Talk:2016 Hama offensive

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2016 Hama offensive, 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!

Orphaned references in Hama offensive (2016)[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 (2016)'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 "islamicfront":

From 2014 Hama offensive: "Charles Lister: 14-08-2014". Retrieved 25 October 2014.
From Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War: "The Politics of the Islamic Front, Part 1: Structure and Support". Carnegie Endowment. 14 January 2014.

Reference named "tiger":

From 2014 Hama offensive: Leith Fadel. "Tiger Forces Arrive in Hama to Combat Jabhat Al-Nusra". Al-Masdar News. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
From Al-Ghab offensive (July–August 2015): Leith Fadel. "Tiger Forces Arrive at Ariha; Jaysh Al-Fatah Tries to Enter Al-Mastouma". Al-Masdar News. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
From Northern Aleppo offensive (February 2016): yaman2020. "استشهاد القائد العسكري لقطاع حلب في حركة فجر الشام ومسؤولين في الحركة بغارات جوية على مدينة حلب". المرصد السوري لحقوق الإنسان (in Arabic). Retrieved 10 February 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

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 ⚡ 22:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You guys missed an earlier offensive in Hama and did not crate the article[edit]

Turkistan Islamic Party and Jund al-Aqsa did an earlier offensive in Hama in 2016 before this one. No article was created.

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-releases-video-on-capturing-khirbat-al-naqus.html

https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/722083640495046656 https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/722084212040335361 https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/722088703183691776

https://twitter.com/VegetaMoustache/status/722172511111278593

https://twitter.com/umarthebritish/status/761248121557020672

https://twitter.com/umarthebritish/status/761248249047121921

https://twitter.com/umarthebritish/status/761248434066259968

https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/760334608231723008

https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/760321931719667712

https://twitter.com/mazenaloush/status/722093991244787712 https://twitter.com/mazenaloush/status/722067389920190464 https://twitter.com/mazenaloush/status/722066131301896192 https://twitter.com/mazenaloush/status/722061791971450880

http://jihadology.net/2016/08/01/new-issue-of-the-magazine-al-risalah-3/

06:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It was mentioned under the aftermath-subsequent offensives section of the northwestern Syria offensive (October–November 2015). Editor abcdef (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make articles for every non-notable attack. Per Wikipedia's policy, only notable offensives. Also, twitter posts are generally not accepted as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Besides, like Editor abcdef said, we mentioned it in the aftermath section of that other article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in these articles[edit]

I noticed that the vast majority of sources are reports by Al-Masdar News. Given their known bias towards the Assad regime, and against the opposition, does anyone else feel that relying on them so often as a source gives an unbalanced account of the situation? This applies not only to this article, but many others. It seems that if the army had killed the amount of rebels that Al-Masdar claims, and taken the territory that's also claimed, that this war would be long over by now.

I read reports on a daily basis on Twitter and the SOHR pages detailing rebel attacks and gains that are never mentioned here, because they're not official news outlets and thus not considered credible for Wikipedia. Yet these unreliable sources are the only tool that the opposition has, as any news agencies sympathetic to the opposition have been banned from Syria by the regime.

If Al-Masdar and pro-government news outlets are the only official news agencies permitted in Syria, and the only ones that can be quoted on Wikipedia regarding developments on the ground, does this promote a fair and balanced article? Tetsumonchi (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar News is considered more or less reliable, which is one reason why it is used so often. The main reason why pro-rebel outlets are used less, is, however, that they mostly report per twitter and facebook - per wikipedia's guidelines, we cannot reference twitter and facebook for copyright issues. That makes it problematic to use them for articles. On the other side, SOHR uses its english website mostly for civilian casualities reports and not to tell about the course of war, which is why SOHR is mostly quoted for losses and not for day-to-day battle reports. Lastly, many pro-rebel news websites are considered not very reliable. In the end, we have to abide to wikipedia's guidelines, and these make al-Masdar one of our prime references. Applodion (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Tetsumonchi - Al-Masdar News is biased, unreliable (often reporting events that can be verified to have never happened) personal blog, pretending to be "news site". I just deleted "good example" from this article - Al-Masdar claim of regime retaking 5 villages a few days ago - event itself simply didnt happen (rebels even posted 2 videos from places that were supposedly retaken by regime forces). Even other pro-regime sources called out Leith (owner of Al-Masdar News blog) for posting such fantasy news. Rebell44 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before crashing the article by deleting everything, please provide reliable sources that deprove al-Masdar in these cases. And, as mentioned before, Youtube, Twitter and Facebook cannot be used. Applodion (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Applodion. Masdar News has been found by Wikipedia editors mostly reliable and has been accepted as a verifiable source after several discussions. While, as Applodion has said, Youtube, Twitter and Facebook are generally not accepted as reliable/verifiable sources. So, if there are reliable sources disproving Masdar please provide them, otherwise, please do not remove sourced information and its sources based on your personal opinions about the source. This wouldn't be in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on POV edits. EkoGraf (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is, that while there are tons of evidence that al-Masdar is grossly incorrect at best, that evidence is on twitter, youtube etc. - not accepting those sources at least as a base for removal blatantly false information makes a joke of Wikipedia aim to provide accurate information. Someones shitty blog shouldnt be considered more trustworthy than photo/video evidence.

If Wikipedia decides to change its policy, I will happily post here links to evidence on twitter, youtube etc. that will easily disprove many al Masdar articles currently used as a source in this article. If Wikipedia prefers to pretend that sources like twitter are any less relevant than personal blogs, even when it results in absurd distortion of facts in Wiki articles, dont be suprised if reputation of site sufferes the same way quality of content suffers, in this absurd situation.

btw.: even map included in this article doesnt agree with "results" part and shows that regime didnt retake any territory that they lost in this battle, let alone 6 villages. Rebell44 (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results tab makes no sense[edit]

reference for 4 retaken villages is out of date - frontline has moved a lot past villages that were claimed as retaken (not even counting fact that original claim of retaking them was likely BS, with no supporting evidence), so IMO they should be removed since all (pro-regime and well as pro-rebel) sources shows those places as rebel held territory. Rebell44 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abina al-Sham[edit]

Abina al Sham is not a subunit of Jund al-Aqsa, it's an independent group. 31.223.139.167 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]