syrian territorial waters near the Latakia Governorate, it would make sense for it to be included. In other similar articles, news pertaining to IRGC forces, specifically around Deir Ez-Zor were already mentioned, when relevant. Goodposts (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

What is source of Iran support?

Is there evidence of Iran support? If so, what are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.197.177.5 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Iran is a known and active supporter of the Syrian Government, having been so since the early days of the civil war. However, I have noticed that Iranian support for the govt during this perticular offensive appeared to have been little to nonexistant. I hadn't seen, before today, reports of Iranian-backed military units entering into combat, nor of direct iranian support for the offensive. In fact, I have seen some reports that Iran and it's military units are disinterested in taking part in the offensive.[16][17] With that said, we still have to consider that Iran continues to be one of the government's biggest backers and just today the rebel groups stated that Hezbollah and other 'Iranian militias', had entered into direct combat with rebel units.[18][19][20] If true, this would confirm Iranian involvement in the offensive (as opposed to the civil war as a whole) and justify it being added as a supporter. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is untrue 3 Russian soldiers got killed

Russian MOD denied any loss of soldiers. Moscow Times is a Finnish paper, not a Russian paper.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already updated the article to account for Russian MoD's denial. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is Iran listed in the infobox as a belligerent?

If you are talking about the Ababil 3 drones. I think these are operated by SAA, not by IRGC.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Syrian_Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.2 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

We should spill this articles by month.

Well, as some editors have said, it is too long for people to read this article. One of the reason is that the article is divided into context, not by month. If we divide article into context, it is hard to upload simultaneous events and some of the events are not matching to titles itself. What I want to suggest is that let's divide this article by month, not by context. 웬디러비 (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The offensive is finished

How long will we continue to delay putting an end to this. We're approaching October and a military offensive has rarely been going on this long. There is an official ceasefire announced on 31 August so we should follow it. @Takinginterest01, Goodposts, and I Know I'm Not Alone:--Sakiv (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Sakiv:Takinginterest01 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Support @Sakiv: I was waiting for October to mention the exact same thing, but it seems reasonable to me to close this offensive since this ceasefire is lasting for over 3 weeks now, which is significant longer compared to the other ceasefires during this campaign. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Support @Sakiv: I was actually intending on making almost the exact same post today. I was originally waiting to see if this ceasefire would fall apart within a week as the previous ones had before, but it's been about a month now and aside from a couple of escalations, it appears to be over, with only random shellings and clashes occuring. The SOHR reports that airstrikes, as well as military maneuvers have ceased, and pro-govt media isn't claiming any upcoming advances. I say we close it and list the date of the implementation of the fifth ceasefire as the end date. This has the added bonus, should the offensive be resumed at some point in the future, of allowing us to create a new article, as this one was becoming quite long. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts: When the advances in Northwestern Syria continue, i'd suggest creating a new article considering there is over a month time gap and, as you mentioned, this article is quite long. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone: My thoughts exactly. Goodposts (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree @Sakiv: I don't agree because none of you have given us the recent articles about this battle. Although you have given articles that Syrian government had agreed a ceasefire, they had violated again on August 10, and battle continues until September. No one knows what happens in October. It is not a good idea to predict the battle. If you want to say "Offensive is finished" It is not until the government of Syria officially cancels or announces it would end its battle. Remember Bush said Iraq War was ended in 2008, but many said it officially ended in 2011. 웬디러비 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There isn't really any battle going on, at least any battle that is being reported on by credible sources. Nobody can know what will happen in October, yes. It's fully possible that offensive operations could resume. However, we cannot list the offensive as ongoing, just because of something that could potentially happen. Keep in mind, we aren't listing the Syrian Civil War or Govt-Rebel conflict as over, merely this specific offensive. Small-scale and local clashes might (and probably will) continue, but an offensive implies a large, dedicated offensive operation. Goodposts (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@웬디러비: The ceasefire is a good evidence that this battle/offensive is over. You are not giving a convincing argument for why we shouldn't yet put an end.--Sakiv (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot agree with both of you.

1. First, you said because some "could" potentially happen, we cannot enlist any more battle. By your perspective, we could say the Syrian Civil War was ended because now there are no major conflicts and parties which are engaging are participating in Peace Talk held by the UN and many other countries. But, none of the reports say it is over and it is not a good idea to push over your opinion. 2. Many of you say that "ceasefire" is end of war, but in Eastern culture, especially East Asia, which uses Chinese character, ceasefire and end of war is definitely different. 休戰 (literally meaning ceasefire) means a stop of fighting for a term which is agreed by both belligerents but not formally end the fighting. 終戰 means the end of the war or the war ends. So, in Asian culture, ceasefire does not mean end of the war. Until one of the parties says that they would finish the battle, it is an ongoing battle. 웬디러비 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@웬디러비: We aren't talking about listing the Syrian Civil War as over, merely this perticular offensive. Since no offensive operations are taking place, you can't really call it an offensive anymore. Hostilities may continue, but the offensive is over. Syria also isn't in East Asia, nor does it use Chinese characters (nor have the sources we used). The ceasefire here marks the end of the offensive, not the end of the war, so your position is still taken into account. In fact, having observed this war for some time now, I would bet that there is going to be another offensive in the relatively near future. Despite this, and despite the fact that I created this article in the first place, I cannot see a reason for which to keep it listed as an ongoing event, despite it's factual end on the ground. Last time around I was arguing that it should be kept open for a while, to see if combat continues, but this time we've waited for a month and it's appearing to hold. I have no issue with continuing to develop this article as both I and many other eidtors have done so far, but to continue listing it as a current event would require evidence that there is some kind of offensive still going on, and I haven't been seeing it. If you have such sources, please add them to the article. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Support or at least calling First Phase of the offensive as over; It achieved all of its short terms objectives. No more news media coverage of important military actions taking place. And most important a Cease fire taking place point out the end of the fighting.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Although I disagree with the assertion that "a military offensive has rarely been going on this long" (several military offensives in history lasted upwards of a year or more even), I agree that we should close this article as ended on the day of the latest ceasefire. There has been no major operations or gains by either side in almost a month, during which only 49 people were killed compared to around 1,000 on a monthly basis during the previous four months. We could reopen it if the offensive restarts and call the April-August period the "first phase" as Mr.User200 has suggested, but that is a topic for another time. EkoGraf (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant it for the Syrian case! Plus it was my suggestion in July that we should divide this article into phases.--Sakiv (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I'm fine with closing the article and the offensive with August 30th. EkoGraf (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

When will we do that?--Sakiv (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Decisive Victory

The person who wrote this must not understand what decisive victory is. A decisive victory is that of cripples the enemy army and paves way for an ultimate conquest. The SAA did succeed in capturing some land, yet the rebels still remain, and are not dealt a massive blow. KasimMejia (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, is wrong to consider it a Decisive Victory, maybe a major one. Still, the next offensive could be considered a Decisive Victory if SAA keeps the gains made before Trukish invasion/military offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New Offensive

@I Know I'm Not Alone, EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, and Sakiv: - pinging editors that contributed recently and significantly to this page and others regarding the SCW (hopefully I didn't forget anyone). With offensive operations appearing to resume in Northwestern Syria I'd say that, if they are to keep being noteworthy and beyond small local clashes, they should be added as a seperate article, rather than being appended to this one, as the four month gap is evidence that the current advances are a follow-up to, rather than an extention of the april-august offensive. In addition, this article is already quite long, and would become overly so if these more recent clashes are added. So, I propose that we monitor the situation for the next couple of days and see if an offensive will actually take hold, or wether these are just sporadic clashes. If the former is deemed to be the case, then I propose it be detailed in a seperate article from this one. Thoughts? Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts: I came across the following page and moved it to the current name very recently. Northwestern Syria offensive (November 2019–present) You might want to check it out, if it's nothing useful, i agree to create an entire new article about the currrent events. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone and Goodposts: New military operation, new article. And at the moment its notable enough to have its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)„

@I Know I'm Not Alone and EkoGraf: - I agree, that is the appropriate article to detail the offensive in. Brought it up because an editor had re-opened this offensive and started detailing it here. Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. Cheers! Goodposts (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Orginal research and twitter sources

There are too many orginal research, for example a Twitter picture showing a text in another language, or Twitter sources. All those are unreliable and should be deleted. Beshogur (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Hi, I partially agree with you - those twitter picture sources were not proper citations. At the same time, I belive you've also deleted a bit too much. Twitter sources can be used in certain cases, especially if they are verified. Primarily, this has to do with sources reporting about themselves. Among the SCW community, tweets from verified news organizations are also often used to report on more minute topics, which may not be covered in published articles. Those should definitley stay, as without them writing about the SCW would be extremely difficult.

As for your claims of original research, please highlight which statements you deem fall foul of this rule. I would like to kindly request that you refrain from deleting more text (only mentioning this because you mentioned in your diff that you intended to delete a lot more, while you've already deleted quite a lot) before we can form some kind of consensus about the use of twitter sources (not just with me, but with the other frequesnt editors, too). I haven't reverted your edit, and as I've said I partially agree with it. I think that twitter pictures, unverified accounts and tweets used to cite third parties should be deleted, as per WP:TWITTER and usual guidelines, but that the rest should stay. This ought to be a discussion that we hold openly and I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I shouldn't remove the texts but put a tag instead. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you find any that lack citations, please do. If you find any that might have some citations, but you believe they involve original research, you could tag them with , while if you find any that have some sources, say twitter sources, but you find them to be of too low quality or insufficient, you could append a tag. Cheers! Goodposts (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Wagner Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)