Talk:Siege of Wadi Deif (2012–2013)

Merging Siege of Wadi Deif with Battle of Maarat al-Nu'man

This is almost the exact same battle fought as Maarat al-Nu'man, it takes place their and it seems like the editor who created the article just took more than half of the information from the Battle of Maarat al-Nu'man and made it into this.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 16 April

The creation of this article was discussed with half a dozen other editors before it was made. A consensus was reached that the battle of Maarat al-Nu'man had been over ever since the town fell into rebel control. All editors agreed to create a new separate article for the siege and move the information about the base from the Maarat al-Nu'man article to this one. EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know either way works for me but it just seems like it would be more 'understandable' to merge it back with the main article. Its like the Rif Damshaq and Hama offensives where fighting takes place in villages and towns but its just part of the article. For example if Idlib or a smaller city was the center of fighting than it should just merge with '2013 Idlib offensive'. LOL, i dont have time to read what editors write about merging it with some article.User:EthanKP 27 APril

The point is that other article is called the Battle of Maarat al-Nu'man. Since the town fell there has not been a battle for the town, only the siege of the base, which is separate from the town battle. In any case, a consensus was reached among editors to separate the articles. That's simply how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your probably right but don't you think the sieged military base in city would still count as part of the ongoing city battle?? I don't think the "Wadi Deif military base is not so far from the actual city of Maarat Al'Numan. Plus theirs government presence in the city, you probably hear reports from aljazeera which is an extremely byist network for the terrorists and mercenaries of the FSA, they take rebels claims of taking the entire city and killing 400 soldiers but we both know after the Battle of al-Raqqah, government forces quickly took back the city. Im trying to say that you should look into more reliable sources like SANA. That's simply how Wikipedia works.EthanKP 16:23, 26 April (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia, after a lengthy discussion between editors, has declared that SANA is an unreliable source and can not be used. The only exemption to the rule has been the Battle of Aleppo article (at my, and a few others, personal insistence). The base is separate from Maarat Al'Numan (its outside it around 10 km) and no independent reports have confirmed a military presence in the town. Also, no other reports have confirmed the military retaking Raqqah. Wikipedia considers Aljazeera a reliable source. Personally I agree with you that SANA should be used as a counter-balance to opposition sources and that on occasion Aljazeera reporters have been biased in their reporting. However, Wikipedia has set its rules and we can only stick to them if we want to edit. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SANA reported that Syrian military presence has already been established in Raqqah after air-strikes killed hundreds of rebel terrorists. You can translate the website from google translate so you can see for yourself. I would think the government would be more fair about the casualty tolls and results of battles because well its the government not the Western backed FSA terrorists mercenaries who lie about everything. Like really they claim to have killed what 500 Syrian soldiers and lost only 25 in their ranks. SANA doesen't work with terrorists officials claims of that but actually the military which i would think is more reliable source. Even SOHR admitted that their terrorists friends overexaggerate about their gains on the battlefield and how many terrorists they lost. Keeping this battle as seperate than Maart al-Nu'man is fine with me. Also your edit on the Battle of Aguelhok of 160 soldiers killed is an estimate number but the exact number is 153 killed according to [source].<Im probably wrong cause theirs 100s of diffrent death tolls but you can bring it up on the tallk page. EthanKP 26 April

SANA may be saying that but per Wikipedia we cann't use it as a source. If that news site really does say 153 than you need to provide the exact source as a reference in the article, not just replacing 160 with 153 and leaving the 160 source. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Siege of Wadi Deif. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]