Talk:Siege of Daraa

"Siege"?

We shouldn't be calling this operation a "siege" unless non-opposition sources do the same. It doesn't fit the defninition of a siege – the Syrian Army didn't surround the city until the opposition gave up; it invaded the city (without waiting) and occupied it. Unless such sources ar found I'll revert to the name "April–May 2011 Daraa operation". ~Asarlaí 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

{{Requested move/dated|Siege of Daraa}}

April–May 2011 Daraa siege → Siege of Daraa – There's only one siege of Daraa, no need for the month and year. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Guest2625 says in view history: "I don't mind the name change but pages aren't moved manually, because the edit history gets lost. You'll have to ask an administrator to do the move as per the move button." So I guess I supports this move as well. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've requested an administrator do a history merge of the copy and paste move. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict

Since 6May2011, the article has an ‘Infobox military conflict’. Can anyone tell us why we want or need such a box in this article? If no one can, I intend to remove that box.

Since 5April2014, there is disagreement about some data in that box: (a) highest estimate of civilian casualties 244 or 220; (b) estimate of civilians arrested nearly 1000 or 600; (c) estimated 81 killed soldiers to be presented as either ‘dead Daraa residents’ (left column) or as ‘dead Syrian government army personnel’ (right column).

• (a) I believe, source BBC5May2011,18:19(ref-7,’Syria protests..’) is saying: 244 (dead) bodies (of Daraa civilians) and also 81 bodies of soldiers and army officers were received in Tishreen Military Hospital. EkoGraf believes differently in his edit summary on 5April2014. What do other editors read in that source as number of civilian casualties?
• (b) source BBC5May2011,15:58(ref-27,’Syria: Raid..’) is saying: “almost 1,000 men have reportedly been rounded up in Deraa”. EkoGraf (see his edit summary on 5April2014) contends that source Bangkok Post 6May2011(ref-6,’Five dead..’) mentions 600 arrested (which source however today appears “not currently available”). If sources give different numbers, we present either the number with highest reliability (BBC, 1,000) or both numbers. However, an irretrievable source cannot be prominently used in Wikipedia. EkoGraf seems to discredit and discard that BBC-release saying ‘almost 1,000’, but not telling us why.
• (c) a dead soldier is a dead soldier. Even if he were killed by a fellow-soldier (as EkoGraf wishes to believe about those mentioned 81 soldiers but is not sure), he is still a dead soldier, not a dead Daraa resident. EkoGraf suggests (in his edit summary on 5April2014) that a soldier being killed/executed by government forces thereby transforms into a (dead) Daraa resident; I can’t share that logic. Corriebertus (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not what I wish to believe and what I suggest. Its what the sources say. And there is nothing I am not sure of (source clearly says the 81 soldiers were killed by the Army, thus they were the pro-opposition defectors). You seem to have missed the point that this was not a conflict between the military and all of the residents of the city as you suggest, but a conflict between opposition supporters on one side and the military on the other. At one point some soldiers switched sides and went to the opposition thus becoming rebels. And I did not discard your 1,000 number, I simply did not see it, and for that I apologise. As for the source for the 600 figure, the link was broken and I just added a functioning link for you. As for what you believe about the 244 figure that's your personal opinion to which you have a right to, but it doesn't count on Wikipedia because Original Research is strictly prohibited. The source clearly says The organisation said 244 bodies had been transferred, nowhere does it says they are the bodies of civilians only. And I would like to point out that your tone is rather hostile which is not according to Wikipedia policy on civility and assuming good faith. A bit of good faith would be appreciated, and I hope everything is cleared up now. Keep up the good work. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that EkoGraf felt or considered my tone(20May) to be (rather) hostile. My intention was not to be hostile, but to sharply explain our (possible) differences of opinions. I have however been totally polite and correct, and therefore rather have EkoGraf not suggest that I behaved uncivil or hostile and unaccording to Wikipedia policy: I consider that accusation as intimidating and hostile.

I’ve said (20May) that EkoGraf “seemed to discredit and discard…”, because that was exactly what he seemed to me to be doing, and then it’s totally constructive, correct and polite to write such an assumption down. It gave him the chance(19June) to correct that assumption by saying he had overlooked something. No hard feelings about overlooking something (that happens to us all), but don’t be so touchy when someone most politely confronts you with something you have perhaps overlooked or misjudged or whatever. I certainly assume good faith in EkoGraf, but that doesn’t mean we can’t politely and explicitly and sharply sort out our differences of interpretations etc. Keep up your good work, too. -- Corriebertus (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, on issue (a) mentioned above: BBC5May2011 about dead bodies in Daraa up to 5 May. We are dealing here with a town, inhabited by civilians (as towns usually do), which is invaded by a military force. This results according to DCHRS in: "10 days of massacres against protesters… snipers fire(d) on civilians… army units… shell houses in neighbourhoods… snipers targeting moving persons… dead bodies in the streets… DCHRS says… 244 bodies had been transferred… [It] also said 81 bodies of soldiers(…) had been received".
EkoGraf on 19June2014 changed "…244 residents killed" in our article into "…244 people killed", motivated with: "source does not state they were all residents". Literally speaking, that statement of Eko is ofcourse correct. However: what the source does say clearly suggests, to my opinion, that 244 civilians were dead and 81 soldiers. In such a situation, I believe it to be relevant in this article to distinguish between civilians being killed(244) and members of the invading military being killed(81). --Corriebertus (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf on 24 Nov 2015 rejected the phrasing "244 civilians were killed" because that would be illicit interpretation of Wikipedia, he states. Fair enough. Nevertheless, source BBC,5May2011 says "244 bodies...Many were children...also...81 bodies of soldiers...". That seems to suggest that the 244 were not soldiers but civilians. To copy that suggestion into our article, I've adapted our text, now saying: "Up to 244 people were killed, many of them children; also 81 soldiers were killed". --Corriebertus (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Change of title: ‘Attack on Daraa’

(See also similar discussion on Talk:Siege of Homs#Change of title: ‘War in Homs’ or ‘Civil war in Homs’ or ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’.)

On 6 May 2011,04:37, a Wikipedia-editor had gathered information about Daraa 25 April to 5 May 2011: Syrian government troops with tanks had stormed the city, killed 25 people, shelled the city, threatened residents with snipers, et cetera. That editor then decided to create this separate Wikipedia article, covering the events of 25Apr–5May2011 in Daraa, and titled it: ‘Siege of Daraa’. I can’t see how the events of 25Apr–5May2011 in Daraa he noted in that first version of the article fit the (Wikipedia) definition of a ‘siege’, nor why anyone back on 6May2011 would have wanted to title those noted events a ‘siege’. If we have to summarize those eleven-day-events, a correct title could be: “attack on Daraa”. Changes in the article since then didn’t change the fact that those described events don’t fit the (Wiki) definition of ‘siege’. So, let’s title this article logically and correctly as: “Attack on Daraa” (and ofcourse adapt some phrasings in the article accordingly). Corriebertus (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In the light of newly discovered information I withdraw this proposal of 20May2014 in favour of a new proposal today posted on Talk:Syrian Civil War#Problems and errors in our presentation of events April–May2011 in Daraa, Homs, Baniyas, -- Corriebertus (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Siege of Daraa. 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/20140125152512/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115985647 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115985647
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140228110814/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115986432 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115986432

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. 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)