Talk:Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive

Merger Proposal
This article is mainly already covered in the article , the way I see it, it is pretty much just a less detailed version of that article. - (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:I agree the article is less detailed but disagree that it should be merged as it covers the offensive in areas outside of Northwestern Syria such as Quneitra and the recapture of Tal Ahmar. The Russian offensive began on the 6 not 7 October and is primarily what I intended the article to cover. Especially the results of the air strikes, which Russia is claiming have been much more effective than the American-led intervention in Syria, taking out most of IS/Al Qaeda weaponry, etc., all around the country. The intervention deserves an article, the air supported ground offensive needs an article and various campaigns within the joint offensive article need splitting off and setting up like has been. In my opinion anyhow. Guru Noel (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::I also have NPOV concerns about the "Northwestern" article. It says the offensive was launched by the Syrian Government for instance when the command centre for joint operations is in Iraq. It seems to overstate that the offensive is only going on in the Northwest. Guru Noel (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:::It appears to me the artciles had better be merged, perhaps under the heading "Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive", as we talk of the essentially same operation, at least for the time being.Axxxion (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree with SantiLak. Some relevant info (if there is any) from this article should be merged into , and under that title (Northwestern...etc), while the rest should be deleted. The article name itself is contradictory. Its called an offensive but says it consists of multiple offensives. Also, the article claims there is a government Quneitra offensive that recaptured Tal Ahmar, but we already have an article on the ongoing operation in Quneitra and it is in fact a rebel-initiated offensive, not government-initiated. And it also has no reported Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah involvement. So at least this part can be considered OR when including here. What would be better perhaps is to merge the ground operations mentioned in this article, that are backed-up by Russian airstrikes, into the Russian intervention article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::::: So should we keep this as a merger discussion or do you think that we should open an AFD, i'm not sure if it's too premature. - (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I'm fine ether way. However way you turn it, this article is redundant and unnecessary since we already have the Northwestern Syria offensive and Quneitra offensive articles which are much more comprehensive. Any information on the newly-started Homs offensive should be delegated to a new article on the Homs offensive. Lumping them all together into one article (one offensive) is OR since they are all separate offensives (one of them not even being a government one - Quneitra). EkoGraf (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
*The way the article is being structured by Guru Noel suggests it is intended to have a much broader scope than the other one (ones). This may well be valid: just hard to tell definitively at this stage of the developments. If what was begun on 7 October is to become a long and wide campaign, this article in the current structure will have looked reasonable. The heading is arguably a bit too lengthy and also unspecific as to the time and place, which should be rectified later.Axxxion (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
::If there were sources describing it as one operational campaign than I would agree. However, so far, they have all been separate offensives that are at certain points happening hundreds of miles apart. So for now, the article should be merged into the other one, or deleted. If sources show up describing it as one unified campaign we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, trying to predict this being one campaign would not be in line with WP: NOTCRYSTALBALL. EkoGraf (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:::The common thread through them is the Russian air support, at the very least.Axxxion (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
*What about the offensive starting today south of Aleppo, with the goal to open the highway between Aleppo and Hama? There are many offensives now (Quneitra, northern Hama, Homs, South of Aleppo) and only two are covered with an article, if I understand correctly? How should it be organised to do all events justice? Samuel.Garoni (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Assad Government?
I much prefer Syrian Arab Republic as there is no formal opposition government yet, it seems a bit one sided to call it a personally owned government than a Republic. Guru Noel (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:I changed it to Syrian Government, its a reasonable compromise, but let's not kid ourselves and act like the Assad's don't completely control the government. - (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::Cool. I'll try not to change anything to the Rothschild, Murdoch, Saud Family, spin monger alliance then, deal? Guru Noel (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:::There's a difference between conspiracy theories about governments and when a family actually controls the entire government and has for decades and decades, lets not turn this into a . - (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete this inaccurate, under-sourced, anti-Russia article
Verbose title, and -- see policy -- no one calls it that. In the very first paragraph there is this: "the capture of three villages from the Army of Conquest coalition by Syrian government and Russian forces." No Russian ground troops are fighting Syria, so it is impossible for "Russian forces" to capture three villages.Haberstr (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:Air forces. Guru Noel (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::Agree with deletion on the bases it has many inaccuracies, lacking sources on some issues and we already have articles on the subjects lumped together here in bit of OR manner. See talk above on the merger and what I already said. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:::What a strange article about a bunch of stuff with a strange title. No one calls whatever this is trying to describe this title. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussion: https://en. .org/wiki/ :Articles_for_deletion/Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah_offensive
There MAY be room for an article on the new Syrian Assad Govt, Iran, Russia, Iraq alliance itself. but that is not how this is named or structured. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu