This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PokesNpolsci.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There were some recent unexplained reversions which have made the article non neutral. In order to make a neutral article its important to think how you would create the same article for the opposing combatant. Take a look at the 4th Armoured Division (Syria) article or the Republican Guard (Syria) to get an idea how this has been done previously. When editing this article think if you would include the same information and how you would include such information in a Syrian division article. It's also great practice at making a neutral article by working on one of these Syrian division articles or even better working on a non-Syrian army division such as the 5th Infantry Division (United States). The unexplained reverts have been reversed. Please before reverting in the future give an explanation for why you are reverting here on the talk page. Guest2625 ( talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Topics concerning an article should be done on the talk page of the article, so that other editors who read the article can contribute and readers can follow content disputes. Please copy and paste whatever conversion that is relevant to this article from Sopher99's talk page, so that we can all collaborate here on the talk page. Guest2625 ( talk) 19:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No, we will not model this page as you say.
First of all, stop removing infos you simply don't like. Informations like, who's their ally, are realy relevant, and It's not you to judge what is necessary, and what is not. You are not the only editor of this article and moreover, you are violating WP:OWN. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This is what we are supposed to use.
Al-Tawhid Brigade |
---|
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No Sopher, no... They aren't a military unit, they are rebels. Do you understand the difference between a rebel and a soldier? The Syrian civil war is about that. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sopher, are you joking? FSA are rebels not a military... -- Wüstenfuchs 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted Ideology is there. Okay, we keep that. But allies and enemies we don't Sopher99 ( talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is a bit confusing, but I agree that the ideology and allies element should not be in the summary box. First there is no need for an ally element in the infobox since the brigade is a unit of the FSA and with the Syrian army unit articles ally information is not given. Similarly there is no need for the ideology element in the infobox since as before the Syrian army unit articles do not have such information. Also, another reason not to include a one word description for the brigade's ideology is because one word does not explain the ideology well. For non-clear information it is better for the reader to read about the material in the article as has been done. Guest2625 ( talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
1 - The Free Syrian Army is an insurgency
2 - Tahweed is a main component of the Aleppo military council.
3 - The defected soldiers were never recorded as defected by the Syrian army as there are too many of them to do so. So technically they are members of the Syrian army, as there was no termination of payment or recorded discharge.
4 - Just like for the Libyan rebels, we do not put ideology or allies, in fact for no brigade of any rebel group we do so. Sopher99 ( talk) 14:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
North Korea's "Democratic" means ruled by people, in this case communism which is suppose to "insure the common man rules". It doesn't matter how disorganized. The FARC in columbia is disorganized. The Taliban is disorganized. Their regiments and divisions however we do not put ideologies or allies and such. I don't know why you are so heavily pursuing this. Sopher99 ( talk) 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a compromise in mind. Either you remove the ideology or your remove the allies and the opponents.
If they are so disorganized how can they not have every brigade in Aleppo as their allies? If they were organized we don't have to put every brigade as their ally, however we certainly couldn't include their ideology then, because they would just be subset of the FSA.
So I will allow you to keep one. Remove the ideology and keep the allies, or rf you want to keep the ideology I will have to add every single primary brigade in Aleppo (18)as their ally (or just remove the allies and opponents section). Sopher99 ( talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/01/syria-liberation-army-describes-latest-from-aleppo/ Sopher99 ( talk) 15:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Independent analysis by the International Crisis Group which is staffed by Middle East experts states clearly on page 27 of
the report that:
Apparently, the group is considered non-ideological by experts in the field, and therefore the ideological information is false in the summary box. Secondly, there are two editors to one who oppose including the ideology information in the summary box. Of course information on ideology does belong in the section of the article on that topic. Guest2625 ( talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PokesNpolsci.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There were some recent unexplained reversions which have made the article non neutral. In order to make a neutral article its important to think how you would create the same article for the opposing combatant. Take a look at the 4th Armoured Division (Syria) article or the Republican Guard (Syria) to get an idea how this has been done previously. When editing this article think if you would include the same information and how you would include such information in a Syrian division article. It's also great practice at making a neutral article by working on one of these Syrian division articles or even better working on a non-Syrian army division such as the 5th Infantry Division (United States). The unexplained reverts have been reversed. Please before reverting in the future give an explanation for why you are reverting here on the talk page. Guest2625 ( talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Topics concerning an article should be done on the talk page of the article, so that other editors who read the article can contribute and readers can follow content disputes. Please copy and paste whatever conversion that is relevant to this article from Sopher99's talk page, so that we can all collaborate here on the talk page. Guest2625 ( talk) 19:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No, we will not model this page as you say.
First of all, stop removing infos you simply don't like. Informations like, who's their ally, are realy relevant, and It's not you to judge what is necessary, and what is not. You are not the only editor of this article and moreover, you are violating WP:OWN. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This is what we are supposed to use.
Al-Tawhid Brigade |
---|
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No Sopher, no... They aren't a military unit, they are rebels. Do you understand the difference between a rebel and a soldier? The Syrian civil war is about that. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sopher, are you joking? FSA are rebels not a military... -- Wüstenfuchs 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted Ideology is there. Okay, we keep that. But allies and enemies we don't Sopher99 ( talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is a bit confusing, but I agree that the ideology and allies element should not be in the summary box. First there is no need for an ally element in the infobox since the brigade is a unit of the FSA and with the Syrian army unit articles ally information is not given. Similarly there is no need for the ideology element in the infobox since as before the Syrian army unit articles do not have such information. Also, another reason not to include a one word description for the brigade's ideology is because one word does not explain the ideology well. For non-clear information it is better for the reader to read about the material in the article as has been done. Guest2625 ( talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
1 - The Free Syrian Army is an insurgency
2 - Tahweed is a main component of the Aleppo military council.
3 - The defected soldiers were never recorded as defected by the Syrian army as there are too many of them to do so. So technically they are members of the Syrian army, as there was no termination of payment or recorded discharge.
4 - Just like for the Libyan rebels, we do not put ideology or allies, in fact for no brigade of any rebel group we do so. Sopher99 ( talk) 14:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
North Korea's "Democratic" means ruled by people, in this case communism which is suppose to "insure the common man rules". It doesn't matter how disorganized. The FARC in columbia is disorganized. The Taliban is disorganized. Their regiments and divisions however we do not put ideologies or allies and such. I don't know why you are so heavily pursuing this. Sopher99 ( talk) 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a compromise in mind. Either you remove the ideology or your remove the allies and the opponents.
If they are so disorganized how can they not have every brigade in Aleppo as their allies? If they were organized we don't have to put every brigade as their ally, however we certainly couldn't include their ideology then, because they would just be subset of the FSA.
So I will allow you to keep one. Remove the ideology and keep the allies, or rf you want to keep the ideology I will have to add every single primary brigade in Aleppo (18)as their ally (or just remove the allies and opponents section). Sopher99 ( talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/01/syria-liberation-army-describes-latest-from-aleppo/ Sopher99 ( talk) 15:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Independent analysis by the International Crisis Group which is staffed by Middle East experts states clearly on page 27 of
the report that:
Apparently, the group is considered non-ideological by experts in the field, and therefore the ideological information is false in the summary box. Secondly, there are two editors to one who oppose including the ideology information in the summary box. Of course information on ideology does belong in the section of the article on that topic. Guest2625 ( talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)