Talk:Battle of al-Bab

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)

and 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, Wikipedia 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)
 * , I agree with . 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 &thinsp; (talk)  02:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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 &thinsp; (talk)  03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 the data 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)


 * Yes, it sounds like WP:CALC applies and should be fairly accurate, I agree with questioning how reliable it might be. So, essentially we're relying on a primary source, hmmm. I tried looking for secondary sources with death tolls and in recent coverage, but in general I am not finding one that links up to the time period of this article and often is not clear stipulation of the time period of the death tolls. There is this New York Times article with info from mid November, but it doesn't seem to match up to the sum of the daily totals.


 * It would seem like it makes sense to be consistent with the other articles about the battles in Syria, but since this is likely going to be an ongoing affair, I still like the idea of the individuals totals on the timeline. If you want further input, perhaps a question could be posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against the number of killings as I already said, nor I'm against a separate timeline article. My only problem was that it will severely deplete the article. But I'm ok with removing them and creating a timeline, however I think it shouldn't be done by one or two persons. It's a major change and I think it's better to get a consensus from the community. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That it will be depleted isn't really an issue because with those daily reports (which I again note are not really encyclopedic) the article was actually becoming too large. Even with them removed the article is still getting bigger due to the battle's ongoing nature. Like CaroleHenson said, at some points the article goes into too much detail so if the article goes over the recommended size we should look to cut it down even more. EkoGraf (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of Turkish intervention
As This battle has become multi belligerents (& also multi fronts) operation with involvemet of SAA, YPJ , Turkish-backed militias & ISIL .I think it must separated into multi pages or at least, should be out of turkish operation page .P.ut 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle losses
I think, we have to list the vehicle losses too. -- User:Neoplan04 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC+1)

I don't think so, because it will be very hard/confusing. See for example the raqqa and mosul offensive which has not vehicle losses neither. For example, not all tanks hit by atm's means that they were lost or destroyed+TSK has no confirmation of all their losses (wheter near al bab or not). Also, you should then add the vehicle losses of all other oponents as well, which has no confirms at all Bzaatronto (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

New article for SAA offensive
Maybe it's time to make a new article for the SAA offensive under the title "Southern al-Bab offensive", or anything. -- User:Neoplan04 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I agree with this. The Syrian army offensive is completely separate and I don't know why it didn't have its own article in the first place. It should be called the East Aleppo offensive or something. But it's not part of the Euphrates Shield offensive on Al-Bab. Kawada Kira (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Allegations of Fake News Need to Updated
The Turkish claims were dated February 16, but the sources contradicting their claims were dated February 14. I have no problem citing claims of fake news, but they still need to be updated in order to properly contradict.2601:447:4100:1692:7DD9:22FD:4EC0:D40 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of al-Bab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161202210405/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55427 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55427
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220215040/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55945 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55945
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161202210405/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55427 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55427

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)