Talk:2015–2016 Latakia offensive

Dead URLs
Removed about 12. Not Found. Tried several times. This is what happens when bloggers are used as RS. They delete or move data or close accounts. Some were the so called Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHOR). The one man blogger. Some text left in, now requires RS. Saint Aviator  lets talk 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Untranslatable
Non english written links. No translation available. No checking possible to see what its saying. Deleted. Some text left in, now requires RS. Saint Aviator  lets talk 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use foreign language refs ONLY when English language ones not available. Dont use them as well just for the sake of it. This is from a discussion on use of them on The Village Pump. Saint Aviator  lets talk 23:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army liberated Salma
Meanwhile the Syrian Army liberated the strategic village of Salma and surrounding villages too. The map needs an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramataklan (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Strategic Analysis
While Strategic Analysis is a good idea, Im finding this too shallow. Its speculative. The ref is from a site in a nation that arms Syrian Jihadist beheaders. Qatar. Its biased. Unbalanced. Discuss First. Reverting. Get the other sides story too. Saint Aviator  lets talk 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No one said it was a neutral source. It is the "strategic analysis" from the stand point of the opposition. And this is fine because on Wikipedia we need to expose all points of view. This is why the paragraph starts with "According to analysis by Al Jazeera, ".


 * You say: "Get the other sides story too." Great. But are you saying that we can only create a "Strategic Analysis" section once we have all the sides story at the same time? I did my part of the job and wrote the analysis part that is from the stand point of the opposition. Am I expected to also find analysis from the other sides? Why don't you do that? Or let someone else do it? We are now building a relatively new article one piece at a time. We cannot have everything ready at the same time. Wikipedia is an incremental process. There is no deadline. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Tradedia talk 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well discussion is good. Points. It was worded in a way that sounded biased. So it looked unbalanced. Talk about Qatars role. A note here would have been best, before. Once the others sides in, its going to be bloated. Needs succinct rewriting. Maybe work in your sandbox, link here.  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have put the section below. We can leave it here for 2 weeks so that you and others can add in other sides story, rewrite it, make it more balanced, etc. and then put it back in the article. Sounds fair? This article should be more than just the usual daily news dump... Tradedia talk 07:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude dont take offence, but Latakia cant be viewed as an island. The SAA and allies are after all of Syria. From Latakia they push into Idlib, now thats strategic. Watch this and this  as background.  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 08:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you have a different point of view? Good. Write it into the “Strategic Analysis” section below. Tradedia talk 05:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Head choppers invade your nation supported by Turks / Sauds / Qatar etc. Heres some strategy. Destroy them all or drive them out. http://news.yahoo.com/afp-exclusive-assad-vows-retake-whole-country-warns-150319669.html <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 06:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. Write it into the “Strategic Analysis” section below. Tradedia talk 07:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Been busy <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I have started incorporating some of the elements from the stand point of the gov that you suggested. So I added the expression "pro-opposition Al Jazeera" and I added a new paragraph for the point of view of gov: "On the other hand, the Syrian government claims to be aiming to reconquer the whole of Syria. In this case, after recovering all of Latakia, the next logical step might be to move into neighboring Idlib and recover what was lost to the opposition earlier in the year.." What do you think? Tradedia talk 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will wait one more week to allow you and others to edit this "Strategic Analysis" section and then I will put it back into the article. Tradedia talk 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ From now on, changes to the "Strategic Analysis" section should be made directly in the article. Tradedia talk 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Text for "Strategic Analysis" section for article

 * <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * According to analysis by pro-opposition Al Jazeera, the objective of the Latakia offensive is to consolidate a potential Alawi dominated state (supported by Russia) that would extend from the Coast to Damascus, passing by Hama and Homs. This would entail forcing the population to leave the North of Latakia so that they would be replaced by government supporters. According to the same source, the offensive aims also at embarrassing and pressuring the Turkish government since most of the population in North Latakia are from Turkmen origin. The source attributes the advance by government troops to the powerful missiles used by the Russian airforce and to the lack of support from rebels in Idlib and Hama governorates.
 * <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * On the other hand, the Syrian government claims to be aiming to reconquer the whole of Syria. In this case, after recovering all of Latakia, the next logical step might be to move into neighboring Idlib and recover what was lost to the opposition earlier in the year.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Latakia offensive (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160118095850/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syrian-troops-seize-territory-rebels-northwest-36261908 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syrian-troops-seize-territory-rebels-northwest-36261908

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

by Tradedia talk 00:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Latakia offensive (2015–2016) → 2015–16 Latakia offensive – Per WP:NATURALDIS and MOS:DATERANGE; also for consistency with 2013 Latakia offensive, 2014 Latakia offensive, and 2016 Latakia offensive (which has already been moved from Latakia offensive (2016)). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. I actually prefer the names that use the dates at the end, but the consensus trend seems to be away from that, so I won't buck it, and will !vote with WP:CONSISTENCY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, as per SMcCandlish – I too wish the naming convention put the years at the end. But... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Suqur al-Sahara in Bashura 1.png