Jump to content

Talk:East Aleppo offensive (2024–present)

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

Draft

[edit]

Should be moved to draft. Another ghost offensive which isn't a real offensive at all. Beshogur (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? According to the sources available in this page:
The offensive is real and is still ongoing. It even has limited turkish involvement.
WikiEnyojer (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Hi @Des Vallee:, I really appreciate your work of creating a map for this article. I was wondering if you could include the Dayr Hafir – Jirah Air Base – Al-Khafsah line into the file. This direction seems to be active also (e.g. capture of the Babiri pumping station). Regards I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties in infobox are a mess

[edit]

Have tried to keep the casualties section separate as one toll from the SOHR, one from Pro-SDF and one from Pro-Turkish sources. However, my edits have been reverted by a certain editor and so I have given up with maintaining the infobox's tolls. The old SOHR total now also contains numbers cited by 'Kurdistan24' (not bias at all on Pro-Turkish casualties.) Good luck to any editor who wishes to fix them, but FYI they're a complete mess. ThePaganUK (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR neutral source

[edit]

I would change this myself but the edit would be reverted so I won't bother but the SOHR casualty toll is now stated at the bottom of every article they produce on this conflict. The current numbers in the infobox are inflated because someone had used 3 non-SOHR sources (including one pro-SDF one) in the SOHR toll. As of me typing this the casualties are as follows: SDF=65 SNA=241 Civilians=31. source:https://www.syriahr.com/en/353398/ThePaganUK (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR itself is a horrible source for casualties. There have been countless times outside of this current conflict where they take casualty numbers out of their behind. Anyone with an ounce of surface knowledge of the Syrian conflict knows that they inflate numbers and even make up casualties. They should not be used as a source for casualties on either side. TedKekmeister (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i did personally call the phone number of sohr why their claims about turkish casualities are so much higher then turkish claims the turkish Army publishes the names and pictures or all turkish casualities yet sohr doesnt And if they can provide evidence for their claims the Person on the phone Said Write an email and After i did he Never answered 2003:C3:4F24:430D:8401:9843:1F49:C309 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This wikipedia page is also nearly solely reliant on SOHR. Even if many of their claims had any basis, there needs to be more different sources. Also preferably pro SNA sources so the casualties can be compared better. TedKekmeister (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for including pro-SNA sources for casualties so long as they are clearly marked as "per SNA" as is typically the case and is currently the case on this page for the SDF source. However, do you have any specific evidence from reputable sources that SOHR "makes up" casualty numbers? War is a fluid thing and I myself have heard similar complaints about the SOHR over the 10+ years I've been following the Syrian Civil War, but I have not seen anything concrete. SOHR has been used extensively on Wikipedia to cite casualty numbers for many significant battles (see Battle of Aleppo, Battle of Raqqa, etc.), and they've been profiled and used by many other reputable sources including the BBC, NYT, and their methodology was previously described on this page by the UN. Again, I'm open to seeing evidence against SOHR, and I do agree that a diversity of sources is needed, though I do think you might struggle to find many reputable ones for these kinds of small battles. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that large (western) news agencies quote them does not make it what they say accurate. For some reason every large (and western) news agency takes what the SOHR says for granted. Here are a couple examples from well known people, with on the ground sources as well, where SOHR reporting is refuted. I expect you to know all these people since you've been following the conflict for so long. But I am happy to give any further information.
https://x.com/Elizrael/status/1366102139639107586 Elizabeth Tsurkov.
https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1145332442422743041
https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1270423630334263296 see whole thread
https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1843663136588738723
https://x.com/EliotHiggins/status/988110118809231360 Even Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat.
Just a few examples of their many inaccuracies. There's also the fact that in this specific offensive the SOHR claims more SNA casualties than the SDF which is frankly absurd if you know how conflicts work. Even with the decently large amount of video footage the SDF are releasing, the battles are still relatively small. Sultan Murad division is not that big. 300 DEATHS (not even casualties) would severely cripple them.
SNHR (not the same) is way more accurate but mainly focuses on civilian casualties from the whole of Syria and not just this offensive. TedKekmeister (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those! Though it is a shame that the one from Bellingcat seems to be made private? Bellingcat is a listed reputable source on Wikipedia. I generally agree with you that western media does not typically show the whole picture when it comes to SCW reporting, but in the context of Wikipedia editing, they are considered the gold standard, so that's why I brought them up. Whether or not SOHR is reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia is frankly above my paygrade and probably merits a discussion on the RSN since it is used so extensively throughout SCW pages on Wikipedia. At this point, it would probably be best to mark casualties reported by them as "per SOHR" as was done on previous Wiki pages (see Operation Olive Branch which is the subject of one of the tweets you linked). Would you agree with any of that? Ashleyisvegan (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Eliot tweet is nothing special. Just him saying that they (Bellingcat) rarely use information from the SOHR. I've just started editing last month so I definitely do not have the power but perhaps you have power to call for a discussion on the RSN. It would be greatly appreciated. Ideally they should be classified as "Generally unreliable" as a minimum.
Like you say the SCW pages rely too much on SOHR and as I have mentioned before that even if they were mostly correct it is not good to rely on a single source for the majority of the information.
For now "per SOHR" would suffice.
Addendum: It's best if we remove TAF casualties for now. The SOHR source and Mehr (looks like pro-Iran source with a layout and text basically the same as Hawar) mentioned 1 death and 1 injury. The Turkish defense ministry always post eulogies/pictures on their social media if a soldier dies in combat. TedKekmeister (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention the Turkish casualties they reported as well. Injuries generally do not get reported by the Turkish Defence Ministry but deaths do and the SOHR claimed a death while the DM did not publish any eulogy. TedKekmeister (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Aleppo_offensive_(2024–present)&oldid=1270511934"