Talk:1982 Hama massacre

Untitled

I have removed the following sentence from the article as it seems POV.

"At the time the United States viewed the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat and turned a blind eye to many of the Syrian's governments actions."

In what way did the US specifically turn a blind eye, compared to the rest of the world? TigerShark 22:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the line "Unfortunately, Rifaat al-Assad is enjoying the luxury life and freedom in Europe unprosecuted, and is currently running an opposition TV station and a newspaper."

Whether or not this is fortunate is external to the topic at hand, and only serves the bias of the author.

Is it true that the entire city was destroyed, bulldozed, and salt was poured over the ground before a whole new city was erected in its place?

"Massacre"

A more nuanced treatment of this conflict is necessary. The sobre accounts of serious scholars depict this as an insurrection in Hama. It was a battle between the legitimate government of Syria and insurgents. Casualties included about 1000 soldiers.

This is an article that is unfairly hostile to Syria. What's extraordinary about this article is the lack of serious sources. RZimmerwald (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- there was a revolt which the government of Syria was legitimately allowed to put down by force under accepted laws and/or norms; however, the Ba`thist regime made a very deliberate and conscious decision to intentionally kill large numbers promiscuously and indiscriminately, and to level large sections of city (even though there was no military necessity for these actions), for the purpose of making Hama serve as a lurid warning example of the fate that would befall anybody who dared to challenge the Assad regime. That's what makes it a massacre... AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree some nuanced treatment is necessary, but there surely also was a "massacre", although both sides perpetrated it to some extent. On the Brothers' side, this was one of the earliest uses of suicide bombing by Islamist groups (who also massacred hundreds of Ba'athists' families); on the Syrian Army's side, it was a massive disproportionate shelling that killed at least 10,000 civilians. --Delirium (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the International Reaction section?

Something's missing here. Chesdovi (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The diplomatic world was too busy with Sabra and Chatilla to spare any attention or concern for Hama. Similar discrepancies have often occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualty figures

Casualty figures of 17,000 – 40,000 are given here, based on an article from "Globalsecurity.org". Could someone please provide some evidence that suggests that "Globalsecurity.org" are a reasonably unbiased and reliable source of information? Prunesqualer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

If you don't like that, then there's the Christian Science Monitor article at http://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0620/p1s3.html (page2), which states that the elder Assad's brother Rifaat, who commanded the attack on Hama, "is reported to have once chided someone who suggested that 7,000 people died at Hama, by boasting that 38,000 had died"! -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The 38000 "boasting" claim comes _only_ from Friedman's book, Beirut to Jerusalem, and is related as something an anonymous "businessman" told an anonymous friend of Friedman who then told Friedman. Very reliable, I'm sure. Furthermore, were Rifaat boasting in the first place, would he not be prone to exaggeration - unless one were willing to take Rifaat as both a bloodthirsty monster and a trustworthy source at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.20.95.104 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the 20,000 casualty figure referenced to 'the Independent' newspaper, because the actual article was by the same Robert Fisk of the previous sentence, who repeated his estimate of 10,000 and mentioned the other figure as being from the New York Times (without referencing the article) before dismissing it. UnexpectedTiger (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy published a report declassified by the US DIA after 30 years counting the Hama city casualties. Accoding it the total casualties for Hama incident probably number about 2,000, 300-400 out of which were the members of the Muslim Brotherhood's elite apparatus. As far as I see this figure includes government officials and their families, Syrian Army men fallen and security officers.DIA-Syria-MuslimBrotherhoodPressureIntensifies.pdf --MercyMaker (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ted Koppel

Ted Koppel of the BBC mentioned the Hama massacre on US Network's Meet the Press on 27 March 2011. Mentioned 80,000 as a number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.93.94 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2011

Is the (informative) stuff about 2011 appropriate in this article? Should it be in the Hama article instead?Kdammers (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They are attacking right now! On July 31st! wp --95.188.92.90 (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not related to this particular event and it should be deleted. Although a link to current events should be included in "See also" section.--Cerian (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The two are separate events, separated by almost 30 years. I have removed the section. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the article

The article titles needs to be changed. Events in Hama in 1982 are not characterized as "massacre" in the mainstream historiography and reporting in Syria. It's recommended to rename this article "Hama Revolt (1982)" or "Hama events (1982)."

Concerning western reporting about the conflict, articles from Time Magazine and New York Times are quite helpful. None of them use the term "massacre", but emphasize that Syrian Government was fighting against a rebellion which Syrian Government says was assisted by foreign forces.

The Time Magazine article from 8 March 1982 describes: "What has happened in Hama has happened, and it is all over." With that terse declaration, Syria's President Hafez Assad last week acknowledged for the first time that his country's fifth largest city had been racked by fierce revolt in recent weeks. Assad insisted that life in Hama was back to normal, but the three-week rebellion is believed to have damaged much of the city's old quarter and killed more than 1,000 people. A Western diplomat who was able to get to the edges of Hama described destruction on the outskirts of the city as severe. A good many buildings had collapsed, and the streets were clogged with rubble.

The New York Times summarized on 24 February 1982, "At least two full brigades of soldiers, special security units and member sof a new party militia were sent to fight the insurgents. Since then, army tanks and artillery have pounded the old quarter of the city, where the rebels barricaded themselves. Casualties are believed to be heavy on both sides."

Claims of 10,000 to 25,000 are cited saying that a "massacre" took place. Amnesty International published this in a 1983 report. However, it did not say that the government committed a "massacre" of 10,000 to 25,000, but that casualties from all sides fell into this range of figures:

"When order was restored, estimates of the number dead on all sides are from 10,000 to 25,000."

When order was restored, estimates of the number dead on all sides r d from 10,000 to 25,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.168.190 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the event is most definitely the "Hama Massacre". Do a google book search of "hama massacre" and read some of the books, so you get a full picture of the event. here's the google book link [1] --Guest2625 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Going by your methods, you undermine your point about "Hama Massacre" being the dominant version of events.

Google Book search shows 819 results for "1982 hama syria revolt assad brotherhood"

Google book search shows only 306 results for "hama syria massacre assad brotherhood"

Also refer to the news articles I cited above from leading western journalists, who do not at all characterize the events as a massacre, but rather a government facing an armed revolt.

Wikipedia needs to adhere to NPOV, which cannot be met by naming this article "Hama Massacre". Instead, it should be named "Hama events of 1982"

It would make more sense to rename this to the Hama Uprising. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I think it would be wise to change the infobox to that of a battle - the Hama massacre afterall was part of the Islamic Uprising, and although the majority of casualties were civilian (which can also be portrayed in a battle infobox), it was primarily a military operation seeking to expel the Muslim Brotherhood from the city. MrPenguin20 (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

See comment of "22:12, 31 October 2008" above. AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Would anyone oppose if I moved this to the more appropriate title, Hama Uprising? Or would they prefer a vote be held?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly object, because I don't see what the real point would be, other than to whitewash the Assads and/or impose a phoney pseudo-"neutrality". Including "massacre" in the title does not mean that there wasn't genuine two-sided fighting, or that the opposing side behaved impeccably. What it does mean is that there was a large-scale severe violation of internationally accepted rules of war or humanitarian norms. The Islamists fought dirty in some respects, so the Assad regime's response was to fight ten times dirtier, and to very intentionally and deliberately kill lots of people who were not Islamist fighters or hard-core Islamist supporters. It sure sounds like a massacre to me. AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How and when did this phrase "humanitarian norms" enter into peoples' vocabulary? There was nothing glorious about what took place in Hama and I am not trying to act as an apologist for either side. But this is a problem that I have confronted in other similar articles, whereby massacre and killings were preceded by violent conflict (see, for example, the Battle of Marash, Battle of Baku, and the Shusha massacre). One does not quite know what name to give two events that coincide with one another. The fact remains, however, that the Muslim Brotherhood violently rose up in Hama and systematically targeted government employees and other individuals associated with the government. I don't think anyone disputes that firefights took place between the rebels and regime forces. That does not excuse the fact that Assad mercilessly pounded it into submission and had his ne'er do well brother Rifat carry out reprisals but most sources refer to Hama by what took place during its initial stage. The word "massacre" seems inappropriate here in the sense that it was not one completely defenseless side targeted by an armed group that carried out the killings. In a figurative sense the other side was "massacred," but the rebels were put down, civilians were killed, scores were settled afterward but these do not embody the traditional meaning of the word massacre.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

For the semantics, see my previous message of "22:12, 31 October 2008" above. As for the article title, it follows from the answers to such questions as what is the aspect of the situation which had the most lasting impact or generated the most international news coverage? In the minds of many, the initial uprising is overshadowed by the subsequent massive brutal indiscriminate retaliation... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought this use of the phrase of "international norms" fell into circulation after the August 21 attack following its extensive use by administration officials. Heh, didn't mean my comment to come off like that. As regards the title, I think it is extremely difficult to gauge what garnered greater impact in the world when this event took place: the fact that a town rose up against Assad or that the latter suppressed it. With the exception of Robert Fisk, there were no journalists who witnessed the fighting, and whatever was reported was provided after the fact. I am of the opinion that it's too close to call it one way or the other but the words "uprising," "insurrection," and "revolt," however one may think come off as euphemistic, are far more neutral and less-emotionally charged than "massacre," which implies one-sided killing. As Fisk was the first to note, Baathist family members were having their heads chopped off and particularly devout Muslim girls hid grenades and exploded them to kill Syrian soldiers. This was at the very least a very violent insurrection, regardless of how it brutally it was put down.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know what you thought I was alluding to by using the word "norm", but I already used "accepted...norms" in my 2008 comment above... And as I implied previously, the purpose of using the word "massacre" is NOT to imply that the victim side is morally impeccable or as pure as the driven snow, but rather to indicate that the perpetrator side used indiscriminate violence disproportionate to any legitimate objectives, and also much more violence than the other side did. AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a word that I've noticed cropping up only after the attack, used first by politicians and then repeated by those in the media. But I digress...Again, I consider the word massacre highly inappropriate to describe what happened in Hama in 1982 to be used as an article title. Syria and Assad's regime were no strangers to violence but what must have jarred him and other must have been the fact that an entire city rose up in revolt against him. Unless you are willing to change your mind, then, I believe we are at a deadlock and I now wonder if you might consent to holding a vote or asking for a third opinion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I must be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, to have been influenced by August 2013 rhetoric in October 2008! The only substantive point at dispute seems to be whether the word "massacre" necessarily implies some form of impeccable moral purity on the part of every single person, without exception, among those massacred, but I really don't think that's the case... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this debate is beside the point, the standard name is Hama Massacre. A Google Book search is 942 for "Hama Massacre" to 339 for uprising. Google Scholar is 154 to 67. Massacre is a pejorative term, and most of the events on list of events named massacres would be disputed by one side, but when the name is the one used, we use it. - SimonP (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been led to believe that we should not be so closely wedded to the result of Google Book searches. A query for "uprising in Hama," for example, turns up 738 results on Google Books, and I'm quite sure the readjustment of certain propositions and nouns would be enough to give us a different number as well. But I'm just thinking out loud here and considering how misleading the word massacre is in this instance. I am not looking at this through the perspective of whether the word massacre is a pejorative (!) term or not but how appropriate it is use it to describe the event. From a strict interpretation, it isn't, and my reasons are found above. The phrase "Hama Massacre" has not gained an especially unique and prominent use in literature such as Black September, which also referred to the indiscriminate killings in the course of King Hussein's attempt to quell the Palestinians of Jordan in 1970.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

2014

For the aforementioned reasons I have gone ahead to rename this article under the a more general and what I believe to more accurate title. The events of February 1982 began with the Muslim Brotherhood rising against Al-Assad in Hama; they targeted government officials and there is little evidence to suggest that their plans were not grounded in violence. Al-Assad's regime, however, cracked down on the insurrection with brute force, using indiscriminate shelling and targeting individuals and people who were not necessarily supporters of the uprising. Thousands died, it is true, but this was not a one-sided killing. Civilians were killed by both sides as Robert Fisk's dispatch makes clear. Since these events coincided with one another during a short frame of time, and one event could be said to be the cause of the other, it seems to me that uprising is a far more neutral title than massacre, which would perhaps imply that the killing was done solely by one side (as it is more appropriate for articles like Lidice or the Malmedy massacre, etc.).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1) See under "Boston Massacre" at WP:TITLE. 2) The name "Hama uprising" is semi-stupid, because the uprising was no means confined to Hama (though the massacre was concentrated there). 3) I really don't see what overall purpose this move serves, except to attempt to whitewash the reputation of the Assad dynasty and/or impose a phoney pseudo-"neutrality". See further all my comments above from "22:12, 31 October 2008" onwards... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason it was moved was because the word massacre does not correctly convey what took place there in 1982, not unless you're employing the word with rhetorical flourish. I'm not trying to whitewash the reputation of Assad or anyone else. But for lack of a word or phrase that's gained currency in either the scholarly world or media, it seems like uprising or insurrection would be far more appropriate than massacre, which usually connotes a one-sided killing (even the killings in Boston would fit that description). There's no doubt that Assad put down the uprising through brutal means but there's a difference between a group launching an insurrection, killing government officials and others identified as loyal to the regime, and government soldiers huddling a couple hundred people and slaughtering them en masse. If the latter was the case I would concede and say that the word massacre is appropriate. But the fact is that the killing involved government soldiers firing and shelling indiscriminately and the insurrectionists going out of their way to kill others with near indiscriminate brutality. The sources bear out that fact. In that case the word battle would be more fit than massacre. I read your arguments above and I cannot say I am swayed; my position remains unchanged and if you're not willing to reconsider I'd be more than happy to request a 3rd-party comment. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "Hama Massacre" is the common name (WP:COMMONNAME), is strongly parallel to the article name "Boston Massacre" specifically endorsed on the Wikipedia article title policy page, and accurately conveys that one side used overwhelming brutal force in flagrant and blatant violation of commonly-accepted laws of war, resulting in greatly disproportionate casualties. The Muslim Brotherhood possibly didn't have any moral superiority over the Assad regime (it would be pointless to try to debate the matter here), but the Assad regime was the side which had the overwhelming preponderance of military might, and chose to use it in such a manner that large urban areas were levelled and thousands of non-combatants killed, without these outcomes being any kind of military necessity (see the "ten times dirtier" comment above)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the above search results showed that "Hama Massacre" has approached nowhere near the most common and accepted name for the events of February 1982. I think a better analogy would be to the Warsaw Uprising, where an insurrection was brutally suppressed, by a genocidal regime no less, and accompanied by mass slaughter and the razing of an entire city. Over here, the title itself does not accurately convey who was massacring who and the lead shows this ("The Hama massacre (Arabic: مجزرة حماة‎) occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian Arab Army and the Defense Companies, under the orders of the country's then-president, Hafez al-Assad, besieged the town of Hama for 27 days in order to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Assad's government"). Compare this lead with the leads of actual articles on massacre:

The Malmedy massacre (1944) was a war crime in which 84 American prisoners of war were murdered by their German captors near Malmedy, Belgium, during World War II.

And:

The Mỹ Lai Massacre (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai [tʰɐ̃ːm ʂɐ̌ːt mǐˀ lɐːj], [mǐˀlɐːj] ( listen); /ˌmiːˈlaɪ/, /ˌmiːˈleɪ/, or /ˌmaɪˈlaɪ/)[1] was the Vietnam War mass killing of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968.

Where in these examples it is clearly stated which side was literally massacring who. The current lead of this article talks about Hafez al-Assad sending his forces to quell an uprising, not quite to slaughter intentionally wholesale a particular group of people. Yes, the uprising was put down brutally, people were targeted indiscriminately, and hundreds, perhaps thousands perished. That being said, those of us concerned about the semantics of the English language, would say that massacre, in its literal sense and that used on Wikipedia, does not apply here. We seem to be on the same page on the facts but the labeling is what seems to be source of the problem. Again, if I haven't swayed you with my comments, I'd be more than happy to request for a third-party opinion. Regards.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for delay in replying, but my opinion remains exactly what it was on "22:12, 31 October 2008" above, and I'm not sure that prolonging this discussion will lead to any useful result. There may not be a whole lot to choose from between the two sides on a moral level, but one side had the overwhelming preponderance of military force, and chose to use it with exceptional brutality in flagrant and blatant violation of accepted rules of war. Sometimes attempts to "neutralize" a Wikipedia article end up neutralizing away basic useful insights and judgements, but I really don't think that's required by Wikipedia policies in the case of this article. AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support move - a move would not be about "whitewashing the government", but about reflecting reliable sources and being neutral. This was a response to an armed insurgency, so we could just as well title the American war in Iraq the "Iraq massacre". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose move: The comparison of the Iraq war to the events in Hama is not useful and is, in fact, mere original research. (Also, see Haditha massacre and Jenin massacre, two mythical "massacres" that rest on far weaker ground than Hama, yet are still referred to by their common name.) Most of this discussion has focused on whether or not editors personally believe the term "massacre" is appropriate, which is hardly relevant. The question is what reliable sources say. Again, "Hama massacre" yields 23,700 (quotes)-388,000 hits (no quotes) on Google, 1,270-5,630 on Google Books, and 337-3,180 on Google Scholar. The corresponding figures for "Hama uprising" are 5,690-185,000 on Google, 390-4,070 on Google Books, and 95-3,170 on Google Scholar. In other words, by all of these metrics, "Hama massacre" wins: It's the WP:COMMONNAME!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a massacre was a military operation against armed insurgency

Need fix something on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.100.154 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, massacre is more NPOV. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1982 Hama Islamic uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110325232345/http://www.shrc.org:80/data/aspx/d0/1260.aspx to http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/d0/1260.aspx

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Returned to 1982 Hama massacre - Initiate a serious discussion (RM or RFC) before moving away from this long-standing title. Article is currently move protected indefinitely. Mike Cline (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

---

1982 Hama Islamic uprising → Hama massacre – page renamed in an ad-hoc manner and no consensus on rename (already discussed on talk page) – Gizmocorot (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Gizmocorot: It looks like this page has been back and forth like a tennis ball between names 1982 Hama Islamic uprising and Hama massacre and similar names. This dispute better be discussed properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: I appreciate you creating a requested move. But shouldn't page be renamed to original name before unilateral non-consensus rename and new name change discussed? Apparently previous attempts from history yielded no consensus to change name to uprising. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Hama massacre. Name referred to in article and general online/offline sources. While uprising is of controversial nature. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Gizmocorot (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose the move. While massacres certainly took place during the uprising, it is a highly misleading to give that name to the event. What happened in Hama in 1982 was an Islamist insurrection against Hafez Assad's regime, who brutally put it down. I have more fully articulated my position in previous discussions above, but the word "uprising" is far more appropriate and less emotionally-laden than the word "massacre." This is especially so since no particular popular name has ever gained traction to serve as a proper substitute. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support rename back to long-term stable "massacre" name before recent changes -- As discussed at length in the previous sections above, the Assad government faced a genuine armed uprising or rebellion, but then chose to respond to it with indiscriminate and promiscuously-used military force which was completely disproportionate to any legitimate military necessity, which is why the term "massacre" is commonly used to refer to it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Hama massacre. I was convinced by the arguments of AnonMoos in previous sections on this talk page. Tradedia^talk 06:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 1982 Hama massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160113043229/http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/d5/2535.aspx to http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/d5/2535.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106203214/http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/d3/53.aspx to http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/d3/53.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106203214/http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/20NEWSEN.aspx to http://www.shrc.org/data/aspx/20NEWSEN.aspx

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1982 Hama massacre. 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/20070529125957/http://globalpolitician.com:80/? to http://www.globalpolitician.com/

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) 04:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Beginning date

A discrepancy in dates that arose after a comment at WP:ERRORS, as this was about to be used in WP:OTD. Infobox says it began 2 Feb 1982. NYT reference seems to agree. Article (based on an offline reference) says it began 3 Feb. No other listed sources are online to break the tie. Also (and this isn't the article's problem, but OTD's problem) the OTD blurb claimed bombing started on 2 Feb, but it appears bombing started some time after initial ambush/raid? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Info box?

Shouldn’t it be a civilian attack infobox if it’s a massacre? Syria4you (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)