Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EkoGraf (talk | contribs) at 06:18, 13 January 2017 (→Death reports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Presentation of SDF unit groups

What is the reasoning behind the current presentation of SDF unit groups in the infobox? And in particular, what is the justification of placing JaT, the most effective organized fighting force of the SDF in the theater, as a sub-unit of the Manbij Military Council, rather than either put it stand alone, or as sub-unit under both military councils (Al-Bab and Manbij)? And why is the participation of the Manbij Military Council sourced with a tweet about the participation of a group belonging to the Jarabulus Military Council, but the latter not mentioned at all in the infobox? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Death reports

I see an editor has recently challenged the inclusion of regular death reports by one belligerent side (Turkish military) stating it is neither encyclopedic nor notable. However per rules notability and content being encyclopedic should be decided per the situation. These reports are usually covered by multiple Turkish sources, even non-Turkish sources sometimes. I understand why some will challenge it, I don't like it being included myself. But the problem here is this battle has many times gone for many days, even weeks, without any advances. Even when there are, they aren't much significant. In addition, Turkish military is the only source that really reports about ongoings of this battle anymore. I tried to go through rules for this, it can be allowed if the source is not making obviously false or dubious reports or is known for making such unreliable reports or has made them many times.

If we are to remove the daily death reports and targeting reports, then most of the article will be gone and it the information left will be little. If anyone still objects to it inclusion which has some grounds, it will be better to go through a consensus. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: and @CaroleHenson: Since you two are experienced editors, can you offer your opinion on this? I've detailed the situation above. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Its actually not really a matter of who is reporting, but what is being reported. I have no problem with taking into account what the Turkish military states. However, Misplaced Pages has guidelines on notability and giving something undue weight. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for anything related to Operation Euphrates Shield. That there are no reports of advances for longer periods doesn't mean we need to fill in the blank periods with daily reports of deaths. For example, what encyclopedic purpose does it have to report that one soldier died of wounds on a specific date? See other historical battle articles. Most do not list how many people were killed on each day of a long battle, or how many targets were hit on each day (only the most notable or semi-notable news is listed). We have the infobox where we list overall figures of fatalities claimed by each side. You should review WP policy in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal. How about we use all of those individual reports and give a summarized report in once sentence on how many strikes of ISIL targets were reported by the military during the specific month? I will try and restructure the article with this in mind. EkoGraf (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf you recently stated on my talk page that you have a problem with about what is being reported. I already stated why it has be kept in my earlier comment. Notability and being encyclopedic is a matter of circumstance. The problem here is as I already stated that these death reports form the majority of the article. These death reports have been reported by many sources regularly. If they are removed, the article's main body will largely be empty except a few number of villages captured and a few clashes here and there. The advance seems to have stalled and there are regular clashes without any progress for days or weeks even. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

About your propsal, I do like it but I think it will be better to make it weekwise otherwise as I already stated most of the article will be gone even if we made it monthwise. I'll like to know how your feel. Besides, I think we should have some comment by other editors as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am restructuring the article. Too many different sections exist at this point due to the large number of weeks on which one section is based. At this point, several sections have only one paragraph if not even just one or two sentences. The way you would like the article to exist is more appropriate for a different type of article than this one. A timeline article, like this here Combat operations in 2015 during the Battle of Aleppo. I would not have a problem with you moving these daily reports to a timeline article on this battle. The article would be called for example Timeline of the Battle of al-Bab. And we would link this article to the timeline article, while this one here would remain as an overview/summary of the main events of the battle. This would also be in line with WP policy on cutting down on article sizes and creating sub-articles. EkoGraf (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32, I agree with EkoGraf. This article needs work and has too much detailed information. It should be summarized - and daily reports are not encyclopedic content. Aren't there sources that have totals? I also don't understand the crazy number of citations in some places.

The timeline approach to get into more detail sounds like a good compromise.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson The large number of citations is for the sentences where a total of claimed air-strikes and killed militants is stated per Turkey. Since MonsterHunter32 still wanted those figures to be mentioned in the article in some way I proposed as a compromise we combine all of those citations into overall figures and not unnecessarily spread out throughout the article the daily reports. Although personally I think an overall number in this manner (unless there is one singular source confirming it) is also unnecessary, I'm trying to compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf, Yes, I see that and I think the compromise is a good idea.

Regarding the counts, I could have been clearer. I think there are two issues with adding up daily reports, in what I called the crazy number of citations. One, it could be considered original research. Two, how accurate is it? (e.g., counts that are initially reported are not always accurate, are the different papers using the same sources of info, etc.). That's why I think a source with totals is much better. IMO, this strengthens the case for the compromise timeline article that goes into detail. I agree with your statement: Although personally I think an overall number in this manner (unless there is one singular source confirming it) is also unnecessary—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson The same source is cited everywhere, the Turkish military, and they report for the previous day 24 hours later when they collect all of their data it seems. So I think its accurate enough (don't ask me how reliable it is though). I think it could fall under WP:CALC, but for it to be much more clearer we could combine all of the references into one like we did in the infobox for the casualties. Its been standard practice by editors throughout Syria-related articles. And yeah, again, I agree a source with overall totals would me much better and I would rather remove the calculated total with the mass of citations, but again, trying to compromise with MonsterHunter32. However, if you still think it could be unreliable and unnecessary we can remove it and leave the daily individual reports on the timeline article. EkoGraf (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles