Talk:Raqqa campaign (2016–2017)

Merging Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016) into this?
Merger complete.

Dear Editor abcdef, Applodion, EkoGraf, MrPenguin20, Mehmedsons, Jewnited, merging Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016) into this? The game-changing offensives like Manbij offensive should have a suitable name, me thinks. I have imported the "background" section from that other article into this. Whatever you think is fine with me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merger - obviously the same subject. Whether the final name actually specifies 'Northern' seems a minor point. What's northern about it? Batternut (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merger into the northern Raqqa offensive, since the name is consistent with the northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016) and is the second Raqqa offensive in 2016. Whether this is "game-changing" is not up to us to decide. It's better to wait until they actually capture Raqqa. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, but don't you think the scope and approach here is more comparable to the comprehensive Manbij campaign than to the some-village-game of Western Al-Bab or the proxy attack on the Northern Raqqa frontline back in May? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Failure to distinguish between Raqqa city and Al-Raqqah Governorate, and the vagaries of the declared scope of the Northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016) have caused confusion here. The Northern Raqqa offensive seems only to have taken place in the north of Raqqa Governorate, and suggestions made by observers that the target was Raqqa City were either just over-optimistic or perhaps deliberate misinformation. In contrast, the stated aim of the current offensive is the taking of Raqqa City, for which reason it should be known as the "Raqqa Offensive". But perhaps it would be uncontentious and simpler to use the name "Operation Euphrates Wrath". Batternut (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This offensive is clearly said to be an "isolation operation". As of now, there is little difference in rhetoric between this one and the last offensive in May. Even in the latter people were optimistic that they will take Raqqa city or at least a large area of land in the Raqqa Governorate. It didn't happen and Wikipedia articles are not authorized to speculate on the future. Also the "Raqqa offensive" is a far more common name than something like "Operation Euphrates Wrath". Code names are rarely used for article titles unless the usage of them outnumbers other terms. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the SDF/US stated aim of isolating Raqqa city not make this significantly not northern, regardless of its eventual success? See also Battle of Warsaw (1920). Batternut (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support merger into northern Raqqa for the sake of article name consistency. EkoGraf (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merger - for me obviously that is it a same subject. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it time to wind this discussion up (even though only 19 hours old)? Consensus clearly with 'Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016)'. Batternut (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in "Rojava" article, including deletion of reference to SDF offensives
Not directly the topic here, but would some of you folks take a look at the talk page of the "Rojava" article? There is an IP making disruptive edits (inter alia including several attempts to delete of the sole paragraph concerning SDF offensives), while seeking to justify them with the fact that few people bother to express opposition to his claims on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Maps : help needed !
Please help to update the maps. You can help with data collection or graphic (svg) editing.
 * Maps

Please complete it with sources.
 * Data

--Yug (talk)  11:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Phase 2 of the offensive : Map updated ! :D Yug (talk)  12:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move
Please use the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversial edits
Applodion, what do you think of this edit ? --Yug (talk)  17:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yug While I would disagree that Sputnik News cannot be used as source (even though it is a propaganda outlet, it has provided useful news several times in the past), I don't think that this particular addition provides any kind of important information about this offensive. Dozens of ISIL fighters are killed almost daily; to note ISIL casualities for every day is redundant. Thus, I agree with the deletion, but for different reasons than provided by the anon who reverted the edit. Applodion (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with the delete, cf WP:RECENTISM. Batternut (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok! Noticed. --Yug (talk)  21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Article title "Raqqa offensive (November 2016–present)" better
Would not "Raqqa offensive (November 2016–present)" be more appropriate than "Raqqa offensive (2016–present)", to avoid overlap with Northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016)? Batternut (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Raqqa offensive in May 2016 didn't continue into the present, so it's a clear distinction between the two. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, the scope of action seems now closer to a campaign than an simple offensive. Yug (talk)  11:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Raqqa operational technique
Not sure there is a strictly defined term for it, although "bypass and reduction" are both terms used by the U.S. forces for such actions. In the Second World War, the U.S. tank force had an unofficial "rule" of Haul Ass and Bypass for positions strongly defended by the enemy. The term "reduction" can be found in lines like, "The result of the attack on 5 August proved that the reduction of St. Malo would take some time", found at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/USA-E-Breakout-21.html

Hopefully a bit helpful.

Cheers
 * Oh thanks Anonymous, that's a good lead. --Yug (talk)  10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition of quotes
Appolodion has added quotes from a US military commander and an ISIS leader.I don't see what's the point o this. Is the point to present how both sides are thinking? Because I don't think it has ever been done before nor it should be in a battle article. All of these statements are propaganda anyway. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as you said, the purporse of these quotes is to show the view of the opposing sides on the matter (such quotes are actually fairly common in well written battle articles); and contrary to your view, these quotes are not purely propaganda. One comes from an interviewed anonymous US SOF member, who has no reason to tell us propaganda - instead it shows at least one view of the US forces on the ground; while the other shows ISIL's reaction to and view on the civilian mass exodus from their proclaimed capital. Anyway, I agree with you that they are better suited to an article about the opposing sides, which I plan to write eventually. Until then, however, I wanted to include the quotes due to their interesting and informative nature. If others also say that it is unneccessary to include them, then I will leave them be. Applodion (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I side with Apollodion here IP. They aren't pure propaganda and help in showing their thinking. But I also agree that the they are a bit unnecessary. I think it is better that they are added in the article as a summary instead of a separate quote box containing the whole statement. Such as instead of " A US SOF officer praised the SDF for their battles against ISIL" instead of "they are fighting like they got nothing to lose". And please do nto revert again and again. Let's look for a compromise instead. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Leftist/Anarchist volunteer
All leftist and anarchist volunteers are under command of the YPG or SDF. They are not independent and thus they should not been mentioned in different section. Ferakp (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, there are other volunteer than leftists and anarchists.Ferakp (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument is not very good. All units involved in this offensive (except the CJTF–OIR forces) operate under / are part of the SDF/YPG, including FSA and tribal forces, but they should still be mentioned seperately. Furthermore, as provided in the sources you removed, at least two Leftist units (the Antifascist International Tabur & the IFB) are involved in the offensive, but are NOT part of the SDF, even though they fight under SDF command. In regard to the other volunteers, now those are full members of the YPG; because of that, they are not listed seperately. Applodion (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Peshmerga involvement
I've seen some reports recently circulating stating that Peshmerga forces have arrived in northern Syria to participate in the Raqqa offensive. Are there any reliable sources out that that can confirm this right now? LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this interesting report on the possible involvement of the Peshmerga's elite Counter-Terrorist Group participating in the recent Tabqa assault. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Tabqa dam and LightandDark2000's edits and that of some other users
A user by the name of User:LightandDark2000 and some other users keeps using unreliable reports like Twitter posts of some people and even maps like syriancivilwarmap.com which cannot be considered reliable and rely mainly on these Twitter posts or someone else. LightandDark2000 especially any source to add his edits even if his sources are unreliable and not supported by other reliable sources. These Twitter posts supposedly report the advance based on reports of some other people or civilians. They are however not reliable experts nor ever have been published by any news organization or a research organization which will allow their use under WP:SPS. Many editors have been using these unreliable sources on the moodule for long, even soem that are biased. For example, someone used Al-Masdar's report Kurdish forces reach Euphrates River east of Raqqa amid massive ISIS collapse to say SDF advanced and reached northern bank of Euphrates on 21 February. Although Al-Masdar is not completely unreliable it has sometimes been incorrect in the past. No reliable source cited these advances. When I removed them, LightandDark2000 re-added them that too with unreliable source like “Kurdish forces reach Euphrates River east of Raqqa amid massive ISIS collapse” - TTG which is actually a supposed retired army officer with a blog as well as Kurdistan24 which itself is the official radio station of Iraqi Kurdistan funded by son of Iraqi Kurdistan president Barzani and particularly biased. Also when reports of all these villages being actually captured was stated by other sources, including Al-Masdar which in its report itself stated that SDF captured AL Kulayb and its grain silos but makes no mention of at all of any previous capture. I had added Al Kulayb and its grains ilos as captured based on sources. These villages had been mentioned in its previous report as captured on 21 February but no mention of this report was made in another report and no reliable source repeated it. I avoided it and have been using multiple reliable sources for every advance. Still LightandDark2000 changed their capture to "recapture" in his edit without any of the source stating so. This was pure original research and self-interpretation. What he added seems to be based on syriancivilwarmap.com which made tthe same reports as Al-masdar of their capture but after they were stated by other sources to be captured in March, said they were recaptured and stated that SDF left these villages. however no reliable sources exist that say SDF did and I never noticed these additions before these villages were captured in March despite syriancivilwarmap for example showing they left these villages on 12 March. Though there is no turning back time option on the website, I however didn't see any reports on 12 March or any day thereafter before these villages were captured in mid-March. It is likely that it is making it up to avoid complete contradiction with reliable reports. Based on that LigfhtandDark2000 only edited to show Al-Kulayb and its silos as "recaptured" on 16 March, he likely didn't see this claim on syriacivilwarmapearlier. And this sin't the only time the website either, the map has made such claims about others which it showed as prematurely captured, all after they were reported captured by reliable sources on different llater dates.

Also recently there have been reports of capture of Tabqa Dam, though many still haven't confirmed and state it is still to be taken. Notably, no very notable and reliable international source has confirmed its capture which inexplainable since they have focused so much on it and its a major advance. I changed it to reported capture however LightandDark2000 changed it to as captured again in his edit. Among the websites he used are an Italian website I've never heard of before and is not at all reputable, Al-Masdar News and https://sofrep.com/77726/kurdistans-counter-terrorist-group-assault-taqba-dam-syria/ SOFREP, which isn't known very much though its editor in chief is, the site is made up of some former military and intelligence people. However, South Front clearly states these reports are coming from pro-Kurdish sources and the Kurdish Rudaw itself states SDF is still preparing to retake it in this report. It is likely that the capture of the dam is premature. this isn't the first time there has been a premature report. Such things have happened with Fallujah, Aleppo, East Mosul etc and aren't rare. If the dam has been indeed captured, then it should have already been reported by now or will be in some time.

I could have simply removed all these reports based on contradiction but chose compromise instead. Yet LightandDark2000 keeps adding these unreliable sources and whatever he sees on some websites probably like syriancivilwarmap. When one points out the contradiction or inaccuracies, he even adds unreliable reports. In one of his edits he even added syriancivilwarmap.com, likely because he couldn't find any news source for it. It seems he wants to hurriedly add whatever he comes across and it also seems that much of what he adds he does so from this website as it matches with them instead of properly researching. No experienced and good users ever use any unreliable sources like unofficial and non-expert and non-journalist Twitter posts of some civilians who are not considered reliable experts and fulfill Wiki rules nor unknown and unreliable sources. There are some other new users as well who do this. We do not need to add everything that too immediately. This situation needs to be resolved as his edit deteriorating the quality of the article and he only seems to be interested in adding content without care of whether it is reliable and what impact it has on the article. This has been going on for long and needs to be stopped. I am open to compromises, but not unreliable sources just so one can add what they want to or imposing one's own version. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should generally refrain from adding Twitter, and if we use sources like SyriaCivilWarMap and al-Masdar, which sometimes are reliable, and sometimes not, we should mark the information with "(...) claims so-and-so". Applodion (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not against use of Al-Masdar, only against news that it itself contradicted. Of course I am against Syriancivilwarmap as it is not a reliable news site nor has any reliable experts, ut seems to rely on Twitter posts like Liveuamap and also seems to make up ots own advance. Regardless it matters little now. As it turns out I was correct that the report of Tabqa dam's capture premature. Only today a SDF spokeswoman announced that they had finally reached the dam and were fighting for it at its entrance. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-dam-idUSKBN16V1QW) MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In defense of SyrianCivilWarMap, the authors claims to have direct contact with soldiers on various fronts and to curate these sources as well as Twitter sources. This methodology is strictly the same than main stream journalism. Both are prone to good faith misunderstanding, errors and manipulations by their sources. By now, I'am confident that we all saw main stream medias reporting suprisingly out of date control lines, or overreaching ones. My conclusion is that whatever our efforts, the specific nature of war and military frontlines is not a "line" but rather blur, misty, organically morphing mess. Whatever the sources we use and trust we will ourselves pick up errors and be mislead. Also, as *no one* is sure, let's be humble with each of our sources and understanding with other ones. --Yug (talk)  10:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving Raqqa offensive (2016–present) to "Raqqa campaign (2016–present)
Hello LightandDark, On the Raqqa offensive, I'am in favor to remove the citation of Sirte. The mention of other Palmyra, Mosul, Al-Bab battles is already a bit sketching the introduction. Mentioning Sirte, which is 3000km away, seems quite unusual and lowly relevant to this current Raqqa frontline, especially since there is no possible meaningful transfer of people / materials from Sirte (Lybia) to Raqqa (Syria). Yug (talk)  15:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sirte was ISIL's "fallback capital" in the event that Raqqa and Mosul both fell before Sirte, however, this clearly wasn't the case. Also, Sirte was the largest city held by ISIL outside of Iraq and Syria, not to mention that Sirte was Libya's equivalent of Ar-Raqqah. If you do some internet searching, you'll see the significance of the Sirte battle. Numerous parallels have been drawn between the Sirte battle and both the Mosul and Raqqa offensives, especially after the Battle of Sirte ended. Given these facts, I think that the reference should stay. I don't think that enough people kow about Sirte or its significance, as it is. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the offensive has now expanded east to Deir ez-Zor province, and calling it Northern Syria offensive would be too broad a term, I think we should rename it to simply Operation Wrath of Euphrates. Besides, that's the common name by which most media outlets are currently calling it anyway. EkoGraf (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the offensive has actually extended to Deir ez-Zor city. The northwestern Deir ez-Zor countryside is needed for besieging Raqqa city from the east; as of this moment, it does not look like the SDF will advance beyond that patch of territory in the northwestern Deir ez-Zor Province in this offensive. In addition, it has been Wikipedia convention to name battles/offensives after their focus or location, not the operation name given by the belligerents, with the exception of a couple of US-conducted battles. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the naming convention, I agree with LightAndDark, the focus is more relevant for an encyclopedic article than its "commercial/PR name". As the scope is wider than a single straight offensive, I would encourage to rename it "Raqqa *Campaign*" or a variation of it.
 * As for Sirte, I'am still sceptical. The unity of the various ISIS territories seems to me to be more an issue of branding than a real fact. I don't see real, operational connection between ISIS here and there. But I also must admit that I don't know enough about this Sirte front.
 * Last, this discussion would be better moved to the Raqqa offensive talkpage :D --Yug (talk)  10:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There were strong connections between ISIL in Raqqah and the ISIL enclave in Sirte, including direct military communications with top ISIL leaders, and the transfer of foreign ISIL veterans to the Sirte front back in 2016. This has been noted (quite belated) by the US government last year, along with elements of the Libyan GNA government. There are multiple sources detailing this out there, if you do a Google search. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that the offensive extended to Deir ez-Zor city, instead that taking into account that the offensive has extended to the whole northwestern part of Deir ez-Zor province (which is not a negligible area in size) that Raqqa offensive is not the appropriate term anymore. Wikipedia convention is actually to name it per its common name WP:COMMONNAME, and the official name of the operation is the common name that's been most widely used as of late. And even if Wikipedia's convention was to name it according to location, again Raqqa offensive isn't appropriate anymore since the offensive now encompasses the whole northwest of Deir ez-Zor province. And Operation Wrath of Euphrates is hardly a "commercial/PR name", its a military operation's name and when its the common name articles have been titled as such, see examples like Operation Uranus or Operation Rainbow. EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Raqqa offensive" or some similar variant is still the most common name in the majority of media outlets reporting on it, especially international ones. Even though "Euphrates Wrath" is mentioned as the operational name in many articles, the plain "Raqqa offensive" or "offensive for Raqqa" still remains the most common name. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, suggestion at compromise then. Raqqa campaign (2016–present) instead of Raqqa offensive. Would that be ok? Its been called a campaign as well multiple times. EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * LightandDark2000, the most common is not always to follow on wikipedia. In that case, legacy made "Raqqa offensive" the most common, but "Raqqa campaign" became the most relevant since Phase II introduced multiples axis of offensive. Common (good) sense must prevails and is at the core of Wikipedia's build up. With several major axis of attacks, it become a campaign, an no more a single headed offensive. --Yug (talk)  12:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That could work. Though I would like to see how this offensive develops into something much bigger than the offensive it has currently been. So far, the operation appears to be a massive, multi-phase offensive. If it extends beyond even this scope (I think that we need to give it some more time, perhaps until after Raqqa's encirclement is complete), then a "Raqqa Campaign" renaming might be in order. By the way, do we have any other articles from the past 10 years named in this manner? LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2016 Southern Aleppo campaign and 2016 Aleppo summer campaign. I know the SDF call it one offensive with multiple phases but however way you look at it its actually multiple offensives that are part of the same operation/campaign. Between, the Deir ez-Zor part of it is continuing to progress further down the Euphrates. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One more source calling it a campaign . Combined with the fact that currently there is no offensive towards Raqqa city itself, but instead an offensive to capture Tabqa (west of Raqqa) as part of the general campaign to encircle the city (plus the earlier Deir Ezzor push), I will rename it to Raqqa campaign (2016–present) and make the necessary text changes in the coming days when I find the time. EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was planning on renaming the article after the SDF forces move on from the Tabqa region to Baath Dam, or when/if they finally launch an offensive to capture Raqqa's southern countryside (which would undeniably mark the assault as a large-scale campaign). But it does look more like a campaign at this point, so I might rename this article and restructure it, once the battle for Tabqa is over. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, fine with me. :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, now even the SDF call it a campaign lol . I'll move it. XD EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Should "Battle of Taqba" have it's own article?
As the fighting in Taqba draws to a close, I wonder if the hostilities there should have their own article distinct from this one. Taqba is it's own city and it seems like the events there are significant enough to merit their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6314:DA00:B056:A57:9F07:5FEE (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 4


 * It does. Battle of Tabqa (2017). Editor abcdef (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mislabelled images removed
I have removed the following images: and  from the article, as both show the Tishrin Dam, not the Tabqa Dam. Note the island on the upstream side of the dam. The video that is the source for both images also shows a road at the bottom of the dam, and a dam shape that matches the Tishrin Dam, not the Tabqa Dam. Cirrus87 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Tabqa Dam is a wider structure, and has a smaller dam attached to it. Furthermore, Tishrin Dam is under full control of the SDF; it would make no sense that there would be fighting at that dam during the Raqqa offensive. Third, the video is from the Qasioun News Agency and they say during the video that this is Tabqa Dam and would have no reason to lie about it, as they are anti-SDF. In conclusion, your argument does not make sense. Do you have any proofs for your claims? Applodion (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe you are acting in good faith, but for example look at any images of the Tabqa dam (e.g or ) and compare with the Tishrin Dam (e.g.  or ). Even a check on OpenStreetMap (Tabqa Dam: ; Tishrin Dam: ) or Google Maps (Tabqa Dam: ; Tishrin Dam: ) show that the Tabqa Dam has a completely different shape and surrounding landscape to the dam featured in the video that is the source for the images in the article. The fighting shown in the video could have been from December 2015 or January 2016 when the SDF captured the Tishrin Dam. Furthermore, a video posted online is not always going to be accurately described, no matter what the views of the account owner are. Cirrus87 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Cirrus87: Thank you for providing this evidence; now I can see that you are probably right. This image appears to have been shot from a similiar spot as this one. I have removed these images from the article and will have them renamed in Wikimedia. Applodion (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SDF casualties end april and May
Seems like it has no update. Beshogur (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger 2017 Raqqa attack into this?
A page, "2017 Raqqa attack" was created to illustrate an example of a coalition airstrike mistargeting refugees fleeing Raqqa. See Talk:2017_Raqqa_attack. I propose that if it deserves note in Wikipedia, it be merged into a relevant section in this article. Skingski (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Skingski (talk)


 * It's not notable enough for an article of its own. I've merged it into Battle of Raqqa (2017). Editor abcdef (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IRPGF in Raqqa city 2.png