Talk:Hama offensive (March–April 2017)

Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Hama offensive (March–April 2017), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Editor Obadakhamis[edit]

With instructions and permission from administrator El C, I reverted the article back to the last good version before editor Obadakhamis's 1RR violation (no more than 1 revert in less than 24 hours). Obadakhamis, we have pro-gov and pro-reb sources confirming the Army recapture of Kawkab. So that's fact at this point. Also, pro-reb SOHR (which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's community) confirmed the rebel loss of Shayzar, so that's also something considered to be true. SOHR is considered mostly independent from the rebels, even though its pro-opposition, and considered a much more reliable and authoritative source than rebel propaganda outlets such as Orient News. As for Masdar news, its considered semi-reliable by Wikipedia's community, unlike SANA which is considered to be on the same level as Orient News (an unreliable government propaganda outlet). As for Qomhana, Khitab and the one other village, since it was only reported by Masdar (semi-reliable), we use language such as (per WP:CLAIM): stated, said, reportedly, according to, etc. We do not use: claim, alleged, etc. Also, twitter is not accepted as a reliable source. So please keep all this in mind in regard to your future edits. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al masdar is 100% pro government, just as orient is for the rebels. Also, non of these "reliable" sources provided any visual proof, minus qomhana, which was confirmed lost by rebel sources. I provided many sources which refuted the recapture of these villages, which is why i left in both arguments. Anyway please keep your personal biases out of factual-based websites. Obadakhamis (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal bias on my part here. Masdar was discussed among Wikipedia's editors and it was declared, despite its pro-government stance, to be semi-reliable in its reporting and that it can be used as a source as long as language such as according to, reportedly, etc is used (which I did). If what Masdar is reporting is also confirmed by SOHR then it is considered to be true and there is no need for such language. EkoGraf (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt use that language for the unproven claims of khattab and the "other two villages" in the info box. Obadakhamis (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm the claim that the rebels were encircled in qomhana was only verified by al masdar. Its written here as a fact. Did you just say al masdar is "semi-reliable"? Obadakhamis (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE The Syrian Government recapture of Kawkab[edit]

Whats up with this? Many pro-government sources and the SOHR claimed that the syrian army recaptured it. However, no visual proof was given and almost all opposition sources claim its still with rebel hands. Personally, i think because theres no visual proof of any recapture, minus qomhana, the regime recaptures are all false. Obadakhamis (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual proof is not burden that has to be met on Wikipedia for confirmation of evidence. On Wikipedia, verifiability depends on citations from reliable sources, like SOHR. Maybe (maybe) we can qualify that some opposition sources still maintain that rebels control it, but also noting that this has not been confirmed by an outside source. El_C 03:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying that the lack of visual proof makes regime sources weak and unreliable. And for gods sake i didnt say either is right, I just presented both claims. Obadakhamis (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have both a pro-gov and pro-rebel source confirming the recapture. Masdar is considered semi-reliable, while SOHR is considered a reliable authoritative source. This is enough to confirm the recapture of Kawkab as fact and not a claim. Saying a lack of visual proof makes other's claims weak and unreliable is considered point-of-view original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No original research. EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who considers sources as reliable, mind you? We have kawkab confirmed by both sides as you said. Why didnt you write a "claimed" before the supposed recapture of Khattab and the other two villages. Again your biases are being forced here. Obadakhamis (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obadakhamis We use data from reliable local sources Al Masdar and SOHR. If you are against these sources is it your personal problem but you can not undo the data from these sources simply if you do not like them. If you will continue to do damage the article then you will be blocked for vandalism! Mehmedsons (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully before commenting without knowledge Mehmedsons . I didnt delete any claim by either source, I only added an opposite claim from other sources. The recapture of Al kawkab is confirmed as EkoGraf said, but the other villages (minus qomhana and shayzar) are only claimed by Al masdar, which EkoGraf said is "semi-reliable", so there should be a "reportedly" written before any claim of the unconfirmed recapture of these villages. Thanks. Obadakhamis (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there was reportedly or Pro-government al-Masdar News reported in the text, while for Kawkab you continuously reinserted it was a claim by pro-government sources even though we were also citing SOHR. As for Masdar's reliability, I already told you the Wikipedia community had a discussion on its reliability and consensus was reached it was reliable enough so it could be used as a source. That's how Wikipedia works, through consensus. Mehmedsons is right in regard that we do not make edits based on our personal opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for finally fixing it. Do you see now why I dont trust Al masdar? user:EkoGraf Obadakhamis (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The "current" map does not show Halfaya under SAA control. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.47.231 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1, update already someone! GroundlessAir (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hama offensive (March–April 2017)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hama offensive (March–April 2017)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "major":

From Khan Shaykhun chemical attack: "4th joint report between SCD & Idleb health directorate in regards to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. 89 killed (33kids & 18wmn), 541 injured". @syriancivildef. 7 April 2017.
From Palmyra offensive (December 2016): "Major Sanchirov from Kalmykia were killed in Syria during the defense of Palmyra from the militants". Last news from Russia. 20 December 2016. Archived from the original on 3 August 2017. Retrieved 21 December 2016.
From Battle of Ramadi (2015–16): Ahmed Rasheed and Maher Chmaytelli (December 28, 2015). "Iraqi army declares first major victory over Islamic State in Ramadi". Reuters. Retrieved January 9, 2016.

Reference named "bbc1":

From Afrin offensive (January–March 2018): "Turkish ground troops enter Syria enclave". BBC. 21 January 2018.
From January 2012 al-Midan bombing: "Syria unrest: Damascus blast and clashes kill many". BBC News. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
From Botroseya Church bombing: "Blast near Cairo Coptic cathedral kills at least 22". BBC. 11 December 2016. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
From Khan Shaykhun chemical attack: "Syria conflict: 'Chemical attack' in Idlib kills dozens". BBC. 4 April 2017.
From Northern Raqqa offensive (May 2016): "Syria conflict: Kurds launch campaign north of IS-held Raqqa". BBC. 25 May 2016.
From Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq names new head". BBC News. 12 June 2006. Retrieved 27 February 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]