Talk:Siege of Homs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Merge

This does not warrant an article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funkmonk and Yotna, you are both kindly asked to seize edit-warring or shall be reported if violating 3RR. In addition, Funkmonk's redirect is illegal, as it can only be applied in cases without any opposition, according to WP:SNOWBALL - but this is not the case!. If FunkMonk wishes to merge the article, there should be a merge proposal, in accordance with WP:PM with a proper discussion held on the talk page.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway - there are plenty of sources for this article, thus there is little chance to find consensus for merging it with

2011 Syrian uprising
. Here are several WP:RS sources for "Siege of Homs":

Aljazeera 19 July 2011, "Syrian troops and armed groups described by one resident as "death squads" have laid siege to the city of Homs since Monday night, sources said." [1]
Gulfnews & TodaysZaman 06 September 2011, "Syrian city of Homs under siege as UN urges action" [2][3]
YNETNEWS 08 May 2011, "Syrian city of Homs under siege" [4]
Economist 27 May 2011, "Homs: Correspondent's diary - A city under siege" [5]
HurrietDaily 06 September 2011, "Homs ‘under siege’" [6]

I believe this is more than enough.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this notable enough to be separate as its own article? Just because "there are sources" doesn't mean it is. You could basically have an article for every individual operation in Syria or anywhere, but they're better treated in the main article, or one about all the battles, each are not significant enough in their own. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but you cannot make a redirect by yourself if there is a single opposition opinion. If you like you can make an official merge proposal, and if there is a majority - we shall merge it (i however personally oppose the merge of Siege of Homs, which is notable enough in my opinion).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose a merger. EkoGraf (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to new title Mike Cline (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 10:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

    • The popular name is not siege of Homs. Nobody is using it, get real. No name has been given to the situation. Siege of Homs is just totally misleading and completely wrong military speaking. People can come in Homs and leave, the opposition does not hold any fortified place where the security can't go. It is not a siege.--
      talk) 22:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Oppose - it would confuse people into thinking Homs is separate from the overall uprising. Second it is a siege, just that the tightness of security varies from day to day. Sopher99 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even though Homs Uprising would be more fitting, it would separate it from the overall uprising. Also, I have been watching Syria every day, and it seems the FSA now controls Homs, and are attacking suburbs like, Rastan, Houla, and Talkalakh. In this case I think it should be named Battle of Homs, or Homs Clashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob102699 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Wikipedia lead for the Siege article:

"A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault. The term derives from sedere, Latin for "to sit".[1] Generally speaking, siege warfare is a form of constant, low intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is not uncommon, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy.

A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that cannot be easily taken by a coup de main and refuses to surrender. Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies (a tactic known as "investment"[2]), typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as sapping), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defences. Failing a military outcome, sieges can often be decided by starvation, thirst or disease, which can afflict either the attacker or defender.

Sieges probably predate the development of cities as large population centres. Ancient cities in the Middle East show archaeological evidence of having had fortified city walls. During the Warring States era of ancient China, there is both textual and archaeological evidence of prolonged sieges and siege machinery used against the defenders of city walls. Siege machinery was also a tradition of the ancient Greco-Roman world. During the Renaissance and the Early Modern period, siege warfare dominated the conduct of war in Europe. Leonardo da Vinci gained as much of his renown from the design of fortifications as from his artwork.

Medieval campaigns were generally designed around a succession of sieges. In the Napoleonic era, increasing use of ever more powerful cannon reduced the value of fortifications. In the 20th century, the significance of the classical siege declined. With the advent of mobile warfare, a single fortified stronghold is no longer as decisive as it once was. While traditional sieges do still occur, they are not as common as they once were due to changes in modes of battle, principally the ease by which huge volumes of destructive power can be directed onto a static target. Modern sieges are more commonly the result of smaller hostage, militant, or extreme resisting-arrest situations such as the Waco Siege."

It proofs without any doubt that the Siege of Homs (and other so called siege of the uprising) does not exist.

1) People can come and go out of Homs. This is not a siege. Supplies go in, people go in and out. If Misrata was not described as a siege, Homs surely is not.

2) The opposion forces does not hold any fortified area. They are doing guerrila operations and can't hold any ground or quarters against security forces. A Siege would be oppositions forces holding larges areas of Homs and security force encircling them while being unable to be in Homs. This is not the case.

3) I proposed Homs uprising by defaults, because it is much more true than "Siege". But I am open for any proposition that would remove the word Siege of the name. Even battle is more adapted than Siege, which is just an absolute error.--

talk) 15:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, the event is named on Wikipedia by the name that it is popularly known and called in the media and among ordinary people. And at this point its known and called as the Siege of Homs. No matter if it may be a wrong definition, its the popular title. EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You are wrong. Wikipedia is definitely NOT about giving fake names to events. It is absolutely misleading and not at all encyclopedic.--

talk) 16:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

That's your personal opinion of this debate. Wikipedia takes into account only what this event is popularly called, and again, its popularly called in the international media, among ordinary people, and even world diplomats, a siege. Also, you need sources to back-up your claim of an uprising, which you haven't provided, while I provided four different sources calling it a siege and I can provide more. Wikipedia has one basic rule, and that is that its based on verifiability. So I think this mutes the whole conversation. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split

I propose to split "Siege of Homs" into 3 articles, to emphasize 3 accordingly different events, which took place in Homs: The

July 2011 Homs operation and the ongoing 2011 FSA-Syrian Army clashes in Homs.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oppose Nope, it´s part of one campaign conducted by Syrian army which evolved by time. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But your request won't be accepted unfortunately. This page has been taken over by pro syrian opposition activists like Goltak who is turkish, Ellsworth who is pro rebels like he was with Libya, Ekograf who calls a siege a situation where everybody can move in and out the city and the likes of Guest or Sopher who are borderline opposition members.
This page is a travesty that deeply hurt Wikipedia credibility. Calling it a siege is just a scandal.--
talk) 08:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You was banned once and learned nothing as it seems. Before going any further read
WP:COMMONNAME EllsworthSK (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I won't adopt your propaganda, no matter how much you cry like a baby to the admins. At worst I will come back because at the end, I am right and you are wrong.--
talk) 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
And this settles any further dispute anyone could have about your bais. You are right, everyone else is wrong. Congratulations, its such a pleasure to have you on board. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't apologize or have regrets to be right. This is not a siege, this is simply a fact. I won't say the sky is red if he is blue, no matter how much you want to see a red sky. --
talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
And althought both me and EkoGraf already warned you about the wikipedia rules (in this case, once again,
WP:COMMONNAME) you still refuse to accept them. And than you´re wondering why admin banned you. Marvelous. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

NPOV tag

So after calling a siege a situation that does not ressemble the slightest to a siege we have 500 oppositions fighters who controls 2/3 of Homs against 4 000 loyalists (on a single district according to infobox) who have 200 tanks?

All of this is completely unrelaible, contradictory and poorly sourced. NPOV badly needed.--

talk) 16:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The siege describes the event from May - to January. The FSA only got control of half of homs starting in January. I Suggest a separate page be made titled Battle of Homs referring to the events of January. I7laseral (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the above discussion on splitting the article - it seems to me your proposal is not exactly the same but highly resembles.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is preaty much still the same event, everyone is still refering to it as the Siege of Homs. Many military sieges in the past had phases where one part of the city would be under the control of the attacking side (who are besiegeing), while the other part would be under control of those who are surrounded. No need to create a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The number of fighters is way out dated, it is from last year when opposition forces controlled only one district. It's hard to find an exact number of soldiers from either side, but, instead of critizing Chronicle why don't you try to find a reliable source for numbers on both sides. Although thaat maay be harder for FSA because some of their forces in Homs are also made up from residents, who took up arms. Goltak (talk) 8:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been proposed that this article is viewed in "In the news" section of the main page, for the yesterday massacre that ended up with 260 deaths and 500 injuries. But, to do this, it will be required to finish this discussion and remove the neutrality template from the top of the article, and this have to be done fast so the event can be viewed on the main page in the permanent time --aad_Dira (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Instead of using this article, use the article which refers to the specific attack and fighting,
this article.. Goltak (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
In the same vein as NOT splitting of this article the bombardment/shelling page recently created should be merged back into this as POV-fork.Lihaas (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the article where you want to add NPOV tag. If you´d do that you would see that EVERYTHING in infobox is sourced. That you don´t like it is not mine or any other editor problem. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

http://twitpic.com/8dy77p/full

heres a map showing the current situation in Homs. Sopher99 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatelly we can´t source it and therefore it´s
WP:OR EllsworthSK (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I've got a map I made showing current situation based on numerous sources. http://g.co/maps/vqfqr Jacob102699 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the FSA really control that much of Homs still? I'd love to see sources for them still controlling any part of the city of Homs...I haven't been able to find any clear confirmation even of that. Does anyone have sources for this?

talk) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

1st off, they don't actually control Inshaat anymore, but may control more of southwest Homs, and not the main City Center road and square. I think if the army is bombarding a neighborhood, it is likely under control of the FSA. You don't see the army bombarding Baba Amr anymore. Of course, we don't have much sources for this, and may never. It is a lose control, unlike Baba Amr, meaning the army can simply come in, and probably take back control. I'll update the map. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This map give the false impression that rebels control Homs while it appears that they have largely been defeated. FSA still maintains a presence in the city and in some quarters where security forces are not, but it sounds more like an aftermath. The main rebel forces in the city has been defeated. --Brucerman (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should put "FSA Presence" on it. If security forces are not there, do they control the city? From the map and material on this page it is evident Kalidiya and Bayada are under FSA control still. Karam el-Zeitoun was overun yesterday. All of this is still iffy. Perhaps there should be a discussion over what the FSA still controls in Homs. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major reorganization and rewriting

I think that this page is in needs of a major overhaul in order to improve its quality. To me the following steps are required:

  • 1)Discussing a new name
  • 2)Updating the Lede and the infobox
  • 3)Expanding the background
  • 4)Reorganizing the later categories (informative titles better than montly titles)
  • 5)Searching for typos and grammar
  • 6)Regrouping daily news into coherent paragraphs.

I suggest for the moment to keep all information and after all these steps are done we could discuss dividing into sub-pages or removing less relevant or reliable content. --Brucerman (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSA

Does anybody have any ideas or sources on what if at all the FSA still controls on Homs? This would make a lot of things clear up. At the beginning of the Bombardment it was reported the FSA had control of Khalidiya and Bayada and there has been no reports of government forces taking control there. This CNN video shows the last sniper location in Bayada neighborhood being gutted by the FSA.[1] Also, this article reports Bab Dreib being taken over by the FSA before the bombardment, and there have been no reports of the government taking back control of this area. It would be helpful to know if anybody has any info about this. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSA probably retain a loose control of the northern quarters of Bayada and Khalidiya, but only because there are not be any army assault yet. When the army do decide to move in, it will probably last less than one day like in Bab Amr, which had the biggest concentration concentration of rebels fighters of the whole country. That's what I think that now we are just in an aftermath in Homs. --Brucerman (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Amr lasted three weeks under brutal shelling, with very little water and food supplies, and ultimately the FSA personally retreated from there because they ran out of ammo. The FSA controls Ghouta, Al Qusor , Wadi al arab, Bab Dried, Bab Tadmor, Bab Shbaa, Bayada, Khalida, Karm el Zhoutan, hey Ashoura, Hamidiya and Zahra neighborhoods. I7laseral (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bab Amr only had 250 FSA, compared to Idlib, which has 1000 in the city center. The civilians living in their homes are the rebels. I7laseral (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If You pay attention to LCC reports, the army moved in to Karam el-Zeitoun, Ashoura, and Rifaat in the last few days so the FSA doesn't control that anymore. My map which has link section above shows that. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving into hey ashoura and karam el zeitoun does not imply loss of control. Replies struggles for control. Sopher99 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the military freely killing everything that moves in el Zeitoun since yesterday, without any retaliation from the FSA, implies they have full control of that district. :P There hasn't been any intense bombing since they retook Baba Amr so I think the FSA is preaty much defeated in Homs, the only two districts left under their loose control are Khaldiyeh and Bayadah. And I7, Baba Amr didn't hold out for three weeks, the military never made a real push to retake the district during that time, they only made recon raids into it while the bombing was constant. The real push came on the 28th and they captured it in 24 hours. It's standard military strategy. The Soviet Union bombed Berlin with artillery for 20 days before they entered the city itself. EkoGraf (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSA controls Ghouta, Al Qusor , Wadi al arab, Bab Dried, Bab Tadmor, Bab Shbaa, Bayada, Khalida, Al-Waer, Hey Ashorua, Shammas, and Hamidiya. The Syrian army has tried entering Baba Amr since December. The Syrian army can only win by cutting off food and water supplies and then an intense artillery shelling. The FSA army doesn't even have anywhere near the ammo the Libyan rebels had. Of course they are going to lose control of cities. But one should keep in mind the Syrian government had control of all cities except Homs for the entirety of 2011. The civilians are the rebels. All these districts from Idlib to Daraa were taken by revolting civilians before the FSA had claimed "control" over them. I7laseral (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly revolting civilians, most if not all sources cite the FSA being the one who took control. Also, I haven't seen any sources that confirm them having control of all of those districts you mentioned at the moment, except the two we talked before. And again, in the various news articles since December I only saw mention of probing attacks against Baba Amr, not full-scale attacks. And what's wrong with cutting off food and water supplies? Like I said, that's standard military siege practice since the middle-ages, nothing strange about it. If I recall properly, the US military cut-off all basic supplies (with constant air-strikes) to Fallujah for six months before they made the big push to recapture the city, which took them another month to clear. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen sources about those areas because those area have yet to be invaded by the Syrian army. You probably didn't know Inshaat or Jobar was under FSA control until the Syrian army marched in. I didn't say that the blockage of food and water was unusual. The point I was trying to make is that no one excepts the FSA to win against the Syrian army in those conditions, and that the FSA is not a formidable force as you think. The Syrian army's advance is neither impressive nor surprising. The fact that they now have to artillery shell and block food supplies when they were doing just fine storming towns and cities two months ago just shows a rapidly degrading Syrian army, but one still very much alive to fight. Also civilians with guns and knives ambushing security forces are now the primary belligerent. There houses are their military bases. I7laseral (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the FSA controls Khalidiyeh and Bayada. Al Jazeera even said yesterday that FSA controls Khaidiyeh. I put that with source in infobox untill Brucerman (ChronicalUsual) deleted it with his POV pushing. I will put that in now. Otherwise, maps from Syrian Uprising Information Center Facebook maps, and LCC reports saying areas are being shelled have led me to believe, FSA does control more ares in Homs including Bab Dreib, Al Qussur, Hamidieya, Jeb al Jandalli, etc. I have no sources to prove this, so it can not be technically proved. I don't know if this or anything about what is controlled in Homs can ever be totally proved. I like to think that where ever the Syrian Army hasn't entered since Bombardment, is out of their control. It would be interesting to know if you have anymore sources, or methods of finding out what is out of government control. Jacob102699 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the use of shelling as proof the Syrian military is degrading, on the contrary, I see it as normal military procedure during war-time. Why would they waste their ground forces in close-quarters combat with an enemy that knows the terrain better than them when they can simply pound them into defeat? It's simply correct military logic. The Russians made the mistake of going into Grozni before they completely prepared the way with artillery and suffered terrible losses due to it. The same goes for Gaddafi's forces in Misrata, they tried first to go in directly and were defeated, they only than decided to use artillery but it was too late NATO had already arrived to shield the city. Not to mention a recent article by the Washington post citing US intelligence sources that the Syrian military is still at full strength despite 12 months of unrest, with only around 10-15 percent of the 200,000-300,000 troops deserting, and that Assad is preaty much still in control of the whole country except Idlib province, parts of Homs province and some parts of Daraa province. The sources also noted the recent advances by the military in which they recaptured large parts of Homs in the last few weeks and not to mention they recaptured almost the whole Damascuss countryside back in late January. Didn't the FSA commander said at one point the military would break apart by the end of February? :P It took 8 months to overthrow Gaddafi who had just 20,000-40,000 troops under his command, who were far less equipped than the Syrian army, and it was with substantial help from NATO air-strikes and Qatar arms supplies. Also, Gaddafi had the support of just around 30 percent of the population. Compare that to Assad who has 10 times more troops, much more modern equipment, population support still estimated at around 50 percent and no NATO air-strikes or foreign arms supplies to the rebels. I think it's safe to say this conflict will last for at least another two years if not longer. EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cohesion of the syrian army has remained surprinsingly good and this is quite evident that the claims of the army being near collapse or suffering mass defections to the opposition are not believable. Bashar al-Assad and his governement used what they called the "security card" using heavily security forces until the rebels grew stronger. They then scaled down the fighting when the Arab League came in Syria. But after the dishonest use of the report by the Arab league, Assad decided to stop listening to them and launched what they call now the military option. Since the end of January, the Syrian Army has pushed the rebels out of Damascus suburbs, out of the wider Rif Damashq governorate, including their former stronghold Zabadani, out of their main stronghold in Homs and several other quarters, out of quarters of Hama and out of Idlib where they were supposed to be very strong but could not last more than 3 days against the offensive of the army. It is obvious that military speaking, the Syrian Army has the upper hand and if it continues at this path, the rebels will soon hold very little territory. Without a full foreign invasion, Iraqi style, I doubt that they can win. --Igorfrom (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the shelling some people thought that Bab Amr was shelled so much as a punitive action, as in comparison, the army moved quickly into Jobar and Inshaat and someone above wrote that 1 000 rebels were in Idlib, but the battle lasted only a few days, with little shelling before the full assault. Or else Bab Amr topogaphy made it a little fortress. --Igorfrom (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/14/se.02.html

unsourced edits

While i realize this is a contentious topic and delicate hands are required, unsourced edits are mere speculation and should not be added to this page without proof. I have reverted a number of these, and think we should request protection for this page as a hot button issue... --RichardMills65 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing?

Is the Siege of Homs really ongoing since the completion of the 2012 offensive on April 14? Any sources relating to "Siege of Homs" in late April and May?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

per this question - and related to the above section about deleting the unsourced edits that spoke of recent intense bombardment - i heard about this on the radio - so i dont think its over - i have to look for sources for what the ip added that richardmills65 deleted - fair enough it was unsourced, - but i think it was accurate info. Sayerslle (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate or not unsourced info has no place in an article per Wikipedia guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting is still going on. Army is still present, people are still dying. I don´t see why it wouldn´t go on. Take for example this article. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting is still going on and is even picking up lately. Point Blank. Look at the article. This discussion has no point. Jacob102699 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing have ended at all in 14th April. The last big change in FSA-regime forces border was in late April, when the regime forces gained control of Beyyada neighborhood (north east). Since 19 march, the regime started an offensive with a very heavy shelling on the old city (center) and Khalidyyah and its surrounding (north), FSA lost large parts of north eastern Homs in april, but the main fight in central and northern Homs is still ongoing without any big border changes since late march. However, the fight intensity have decreased so much since the arrival of the UN observers, and it was only before two days when the heavy regime shellig renewed on the old city and northern homs --aad_Dira (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This live stream http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream4&hpt=hp_t2#/video/cvplive/cvpstream4 proves it is still going on. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Sayerslle, please stop vandalizing this page. And, you were edit warring. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Sayerslle, if you have a problem with a certain aspect of the article, seek consensus before edit warring and borderline insulting other editors. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on use of regime, 12 june, another day, another typical example [11] - from UN saying the Assad regime - the reports words - are using children as human shields . I dont think i was vandalising the page jacob. Sayerslle (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are wrong. The journalist who wrote the guardian article, Haroon Siddique, was the one who called them the Assad regime. The actual UN report, which is cited in the source you provided, says and I quote In almost all recorded cases, children were among the victims of military operations by government forces, including the Syrian armed forces,... etc. EkoGraf (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well this is petty - i expressed myself poorly - I meant by 'the reports words', the newspaper articles words. bashar inherited the state - whats in a name. Sayerslle (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is from the penguin 'history of the middle east' - (Penguin are well respected publishers ekograf) p. 477 3rd edition - " In July 2009, [bashar] dismissed his brother-in-law and reputed Assad family strongman,
Asef Shawkat, a head of military intelligencee, thus ridding the regime of the key suspect in the international investigation into former Lebanese prime minister Hariri's assassination . " thats exactly how its written, the words i mean, not the highlighting to point out to you. Still you and taal have better grasp no doubt of the vocab wp must use. It must. it has to use-words- what- ekograf- and-taal-say -it-can. Sayerslle (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
First, please, remain civil and talk in good faith to other editors. Second, per Wiki guidelines consensus must be reached to make the change you are requesting. At the moment consensus does not exist, or at the very least more editors are of the opinion that is in contrast to yours, so the article remains preserved in its old form the way it has been for the last year...with the word regime not being used. And we do not engage in edit wars (reverting dozens of times other peoples edits), which can get you banned, especially since you already violated the 3RR rule. If you want an opinion of a third party on the matter post a notice to an administrator for an arbitor to come into the discussion. That is the proper Wiki procedure. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
right. as for 'keep up the good work' -after the threats - i regard you as a thoroughly nasty piece of work and invite you to keep your 'encouragement' to yourself - keep yer mind on your own contributions. something like that. thanks. Cheers! Sayerslle (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Threats? o.O Didn't know telling you proper Wiki procedure to be threats. And on that note, calling me a nasty piece of work is in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia is a team effort, not one individuals work. Anyway, seems we are done. Bye! EkoGraf (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SANA guy?

Can somebody, editor, someone, please stop the guy(s) editing this article and other articles time and time again with SANA news? "Syrian Army killed 12 rebels here", "destroyed 5 rebels there", "captured 30 terrorist there" blablabla. We all know this is governement propaganda, and it's spoiling the entire military article database of the Syrian Civil War. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im a sorry but this is the exact contrary. The database has been completely spoiled by the exclusive use of OPPOSITION sources for death tolls like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights or the LCC who are hiding rebels deaths. When the SOHR admits that they count as rebels only military defectors and when they count as civilians people who are fighting the syrian army, you know it is completely biasing the database.

How many times do we have 5 rebels deaths for 50 soldiers deaths do tue the extensive use of opposition sources? To have a balanced view you have to report SANA reports, who are not less reliable than the oppositions sources. There is a huge quantity of rebels being killed in this civil war, but oppositions sources are hiding it under civilians.--DanielUmel (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know how much is government propaganda and how much is the truth. For Wikipedia to maintain a neutral standpoint we need to present both sides points of view. We have used dozens of sources exclusivly coming from the opposition. Some of them may have been simple propaganda but we used them anyway. In that context we also use SANA sources. Wikipedia's neutrality must be preserved. In reply to your statement DanielUmel about the reports of 5 rebels dying for 50 soldiers. I think that's because at the moment most of the figures are coming out of SOHR and the director of SOHR has himself stated, he hasn't kept it a secret, that SOHR is counting only defectors as rebel fighters while rebels who were formerly civilians are being counted in the civilian deaths coloumn. So the rebel death toll is most likely a lot higher than reported. EkoGraf (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. CNN, BBC and so on are neutral channels (as much as somebody can be neutral in a civil war like this), and most information comes from them. SANA is calling the entire opposition "terrorists", while every sane thinking guy/girl knows this is surely not the case. I will continue adapting this articles to a more neutral point of view, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All your deletion of sourced content will then be reversed. The newspapers are often quoting oppositions sources and sometines they are quoting SANA too. But in order to preserve the neutrality of the pages, SANA reports will continue to be integrated fully in Wikipedia, with terrorists being softened up in rebels. You like it or not, but it will continue this way. By the way SANA reports looks more reliable. When they announce the capture of an area, it is usually true. And you are brainwashed if you think that there are not dozens of rebels killed every day.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'with terrorists being softened up in rebels' what does that mean? the civilians killed in Douma today , are they terrorists? 92.13.62.169 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will use the word rebel instead of terrorist when using SANA reports. Another of you vandalism has been reverted. A lot of armed rebels were killed in Douma and, that, no opposition source is mentionning it. So SANA reports are very valuable for that side of the information that opposition never report.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why will you change the language of the very valuable SANA reports. They must think about the words they choose - can you just choose new words you choose and present them as the words of SANA. Sounds dodgy. 92.13.62.169 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not coming from the BBC, CNN and others. They are only relaying what the opposition says most of the time. Just like they relay what the Syrian government says too from time to time. And they always note that the info was not independently verified by them because independent reporters are not allowed in Syria. As for the SANA wording, it is in line with Wikipedia procedure that we change the term terrorist to rebel for the sake of neutrality so we don't use inflamatory language. If you continue deleting info coming from SANA but keep the info coming from the opposition that can be seen as POV-pushing which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So please, if you can't stay neutral please don't edit. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's totaly crazy. If we must believe SANA, the Syrian Army killes some 50-100 "terrorist" every week, and is still losing control over large parts of Syrian terrority. Including Homs: the opoosition controls some 40% of the city. If the casualties on opposition side are realy that high, and the Syrian Army has heavier weapons, why then would they lose this war? The answer is: SANA is just as one-sided as the opposition sources are, with the only difference that the opposition sources are largely backed up by independent media confirming reports of towns under FSA control.

So that would mean that suddenly, in a years time, there are tens of thousands of terrorists in Syria. That would mean that the army killes hundreds of rebels a month, and still loses major towns and cities to them. Conclussion: this is just governement propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.144 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not up to us to decide what is right or what is wrong. That is not what Wikipedia is about. The way you talk can be considered Original research which is not allowed. Second, like we told you before, the independent media do not confirm the opposition reports, they relay the opposition reports just like they relay the Syrian governments reports. They always note that nothing was confirmed due to them not having a presence in the country. Third, if we are going to talk about the numbers game, how crazy is it than for the opposition to report for each day that on a daily bases 100 civilians, 50 soldiers and 1-2 rebels die? A kill ratio of 50 well armed and highly trained soldiers against 1-2 poorly armed and trained rebels? The most notable of all opposition groups, SOHR, which has recently been the main group to report on the death tolls, has said on several occasions that they count rebels that were not military defectors as civilians. Back in April an FSA brigade commander stated that just his unit lost 2,000 fighters since August of last year. Source here [12]. I think that answers your question. And one more thing, your comment about tens of thousands of rebels poping up in Syria in just a year being unbelieving? Check the main article on the conflict. Several sources have been provided, some from opposition commanders themselves, stating figures from 10,000 to 40,000 to 70,000 rebel fighters. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love the "it would mean that 50-100 rebels die every week".... Yes of course, and even a lot more. Recenctly, there have been around 150-200 soldiers killed every week for the past month. The Syrian Army has more soldiers, had way better weapons than the rebellion and no rebels would die?

The opposition supporters believe that only civilians are killed by the army. When you hear thet "heavy fighting" take place between the army and that XX soldiers died with 30 civilians and no rebels, what do you think?

That rebels are supermen who never die? The rebels don't report their dead. There have been thousands of rebels killed. There are more than 200 rebels killed everyweek by the Syrian Army. This is an intense guerilla and counter insurgency.

The majority, or at least a large part of the "civilians" killed are in fact rebels. I hate when people who know nothing start these kind of discussions.--DanielUmel (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the estimates that have been reached in the main article on the conflict more than 4,000 government troops have been killed in contrast to around 3,700 confirmed rebels, with the possibility of more rebels to have died. Note, all figures are based on opposition reports. That would mean that around 50 percent of the overall 16,000 dead are civilians while the rest are combatants. EkoGraf (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Nobody deny that civilians are being hurt and killed by this conflict, but it's false when we hear 15 000 civilians were killed since.... when in fact the majority of the killed are fighters from both sides in battles or skirmishes.--DanielUmel (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of civilians are being killed daily. When SOHR reports it, some of them may be rebels 'cause of the fact that SOHR only counts military defectors. However, we do have reports confirmed by independent sources that do show that the army do bombard opposition-held areas indiscriminatley, this leads to high civilian deaths. Its as if they are punishing the residents for their opposition to the government.--Goltak (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is denying that civilians are being killed. And nobody is denying that residential areas are being hit. But we also don't know if they are punishing the residents for their opposition or simply bombarding rebel-held parts of cities and are simply indiscriminate about it, not up to us to speculate about it. However, I think it is rather out of line for the news media to be reporting constantly 15,000-16,000 people being slaughtered by the regime since the uprising started. That way it looks like all of those are civilians killed by the government. When in fact when you look a bit into the oppositions reports 4,000 of the dead are government soldiers and 4,000 of the dead are rebels (maybe even more as Goltak pointed to SOHR's policy of counting former civilian rebels as civilians), which would mean at the very least half of the dead are civilians, 8,000. EkoGraf (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just popped onto the Talk page here because i noticed someone using SANA as a source. glad im not the only one concerned about that. SANA is owned by the Syrian Regime, therefor what they say reflects the governments position and is very biased towards Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.171.167 (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---Sources--- Use of all sources must be welcomed. The western media including Jazzera are having in the rebels side of things and are escorted by their fighters in the correspondences. The same is happening with government troops that escorting their "friendly" media. All points of view and sources must me presented and the result will saw eventually the concussion and maybe a cross references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I also want to add after some careful reading of the past day events that when SANA says that an area have been taken is taken. On the contrary during the recapture of the Aleppo by the Syrian Goverment troops the rebels was speaking to international press and channel by phone most of the times saying that it isnt true untill they finally admitted it. When SANA told that they have Aleppo they indeed have Aleppo and the rebels are now doing some attack and go tactics in a city that is no longer controlled by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You tube Declarations------

Please don't refer as news if a guy uploads a video and claim he is the leader of revolution or stuff like that. We see day by day in action that the tube videos and mostly the declaration are becoming as psychological propaganda and are not evidences of the conflict and certainly not the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current rebel presence in Homs

According to the latest sources in

Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war, there is rebel presence in Old Homs, Khaldiya, Qusour and Jouret el-Shayah (Aljazeera from oct 5 says: “government forces were mainly firing rockets and heavy mortars at the rebel-held neighborhoods of Old Homs, Khaldiya, Qusour and Jouret el-Shayah” and FARS from dec 17 says: ”The army also attacked the terrorist hideouts in Hay al-Khaledia district of Homs”). So either the Independent article is not complete (as the journalist was visiting with the army), or some of these neighborhoods have been taken back by army since oct 5, which is something I have not seen a source for… Tradedia (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

This item is no longer updated, as the rebels are now in the Old City — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurcich (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate

There really hasn't been much activity reported in weeks. Is it safe to say the siege has resulted in a stalemate? If fighting erupts again a new page can be created. Noneofyour (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The siege of Homs is not one military operation. It is a series of operations that began in May 2011. The first one lasted from 6-12 May, the second one lasted from 3-9 November, and etc. See page 17 of this report. The time between these operations were usually filled with sporadic clashes or pauses. Just because fighting has paused again does not mean that another operation won't be launched in the future, especially considering that the rebels still do control some territory in the city. --
talk) 20:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The chemical attack

I think we should make it clear that a chemical attack didn't occur. The opposition is interested in getting international intervention and the red line for France, UK and the US is a chemical attack. Syria is engulfed in a propaganda war and it's not the first time activists have blatantly made fake videos.

Also the word of the defector should be mention as unreliable. Government defectors are paid off by the Gulf countries and when they defect they have been known to make false and extremely outrageous claims. Anyone remember the former PM who in the summer claimed that President Assad controlled less than 30% of Syria and was going to fall any minute. Well 2013 is a few days ago and Assad is still the President.62.31.145.100 (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook as source

Why sometimes it is allowed to use Facebook as source and sometimes it is not? There have been a report in a pro rebel facebook account that a rebel commander was killed, and the edition was reverted because "Facebook not a source". Is there any way to reconsider this?--Andres arg (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "As a reliable source: Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Please see
WP:FACEBOOK. --220 of Borg 14:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Latest Developments and Reports

  • July 6, 2013:
Homs-based activist Tarik Badrakhan told AP that Syrian troops seized control of buildings in the rebel-held district of Khaldiyeh. This was reportedly the first time government forces entered Homs neighborhoods held by rebels for over a year.http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/07/06/Syria-troops-advance-in-Homs-bombard-outskirts-of-Damascus.html[1]ViewObjective (talk)
  • July 11, 2013:
The Times of London reported: "The last opposition-held areas of Homs are set to fall within days to the Syrian army after rebel forces decided to “sacrifice” the country’s third-largest city to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, according to diplomats and opposition sources." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3814417.ece[2]ViewObjective (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full article outside paywall. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/syrian-rebels-prepare-to-abandon-homs/story-fnb64oi6-1226678668640 ViewObjective (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • July 16, 2013:
The New York Times has reported that the government is believed to have begun using "incendiary chemicals" as it "has renewed its assault on rebel strongholds, Homs" www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/world/middleeast/ruins-in-a-center-of-syrias-uprising.html [3]ViewObjective (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • July 18, 2013:
Government troops have begun "a new attempt to break into the rebel area of Bab Houd, which like other districts of Homs has been under tight army siege for more than a year" http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Jul-18/224103-kurds-drive-al-qaeda-fighters-out-of-ras-al-ain.ashx[4]ViewObjective (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • July 24, 2013:
According to the The Daily Star (Lebanon) report "Rebels target civilian areas to induce cease-fire" - "A statement by opposition activists Tuesday in Homs said the military siege of the city was apparently halted".
Full quote: "Government shelling and bombardment of Khaldieh – a rebel stronghold that has been the center of a fierce government campaign – abruptly stopped in recent days without explanation. And, while The Daily Star was unable to confirm that the apparent easing of the siege was a result of the rebel tactic of targeting loyal residential areas, several sources have indicated the link. A statement by opposition activists Tuesday in Homs said the military siege of the city was apparently halted after differences emerged between pro-government militiamen and the National Defense Forces. It said the militia had suffered heavy losses after regime forces abandoned it in the course of the campaign. “This put the regime at a critical impasse and forced it to call the military operations off, because disagreements will evolve to an armed conflict between the two parties,” the statement said."http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Jul-24/224816-rebels-target-civilian-areas-to-induce-cease-fire.ashx[5]ViewObjective (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • July 28, 2013:
According to AFP: "Around seven neighbourhoods in the Old City [of Homs] are still in rebel hands." This follows the statement in the same report that "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said troops now controlled most of Khaldiyah where they seized an ancient [Khalid bin Walid] mosque and concentrated on fighting insurgents on the outskirts of the district." http://gulfnews.com/in-focus/syria/syrian-forces-secure-grip-on-rebel-homs-district-1.1214237[6]ViewObjective (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • July 29, 2013:
Reuters report: "Syria says army retakes Homs district [Khalidiya] from rebels" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/29/us-syria-crisis-homs-idUSBRE96S0AP20130729[7]ViewObjective (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 06, 2013:
Article in The Daily Star "Rebels in Homs look to [Jabhat al-]Nusra for help" cites a military source as denying a recent report in the Times of London claiming opposition forces had agreed to abandon Homs to focus on other, more winnable battles, the source said: “Many commanders believe it is difficult to hold Homs but the Coalition is still sending money and weapons.”
“We are not sure that we can still protect the Old City, but from a political and leadership perspective, no one would ever dare express that they are willing to give up Homs.”
However, the article further states that: "Opposition fighters and activists admit they now expect the final rebel strongholds, particularly Bab Houd and parts of the Old City, to fall." So, "A senior official working with the opposition military council who requested anonymity told The Daily Star rebel battalions in Homs were now considering seeking help from rival Islamist brigades, particularly the Nusra Front, operating in Syria’s north." [8]http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Aug-06/226425-rebels-in-homs-look-to-nusra-for-help.ashx#ixzz2bE4G7uBXViewObjective (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • October 14, 2013
Two interesting - if highly subjective - "behind the scenes" looks at the situation in Homs and attitudes of the conflict participates on each side:
  • National Defense Forces (pro-government militia) volunteer perspective from government-held area: RT News (Russian news channel) report, "Bitter lessons: Teacher-turned-soldier shows RT reporter around war-torn Homs" http://rt.com/news/syria-homs-teacher-soldier-158/[10]
ViewObjective (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Syria troops advance in Homs, bombard outskirts of Damascus".
  2. ^ Blanford, Nicholas (2013-07-12). "Syrian rebels prepare to abandon Homs". The Times.
  3. ^ www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/world/middleeast/ruins-in-a-center-of-syrias-uprising.html
  4. ^ "Kurds drive Al-Qaeda fighters out of Ras al-Ain | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR".
  5. ^ "Rebels target civilian areas to induce cease-fire | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR".
  6. ^ "Syrian forces secure grip on rebel Homs district".
  7. ^ "Syria says army retakes Homs district from rebels". Reuters. 2013-07-29.
  8. ^ "Rebels in Homs look to Nusra for help | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR".
  9. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/12/homs-syria-residents
  10. ^ "Bitter lessons: Teacher-turned-soldier shows RT reporter around war-torn Homs".

Numbers

I would like Sopher to explain or show which statistics he used. Can you do that please?

talk 14:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

What statistics? I can ask the same of you. Sopher99 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you guys arguing about anyway? EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khalidiya Mosque

I think that the Khalid ibn al-Walid Mosque can be considered definitively captured by SAA at this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnOhE7aEJy0 I understand youtube is a bit sketchy in terms of RS so I'm holding off of editing for now. MrDjango (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debkafile says regime forces captured the city

Battle of Homs ended.Debkafile says regime forces captured the city [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.60.90 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Homs' old town remains under rebel occupation and the situation in Bab Houd is still a bit unclear, although it seems like the SAA has the area locked down. This Reuters report clearly states that various Rebel bastions remain under siege: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/29/uk-syria-crisis-homs-idUKBRE96S0AO20130729
It does appear though that the infobox will have to be changed soon to "Syrian Army Victory" once the situation stabilizes, although pockets of resistance will most certainly remain to carry out insurgency operations. I suggest we wait until accurate reports come out of Bab Houd before we start calling this a decisive victory and wait till Old Homs is captured before we can declare the battle to be over. MrDjango (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debkafile is one of the least reliable outlets of information you could possible scrape up. No. ~~
talk) 23:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

"Assault on Old Homs"

The article says:

"In late November, the Army began an assault on the last remaining rebel-held pockets.[338]"

And it is now late December. If a major assault were launched why would a month later nothing further be said about it? This doesn't make any sense. --24.180.234.205 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no new edits about the Siege of Old Homs , only some lines about the Humanitarian Evacuation. But there should be indicated the current number of people inside Homs and those that have left.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have the "armoured Army reinforcements sent from Damascus towards Homs" in January finally reached Homs???

Map

I've added a map to the infobox showing which forces control which areas. I moved the previous map, showing the areas which saw clashes in February 2012, to the February 2012 army offensive part of the page. If there's any problems with the map then please let me know and I'll fix it.

talk) 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

thank you for your work. May i suggest, like others maps ( rif dimasq ones etc) if you can add also some lines between the two sides? in my opinion it helps for the visibility and if there are also 'frontlines' it makes them much more noticeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.123.115 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Image caption in the Info Box

After the fightings and the siege has ended in Homs, a new image was put in the infobox of this article, with the caption Destruction in Bab Dreeb area after heavy shelling by the Syrian Army.. I think in a battle (or even war) like this one, it's almost impossible to say the shells came from SAA or from FSA units. I'm not saying that the building on the image was not shelled by SAA, but is there any proof for this actual destruction happened by the SAA and FSA for example?

The image is not really recent, because it was uploaded at 5 April 2012, and first it was used in an Arabic version of the Battle of Homs article, and the caption there not mention the source of the shells/destruction. I think instead of pointing to someone as the "source of shells" in the caption, it would be better to just state the destruction happened here or there.--Mlacix (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change of title: ‘War in Homs’ or ‘Civil war in Homs’ or ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’

(See also similar discussion on Talk:Siege of Daraa#Change of title: ‘Attack on Daraa’.)

8 May 2011,19:29, some editor had gathered information about events in Homs 6-8May2011: Syrian armed forces entered Homs with tanks, killed 15 protesters, hunted for opposition activists, et cetera. Even though that editor EkoGraf was aware of the existence of a ‘

2011 Syrian uprising
’ having a Wikipedia article, of which he considered those events to be part, he did not decide to add those new facts to that article, nor to its existing subarticle ‘
Timeline of the 2011 Syrian uprising
’, but to make them into this new separate article (titled ‘Siege of Homs’), without even placing a Wikilink in article ‘2011 Syrian uprising’ or in ‘Timeline of the 2011 Syrian uprising’ to refer to that new article.

I can’t see how the events of 6-8May2011 he noted in that first version of the article fit the (Wikipedia) definition of a ‘siege’, nor why anyone back on 8May2011 would have wanted to title those noted events a ‘siege’. If we’d really have to summarize those three-day-events, a correct title could be: ‘attack on Homs’.

After extra information was added to this article about 10-30May2011, the scope of this article had broadened, I believe, from ‘attack on Homs’ to ‘Syrian uprising in Homs’. When, from September 2011 onwards, information was added about ‘clashes’, ‘violence’, tanks firing, ‘heavy fighting’, killings, a blow up, thousands of military troops in Homs, et cetera, we could have recognized characteristics of (a beginning of) ‘war’, or ‘city war’, or ‘(city) civil war’ in the events covered in this article.

On 15 July 2012, the

eight days discussion
, on 23July2012 to renaming article ‘Syrian uprising…’ into: ‘Syrian Civil War…’. On that 15 July 2012, that ICRC had also the opinion that Homs had already before that day been in a state of war (see that same 15July2012 BBC-release). If we followed the ICRC-judgment that Syria was in July 2012 in war, we should also take serious its judgment that Homs also was in July 2012 already in war; the more so if we see that our article ‘Siege of Homs’ then already covered plenty of warlike deeds in Homs during 15 months: (deadly) ‘military operations’, armed attacks, ‘fightings’, ‘clashes’, ‘army offensives’, et cetera, confirming that ICRC-assessment.

If considering Syria to have escalated from uprising into (civil) war led us to renaming article ‘Syrian uprising’ into ‘

Syrian civil war’, considering the situation in one Syrian city (e.g. Homs) to have escalated from (that same) uprising into (that same (civil)) war should likewise and consistently lead us to renaming an article, describing that (Syrian) uprising in that city (Homs), into ‘(Syrian) (Civil) war in Homs
’. So let’s choose one of these three options for retitling the article: (a) ‘War in Homs’; (b) ‘Civil war in Homs’; (c) ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’ (and ofcourse adapt some phrasings in the article accordingly). Corriebertus (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take notice of the fact that now also EkoGraf opposes retitling as ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’. This is disappointing, but hardly surprising if we realise that Eko is the editor who invented this (wrong) title ‘siege’ on 8May2011, as I pointed out above. I asked Eko, above on 20May2014, why he chose that title then. He doesn’t answer, so apparently he doesn’t know.
I do admit that part of the article perhaps handles on some sort of ‘siege’ of part of Homs (Bab Amr) (part of the time): 7May2011 until 30May or until 24March2012 or perhaps longer. However, the article comprises much more important events in this
war, and I’ve argued in detail, above (20May) and in the section below (9June), how that makes ‘siege of Homs’ an incorrect title. Future and Eko have nothing more to say to that than: ‘well, I’m used to that title now, and we’re fond of the beautiful word ‘siege’, so let’s not change that’. Articles having misleading or confusing titles doesn’t help the Wikipedia presentation of this war become any better or clearer and will make our visitors wonder whether Wikipedia is basically the land of a bunch of weirdos. Corriebertus (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless of your personal opinion that the title siege is wrong, Wikipedia policy on COMMONNAMES is clear on this issue. The events in Homs have been called a siege for the last three years and so we do to. And actually I did answer your question. I stated Per Future, meaning I was referring you to what Future stated. That would mean me writing this paragraph would be the second time I'm responding to your question. And please don't presume to know anything about me by saying I don't know the answer to your question, that is rather uncivil, as well as your assertion that Wikipedia readers would think that Wikipedia is basically the land of a bunch of weirdos. EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf stated here, 12 July 2014, that he had answered my question of 20 May 2014 (asking why he chose the title "siege…" back on 8May2011). But his answer of 19June2014 only referred to website articles of May2014. Those did not exist in May2011! So, they cannot have been his reason in May2011 to title the page the way he did. So, he has not answered my question of 20May2014, as he mistakenly contended he did, on 12July2014. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting title and lead (‘Siege of Homs’ → ‘S.C.W. in Homs’)

The

Syrian uprising and civil war, begun March 2011, had between May 2011 and May 2014 many developments taking place in Homs
. After protests in March and 95 civilian deaths during
April protests in Homs, early May 2011 the Syrian army attacked this town with tanks and troops, that month killing another 58 residents and arresting hundreds.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

That operation did not subdue the city: October–November 2011, rebels in Baba Amr neighbourhood ambushed government’s security forces.[9] March 2012, government forces expelled the rebels from Baba Amr. June saw shelling and storming and raids in Homs; October 2012 an army offensive and bombardment against rebels in Homs; January 2013 a massacre; more warlike events occurred until May2014 in Homs, after July 2012 all unmistakably events of the Syrian Civil War that by then undisputedly was taking place in Syria—and got recorded in this Wikipedia article. Therefore, the logical title for this article—on the analogy of the title of article ‘

Syrian Civil War’ since 23July2012—is: ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs
’.

However: the article is today differently titled. In my posting here on 20May2014 I’ve argued in detail that there never was a valid reason to title this article as it is titled still today, and that a logical title would be: ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’. FutureTrillionaire reacted. Since these Talk pages are meant for rational discussions about stated encyclopedical problems, and I made a plea grounded on facts, opinions and theses linked by logical reasoning, and our appreciated colleague FutureTrillionaire—reacting after that plea—may be assumed to have read my plea but did not refute any of my stated facts or theses or opinions nor my reasoning, we may—presupposing FT is a constructive participant of Wikipedia—assume that FT endorses all facts, theses, opinions and logical reasoning stated in my plea of 20May and does not disagree to that argued necessity of title change — as we may also assume all other visitors of this Talk page who didn’t criticize my arguments to silently consent with my pleaded title change.

FT says in his reaction on 22May2014 also: “the word ‘siege’ is commonly used by sources [etc]”. People sometimes confuse

a civil uprising and war
.

Yes, the word ‘siege’ is sometimes used in (vague) relation to Homs2011–2014, for example by an AFP journalist discussing in May2014 a film about horrifying Homs-war-events, or, not in the last place, by us ourselves, Wikipedia (since May2011)… but that does not in the least guarantee that this, or any, article tells the tale of a ‘siege’. Columbus landed in America, thought he was in India and called the natives ‘Indians’; it took some time, but eventually wise people accepted that America is not India. We can’t keep calling this article ‘siege’ only because of a whim of one editor in May2011 if we want to be considered a serious encyclopedia.

After retitling, the lead section could start, instead of its first thirteen sentences in its old version presented until this morning, with:
[1] “The

seven April protesting days in Homs, 6 May 2011 the Syrian army attacked this restive town with tanks and troops, that month killing another 58 residents and arresting hundreds.
[3] That operation did not quell protests, nor subdue the city: October–November 2011, rebels in Baba Amr neighbourhood ambushed government’s security forces[9] and prevented the Syrian military to enter that district.[10]
[4] Baba Amr has been described as a refuge for army defectors.[10]
[5] In December 2011, an Arab mission was sent to monitor the situation following the Arab League peace plan.[11]
[6] In March 2012, government forces expelled the rebels from Baba Amr.[10]

New sentences 1–3 (until ‘forces’), based on reasoning given above, naturally replace old sentences 1–4 that were incorrect (‘Siege…’) or off-topic (‘Nationwide…’) or vague (‘intensified…’, ‘crackdown…’). Don’t take these opinions as personal attacks. I’ve left out (parts of) old sentences 5,6,7,8,12,13 as being either vague (‘elsewhere...’) or less needed in the lead section (‘unique...’, ‘prolonged...’, ‘Rastan...’, ‘launched...’) — but if you prefer a longer lead section you can put them back. My proposed new start of the lead section is 139 words against 265 words in the old version. (The period July2011 –June2014 may need more revising and summarizing.) --Corriebertus (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also (further) discussion in section above. Corriebertus (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Protests Across Syria Despite Military Presence". New York Times. 6 May 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
  2. ^ "'House-to-house raids' in Syrian cities". Al Jazeera English. 9 May. Retrieved 20 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Syria tanks 'shell' protest city of Homs". BBC. 11 May 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
  4. ^ "Syria protests: 'Six killed' in Homs after prayers". BBC News. 13 May 2011. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
  5. ^ "Syrian protests draw deadly fire". Al Jazeera English. 20 May 2011. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
  6. ^ "SYRIA: Activists raise death toll to 76 in three days of violence". The Los Angeles Times. 22 May 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  7. ^ "Eight killed in Syria protests, world pressure grows". Reuters. 27 May 2011. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  8. ^ "Syrian tanks attack three central towns". Al Jazeera English. 29 May 2011. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  9. ^ a b Holliday, Joseph (March 2012). "Syria's Armed Opposition" (PDF). Institute for the Study of War. Retrieved 22 May 2014. (page 13)
  10. ^ a b c "Syria's Armed Opposition" (PDF). ISW. March 2012.
  11. ^ 'Arab league observers arrive in Syria', The Independent, 27 December 2011.


6+ years after your comment, but reading this article as a somewhat newcomer to the details of the topic, I tend to agree. What's described here starts as a siege but includes many other actions and is a general description of the war in Homs over that period. -KaJunl (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 23 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 10:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Siege of Homs. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Siege of Homs. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011 army withdrawal

Not an expert on this topic but trying to piece things together.

From here I understand the Syrian Army withdrew from Baba Amr in November 2011 - is that correct? https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/inside-syria-s-death-zone-assad-s-regime-hunts-people-in-homs-a-805519.html

There is also mention in this article that the FSA planned to wait until the Syrian Army withdrew "like they did in October" but I can't find any mention of that, from the article it seems like the Syrian Army had Baba Amr most of October/November, but that doesn't seem right?

-KaJunl (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needed addition to In Popular Culture

A Private War, starring Rosamund Pike - a biopic on life and death of war correspondent Marie Colvin who died in the Siege of Homs. Now on Netflix. Also, all appropriate citation and cross-referncing. See https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/A-Private-War/81002445 Lanning616 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Homs&oldid=1205702184"