[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:2014 Latakia offensive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mihrac Ural source

[edit]

He is hardly dead in Aleppo, as the (biased Turkish) source says, and hardly dead at all, this image was posted by the group an hour ago:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi! a opposition member (rebel fighter) admitted that hundreds of their own have been killed on friday 21th march alone, on that day 50 government forces died. could you add that in the casualty figures as opposition claimed? thank you.

And a rebel who identified himself only as Samer said the pounding was ferocious, but that there are "thousands of fighters ready to strike back against the army."

The officer said thousands of rebels had participated in a Friday assault on Kasab, in fighting that had killed 50 soldiers and left hundreds of rebels dead.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-26/251394-syria-forces-in-heavy-counterattack-on-rebels-in-latakia.ashx (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

also, observatory 45 has been retaken by the syrian government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.30.85 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is now also direct jordanian military support: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/airbridge-transporting-jihadis-jordan-turkey please add them to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.30.85 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabain and observatory

[edit]

State tv claims are not reliable, additionally Syrian army is bombing both. Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't read the sources properly. The claims are not state tv claims. Its reported by the Al-Monitor, which is considered a reliable news source, unless you think it has become part of the Assad propaganda machine, which you would need to provide proof for. As for the bombing, again you don't read the sources properly, it says they are bombing AROUND the Observatory, no the hill itself. Stick to what the sources say and don't make things up every time that you don't like what the source says and call it a state tv claim. Sorry for being so blunt about this but you forced my hand. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now THIS is a proper source [2]. So please be more careful in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting down of Syrian fighter plane

[edit]

The article says it was brought down by anti-aircraft fire but the source says Erdogan announced that "Our F-16s took off and hit this plane". So, which was it? Anti-aircraft fire implies ground-based weapons. But it being brought down during air-to-air combat would be a very different matter regarding strategy, timeframe, and chains of command. You don't just launch plane on spec and have it fly around on the off chance an enemy might appear - it implies these Turkish planes were already in the air, waiting to support and defend rebel groups from Syrian airforce attacks. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and changed the wording to say F16 'planes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does opposition causality claim has to placed over government claim?

Shouldn't each party respectively lead in its own causality claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.230.122 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-offensive

[edit]

Should we continue this battle in the same page? Or it is better to create a new one? I say this because it is quite probable the syrian army is gonna retake all the territory, then we will consider as result a "syrian army victory". But if we consider the events until 15 april it is a rebel victory... Just a question on which I have no answer :-/ Guidoriccio11 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good question, and since you posted the intensity of the battle just changed a bit. The last info just in the timelien just mention this "As of 18 May, the offensive was considered to had petered out". The state of the battle is mentioned as "Indecisive – offensive halted" whihc is quiet correct. To answer your question it's would be the best to keep everything on one page, just like in the Qalamun battle's article was. The battles has many phase in syria, and between them there is a short of time while they not fighting so heavily, but still there were fights. As far as I know during the last one month the SAA worked on to gain control over all (or almost all) of the hills around Kasab. The lates news mention that they are close to their goals and only two places need to being captured before the real attack on the town could start. So the next phase could start within a few days or weeks, but sure it's will start in this summer. And I think that short after Kasab fall, the whole area will be cleaned up with the same methods as it's happened in Qalamun earlier. We will see soon.--Mlacix (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Losses

[edit]

Will someone stop the vandals from removing sourced information about the victims? Why should we censor they civilian casualties? --Orinaki (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs like "The 2014 Latakia offensive marked the third time in the past century the Armenians of Kessab had been forced from their homes by Turkish aggression, the former events being the Adana massacres and the Armenian Genocide, in both of which thousands from the town were massacred." are quite blatantly not written from a NPOV. Since all of the sources you are using about the losses are Armenian, here are a couple more that refute what you insist on reposting repeatedly.
"No Casualties in Kessab, Though Fate of 40 People is Unknown: Kessab Armenian
During the fighting in Kessab, there were no casualties among the Armenian population but the calculations after inhabitants fled to Latakia showed that 30–40 people were left in Kessab and their fate is unknown, said Kessab Armenian Serj Kalukian at a press conference in Yerevan, stressing that the videos shared online in recent days are not true.
Note, the day after rebels attacked the Armenian-populated town in northwestern Syria, Asbarez.com reported that there were 80 deaths.
Kalukian found it difficult explain the reason for the abundance of misinformation in the press but assured that it not only worries, but also harms the Kessab population. "
http://www.epress.am/en/2014/04/01/no-casualties-in-kessab-though-fate-of-40-people-is-unknown-kessab-armenian.html
"Tevan Poghosyan: “No casualties reported in Kessab on the Armenian side”
On March 27-28, a group of Armenian National Assembly MPs paid a visit to Syria upon their private initiative to meet Armenians who found refuge in Latakia and who had earlier been dislocated from their permanent place of residence in Kessab. National Assembly MP Tevan Poghosyan who recently returned from Syria told Mediamax about the details of his visit, the current state of Kessab Armenians as well as their expectations.
- Mr. Poghosyan, together with your partners you recently returned from your fact-finding mission in Syria. Could you please present what record you made on the spot?
....
Men stayed in Kessab to protect their houses. Kessab Armenians said the attacks were initiated from the Turkish territory. Turkey provided the armed groups not only territory but also weapons, which the oppositionists did not have in their possession before, according to Armenians. Syrian border bases were blown up by the Turkish party and afterward, an attack was mounted from various directions.
Some of the Armenians fought against the armed groups attempting to organize self-defense. Fortunately, no casualties were reported on the Armenian side. Armenian men fought all night and the following morning Syrian troops came to the aid and attempted to resist the armed groups.
Virtually, the Syrian troops forced Armenians to move to Latakia promising to do their best to reclaim Kessab. Kessab Armenians claim they will return and repair their homes at any rate. "
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/9719/
Given the Armenian press reports denying the casualties, including quotes from Armenian MPs and first hand witnesses, continuing to repost discredited reports from fringe non-neutral sources is vandalism. Please desist unless you are able to provide WP:RS about these alleged incidents. Gazkthul (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Propaganda conflict" section should be deleted as propaganda

[edit]

The inclusion/exclusion of material in that section is completely pov. Any of the content that has actual credibility can be inserted elsewhere in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Talking about propaganda, its clear the SOHR web page its a propaganda tools from some rebels factions, However its post reliable infoermation regarding some aspects of the War. I have info about a possible takeover of Salma by SAA.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate reaction exactly. The section reeks of bias. The Armenian Genocide was not an "exodus". The idiot who wrote that shouldn't be allowed to contribute in controversial articles like this.
This article used to be pretty up-to-date with citing all the atrocities being committed, and now it seems the terrorist supporters have removed them. --Steverci (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on 2014 Latakia offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we keep articles netural?

[edit]

I do understand Armenianan and Armenian-biased users to add the Armenian events to every single article but this is biasing the article towards the Armenian interpretation! What makes Wikipedia different than Armenian Encyclopedia? 37.210.159.37 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is alot of Pro-Assad Propaganda in the Article.Alhanuty (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 Latakia offensive. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

This offensive did not result in front line changing. The "reference" which is used for the result "Decisive Syrian Army victory" is an opinion piece. It states: Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Government forces flushed opposition fighters from their last redoubts in northwestern Syria near the Turkish frontier on Sunday, capturing two villages and restoring government control over the border crossing, activists and state media said." Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC) @EkoGraf and Mr.User200:[reply]

Victory in a battle is not only equated to territory gained. The rebels attacked and were repelled by the Syrian military, leaving their offensive a failure and the army victorious. As for the reference, the original article is the Associated Press, which is considered a highly reliable source by Wikipedia. And the sentence quoted is a statement of fact which cites both pro- and anti-rebel sources. Its not a reflection of the author's opinion about a subject (opinion piece). Thus I concur with @Mr.User200:. EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Latakia_offensive&oldid=1196665742"