Talk:2013 Latakia offensive

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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}Reply

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)