Talk:Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020)

Too many unreliable sources

There are lot of unreliable sources including twitter posts. Do not remove my tag. Beshogur (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Turkey–Russia ceasefire

Last Thursday, on January 9, Russia and Turkey established a ceasefire in the Idlib region according to a Russian major-general. [1] The Turkish side said that the ceasefire would actually take effect as of January the 12th. [2] For now I will close this article, it was already relatively calm the past two weeks due to bad weather conditions. We can always reopen the article or create a new one if the ceasefire does not hold. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

New article

@EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, RopeTricks, Effrati856, Beshogur, and Edouard2: The latest advances by the Syrian Army in the southeastern countryside of Idlib deserve a new article in my opinion. It looks like a new major offensive on the city of Maarat al Numan. This article should close and i propose starting a new one. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree for now at least. This article and infobox has adequate space to fill up for the new ground offensive. I currently don't think it's necessary to split into a separate article when the momentum since November-December has been towards Maarat al Numan anyway and this current phase is really just a continuation/culmination of that, just different frontlines. We also don't know just how long this new phase will last; If marrat al numan is besieged for weeks or if the rebels simply surrender after a couple days, i don't think a whole new separate article would be really warranted still. You also probably should've waited for consensus before moving the article title as you did. RopeTricks (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Seems to be the same operation that started in November 2019, the thing being that it was put on pause several times during attempts at a ceasefire. Plus we have several reports saying the current fighting is a resumption of the operation. EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf and RopeTricks: More reports coming in that the Syrian Army opened up a new front in west Aleppo.[3] Does this change the situation? To me this looks like a significant different operation for a number of reasons:

1. Aim is different from the November-December offensive mentioned above (Maarat al Numan countryside).

2. Syrian Army did not touch this front (as in advances) for over 3 years.

3. There are numurous pages on wikipedia covering offensives around Aleppo, i do not know if you should put this one under a Northwestern Syria offensive since they mostly focus on southern Idlib and northern Hama.

I can agree with the fact that we do not know how things will develop in the future, how notable the advances around west Aleppo will be and that we should wait some time first, but i would like to hear your opinion. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding #3, that's the reason this article is named the northwestern Syria offensive instead of, say, the southern Idlib offensive. The April–June 2015 offensive and the October 2017–February 2018 offensive covered multiple fronts as well. Lightspecs (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed. This article suffices to consolidate all of the actions of the offensive. RopeTricks (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Pretty clear same offensive/operation with the same goal (Damascus-Aleppo highway), just taking place on multiple fronts. EkoGraf (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible Kurdish losses on 15/2/20

Hi I've found a source claiming that on 15/2/20 40 SDF soldiers were killed in a battle with rebel factions in the village of Ash Shaykh Aqil. - https://twitter.com/AleppoAMC/status/1228647216178507776 ThePaganUK (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Twitter is not a reliable source in this instance. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Remove the flag of Palestine from the infobox, the Palestinian Authority has no support to the Syrian Gov. in the offensive or the war. The ethnic Palestinians living in Syria have no connection to the "state" of Palestine. The flag is misleading, furthermore it is unreferenced. 176.88.137.160 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Add 2 Helicopters shot down under Syrian Gov casualties. In the first offensive a jet was shot down and added to casualties. [4] (see infobox). The same should be done here with the code: "2 SyAAF Mi-17's shot down" The references are not needed since they are included in the article itself. 176.88.137.160 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

M5 not opened

Turkey is blocking the M5 highway at Maar Hitat. The article says the M5 is fully opened and has connected Aleppo to Damascus. This is false as of yet. See, [5] [6]. I think this should be removed from the infobox. 176.88.137.160 (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a tweet. The opening is reported by Reuters. Also, news sources don't count encircled turkish outposts when they talk about control. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tweets by comon people are not RS. Please stop adding tags like that. I see you want to improve the article but use sources wisely, and avoid errasing the old ones.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing the article

At the moment, it would seem the offensive is over with the stated operational goals of the SAA achieved (retaking the Damascus-Aleppo highway and removing the threat of rebel shelling of Aleppo city). Since the SAA pushed back the rebels 20 kilometers west of Aleppo on February 17, no new advances or attempt at advances have been made by the Syrian military during the past five days. The only major development that took place is the rebel-Turkish attempt at recapturing Nayrab on February 20, which was repelled. During the last 24 hours, there has been talk of SAA forces building up for a totally new offensive, whose goal would be capturing the Zawiya mountain range in Idlib. I would wait at least a few more days, but if no new developments take place, or if the offensive against the Zawiya mountain is launched (and clearly stated its a new offensive) then I would suggest closing this article and opening a new one for the Zawiya operation. The end date of the "Dawn of Idlib 2" operation could be set either February 17, when the last SAA advances were made, or February 20, when the rebel counterattack against Nayrab was repelled (since that counterattack was a direct consequence of the earlier SAA capture of Nayrab). I'm leaning more towards February 20. EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: It is clear that the offensive is still going on. What's the difference between the current situation and the previous situation when the front was dormant for weeks not days, yet we put that the last offensive was ongoing.--Sakiv (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sakiv: Actually, its not really clear if the offensive is still ongoing. There are sporadic frontline clashes and artillery duels, but no real attempts by the SAA to advance for five full days now. Like I said, IF no more rebel counterattacks take place, no more attempts by the SAA are made to advance and if a new offensive/operation is declared THEN we close this article. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: It seems like the SAA renewed their advances this time in the southern Idlib countryside.[7] What shall we do now, continue writing on this article? If so, it is starting to look more like a campaign as in size of the operation, like the 2017-18 Northwestern Syria campaign. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone: We continue writing the article for sure. Sources say the offensive has resumed and plus we have a new rebel counterattack on Nayrab today. As for whether it should be a titled as a campaign or not, most sources still call it an "offensive" and per WP:COMMONNAME I think we should stick with that. EkoGraf (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Oppose until some new offensive takes place. Syrian rebels could launch a counter attack with Turkish help. If SOHR, SANA or Western media stops reporting advances we could consider closing the article. Lets see Turkish reaction.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: That's actually everything that I suggested. SOHR, SANA and the Western media have not reported any advances or attempts at SAA advances since February 17 (five days ago). Some sources have also already stated the operational goals of the offensive have been achieved. And if also no new rebel counterattacks take place and a new offensive is launched THEN we close this article. :) EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting we close the article right this second. I was just suggesting some conditions that would need to be achieved to consider the offensive over and thus leading to the article's ending. These are: no more SAA advances or attempts at advances (last one 5 days ago); no more major rebel counterattacks (last one 2 days ago); new offensive/operation is declared/launched (one suggested to be in the preparation phase). EkoGraf (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I understand that but it seems you are thinking almost everytime that I have zero understanding to what is going on in Syria. However I am a daily follower of the situation there. In the last summer I made many requests to consider ending the offensive long before the "31 August" date you finally approved even though the offensive seemed to have finished almost 2 months prior but nevertheless you opposed every time I put a proposal in the talk page. My question is, why do you now insist on a quick end to the offensive as opposed to what happened in the past?--Sakiv (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sakiv: At no point did I think or expressed an opinion that you have zero understanding of Syria. The previous offensive saw continues advances and counter-advances up until August 31st, when a comprehensive ceasefire was finally implemented. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. I am NOT insisting on a quick end to the offensive, I am just suggesting parameters under which to consider the offensive over at one point. Parameters that are not going to be necessarily implemented right away. As to why I am suggesting the parameters now, at this point, its because some sources in the last few days have stated that the operational goals of the SAA offensive (retaking of the highway and eliminating the rebel shelling of Aleppo city) have been achieved and that a new offensive (against Zawiya mountain) is possibly being prepared. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If we will know a new operation name and RSs will treat it as a new offensive (unlikely if it begins soon), then yeah. Otherwise, let's wait till March 5. Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: All for it. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support: I think that no matter what happens, it would count as something new. If the Turks start making gains, well that could be described as a new offensive because they weren't directly involved until now. If the SAA continue to make gains, the question of 'what objective are they going for?" would be different since they've already achieved their aims. I don't mind waiting a little, like Smeagol said, but I'm definitely siding with EkoGraf in this debate. FYI, I also personally thought the 2019 and 2020 advances should have been classified as separate (I'm just saying that so you can be aware of my possible bias on the matter). Nate Hooper (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Ceasefire was just announced. However, it still doesn't include HTS (which is a little strange because wasn't that the entire disagreement between Russia and Turkey over this offensive in the first place?), so maybe it will continue for some time, but it looks like it might be drawing to a close. Perhaps wait a few days and close if nothing happens? Nate Hooper (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As per RS, after the implementation of the ceasefire, the offensive seems to be over. We should stick with the sources. If the offensive is confirmed to had restarted we will reopen the article. But if sources exist confirming its over (as they do at the moment) speculating it might restart is contrary to Wikipedia's policy WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Its different from before when we didn't have sources on whether its ongoing or not, so we had to agree on the waiting period of a few days. If there weren't sources regarding its status as they do now I would have agreed with you Nate. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Support: This seems logical to me. I'd say let's wait until around the end of the month. Also, Turkey threatens to launch an operation by that time [8], i think this shouldn't be seen as a counteroffensive of this offensive but as a new operation because of the different belligerents, we should discuss that when an operation actually happens though. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would have supported this a day or two ago, but just today things seem to have flared up again. With that said I think the SCW community would benefit from having some kind of clear guideline as to when an offensive should be considered officially over - as it is something that has come up again and again. Goodposts (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

restructuring the article

I made an edit a few days ago, and I said in the edit summary that I was unsure if it was a good edit and that people should revert it if they disagreed (because I could see that it was a little cluttered and that it had too many headings). However, I've now come up with a structure which I think could actually be good, which is this:

   3 December campaign
       3.1 Opening advances
       3.2 Further advances towards Jarjanaz
       3.3 Russia–Turkey ceasefire
   4 Advances along the m5 highway towards Aleppo
       4.1 Post-ceasefire advances
       4.2 Capture of Ma'arrat al-Nu'man
       4.3 Army push towards Saraqib
       4.4 Siege and capture of Saraqib
       4.5 Army captures the M5 highway and continued Turkish clashes
       4.6 West Aleppo assault and rebel retreat
   5 Turkish counter-offensive
       5.1 Battle of Nayrab

and rather than edit the article again, I thought I'd just put it on the talk page this time. So what do we all think? It shows battle phases more clearly, it's not cluttered like my last one and it will help to satisfy those who think we should be creating new articles (the names aren't too important, just the structure). Nate Hooper (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That looks sensible to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Saraqip recaptured, M5 cut.

Hi guys, can you update the article please, thanks. @Mr.User200, Cengo-1992, EkoGraf, GWA88, and Axxxion:. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Not yet, SOHR in English still report clashes in Saraqeb.

Operation Spring Shield

Turkey has announced a fourth operation in Syria this morning called "Operation Spring Shield". Various sources confirming the name: [9] [10] [11] [12] Deserves this operation its own article like Turkeys previous operations inside Syria or should it be brought under this article? (Operation Euphrates Shield, Operation Olive Branch and Operation Peace Spring) Personally, i think it is big enough to have its own page, the belligerents are different and Turkey has it's own goals. Pinging some editors who contribute to the SCW discussions lately @EkoGraf, RopeTricks, Goodposts, Mr.User200, and Smeagol 17:.I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkey's stated goal is a counteroffensive to this offensive. So, if it will not become something more, I think this page is sufficient for now. As I said earlier, let's wait till March 5. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's unknown by this point how serious the operation will be, and wether it will involve more than artillery and air support. There's a top level Russian-Turkish meeting happening soon, which will probably directly affect the outcome of this. If it does go along the lines of Euphrates Shield or Olive Branch, then I definitely think it deserves its own article. If it doesn't, I believe it would be better to keep it as a heading under the current page. I think Smeagol 17 is probably right when he says let's wait till March 5th. Goodposts (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We should separate the article and list it as part of Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present) and Turkish military operation in Idlib Governorate. Beshogur (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkey said that Operation Spring Shield began on 27 February, so it includes the current wave of drone strikes and the Saraqib and al-Ghab plain counteroffensives. These operations are indisputably part of this campaign (which the article can be renamed as); a separate article is unnecessary for now. Lightspecs (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Syrian aircraft is "lost", Turkish aircraft is "shot down" at the infobox

Someone please make it same for all and pick either one. You POV wording is pathetic. @Mr.User200:. Please fix this, I'm leaving you a level one warnings. 176.88.136.202 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Watch your words kid. I care about my own edits. If your edits and forgot to use the word shot down is your bussiness. Mr.User200 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You watch your own words. This is your last chance. Next time you are out the door permanently. 176.88.136.202 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@176.88.136.202: Don't threaten other editors, or it will be yourself that falls foul of wikipedia policy. Goodposts (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

The official Turkish soldiers and contractor death toll is 55 (54 soldiers and 1 contractor) according to the latest source. No claim of 59 killed in total. This should be fixed 31.21.68.15 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

1) Erdogan announced 36 Turkish soldiers killed in the Baylun airstrike yesterday. So its 36, not 33 according to the Reuters article. 2) It only says 55 died in February. All the other numbers are sourced as well. So no change will take place.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert on unsourced events.

@Beshogur: I reverted Beshogur edit, errasing all that not sourced info. Because its a lot of information and if it missed, the reader could simply get lost in the course of the events. Some towns were captured, then recaptured. Some time later then I checked again and he is right in two points, 1) Twitter is not a Source. And it dosent matter the context. A communique of a thrid party could be a HOAX. 2) Some text in the article says something really different from the source.

And thats because some people try to correct other people edits without reading the source. But Beshogur you have errased too much and in a single edit. Like Here. Talk:Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019)#Orginal research and twitter sources And this have happened before. Lets errase line by line those un-sourced edits and looking for another sources, and if not, let's change the content of those text to something similar that could be backed with sources. Agree?Mr.User200 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I won't even bother to edit. Do whatever you want. Beshogur (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

-_-. Fine Mr.User200 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Not adhering to neutral point of view regarding drones shot down.

The count of Turkish drones shot down is a violation of WP:NPOV as it cites partisan sources, pro-Gov media to be specific. On the other hand the Russian and Iranian drones which are shot down per pro-Opposition media are not included. Please revert and use reliable sources when writing the # of drones shot down such as SOHR, which counts just 1. On the other hand, drones might not be included at all since they are unmanned. The casualty box only includes human and manned aircraft casualties in the rest of the Syrian infoboxes. @EkoGraf, Mr.User200, Axxxion, and Smeagol 17:

According to whom. As long as their are military assets their are part of equiptement. And the count is not a violation of any policy since the sources that report those shot downs are not Partisan BTW. There are confirmed photos of those shot downs and articles. Please stop making false accusations.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Casualties and losses Stands for personal losses and material ones. With your way of thinking the aircraft lost in the ground should not be included, too. No way.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Those pictures could be fake. Partisan sources should not be used on casualties. If they are used, then they should be highlighted, like in Operation Peace Spring's infobox. @EkoGraf, Mr.User200, Axxxion, and Smeagol 17: 176.88.143.228 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There are not Partisan sources by the way, only SANA and the article have a clear pic of a Turkish drone shot down. You want an article of only Turkish sources. Sorry thats is not the case.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Would like to get @EkoGraf:s opinion regarding this. 176.88.143.228 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In many other Syrian civil war-related wiki pages, the casualty box included combat drones, no rules says that combat drones casualty couldn't be included In it. As for three drones shot down by Syrian military, SANA reported them with clear photos and footages. Not only pro-government TASS and SANA, but also Daily Sabah reported these drones shot down. If you think these pictures are fake you'd better provide reliable sources that confirm pictures and footages are fake. Also, if you can provide reliable sources that confirm Syrian/Russian drones shot down you can add these loss to casualty box. 羽衣狐 (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember this article is protected for Anon IP vandalism, so every entry should be sourced. Avoid WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOVMr.User200 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish casualties

I see that for the Turkish casualties only Sohr is being used as a source. Till now the Turkish defence ministery has announced the death of 53 soldiers and 1 civilian which makes it a total of 54 killed. Shouldn’t this be used as a source as well? Like adding is as ‘’per Turkey’’? For example, today the Turkish defence ministery anounced the death of 1 soldier which makes it 53 total till now. This should be added Ahhlanker (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not just SOHR. Two sources are being used. Reuters and NT, which are relaying figures provided by Turkey, and SOHR. The two sets of figures are presented as a lower and upper estimate. EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"No Fly Zone" heading

@Mr.User200: re this edit where you talk of an "unexplained revert", my explanation for the title change was in this edit, i.e. that the title is confusing as Dutch govt now calling for an NFZ.[13] I don't see that the government "no fly zone" is the main feature of the period, as it is a rhetorical reaction to the Turkish airwar. So, I would argue for a simpler title. The replacement of the text on the government "no fly zone", citing Russian sources, now duplicates the previous passage which cites mainstream news agencies so is unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Lost drones/equipment

I see that only the lost drones of the Turkish military (mostly just claimed by Syria/SAA) is being reported but not the drones the SAA/allies has lost? Shouldn’t their lost drones also be counted on the casualties list? And their equipment losses (air defence systems/Pantsir, tanks, armor etc..) Otherwise it doesn’t realy seem to make much sense for now Ahhlanker (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We need photos or videos from news outlets, or maybe news agregators(at least) to be considered RS. No Twitter no other things. SAA only have provided 4 sets of photos/videos of Turkish drones shot down. Their claim of 10 or 11 could be pointed out in small. And Yes, I have already checked that. Take a look.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a Forbes source that documents lost SAA equipment including the pantsir. There should also be a notation about the secrecy of casualties, which is known to happen alot, especially in the middle-east.Needbrains (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish casualties confusion

About the new Turkish soldier killed today. This has not yet been announced by the Turkish defence ministry (they announce the ID, number of soldiers killed etc..). They usualy anounce the deaths hours later than the locals/governors. The first report of the killed soldier today was done by the governor of Gaziantep. So it could be that there are more killed as the defence ministry will release information soon. However if the MoD for example anounces soon that 1 or 2 soldiers are killed, that means that that includes the killed soldier reported today by the governor (which has been added today on the list). So then the death toll would remain at 57 or increase to 58 (if its 2 soldier killed) Ahhlanker (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish casualties currently at 60. Two more soldiers died in an vehicle accident acc. to Turkish MOD.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

No, I think that you are confused about that. Today in the morning one soldier was reportedly killed according to the Gaziantep governor. After that the igdir governor anounced an soldier KIA as well in Idlib. Now the defence ministery has made the official anouncement stating that 2 soldiers were killed. The MoD alos released the ID’s of the soldiers which is the same as the source you used for the soldier KIA this morning. That makes the total death 58 (altough officialy 57) Ahhlanker (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I just read your source from Reuters but its not true. Till now its 57 soldiers and 1 civilian. The MoD always anounces the deaths of its soldiers later than the regional governors. So Reuters most likely counted them both in the total death toll of soldiers (58+2 new KIA soldiers) Ahhlanker (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes is possible. Reuters dont know how to sum, there have been many problems with death report before. Also we are using the Turkish MOD for the lower deaht count.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire does not mean the offensive is over

@EkoGraf: A ceasefire does not mean the immediate end of an offensive including this one. In the last offensive, there was a lot of cease-fires, but you didn't put an end to the offensive until the fighting stopped for a month. Why now, just a day later, do you want to end this offensive? Is it because my opinion is different? I would kindly like you to stick to what we've reached in the talk and not make unilateral actions. I ask you to wait three or four days to see what happens, especially since militant groups are not parties to the agreement.--Sakiv (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sakiv: As I stated at your talk page and up above in an earlier section on the closing of the article, as per RS, after the implementation of the ceasefire, the offensive seems to be over. We should stick with the sources. If the offensive is confirmed to had restarted we will reopen the article. But if sources exist confirming its not ongoing (as they do at the moment) speculating it might restart is contrary to Wikipedia's policy WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Its different from before when we didn't have sources on whether its ongoing or not, so we had to agree on the waiting period of a few days. As for your questions Why now, just a day later, do you want to end this offensive? Is it because my opinion is different? (which imply my edits were POV-pushing) I don't have a personal desire to the end the offensive, I am simply editing per the existing sources. As for your opinion, whether its different from mine, it doesn't really matter to me and I have never made edits based on personal feelings (only based on sources). EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If it weren't for the sources today saying calm has taken hold along the frontline since the ceasefire was implemented I would have agreed with you to wait a few days. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: The calm is not comprehensive in all regions, there are some skirmishes and rocket fire that are continuing. [14]. There have been many deaths despite the truce. As I mentioned earlier, a truce does not mean an end. We have to wait a little bit. [15].--Sakiv (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Skirmishes and sporadic shelling don't mean an ongoing offensive. Far from it. But have it your way. EkoGraf (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how much of this (March 6) ceasefire will last, there are ongoing clashes. Also Erdogan give a new ultimatum to Syria to secure all Idlib Province before years end. Look how all Turkish speech have changed after the defeat and ceasefire. HTS and Turmenistan groups are terrorist organizations according to the UN and Turkey. Now Erdogan want the SAA to keep recapturing all the territory down M4 Highway. Not sure about a end to this campaign. Maybe SAA and HTS & TIP will continue fighting but without Turkish suport for the Islamist/rebels.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are more operations/offensives in the future, then we will create new articles for them. The issue is the "Dawn of Idlib 2" offensive which is the subject of this article. At the moment, the ceasefire is generally holding and there are no ongoing large-scale frontline operations taking place as part of "Dawn of Idlib 2" (or Spring Shield for that matter). Fine, lets wait a few days, but so far sources are pointing to an end to this offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

While there still does appear to be some intermittent shelling, that's pretty much been the status quo for Idlib since the war started. There don't appear to be any major military maneuvers going on for the time being at least. Of course, having edited previous SCW offensive articles, I've repeatedly witnessed ceasefires similar to this being broken only 3-4 days after their start, so I wouldn't exactly be too surprised if this one were to be similarly broken as well. With that said, it appears to be holding quite well for now and I think that we ought to apply what we did in the past - wait a few days (say until 10 March?) and if nothing happens, close it with a back date of March 6th. Goodposts (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Better till March 15, at least, when M4 patrols are supposed to be implemented. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I support closing the article now after 4 days of calm in general.--Sakiv (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Concur. But still leaving it open until a few more editors chip in. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Many sources on twitter are saying there is absolutely no indication of rebels retreating north of the M4 and that as a result there is quite a chance the offensive will resume after 15 March in order for Russia and the SAA to clean up the southern sector of the DMZ. Probably best to wait a bit longer to declare that the offensive over. LyriaSiders (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Twitter isn't accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. All sources point to this offensive being over for six days now. But, like I said, I'm fine waiting a bit longer. At this point, three editors support closing the article now, one supports closing on March 15th, one supports waiting a bit longer and one didn't express an opinion on a specific date of closing. I think it will not hurt to wait until March 15th. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree wait until 15 March then assess. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The patrol on the highways didn't go well today, but apparently the Russian Defense Ministry has decided to give Turkey more time to implement the security zone.. Meanwhile the ceasefire is still holding, so I now think its time to say this particular offensive has ended on 6 March. LyriaSiders (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Sorry for intervening, but I agree the idea that we shouldn't judge by ourselves to talk about the end of the offensive. As I saw the progress of editing, some people think that offensive is just end by ceasefire. Well, I cannot agree because SAA broke the deal many times, so we don't know what will happen. It is a calm-down phase, not an ultimate-end phase. We should wait for government official or SAA official sources that declare the offensive has ended. Before that, we shouldn't decide that offensive has ended. 웬디러비 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is also wrong. We don't judge by primary sources. And such an official declaration most likely won't happen. Only of the next offensive? if it will happen. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

wrong? what is wrong? 웬디러비 (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking information from primary sources. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just like Smeagol 17 said. Wikipedia asks us to avoid primary sources. We stick to what RS say. And except for a few minor skirmishes here and there initiated by both sides (although these have mostly been reported on twitter, which is not RS per Wikipedia), there has not been any major operations by either side since the ceasefire was declared. Also, as seen during the previous offensives in the last 9 years of the war, official statements by either the government or the rebels on the end of an offensive almost never happen. That's why we have the system in place here on Wikipedia which has been used for years to see if major combat operations resume in a specific time frame (around 7-10 days) before we close an article. At the moment, the agreement is to close the article if the calm is upheld until the end of today (some have even said they were for closing it even before today). If a new operation/offensive is launched, we will create a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Idlib ceasefire map

I've made a map of the ceasefire in Southern Idlib. Since I'm not active on Wikipedia I cannot edit protected articles. Would someone be so kind to add the map in this article? File is Map of Idlib Ceasefire (March 2020).png. Much appreciated and many thanks! Cvekartis (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Done!!. Well done.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Thank you very much! Cvekartis (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cvekartis: Excellent work! Goodposts (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox disagreement

@Mr.user200 it seems that you remove edits that you just dont like. First of all, you funnily tell that the Turkish ministery of defence is unreliable, while it is an official branch of goverment reporting those numbers. SOHR is not an official source and it isn’t recognized by either the Syrian regime or the rebels. SOHR has a marginal amount of “activists” on the ground in Syria and gets their casualty information mostly from loyalist and rebel facebook pages. Frankly the majority of casualities reported in this conflict find their origins in those Facebook pages. The Syrian regime hasn’t really reported their casualty figures in this battle and neither has the rebels. It is also funny how you remove a Forbes article and try to counter it with a Russian source. Secondly, you reject a source that reported that 47 Shia fighters died, but keep sources which clearly mention that according to local social media sources 100+ Turkish soldiers died.Needbrains (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And also yes Forbes said that not everything could be corroborated, but the journalist at Forbes still chose to report the figures and they are professionals so they deemed the information they got worthy of reporting, otherwise they wouldn't have written it. You can't just delete it the whole source.Needbrains (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

All those killed reported in the article infobox come only from SOHR. With the only exception of Turkish lower number of killed that we consider from the Turkish MOD. Something IMO whe should not do because, is a combatant and have in the past controversial claims regarding casualties, but we consider it because of the massive Turkish IP reverting and repetitive request to include. No Facebook, no twitter pages as you claim have been used in this article. The Pantsir claim have been debunked twice. The first alleged; correspond to Libya not Syria. The second claim comes from Twitter account of Clash report and allegedly that footage comes from the Turkish MOD. Also have been debunked since is CGI and the debris look the same all over the footage.

Turkey spread the second fake with the destruction of the "Shell-S" in Syria. Video[16] Regarding those Pakistani dead they come Facebook (allegedly) buy i have not find the original FB of that group. Even if I find it thats not a RS indeed. The SOHR that we use in most of the page indicates 37 killed pro syrian goverment militias dead. Thats 21 from Shite Pakistan/Afghan Hezbollah and 15 from Hezbollah. And that info is from 5 March. The FB entry is from March 1. This means SOHR is the latest number. If we consider the 47 (Not 50) dead we should in turn consider the 65 dead from the Baylun strike , or even the latter localy reported 100 killed. Because since now we will be using ranges of casualties. If the Syrian Army or Rebels dont publish their losses, that means that we have to use a single source and the only we have at hand with the same methodology (SOHR). And SOHR have proven many time in this campaing to know the Turkish losses with incredible accuramcy. When Baylun attacks took place the reported outright 34 dead. Something the Turkish MoD recognized 4 days after and updating the tally from 9 to 22 the 29 and finally 33. Regarding goverment losses i dont have a clue how the report them. But considering that SOHR and the opposition during a part of the war were just the same team, the rebels death is the closest thing we have to a official number.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Balyun 50-100 death toll comes from 2 RS. Not a blog.

References

You make alot of assumptions. The difference between Balyun strike and the shia deaths is that the shia groups have affirmed their deaths in their official pages, while the turkish army never affirmed 100 deaths only 33 or 36 deaths (i cant remember). Secondly your opinion about "the Turkish MOD" has no value, because they are an officiale branch of goverment, which is a alot more reliable then SOHR. Thirdly SOHR only uses social media sources and you shouldnt act like SOHR is the most reliable source. SOHR has always been criticized with good reason. Needbrains (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Also that CGI refutation is a joke. on top of that, the killed personnel that were operating the pantsir's are already knownNeedbrains (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just chipping in regarding the casualties. Turkish MoD provides the official fatalities figure, so that's why we are using it. SOHR is considered an authoritative source on Syria by most RS and is extensively used by them in their reporting, and as such its considered an RS by Wikipedia. The issue of SOHR's reliability has been discussed numerous times during the years on Wikipedia and its accepted for usage. As for the claimed figure of 47 Pakistani dead (50 if you count the three Afghans) if we found the original FB post to confirm the image I would agree to include the figure as an upper estimate (or at least leave a note). But if we haven't been able to, then Pakistani officials alone aren't reliable enough in my opinion to warrant their inclusion (plus its been reported on by only one outlet). As for the higher figures of 50-100 dead for the Balyun airstrike, a note has been left in that regard to indicate the claims that were made, but we haven't included it in the total since those claims (except for a few sources) have never been extensively reported on by other RS nor corroborated (almost everyone else is citing 33 per Turkish MoD or 34 per SOHR). As for the Pantsir, I'm fine either way. EkoGraf (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So just to be clear. It is Wikipedia policy that SOHR is regarded as a trusted source? If this is the case then i won't bring up my criticism about it anymore. I agree mostly with what you have stated, getting the right information is a bit hard right now. For now i will refrain from editing and wait till better sources are available.Needbrains (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Needbrains. EkoGraf (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Units taking part

I feel like a saw that the 6th brigade of the 4th corps was supposed to hold Saraqib until it was temporarily lost but I can only find a sketchy source mentioning the 4th corps (southfront). Anyone know if they took part?

1RR

Isn't this page under the WP:1RR rule? (See WP:GS/SCW) People seem to be reverting the same things repeatedly. If you need to revert a second time, you should take it to Talk and get a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Su-24 shotdown

Why has the 2 su-24’s that were shotdown removed from the casualties box? Maskalaeuba (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Drone found on 18 March by Anna News.

The drone found in Saraqib is a TB2 as clearly shown in the photographs also is made clear the Internal number of the drone. No other drone of that type have been lost before in this offensive. And the sources says it was shot down in February at West Saraqib. The other 4 Turkish drones lost are 2 Anka-S and two Bayrakar Tactival with their proper photos on their wrecks and internal numbers. All drones lost have photograpic evidence from independent media or state media. This is for the record.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I found this article where the Russian MOD acknowledged their pantsir's were targeted. They claimed 2 were damaged. So this means your CGI nonsense is also refuted. so i think this event deserves reporting now.Needbrains (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Maarat Muqqas and al Burayj recaptured by regime on 12 March

SOHR reported this on 12 March [17] that Maarat Muqqas and al Burayj were recaptured on 12 March without any resistance, after having lost it a few days ago. Until now they haven't been reported to wihdra from the two villages again. Egypttoday has also reported SOHR's report [18]. 117.199.80.15 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved. RopeTricks (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Turkish MoD announces deaths of two Turkish soldiers and another being injured in rocket attacks on 19 March by radical groups. [19] Add it please, because I believe it will be important enough. 117.199.89.187 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it deserves mention, but not in the Infobox since this offensive was over by 6 March, maybe at a Afthermath section.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done put on aftermath section.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Su-24

Only one Su-24 was lost, second returned to base

http://www.skywar.ru/syria2020.html -

citation "1 марта 2020 года, в 13:25, боевая потеря самолета Су-24МК 696-й аэ 70-й бригады ВВС Сирии. Экипаж в составе летчика п-ка Хоссам Салеха и штурмана п/п-ка Хальдуна Хуссейна Мубарака ведомым в составе пары участвовал в нанесении удара по позициям войск противника в районе Идлиб. В р-не севернее н.п. Мааррет-эн-Нууман самолет был поражен ракетой, загорелся в воздухе и частями упал на землю. Экипаж катапультировался над расположением своих сил и был доставлен в госпиталь. Причиной потери предположительно стала атака турецкого истребителя F-16. Второй сирийский самолет был так же атакован, но получил лишь незначительные повреждения и сумел вернуться на базу." 37.144.229.95 (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The claim that two were lost currently cites Reuters, Forbes, Aviation International News and al-Jazeera. Is this source more reliable than them? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You may notice that this is the only source indicating the names of the pilots and other details. This source (Skywar) has direct links to the Syrian Air Force. And most importantly - there is no photo of the second downed plane! 37.144.229.95 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)