Talk:Battle of Raqqa (2017)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

ISIS retakes Division 17 Army Base in surprise counter-offensive north of Raqqa https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-retakes-division-17-army-base-surprise-counter-offensive-north-raqqa-city/ 105.73.27.241 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Al-Masdar News is identified in multiple sources as pro-Syrian regime or pro-Assad. The shape of this conflict means that almost all sources reporting form inside the country are biased. This suggests that claims should have two sources to counter possible bias, and there are no other sources reporting this event that don't track back to the Al-Masdar article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Al-Romaniya

It twice says Romanian suburb. The sources make it clear that it's Al-Romaniya suburb. The correct translation would be Roman suburb, but there is no reason to translate the name at all. 80.132.70.87 (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Human rights violations etc

This article needs a section to address civilian casualties and human rights violations. Washington post wrote that the US is using white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas. DerElektriker (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Update

The map changes almost daily, mostly in favour of the Syrian opposition. Today, it shows an entirely surrounded Raqqa for the first time. However, the main text stops at June 20th. Could someone please update the article, so that it keeps up with the changing map? Steinbach (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Raqqa (2017). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170606023908/https://www.afp.com/fr/infos/335/syrie-21-civils-fuyant-raqa-tues-dans-une-frappe-de-la-coalition to https://www.afp.com/fr/infos/335/syrie-21-civils-fuyant-raqa-tues-dans-une-frappe-de-la-coalition

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) 05:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

ISI proclaimed ceasefire and left Raqqa. 83.131.176.165 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done -- unsourced. MPS1992 (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing in one sentence is misleading, needs to be fixed

"The battle ran concurrently with the Battle of Mosul, although it started 6 months earlier" implies that the Battle of Raqqa started six months earlier. What this needs to say is: "The battle ran concurrently with the Battle of Mosul, which started 6 months earlier" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.105.151.66 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, that was my mistake. I have now fixed it. Thank you for pointing this out. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Maps

A user deleted the lower, larger scaled map of Raqqa, and I suspect it was because the map is now a bit out of date. But so is the first map. I'd like to see both maps updated, but can't do it myself. In the meantime, I've reverted the change so that both maps are again visible. Pinkville (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

SDF Casualties

YPG Statement on Raqqa states that 655 SDF were killed during the battle - I think its worth adding that to the infobox. https://www.ypgrojava.org/SDF-statement-on-the-Raqqa-victory-and-the-future-of-the-city ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.48.119 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Official spokesperson of this military operation

Since the name of the former SDF general spokesperson Talal Silo has been added to this article, I consider it important to add name of Jihan Sheikh Ahmed, the official spokeswoman of this particular military operation. Please reply and explain if someone disagrees. http://sdf-press.com/en/2017/10/jihan-sheikh-ahmed-official-announcement-later/
Dalany Mokus (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dalany, thank you for the suggestion and the source. However, the article is not intended to list all official spokespeople of one side or the other. Instead, we would only mention Ahmed if she were a significant commander or leader in this particular battle (which she might be?); or if she were independently notable according to WP:GNG (which she might be?); or if a reliable source, preferably an independent one, were to mention her making an announcement of significance in or about the course of the battle (which they might have done?). MPS1992 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should leave Jihan Sheikh Ahmed out of the infobox and remove Talal Silo, as both do not appear to have commanded any troops during this battle. I believe that Silo was originally added because he served as commander of a small militia during his tenure as spokesperson, but this militia was also not mentioned during the battle. The "commanders" section is for actual commanders, and both Ahmed as well as Silo don't fit that category. Applodion (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Has someone else another opinion? Applodion (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2018 (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:

• IRPGF in Raqqa city 2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2018 (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:

• SDF troops with portrait of Abdullah Öcalan in Raqqa.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SDF celebration in Raqqa 2017.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

On casualties

2601:85:c101:c9d0:e4a6:4b0b:cad6:25a9 There is no basis to this, it's not any any seen on any articles to show civilian deaths separate from airstrikes. Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016), and Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive does not mention deaths from airstrikes and large portion of the deaths resulted from airstrikes. Neither does any other article in the Syrian Civil War. So therefore attempting to split civilian casualties into those from airstrikes and those not is simply misguided because no conflict's article is this detail. Nor should it as civilian casualties stated should not be separated from simple civilian deaths. If we were to do this, most articles which details conflict should also be done the same no? Fundamentally however on articles there is usually no need to distinguish on civilian deaths.

Also how can you not create an account, roaming IP editors are highly encouraged to create an account. You stated it was for personal reasons, which means you can you just do not want to, you clearly have some knowledge of Wikipedia. Des Vallee (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I second Des Vallee's position. Applodion (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)