This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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.
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
Reference named "bbc1":
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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.
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
Reference named "bbc1":
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)