Talk:Northwestern Syria campaign (October 2017–February 2018)

Change title to "Abu al Duhur offensive"?
Hello, I think the wikipage should be renamed to the title mentioned above since it appears to be the SAA's long-term goal of this operation. Northeastern Hama seems too specific and doesn't make sense considering the SAA are advancing in southern Aleppo region as well. What do you guys think? Rr016 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't show that SAA have launched a offensive to take Abu al Duhur though they capture several villages near Aleppo road. 羽衣狐 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with you @Rr016, considering large parts of the fighting are going on right now in south-western Aleppo governorate and south-eastern Idlib governorate. BlindNight (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope, at least not yet. Operations still taking place far away from Abu al Duhur and mostly in Hama and Aleppo provinces, Abu al Duhur is in Idlib. Clashes within Idlib province itself have not yet been on a large scale. EkoGraf (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, as another possible suggestion what do you think about the title "3rd Northwestern Syria offensive?" Based off of these wikipages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Syria_offensive_(April%E2%80%93June_2015) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Syria_offensive_(October%E2%80%93November_2015)
 * That seems to be a good alternative, considering that the offensive takes place in three governorates. Applodion (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rr016 Applodion Sakiv I was actually thinking the same thing and agree, Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2017–present) is the most appropriate title now since it has evolved from just Hama. EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2017–present) is a more suitable title.--Sakiv (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The status box has something wrong
Instead of making a bulleted list when adding (*)s it shows them like it is. Somebody may fix that. Kevo327 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's done.. thanks whoever did it. Kevo327 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Split off ISIS vs. HTS fighting
I think that the ISIS offensive vs. HTS (formerly Al Nusra) should be split off into a separate article about the ISIS infiltration and expansion in that region.

The offensive by Syrian military towards Abu al-Duhur is separate, and, though they have benefited from the intra-rebel conflict in the region, there's no evidence of any sort of coordination between ISIS and the SAA/allies.

Having the two together in the same article conflates the two, and also suggests an alliance between the SAA and ISIS, which goes against NPOV. -109.40.1.3 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No need for a split. Both operations are part of the same event and both affect one another closely. Also, no suggestions in the article of an alliance between the SAA and ISIS. Both are presented as separate beligerents in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree they should be split. I highly doubt that either the Syrian government or Daesh regard their offensives as being linked in any way, just because they happen to be taking place in the same geographical area. It frankly looks weird to have an article presenting them both as one event, and does seem to misleadingly imply some kind of alliance or coordination between them. Even if the infobox does show them as separate belligerents. Kawada Kira (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, there is nothing stated in the article that there is an alliance or coordination between the two. Edits shouldn't be based on personal assumptions. The two offensives are not linked, but they highly affect one another and are part of the same overall event taking place in northwestern Syria at the moment (which is the subject of this article). As a compromise, we could change the title of the article from offensive to campaign since you rightly pointed out these are two offensives, not one, and also Applodion appropriately also said both are part of one wider campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine the way it is; it is a simple matter of fact that the ISIL and government offensives occur at the same time, exploiting the local HTS retreat. They are part of one wider campaign in the area, while, as EkoGraf said, it is made clear in the article that ISIL and the government are not allied. Applodion (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I voice my support for EkoGraf proposal of changing the name from offensive into campaign, I believe this combat activity is much wider than an "offensive". BlindNight (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Blindnight took my word from my mouth (fingers). I just wanted to say it (write). It is true that this military campaign is of a very broad scale and is no longer an offensive. It began as one of ISIL's desperate and recent trips in a clean bout for naked survival when on the 9th of October in the morning they crossed the main road around Khanasir and seemed to have launched a suicide mission against Tahrir al-Sham. However, ISIL proved to be a very difficult opponent. After the Kurd passed through the Kabur River in the far east of Syria, taking oil pipelines Omar on October 22, the Syrian Arab Army realized that there was nothing more to search for over the River Euphrates, concentrated in the northwest (North Hama, South Aleppa and Idlib). The entire situation in northwestern Syria has since assumed a wider dimension. Especially after the end of the military operations in the province Deir ez-Zor against ISIL.--Baba Mica (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with EkoGraf and Applodion about no need for split and that article doesn't imply there is joint action, and it would be hard to disentangle different elements into two articles. I think name change might be sensible. Would something like "fighting" or "conflict" be even better than "campaign" as it has even less implication of a single action, and indicate the wider dimension Baba Mica rightly refers to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A change of maps
I suggest using another map; to fully show the gains in southwestern Aleppo and northeastern Hama. Kevo327 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Made a couple more maps in that area; I hope you like them. --Rr016 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New section for SAA vs. ISIS
Over the past couple weeks there have been more attacks by the SAA against the ISIS pocket (that straddles eastern Idlib, southern Aleppo, and northeast Hama governates), with the goal of shrinking and eventually eliminating it.

Would be good to see that included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:83D1:F200:4892:1EDE:290F:65F2 (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)