Talk:2012 Hama offensive

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force

[Untitled][edit]

Can editors help me in writing this article Alhanuty (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to write a strategic analysis? Amedjay (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes definitely,write one Alhanuty (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll try to do that. Amedjay (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I wrote a little article and added some stuff. I'll keep upgrading this. Hope it helps Amedjay (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who reverted the strategic analysis? Amedjay (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook not reliable source[edit]

All citations to Facebook should be removed or replaced. It's not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exepted if the facebook account is SOHR's one . SOHR is considered as a reliable source. Amedjay (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Primary sources and WP:NPOV. SOHR is a primary source, meaning it's close to the events and actively involved. It could be used when quoted by a news source or another type of secondary source, and even then the information must be attributed to SOHR. For example if the BBC uses SOHR's numbers, we could write in the article "According to the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), blank civilians were killed during an attack by government forces" and then use the BBC as a reference. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial point is factually incorrect. Facebook isn't the "source", it's the publisher—SOHR is the source. Common practice for Syrian civil war articles (cf. Battle of Aleppo) is to use SOHR and SANA (both primary sources) for breaking news and casualties with clear textual attribution, but remove them later when reliable news outlets cover them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lothar and Amedjay. Due to a major lack of independent reporters on the ground we use whenever we can both SOHR (opposition) and SANA (government) accounts of events. The Facebook page is the official page of SOHR where they post their otherwise Arabic info in English. And when independent sources ARE able to report on the news than we replace SOHR and SANA sources with them. EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still counter to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It also doesn't help our credibility when readers see Facebook filling the references section. If we can't find secondary sources that back or at least quote SOHR or SANA than we should hold off adding that information until we do. The EA World View source that this article is already using appears to have documented the claims of SOHR and the LCCs quite well. We should use it to replace all instances of Facebook. Of course we must strictly attriubute claims to SOHR and SANA as well. Other than that all that's needed is further research. There are plenty of news sources out there that have documented this recent rebel offensive. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR, not SANA is not RS. The practice violates Wiki guidelines when presented as factual source without bias. Morever this lead to new phenomenon, which pushes the border of mind-blowingness even further and that is quotation of blogs (like breakingnews.sy) and turned half of the pages into one. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with beakingnews.sy ? --Asagimmick (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a blog, damnit. More sophisticated, but never the less a blog, not newspaper. Not even mentioning its extreme bias. It remind me of mathaba which some "users" wanted to use during Libyan civil war. Knowledge of RS has gone into this conflict into the bin. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a pro-government unreliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree blogs should be out of the question. I also don't consider SOHR or SANA as RS but we could mention their claims with attribution when using a secondary (read: news or book) source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the state of things: Generally speaking, sources published by Facebook aren't reliable—a special case exception has been made for SOHR, as its claims are so frequently picked up by mainstream media. In the past, I've advocated against the direct use of both SANA and SOHR, as both are definitively not RS. However, I've come to see some use in using them as temporary counters for battle progress and casualties—provided that they are later replaced. The compromise position is to balance claims from one with claims from another to achieve a rather rough approximation of NPOV, always properly attributing the sources in the text (e.g., "SOHR reported 10 civilians killed in X district", "SANA reported clashes in Z locale") and removing POV buzzwords like "regime" or "terrorist". This is the practice at e.g. Battle of Aleppo—more recent sections contain a lot of tidbits from partisan sources like SOHR/LCC and SANA/al-Watan, but these are filtered out as time goes on and sections are summarised with the benefit of retrospection. Since Hama is even further from the reaches of up-to-date news media than places like Aleppo, I think these sources are important. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that syrian army took back Morek city.Video posted by activist show free syrian army controlling the city but under siege from syrian army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.229.106 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the offensive[edit]

According to the FSA commander in the region of Hama, rebel forces were repelled and the offensive seems to be a failure, it is of course too early to conclude that the offensive is over but always after the commander rebel forces are only present in Tibat al-Imn. Do you have other information the above ? Maurcich (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for this? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar your source citing fighting at checkpoints of just one town does not strike me as a province-wide rebel offensive. So I am asking again...are there reports of widespread rebel attempts of advancement as part of their offensive per which the article is called for? Also, not to mention that the town in question, Tibat al-Imn, is under siege by government forces and not rebel ones. If a source shows up that confirms that indeed the rebels are still making attempts at advancement than I myself will reopen the article, but for now there are no reports of rebels going on the attack throughout Hama, as was the stated goal of the offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk; it makes no sense to separate the counterattacks from the main offensive itself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk page. If the Army was making attempts at recapturing those towns I would totally agree with you and leave the article open. But, hey are not actually making attempts at recapturing them. It's their standard tactics all over again. Surrounding a town and bombing it without making attempts to recapture it. They can go on like that for months. At this point nether the rebels or the Army are making attempts at ground advancement. The rebel's offensive stalled when they failed to take those three alawite towns and are now surrounded in the towns that they did capture. And the Army's counterattack stalled after they recaptured those alawite villages. If there are ground advancements by ether side in the next few days than I myself will reopen the article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the edit history gets fixed.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the description saying "Inconclusive" for the result of the offensive. FSA now hold more territory than they did at the start of the offensive, and further to that, the battle of Aleppo began swaying to the FSA favor just a few weeks after this offensive was over. I may be making a leap of common sense, but it does seems too coincidental that this would happen shortly after the FSA units in Hama took several towns straddling the M5 highway? 197.107.255.206 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation[edit]

Sylfan army took Karaz-a-Karak and Khaz-Modan. So dwarvish rebels lost last territories they had gained from offensive under Karak Vorn.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130207/damascus-clashes-rage-troops-take-central-town-ngo-1

It can be written as Sylfan army victory now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.220.36.13 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]