![]() | 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:
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.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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":
Reference named "tiger":
{{
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)
Turkistan Islamic Party and Jund al-Aqsa did an earlier offensive in Hama in 2016 before this one. No article was created.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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:
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.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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":
Reference named "tiger":
{{
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)
Turkistan Islamic Party and Jund al-Aqsa did an earlier offensive in Hama in 2016 before this one. No article was created.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)