Talk:2013 Latakia offensive

Misinformation

Reuters writes: "A prominent Alawite cleric, Muwaffaq Ghazal, was also seized by rebels from the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, who were seeking an exchange for captured fighters, activists said."[1] That is incorrect, it is Badr el-Ghazal, so do not add it here. Watch out for similar hyperbole. Regime body counts are likely exaggerated as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And already we have self-proclaimed "activists" adding bogus numbers. Citing one article (published in a Hariri-owned Lebanese newspaper), we get 240 killed regime soldiers, even though the article itself cites different numbers from different rebels (175 from one, 240 from another). Of course, our "activist" editor chooses the very highest amount mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered user making wrong claims about other users

An unregisted user is making wrong claims without any proof. He is saying that the aricle is promoting rebel propaganda and he called the rebels as "scum". The thing is not about what he views the FSA as scums the things is that it is he who actually seems biased against the rebels. I ask how is he saying that some of the edits are promoting rebel propaganda? What proof does he have? Who does he think is editing the article in favour of the rebels or is promoting rebel propaganda? If he knows then he should say who other user is. I am an uninvolved user here but I advice the user to stop making wrong claims about other users if he doesn't have any proof because it is a personal insult according to Wikipedia policies and also stop portraying himself as an editor who is trying to Wikipedia neutral. TransVannian (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that people are using pro-opposition blogs and Facebook pages as sources for extraordinary claim. That is not proper conduct fora neutral article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 9 August know which sources were being used earlier. However you are right that blogs and Facebook posts cannot be used as sources. But that does not mean they are propagating rebel propaganda. They simply might be unaware that blogs and FB posts cannot be used as references on Wikipedia. Not everyone knows how Wikipedia works. Rather than saying that they are propagating rebel propaganda you should tell them how to properly source an article. Also about the unregistored editor. He called the oppossition "scums" in edit summary. I do not care what he called them as. The thing here is he is expressing his personal opinions which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So he is advised again to keep his opinions to himself. TransVannian (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have proof TransVannian; on SANA.sy but you prefers to search your sources on pro-rebel site without any proof or confirmation by Syrian government.I never write scum on the page so keep your false propaganda for you,everybody know that rebels are making false demand and proof.

Can you please tell me when did I use pro rebel sources as proof. Cause I clearly remember I didn't even edit the article once. Also SANA is not such a reliable source since it is the Syrian government promoting their propaganda on SANA. Also you say I'm promoting false propaganda. Can you tell me which so called "false-propaganda" I'm promoting? Frankly just because the rebels and Syrian government say they have taken over this area or they have killed such a number of pro or anti Assad fighters doesn't mean they actually have. It is known that both have made false claims many times. Also can I ask you what actually you're trying to prove. If you really think I'm promoting false propaganda then I suggest you prove it with a real proof. Or otherwise it amounts to a personal insult and you can get blocked for it. You need to stay civil with others. Also and advice please write your comments in proper English since it sometimes gets difficult to understand some words which have incorrect spelling. Last of all since you're new please always sign your comments. TransVannian (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

See, that is the problem. Preventing pro-government sources from being used, while defending the use of anti-government sources. That is not the way to go. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk you are clearly misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that only pro-government sources are biased. Yes of course many anti-Syrian government sources are biased. Pro-government or anti-government sources should not be used becuause they're not neutral. So it is preffered to use news websites which are not of Syria. TransVannian (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Rebel Source

They are demands of Syrian government on sana.sy but the editor prefers to ignore them and take information from the rebels only: I don't call that neutrality....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.10.234 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what SANA's demands are because frankly Wikipedia is never using pro rebel sources. But if you see one and think it is biased in favor of rebels you should discuss it with other user so everyone can confirm if it is really pro-rebel. And frankly I'll only tell you this once. It doesn't matter what the demands of Syrian government are. We on Wikipedia are not bound to agree to their demands. No government can determine the editing policy of Wikipedia not the Syrian government and nor the American government. Just because SANA or Syrian government thinks we are using pro rebel sources doesn't mean we really are. It is up to a consensus to determine that. SANA has been known to promote the propaganda of the Syrian government. Also it is actually you who doesn't know how Wikipedia works. Frankly saying your comments are far away from being neutral. TransVannian (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You are totally dumb, Wikipedia use pro-rebel source and still do! You are far away from being neutral and tray to reject your fault on SANA,but you are nothing but insane and a rebel's dog who make propaganda for the rebel!!!SOHR has been know to promate the propaganda of the Syrian rebels. We,on Wikipedia are not bound to agree to their demands and repeat all their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.254.25 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright that's enough. You have personally insulted the editor by calling him a dog. You need to apologize to the user immediately or I am going to report about you at ANI and you are going to be blocked. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Another thing whether a source is biased or not is only determined on basis of proof. Besides SOHR does not promote rebel propaganda or anyone's propaganda. It is just a human rights organisation. If you remove a source that is linked to SOHR without any proper reason then I will be sure to revert it even though I have very little knowledge about Syrian war and haven't touched any article related to it.KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC) {restored comments}

Alright that's enough. You make propaganda for rebels and you have the courage to denied it!!!!!!Try and I report you for at ANI for propaganda,insult and Violation of Wikipedia's rules!!!!!AND it YOU who be blocked Mr KahnJohn27 the idiot!!!!!!!And one other thing:i deleted your last paragraph because you say nothing else but a non-sense or propaganda!!!!!You need to apologize to my immediately,You rebel scum and imposter!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.26.231 (talk) 15:29, 15:19, 16 August 2013‎ (UTC)

You shall note that for Wikipedia editors reliable and neutral sources are only those which reported in 2002/2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Syrian, Iranian, Russian and Chinese media didn't report that, so for Wikipedia they are unreliable and not neutral. Neutral and reliable is only what the propaganda machine of the American empire tells the people. That's just the way Wikipedia works. Anyway Wikipedia can be valuable, and be it just to point out the fact that it were US-backed FSA and Al Qaeda anti-government forces who started this self-defeating "2013 Latakia offensive" with no other obvious goal than murdering religious minorities. --84.189.76.100 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You should notr that whatevet you might think of the other editor you cannot call him a "dog" it is a straightway insult. And besides instead of apologizing for your mistake you are needlessly getting in conflict with other editors. Also I wad the one who removed Facebook posts of SOHR from.thr article however later User:EkoGraf reinsertef them and stated that users have decided to use SOHR facebook posts ad source. Since a consensus has decided to use them I cannot remove them. Tell me do you really think everybody is promoting rebel propaganda here? Unlike what you think some people are making serioud neutral edits here. I still advise infact request you to apologise both to me and the other editor. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

EkoGraf

This user must be blocked for his propaganda for rebels and denied the Syrian army victory and the rebels lost of the five village at least two day ago and the lost of the rebels offensive today on august,the 19th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.30.222 (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ekograff navigate the Syrian war articles to change info for rebel propaganda purposes. There is a big difference between the casualties aftermath, rebel losses are calculated until a date and regime losses over 4 days after. I know its already specified but is not balanced.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Government source

EkoGraf (Personal attack removed) tell me why government's source aren't not a valiable source?? (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.30.222 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh??? You are aware that I added a Reuters source confirming your earlier unsourced assertions and added a paragraph that the military recaptured all of the military observation posts and most, except two, villages? It was also me that added sources and the paragraph about the rebel loss of those villages two days ago. I only reverted you because your edit was unsourced, that is, you didn't provide a source. It was up to me to find a reliable source to confirm your edit. Wikipedia is based on neutrality. So please, its bad enough that I have to contend with heavily pro-opposition editors like Sopher that I now have to argue with a pro-government editor. For Wikipedia to be neutral reliable sources must be provided and the wording must be neutral and not biased against ether side. Wikipedia works with facts, not claims or fiction. I have argued on occasion FOR the inclusion of government sources like SANA due to pro-opposition editors including sources like the opposition SOHR. So there would be a balance between the two. However, Wikipedia administration made the ultimate decision that SANA government reports are not reliable so they can not be used. I never said I personally regard government sources as totally unreliable, its that Wikipedia regards them as such. So I stick to Wikipedia procedure and try to the best of my abilities to keep a neutral balance in the articles. As for your comments that I am scum, insane, racist and an SOB, well...that talks more about yourself than me. EkoGraf (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to pass yourself as innocent; you're are a pro-opposition editors!Do you think that someone trust you lies?!!!Anybody who can read the history of the page will see that you are pro-rebels and trying to erase my text and pretended that there are not source!!!!You're insane if you think what you write!!!!!The truth is here : The rebels run always like French and coward!!!!!And the rebels lied on pretended that there are continuous fighting!!!!If you can understand that , I have nothing to talk you about.Dumb! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.30.222 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

French cowards? Interesting for you to say it considering your IP address suggests you yourself are from France. If you would also take the time to check my IP you would see that I myself am from Serbia, and as you should know we don't have very much love for the West, me personally considering my father was killed during the Balkan war which was organised by the West. Personally I don't care what you think. I am not for ether Assad or for the rebels. I do not condone some things the rebels do and I do not condone some things the government does. However, I do think all this would not have happened if the rebels were not stupid enough to think they could try and destabilise the country by trying to overthrow a government and political system that has been in place for 40 years. I am not for ether side, but I do think the whole war is the rebels fault and this could all have been avoided. EkoGraf (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in france now and the Balkan should know how French army are cowards??If you says that French are not coward....even pro-rebel are going to laufff until dead.....Your IP doesn't interest me, and as a good Christian, I says sorry about or father but even with that, (Personal attack removed): you says that you hate the west but you write pro-rebels source so..... (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.30.222 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say French are not cowards, what you said was just funny to me coming from a French guy like yourself. And I am not insane at all. I didn't say I hate the West, I said I don't have any love for the West, there is a big difference. I simply don't give any significance to the West. I look at the whole situation in Syria realisticaly, philosophicaly and from a neutral stand point, and not conservativaly and full of hate like you would. I try to record here on Wikipedia the events that are unfolding in Syria from a realistic point of view and try to ward of attempts by both pro-government and anti-government editors who try to impose their POVs, especially if they do not provide any concrete evidence. If you think Reuters or AFP, one of the oldest and most reliable news agencies in the world, are pro-rebel, than whatever. Peace go with you mate! Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You would not be able to fulfill all of Changes on the situation in the province of Latakia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_mapDestroyer1812 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't understand you Destroyer? EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

change the villages are marked as under the control of FSA to change the government-controlledDestroyer1812 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh that, most of them have already been turned to red (government). Only Salma and two more are marked as rebel-held. I wouldn't change the other two just yet since Reuters reported fighting was still ongoing in two more villages (maybe those two being the two). If Reuters or someone other reports by tomorrow all except Salma are back under government control I'll change it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK! can then select them as the contested.Destroyer1812 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you are pro-rebel now........exile by Serbian government or you want the Serbian in the EUROPEAN UNION???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.30.222 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you really made me laugh now hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Exile by Serbian government? What do you think? That we are living in a dictatorship here? Hahahahahaha. God, the misconception that you western guys have of us. I have lived in Serbia my whole life and will live my whole life. And me wanting Serbia in the Europian Union??? Hahahahahaha. I'm a communist marxist and an atheist man, we are anti-EU. Hahahahaha. And its my guys who are currently part of the government here as of last year after we kicked the Democrats out in the elections. So, for the last time, I'm not pro-rebel, I'm neutral. And if you are one of those guys that say If you are not with us than you are against us, than there is nothing I can say to you. Live long and prosper! XD EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Only a fool could listen to you......Long Live the Serbia !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.30.222 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for listening! :D EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that is not on! But how to change the map of the fighting in Aleppo,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Aleppo_map.svg there simply is not accurateDestroyer1812 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that I don't know. I usually just watch if anybody makes an unsourced change and revert them. But to make changes myself I don't know how. EkoGraf (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry EkoGraf. I believe you that you don't know much on this topic and I see it. What I also see from you is that you remove valuable informatin and sources. Just have a look at this edit, it's yours: Revision as of 22:31, 9 August 2013 (view source) EkoGraf (talk | contribs) (No need for this) Please exlain: why did you remove the most important part of the name of the mountain Prophet Yunus and the source link information on where it is? I suppose that you have no idea about the subject you are editing, because if you had any idea hat you do, you would know, that "Nabi" means prophet, and many mountains in the Jabal Al Akrad are named for prophets, but you removed the name of the prophet which identifies the mountain. I tried to insert the information again, but it was sabotaged again. You also broke references in this article by removing named references. I have no idea what your aim in sabotaging this article with your propaganda style edit is, but I understand why some other people suspect sinister propaganda motives or sabotage activity paid by the American empire - a participant in this conflict - behind your biased and uninformed sabotage of this article. If it's not, excuse me, and say what the motive behind your uninformed sabotage activity of this Wikipedia article is. --84.189.78.62 (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I work on the Syrian civil war EkoGraf since 2 years and I've never seen them take sides in this conflictRogal Dorm (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So how you explain EkoGrafs sabotaging of this article? I gave a typical sabotaging edit I noticed as example. Sloppy arrogance of power of a Wikipedia editor assuming to be in a turf war of uninformed propaganda? --22:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.78.62 (talk)

I removed the wikimapia source because there was already a news source in the sentence that cited the name of the mountain, so there was no need for two sources. As for the word Younus, I removed it by mistake. In regards to the broken references, that wasn't me that was some other editor, I actually reverted his edit, reestablishing the links. And for the last time, I am not a pro-opposition editor, if you would just check the edit history and talk page of the Syrian civil war map you would see that I had short edit wars with pro-opposition editor Sopher over who controlls Adre and Nawa. While I argued and provided sources that they are government-controlled he insisted they were contested. Or my edit conflict with pro-opposition editor Alhanuty who insisted that the Army Rif Dimashq offensive ended and that the rebels launched an offensive into Damascus in July based on two youtube rebel propaganda videos and an opposition news website. I barelly got it to him that Wikipedia does not take youtube videos as sources and that opposition news websites are not a reliable source. So there is no large conspiracy, no sinister motives, no sabotage activity, no uniform propaganda and I am not paid by the American empire. You can edit on Wikipedia so long as your edits are properly sourced with reliable references. Unsourced edits are momentarily reverted per Wikipedia procedure and rules. So give it a rest mate. EkoGraf (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

you can hide the defeat of the rebels!!!!!!!!you propagandist for the rebels!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.15.176 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. :P I haven't made any propaganda comments or insults at all unlike you and haven't hidden anything. I will gladly welcome the Syrian Army victory in the Latakia countryside when it happens, due to the rebels admittedly holding 400 Alawite villagers as hostages. Those people did nothing wrong and should be freed. The Army victory will most likely come in the next few days after the last two villages are captured. The Army will more than likely continue with their offensive though in an attempt to capture Salma, which would do them good in securing the northern border area with Turkey. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are rebels sources saying that the rebels still hold 2 villages more believed than governement sources saying that they retook all the villages? At this point, governement sources are more reliable for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFDGJomon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Its a matter of who Wikipedia acknowledges. And although I disagree with the exclusion of government sources which leads to some articles being unbalanced in neutrality, Wikipedia declared government sources unreliable so they are not to be used. I argued against this course of action several times but...That's how it is. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Map

I've created a map to try and better help readers understand the course of the offensive and ensuing counterattack. I've tried to keep it as accurate as possible, but naturally I'm also quite aware that there will be errors and it'll likely have to be updated as the campaign progresses. Any help in identifying current problems with the map would be appreciated, and naturally I'd invite everyone interested to help edit it to keep it as accurate and current as possible. Thanks. MrPenguin20 (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Map looks great! EkoGraf (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MrPenguin20 (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, I really like the map. I guess one particular thing that could be improved is for the names of the thirteen villages to be marked (do each of the nine green arrows represent a village?). Esn (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! I've marked and names several of the villages now, and I've also marked Nabi Younes. In doing so I realised I'd made mistakes in showing the further advance of the opposition, so I've edited that a bit, and the two villages that are still under opposition control are also now marked. MrPenguin20 (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Villages

How many villages the rebels taken in this offensive? This info of SOHR is troubling about the number of villages Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Only Salma and two other villages are still in rebel control everything else is back in government control after the army counter attack and now they have Salma and the area around it under heavy bombardment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.177.109 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Salma has been under rebel control since last year. The only initial rebel gains that are left are the two villages. And those were reported to be contested. In any case, the rebel offensive has for the large part been negated and the battle lines are back to what they were previously. There has been no fighting in Latakia for a week now. So this is a Syrian Army victory for the most part. EkoGraf (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This al-Jazeera article mentions 11 villages instead of 13, and says that they were all recaptured by the regime within the span of 48 hours. I guess it's a mistake? It also seems to say that the FSA wasn't involved in the battle (if I'm reading correctly), so should it be in the infobox? Esn (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 Latakia offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016062324/http://www.hrw.org/embargo/node/119645?signature=e2f9f3f7816e1c649b9265b332fc2ec2&suid=6 to http://www.hrw.org/embargo/node/119645?signature=e2f9f3f7816e1c649b9265b332fc2ec2&suid=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016062324/http://www.hrw.org/embargo/node/119645?signature=e2f9f3f7816e1c649b9265b332fc2ec2&suid=6 to http://www.hrw.org/embargo/node/119645?signature=e2f9f3f7816e1c649b9265b332fc2ec2&suid=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)