Talk:Syrian Desert campaign (May–July 2017)

Untitled
Perfect.--Baba Mica (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it only FSA as 2nd belligerent?
I am curious why only FSA present as belligerent, clearly Osoud al-Sharqiya and Ahmad al-Abdo groups which are overwhelmingly the two main groups fighting there are by no means independent in their policy and military objectives, neither are they able to govern what sparsely populated territory they currently hold or be able to sustain themselves in terms of weaponry, fighters, supplies etc.

Multiple sources claim that these groups are little more than extension of US and Jordanian foreign policy, fighting on their behalf against ISIS and Syria, so I recommend that these countries should be placed at least as supporters of these groups if not active belligerents, considering reports like this:http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/10-may-2-jordanian-f16-fighter-jets-shot-down-a-drone-was, which claim that Jordanian jets shot down Syrian UAV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundlessAir (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename
I'm thinking we should rename the article since its not focused on the highway alone anymore. Now it includes both the push through Suwayda, and possibly the push from Qaryatayn yesterday and south of Palmyra today is all part of the same op. What do you think? I'm thinking 2017 Southern Syria offensive (since we already have 2015 Southern Syria offensive) or something similar. EkoGraf (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, confirmed now, all part of the same operation . EkoGraf (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think "2017 Southern Syria offensive" would be a good name for the article since we already have the 2017 Southern Syrian Desert campaign, parts of which happened in the exact same area. Would "Southern Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017–present)" be better? Editor abcdef (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Works for me. :) EkoGraf (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Editor abcdef its terrible name same as that other, southern Syrian desert is located in northern Saudi Arabia, see article: Syrian Desert, It could be just called 2017 Syrian Desert offensive, no word southern since it is inaccurate. GroundlessAir (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * After reviewing what the Syrian desert actually encompasses, its southern part actually being in Saudi Arabia, I think there is no harm to remove southern from both this article's title and that rebel campaign article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Glad that we could reach an understanding, it is ridiculous how common is to find factual and even logical mistakes in many of the newer articles and even their titles. GroundlessAir (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. The only problem is that the southeastern Aleppo Governorate, the southern Raqqa Governorate, and the eastern Hama and Homs governorates are also located in the Syrian Desert. The name for this article may be too broad if an offensive is to happen in these areas. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of term "rebels"
I'm curious, for some reason in this article armed groups like Osoud al-Sharqiya, Ahmad al-Abdo forces and even mini NSyA 2.0 are referred to under the term "rebels". Are you sure this is an accurate description? US created, trained, is currently equipping and funding these armed groups, they were built from the very core foundations into what they are now by foreign interests, therefore I do not believe word "rebel" should apply to them, more accurate descriptions could be : "proxy army", "militants", "US-backed armed groups". By definition of Wikipedia itself a rebel is a person participating in a rebellion, with the intent to seize power, considering the relatively tiny size of these proxy armed groups and their own stated claims this is not their intention nor is it even reasonable, to be honest ISIL is much closer to the definition of what is "rebel", since they are a rebel group hoping to overthrow a government. Also these groups entered into territory of Syria externally (from Jordan after they seized Al-Tanf), which clearly makes them external, not internal actor. GroundlessAir (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These groups are part of the FSA and the FSA is a rebel group. And they are certainly internal actors since they are all Syrian nationals. And besides, they are called rebels by those such as Reuters, AP, Washington Post, etc... Even Masdar calls them as such . I wouldn't mind though to clarify (but not repetitively) that these are US-backed/Jordanian-backed rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would also argue to clarify that they're US-backed, glad we could agree on a compromise so fast yet again :D. Just a few points I wanted to make: I agree that they're overwhelmingly ethnically Syrian sunni arab, most of them were recruited by US and Jordanian agents in refugee camps in Jordan, thus that is why I argued that they came into Syria externally (via Jordan-Syria border) and by the use of violent force, but they originally came from Syria. Reuters, AP, Washington Post aren't exactly most neutral and fact-based sources either, neither is Al-Masdar News, even though I use it as a source often just to keep balance in articles, because almost every editor uses heavily pro-opposition sources. GroundlessAir (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Its a sticky subject that's maybe more appropriate for the talk page on the main article on the war, although I think it was already discussed several times in the past. One could argue that all (currently-labeled) rebels in Syria are not rebels or internal actors but external as well. Because, virtually every rebel group is trained, equipped or funded by ether the US, Turkey, Qatar, UAE or Saudi Arabia, while a large number of them at one point exited the country to train in ether Jordan or Turkey before coming back. Also, around half of them (if we look at the casualty ratios) are not even Syrians. But again, its a discussion for another time and another place. EkoGraf (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with all your points presented here except that it is appropriate for the talk page of the main article, that talk page was completely hijacked by "Volunteer Marek". Pointless to even try to present a point there different than his hardline views, therefore I do not dare to voice my opinion there for it is is absolutely futile. These groups are different from other so-called "rebel groups" in the sense that they weren't only armed, trained and funded by external actors, but also created by them. Without US that territory of Syrian Desert would be either Syrian Government or ISIL control.. though It's yet again relative of what can be considered control.. I mean it's a desert afterall, it offers us to rethink the very concept of what is control, can an entity truly enforce a rule upon regions which cannot naturally support human life, like deserts, oceans, glaciers, moons, planets etc.. yeah that's a discussion for another time and another place. GroundlessAir (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pipeline route?
Is this about shooting free the pipeline route? Maybe the gas companies operating Qatar have abandoned their plans to have a line to the Mediterranean? If this topic has no role re the current battles, that should probably be said. 2001:8003:A064:9B00:1944:EC64:14AD:9F0B (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

POV check required
I found that this page was updated immediately with inaccurate reporting Al-Masdar news (Tel Jareen is not a place in Syria, Jebel Jareen is, so was easy to find in a google search). Looking through the citations for this page it was immediately obvious that it is intended to push the storylines of the Syrian and Russian governments. The vast majority of citations are for pro-Assad propaganda sources, notably Al Masdar News. Al Masdar is run by Assad Loyalist al-Fadel, and has gone to lengths to hide its funding sources. Even if you don't believe that it is a pro-regime propaganda outlet that intentionally spreads disinformation (I do), you cannot deny that it is very pro-regime, tries to push a pro-regime version of reality, and therefore not a neutral source to base this whole article on.

7831ad (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)7831ad, 14 July 2017


 * Masdar's reliability was discussed several times in the past among editors and it was decided that, even though its pro-government, its reliable when it comes to territorial changes. Its reliability was questioned when it comes to controversial topics/claims like massacres etc. And this is the topic for which it will not be used, or used only if backed-up by verifiable sources. PS Name miss-translation in English is common, even for pro-rebel SOHR. Which also confirmed the advances of the last several days. EkoGraf (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the consensus has ever been that it's a good source for territorial claims, just that it tends to accurately report Syrian military sources and therefore is a good enough source for simple statements about that sort of thing. So I think that it is a concern that so much of this article (like others about current campaigns in Syria) is sourced to that single far from ideal source.BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone tells me what this sentence is supposed to mean, or if really Al-Masdar is a reliable source for this claim?: The rebels stated they would continue to fight government forces despite the rejection of US support for their battle. I added a "Better source" tag, but it's been reverted by MrUser200/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It means what it says; basically, the US military & the CIA told the rebels in the desert to hold still for some time, and later on advised them to retreat into Jordan (effectively disbanding them). Some groups did not like that, and attacked the gov troops anyway. This was reported by the rebels themselves: see here. There were more sources for this on pro-rebel news sites, though I cannot currently find them. Applodion (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mr.User200 for adding the NYT source. Now that's there, can't we delete the Al-Masdar reference? I think that the "despite the rejection" wording is still confusing - can we use wording more like that in the NYT article, or Applodian's lucid paraphrase on this talk page? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I add that something like 63 of the 140 footnotes in this article are to a single source, Al-Masdar. A considerable number come from the pro-government SouthFront blog. Others include blogs, Twitter, the Morning Star, SANA, RussiaInsider, the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights and other dubious sources. At most a quarter come from genuine reliable sources. It may be that the Western mainstream media has inadequately covered this part of the conflict and some weak sources are inevitable, but can't we at least try to triangulate them a little? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing.
Please refrain from disrupting edtis on the website. A non-Almasdar source was used to back the claims made by the news agreggator site, you simple reverted the edits. The "Better source" tag is no longer needed.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume this is aimed at me. In the current version of the Aftermath section, there are five citations. Four of them are to a single, non-reliable source. When I tagged it, you undid that with no explanation whatsoever. I asked for an explanation but instead you reverted me. Some relevant Wikipedia policies: (1) "A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect.  By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved." When a section or page relies largely or entirely on a single source, that's a problem, hence my use of the  tag. To remove that tag, you either need to provide additional sources or use the talk pages to provide a really good justification. (2) When the single source is less than fully reliable (see WP:RS) that's a particular problem. Al-Masdar has been discussed numerous times on the RS noticeboard; the overwhelming consensus is that it is not a reliable source, and that it is absolutely not a reliable single source for controversial claims. I think it is especially wrong to use it as a source for opposition actions, as it is reliant for its own reporting on government military sources. Uses of this single source. Rather than removing claims sourced to this single unreliable source, I have used the  tag. To remove that tag, you either need to provide a better source or a really good justification why the source is good enough.  BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)