Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Source vs. text

In this edit.

Text put into the article: "A series of victory celebrations were held in Aleppo following the government forces' victory, attended by large crowds."

Source says: "The ceremony was the latest in a series of large-scale public spectacles staged on Tuesday to celebrate the government’s victory over the rebels in Aleppo" (my emphasis)

Then it talks about the pro-government soldiers being all happy and stuff. Well, yeah.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Staged" can have more than one connotation, and not necessarily the negative one you ascribe to it. Athenean (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet that connotation is missing from your glowing description of these celebrations. How about, in the interest of neutrality, we use the actual word used by the source and let the readers do the connotin'? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Connotation is subjective. I just don't see the negative connotation you're seeing. If a school "stages" a play, is that a bad thing? Besides it would be easy to find sources that don't use "staged". I think fixating on this one word is not productive. See also WP:PARAPHRASE. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It sure is. Which is why we should let readers decide. Are you saying these celebrations were "staged" in the same way that a high school play is "staged"? Doesn't that sort of answer your question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear whether the source uses "staged" in a negative or non-negative way. Which is why it is best avoided, and also per WP:PARAPHRASE. Again, I find fixating on this one word counterproductive. Here's a source that conveys the same meaning but without staged [1]. Athenean (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Precisely because it's not clear is why it should be used - so readers can make up their own minds.

As to the Newsweek source - yes, people in Aleppo celebrated Christmas. Apparently Christians did so especially fervently. That's not the same as "victory celebrations", staged or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Precisely because it's not clear is why it should be used?" I thought the idea was to NOT confuse our readers. There is nothing in the article other than that single word to suggest that the celebrations were somehow "fake", if that's what you're getting at. Absent such evidence, I don't see any reason to suggest to our readers something like that. It's hardly surprising that people who support the government (and lots of Syrians do) would celebrate the government victory. Athenean (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Source says: "The ceremony was the latest in a series of large-scale public spectacles staged on Tuesday to celebrate the government’s victory over the rebels in Aleppo" (my emphasis). All that wording suggests to me is that it was held on Tuesday. If the intended meaning was what VM asserts, would it not have said "The ceremony on Tuesday was the latest in a series of staged large-scale public spectacles to celebrate the government’s victory over the rebels in Aleppo"? The intended meaning of "staged" cannot be extracted from this content because it is imprecisely used and can be understood in several different ways. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Evacuation of civilians

Any news on the fate of evacuated civilians? Will they be able to return to Aleppo after the battle or were they permanently exiled to rebel-held areas? Either way, it would be useful to mention what happened to them in the article.--R2D2015 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on there being sources. At the time many were also evacuated into government held areas. Content also needs to be added about the actual numbers of civilians evacuated as opposed to the over-inflated figures US and European media sources claimed were in the rebel-held zone prior to its capture. Fisk wrote something about this recently. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

Someone added a POV tag on the article, but no explanation was given for this move. Can we identify these disputed sentences and try to reach a consensus as to how to align them into neutral and encyclopedic wording? Unless these disputed specific examples are given here on the talk page, I suggest we remove the POV tag. --R2D2015 (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The POV tag was inserted here, followed by being edit warred out by a an identified sock, then restored until such a time as the issues are resolved. Can you honestly tell me that they've been resolved? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, what are these issues? They need to be listed here so that we can identify them. Then we can try to resolve them.--R2D2015 (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

See above. The use of al-Masdar as a source. Misrepresentation of several sources. The use of unnecessary POV language ("hell cannons") in the lede. Probably a few other things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@R2D2015: In other words, there are multiple problems stretching back across multiple threads on the article's talk page, so the tag does not get removed until all of them are resolved. With this, and other articles (particularly those that are borderline WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, you need to read through the talk pages and archives carefully to ensure that you are up to date as to what the issues are. The chances that there is only one problem with a neatly set out section with the discussion taking place are slim to none. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Insertion of a pov template requires an accompanying talk page justification to be made by the inserter of the tag at the time of the tag's insertion. This requirement has not been met here. To make the pov tag justifiable, the inserter of the tag needs to indicate clearly to other editors what specific content within the article they are alleging is problematic. Unless this is done, other editors cannot assess what is needed to fix the article and get the pov tag removed, or, alternatively, to argue that the tag is unnecessary by indicating that the problems do not exist or that they are not serious enough to need the tag. Because the tag was invalidly inserted, I have removed it (under removal reasons 2 and 3 - it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, no satisfactory explanation for the tag being there has been given, and there is no discussion section for it).Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're edit warring a POV tag on a 1RR article and serving up your personal interpretation of what constitutes a 'dedicated section' here? Would you like a hole in the head to go with that? The POV tag was inserted on 23 December 2016. Take a look at the massive talk page 'discussion' for that date. No rationale? Resolved? Really? I seriously suggest that you self revert. It's irrelevant that you've simply removed it on the basis of some technicalities you've just put together as justification, therefore it counts as a revert (if you actually want to get technical about it). The article content absolutely reeks of unresolved POV issues, as does the talk page. Try asking what the issues are as an alternative to the battleground mentality all of you alpha males love beating your chests over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"This requirement has not been met here" - yes it has. Over and over again. The POV problems with this article have been repeatedly articulated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, insert that pov tag again in that manner [2] and I will report you. If you want to insert that tag, you are required to open a discussion section here, specifying exactly what content problems you have identified that justifies inserting the tag and what needs to be done to the article remove it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

By all means, Tiptoethrutheminefield, feel free to report me for reverting the removal of the tag by a sock, then a good faith (but mistaken) removal by a newbie who hasn't been following the talk page (including the archived talk, but feel free to go through my breakdown of the history of the insertion and removal in response to the initiating editor above). No, the onus is only on me in as far as I am well aware of the POV pushing and protracted edit warring over the content of the article... and the fact that there has been no indication that POV issues have been resolved. There's a huge difference between activities having slowed down and in limbo and that of actually having been resolved. Incidently, I'll thank you not to use WP:INTIMIDATION tactics on me as they are most definitely not appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Decisive victory?

I don't think it should say decisive victory as it was a long battle with many deaths on each side. A decisive victory when the winning side beats the enemy with minimal losses. If one side wins a decisive victory, then the other must have had a crushing defeat. This was not the case. You can see Assad's men had great losses in fighting this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.69.244 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This was already discussed at length up above before. A Decisive victory (per Wikipedia) is a term that refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage. Also, multiple sources call the end result of the battle both decisive and a turning point in the war, which correlates with the meaning of the term decisive victory. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian

Regarding the text "Russia has been accused of war crimes", sourced to the Guardian, this is classic WP:WEASEL wording by use of the passive voice. Accused by whom? Well, as reading the article makes clear, the only ones who accused Russia of war crimes, are the US, the UK, and France. Yet that is carefully omitted and instead we are left with the impression that the entire UN Security Council accused Russia. This is textbok POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You want to put "US, the UK and France" (I believe "members of the security council" would be more accurate) fine, put that in. Don't remove everything wholesale according to some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (and I just got to note the irony of removing the Guardian but edit warring to add al-Masdar into the article - sheesh! - and then calling it "textbok POV-pushing" (sic))Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we're getting somewhere here, however, this is not lede material. If the UN Security Council had passed a resolution condemning Russia of war crimes, that would be a different matter, but this is just UN ambassadors making accusations. It's a nothing-burger. I can agree to it being added to the body article (in the reactions section perhaps), but definitely not the lede. Remember this [3]? Khirurg (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

My edit was reverted with a comment (edit summary) that it contradicts an RfC [4]. Which RfC? Yes, I can see an RfC above on this page, but do not see how my edit contradicts it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was whether unverified claims provided by anonymous individuals were to be inserted into the lede. The answer was no (opposed primarily by VM who appeared to consider that the fact those unverified claims were reproduced in a number of RS sources converted them into verified claims). You are also attempting to insert unverified claims into the lede, contradicting the opinion of the RfC. BTW, even if verified, I doubt such content is suitable for lede material - the details of the unverified claim is that "on at least eight occasions" helicopters dropped chlorine bombs, killing "at least nine civilians" - such minimal effects would have had a negligible impact on the battle's progression or outcome. The lede should just be for significant events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. So, it is the RfC above. According to the closer, "There is a clear consensus against inclusion of the proposed text in the article's lead." But that was a very specific text, rather than any general conclusion, was not it? I agree that lede should be only for significant events/summary, however I made only a few important refinements in the lead. There is no way to consider it a violation of the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

While the specific content is different, the RfC concerned the issue of an unverified claim being inserted into the lede. The opinions expressed were that unverified claims should not be inserted into the lede. What you are inserting into the lede is also an unverified claim, so the issue seems identical. And, in addition, I think this new content has issues of overemphasis (which the RfC's specific content did not have) making it unsuitable for the lede even if the unverified issue were not there. This doesn't mean this content should be excluded from elsewhere in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was regarding a specific text. It does not prevent anyone from including to the lead well-sourced information about pro-government forces carrying out massacres of civilians or about anything else, except only the "proposed text". My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Though the RfC was regarding a specific text, the rationale proffered by most of the users who participated in the RfC was to oppose that specific text because such unverified claims should be excluded from the lead. This applies even more so to this recent edit because it concerns the very same unverified accusation the RfC rejected. So unless there's some sort verification process or some new revelation concerning these accusations against Russia and Syria, there should be no reason to reintroduce it into the lead. If there are some new developments or investigations, we can look into it at the talk page and add it into the article provided that a consensus was reached for its inclusion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

How about you explain why you are removing text sourced to actually reliable sources [5]? One, with regard to the burnt buses, you are removing the info that the Free Syrian Army condemned the attack, and this is from a source YOU added! Two, you are removing info on the use of chemical weapons which is also well sourced. Three, you are removing info on the discussions at the UN, which is also well sourced.

And of course, simultaneously, you are trying to add some stuff based on a non-reliable source.

Please read WP:NPOV again. Also WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you read it again! You want to cherrypick a single condemnation to fit your pov? And also want to add it twice into the article? Were there any groups praising the bus attack? None at all that I recall. If everyone was condemning it, why should that one condemnation be singled out for mention? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit contains material which was rejected by the RfC (i.e. Russia was accused of such and such unverified claim). Also, you removed the Guardian. That's a RS, even under your standards. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Russia was not noted in the text under discussion in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the question isn't whether it was Russia, Syria, or the Rebels being accused of such matters, it's whether any such unverified claims should be added to the lead at all. In other words, if unverified claims of rebels massacring civilians are added to the lead, be sure that I'll remove it basis of that RfC discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted edit which omitted that rebels targeted schools as well and shifted blame for chemical attacks solely on government. Amnesty International reported charges against rebels using chemical weapons(against Kurds), I can expand on that if somebody wants. Also the edit gave impression only buses were burned, as information about 126 victims of suicide bombing was deleted as far as I can see.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, here's what you actually did:

1. Restore unreliable sources to the article which weren't even necessary.
2. Removed text straight from the sources on the targeting of hospitals by government forces
3. Removed reliably sourced text on the use of chemical weapons by government forces
4. Removed reliable sourced text on the discussion at the UN about this subject
5. Removed appropriate tags indicating that the article relies on unreliable sources
6. Restored more unreliable sources
7. Removed information straight from the source that the Free Syrian Army condemned the attack on the evacuation buses
8. Restored what appears to be a straight up bullshit propaganda story from an unreliable source.

Actually, what you REALLY did is just hit the revert button and do a blind revert without even bothering to look at the nature of content. Your statement above which attempts to describe what you did is so different from what you actually did that it suggests you have no idea what you're talking about and are just engaging in gratuitous edit warring and blind reverting. You're basically tag-teaming to get your 1RR in, which is WP:GAME and disruptive.

And the article is still a big piece of shit just like before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: I've reverted your revert per the reasons outlined above. I don't actually wish to become involved in the content of this article, but the use of WP:BIASED sources for WP:OVERCITE and outside of a carefully considered balancing act for stating the positions of governments and more generic (and attributed) stats is a huge breach of WP:NPOV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Iryna, but I have to revert you. The edits you re-instated (all by marek) are actually extremely POV and need to go. Specifically:

1. Al-Masdar is not "unreliable", it's just marek doesn't like it.
2. Rebels are just as guilty of deliberately targeting civilian facilities. Oh wait, that's right, the rebels are "moderates" that don't do this kind of stuff.
3. The "chemical weapons" stuff is extremely weak. It's insertion here is perhaps the most egregious example of POV-pushing by marek.
4. Ah, the familiar Russia-bashing. That's the whole point isn't it, in a way? I mean, why the total lack of interest, in say, Battle of Mosul (2016-17)?
5. I'll grant you the tags, if only because the article is so loaded with your POV.
6. Yet more WP:JDL.
7. This is perhaps the funniest one of all, considering the "FSA" (whatever that is now) are the ones behind this and other atrocities.
8. Aaaaand even more WP:JDL.

That pretty much sums it up. Not to mention that this [6], this [7], this [8] and this [9] look very much like "revenge edits", performed after marek has used up his revert-of-the-day, to "get back" at the editor reverting him by adding material that the other editor won't like but won't be able to revert because he also has used up his revert of the day. Very disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1. It's unreliable. Even a cursory look at it, by someone who's never encountered it before, makes that clear. I mean, even Ekograf above came up with this new fangled "semi-reliable" (sic) category to justify it being used. There's just no way you can use it for anything controversial and in many places where it's being used it's not even necessary.

2. I don't care about what you believe. All that matters is what the sources say. And here we have someone removing text based on actual reliable sources.

3. Nothing weak about it. It's straight from reliable sources. Your comment is quintessential WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

4. Not "Russia-bashing". Info from reliable source. Your comment is quintessential WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

5. Al Masdar is not a reliable source. Sorry buddy.

6. "considering the "FSA" (whatever that is now) are the ones behind this and other atrocities" <-- not according to sources. Again, I couldn't care less what you happen to believe, anyone can make shit up, what matters is what reliable sources say.

7. Al Masdar is not a reliable source.

Iryna summarized your response quite well below. It consists of just empty aspersions and flaccid assertions that what you happen to believe to be true should be in the article, reliable sources be damned. Not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

1. See bare assertion. You can repeat it all you want, it doesn't make it more true. Also funny you mention EkoGraf, because [10]. We use al-Masdar here as EkoGraf explained to you, here and everywhere. I know you don't like it, but you don't call the shots here. The matter is settled.
2. [11].
3. "The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees a global treaty banning toxic warfare, had no immediate comment."
4. See [12].
5. See #1 above.
6. See #2 above.
7. See #1 above.
8. See #1 above.

Yup. Khirurg (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Actually, I'm looking at the entire content of the article as it stands right now and, indeed, the POV-push is dramatic. I'm not interested in your aspersions and lawyering: I'm interested in the actual content of the article and am only here in the capacity of a steward... but let's just say that AE would not be surprised over who is running the show. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Хирург(Khirurg)! I am sorry, but you misinterpreted the edit. Here is edit in question by Molobo. It inserts reference to RT TV (bad source for such content), removes claim reverenced to Reuters, removes claim referenced to The Guardian, and inserts several claims referenced to Al-Masdar News, a source that maybe notable, but hardly reliable for this subject [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the amount of criticism of Al-Masdar News by reliable sources, it is undoubtedly on the notorious side of notable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian is being removed as well. Are you arguing that The Guardian is not an RS as well? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Business Insider? Seriously? Khirurg (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic Council and BBC news... yes, seriously. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No surprises there. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with reliable sources, perhaps a mainstream encyclopedia - which is what Wikipedia is - isn't for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01

07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Could I ask that you please practice what you preach. The content is under discussion right now, yet you are engaging in edit warring yourself. Could editors please stop this series of reversions right now. I really don't care which version stands for the moment, but this is getting embarrassingly silly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing is certain. Edit summary in revert by ED [14] was misleading: my edit was not a violation of the RfC. Thank you all for answering my question. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

The edit warring must stop. Continue the discussion above, reach a consensus, and then make the edits. I'm going to avoid full protection for now to avoid locking out anyone adding or changing other unrelated content, but the next blind revert will result in a block, regardless of whether the editor's "revert of the day" (a terrible term which encourages low-rate edit warring) has been "used up". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13, I agree. However, seeing as how EtienneDolet has repeatedly gamed AND violated 1RR on both this article and related ones in the past couple days can you please ask him to self-revert? I don't see why that kind of disruptive behavior should be rewarded. I have asked but it's fallen on deaf ears [15], [16]. At the very least this addition needs to be undone to return the article to status quo ante, especially since that is a pretty blatant case of POV pushing based on an unreliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Heck, EtienneDolet and his friend even removed the "unreliable source" tag I added without explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to enforce either version. Discuss it and get consensus one way or the other. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Read the talk page and then think about how likely it is that we will get "consensus" here. This article and topic area has been neglected for a long time by admins and that's how we wound up here, where a few dedicated users sabotage any effort at genuine consensus or neutrality. Case in point - the extensive use of a non-reliable blatantly biased source (al-Masdar - which one user euphemistically called "semi-reliable" as a way of making an excuse for its undue use) to write most of this article.

All you're most likely to get here is stalling, obfuscation, deflection and a hundred other tactics designed to ensure that the POV stays the way it is. And a few months from now this article will still be a pile of crap and people will still bicker.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And that's where topic bans can help. Attempt the discussion, see what happens. Specifically, use an RfC to get outside feedback. I am keeping an eye on things for POV pushing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, topic bans would definitely help. And look here. That's EtienneDolet restoring material that was removed months ago because it lacked consensus. He's basically trying to RESTART old edit-wars (same thing with the burnt buses) but is doing this one old edit-war at a time in order to WP:GAME the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

VM restoring what material? It's a picture that has just been uploaded a couple of days ago. This picture has never been placed in this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's a "newly uploaded" picture of the same thing that you tried to add months ago. New picture. Old issue. How stupid do you think people are? See WP:GAME and WP:POINT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:BU Rob13, In particular:

Re-adding the "massacre" part is essentially a restarting of this edit war.

Re-adding the "Christmas celebrations" part (to insinuate the celebrations were for Assad's victory rather than, you know, people celebrating a religious holiday) is essentially restarting of this edit war.

Re-adding the "burnt buses" part is essentially a restarting of this edit war.

So what happened here? Well, if you look at the history of this article, you'll see disputes raging in Dec 2016 and January, followed by an extensive effort by User:Iryna Harpy and User:R2D2015 to clean up the article and make it... well, not exactly neutral cuz there's way too many problems for that, but at least more neutral. Then EtienneDolet and his friend waited, and once those users who put the work in stopped paying attention to the article, came back here and started re-adding all the POV junk that had been removed (and yes, EtienneDolet does this a lot, it's a bit of a pattern). This is what I mean by "disruptive behavior being rewarded". If we are to work towards consensus, then EtienneDolet should self revert (especially given that they violated 1RR a few times) and we should use the older version of the article as a starting point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

To even consider any action, I'd need a diff of the exact revision where a highly-similar picture was previously added. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, VM is accusing EtienneDolet of what he himself is guilty. Regarding re-starting old edit-wars, this is exactly what VM is doing. Back in December, Etienne added a pic of buses that rebels burned [17]. And just the other day, VM removed it without so much as an edit-summary [18]. This is who is trying to re-start old edit-wars, all the while lying to you and trying to manipulate you. Khirurg (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, the accusation that Etienne is restarting an old edit-war by adding the christmas pic is also a total fabrication. I added some text about Christmas celebrations in Aleppo several months back [19], but there was never any edit war. The material is solidly sourced and uncontroversial. No one challenged it, there was never an edit-war (care to produce diffs of that so-called edit-war Marek? That's right, didn't think so). He is straight up lying to you. Khirurg (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

See also how he tries to get under my skin by mocking [20] a typo I made [21] ("textbok". This is the kind of talkpage tactics we are talking about here. Khirurg (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

One by one...

A lot of users are removing large chunks of information because they don't like a small part of it (to say the least). With each edit, there's a little going in and out of the article. I propose a list be made of each specific change. We can examine the additions/removals one by one and prevent further blanket reverts. This will be a lot more constructive. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What "large chunks"? The main thing being removed is the bit you added based solely on unreliable source. Oh, no, wait - YOU are removing "chunks" about use of chemical weapons, about criticism at the security council and the targeting of schools and hospitals. And then - oh irony! - you say "because they don't like a small part of it (to say the least)". I mean, come on! Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of things going on with each edit. What needs to be done is that we need to back up a bit and discuss each of these removals and insertions. But please, no cursing. We need to keep a pleasant environment so other users can chime in. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We need to back up. So... are you going to self-revert or not? You did try to game 1RR in restoring your "preferred version". Self reverting would show that you are acting in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The last stable version (though probably not perfect) appears to be this, [22] on 13th April. Will you both agree to revert to this one? After that, any clearly uncontroversial additions can be put back and the rest discussed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As a starting point for discussion I would be fine with that with two caveats - the Daily Mail source needs to go (which is unnecessary anyway) and the unreliable sources tag needs to be in, as long as this article relies so extensively on al-Masdar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine with me. Also, I'll take up BU Rob13's advice and rely more and more on RFCs to help us reach consensus from here on out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Al-Masdar News

I am just wondering if there was an agreed consensus about Al-Masdar News: is it a reliable source or not? can it be used only for non-controversial issues or not?--R2D2015 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Almost all the pages of this war have citations on almasdar , so about field reports and war cases it seems to be reliable . but it can be refernced as a pro-gov reliable source . (Its really hard to find a source which is fully natural in this war. ) P.rafati (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was agreed to be reliable, or at least semi-reliable, after a lengthy discussion among editors about a year ago. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the claims of a massacre of 100 hostages by rebels. Al-Masdar is pretty much the only news outlet carrying this story at the moment yet it has already been inserted into the article (along with some very neutral descriptions of 'jihadists'). Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

al-Masdar is completely pro Assad, doesn't use neutral terms and have always faked news for Assad, yet pro Assad Wikipedians want to use it as a reliable source, I'm OK with this only if we confirm it by pro rebel sources like Step News agency. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Without corroboration from independent sources it needs to be removed. Actually al-Masdar probably should be removed through out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the para introduced in these edits should be removed if the single source they are based on has been known to produce fake news, as 3bdulelah states. Jr8825 • Talk 23:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I just wanted to note that while al-Masdar is biased and not entirely reliable, they are not the only ones reporting about the alleged massacre of prisoners by rebels in Aleppo: In fact, SOHR confirms that a lot of killed pro-government fighters were found in a square: [23] Naturally (as pro-rebel news outlet), they deny that they were executed, and claim that these pro-government fighters were killed in course of the fighting during the battle's final days. Thus, we have the same situation as with the alleged massacre of civilians by the government: One side claims it, the other denies it, nobody has reliable evidence. Applodion (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing controversial or doubtfull about this. The jihadist terrorist groups out of which rebels are made regularly conduct such massacres. The information should stay.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that we try to reach a consensus regarding reports about war crimes? I would suggest that we only use unbiased, neutral, third party sources, such as United Nations reports, human rights organizations (ICRC, AI...) or some other sources that are neither pro or against any side in the conflict. As such, if the only source for war crimes are pro/anti-Assad news outlets, then we should reconsider having them in the article, unless they are confirmed by anti/pro-Assad news outlets as well. As such, I would exclude Al-Masnar unless other sources confirm it as well. Feel free to agree or disagree.--R2D2015 (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Proper course of action would be to present both POVs. Cite Masdar for the alleged massacre of the soldiers and also cite SOHR which acknowledges dozens of bodies were found but according to it they were not executed but killed in battle. And no, we cann't remove Masdar. First, it was agreed after several discussion Masdar can be used as a semi-reliable source; second, removing it would not be neutral because we would be removing the POV of one beligerent over the other; and third, removing it throughout would mean removing at least a third of our sources on the conflict. The established template that we have been using in regards to Masdar is when we are citing something according to Masdar, but hasn't been backed up by other sources yet, we use the word reportedly so to indicate it is not definitely proven as fact. Independent sources on Syria are almost non-existent, the two main sources that we use in Syria-related articles are ether SOHR or Masdar. If we removed Masdar than we would have to remove SOHR and we would be left with dozens of articles which would be majorly lacking in sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you raise a good point because if it is indeed the consensus that Al Masdar and SOHR are semi-reliable in the least, then we should be able to use them in Wikipedia, regardless of our personal feelings we may have towards these two outlets of information. I do suggest, however, being more descriptive when it comes to introducing statements that are cited by these sources. For example, "Al Masdar said this..." or "SOHR said that..." In fact, we should be even more descriptive and say "Pro-government Al Masdar said this..." or "Pro-opposition SOHR said that..." That way, the information can be presented in a more balanced and neutral way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I made edits in the section on the soldier's bodies so its more balanced, presenting both sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Much better now. Thanks, EkoGraf!--R2D2015 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Al-Masdar. They are one of the few outlets with people on the ground fluent in Arabic and are usually ahead of other sources. Anyway, lede looks good now. Athenean (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's reliable then it should be easy to confirm it with other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Read again what I said above, most of our sources on Syria are ether SOHR or Masdar due to the fact that 3rd party independent sources are almost non-existent in Syria. Independent media outlets generally cite ether SOHR for their reports or Syrian pro-government sources (which is actually Masdar or SANA). EkoGraf (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For relatively non-controversial stuff or military figures we can probably use Masdar. For anything controversial (like claimed massacres etc), we can't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Both sides POV need to be presented for sake of neutrality. Just like we present massacre claims made by the rebels or the US, we also present massacre claims by the government. Masdar has already been discussed at length multiple times and has been agreed to be a semi-reliable source such as SOHR and that when we cite only Masdar (without SOHR for additional confirmation) we use the wording such as reportedly or according to. If it would be removed, SOHR would also need to be removed. So please stop removing it. EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

First, if you actually look at the article it is not true at all that "when we cite only Masdar (without SOHR for additional confirmation) we use the wording such as reportedly or according to". Hell, you just restored some text to that effect [24]. Well, I guess that says "reportedly". But the crucial piece of information that is missing is "reportedly" BY WHOM? There are a dozen other places in the article where Masdar is used without attribution

Second, for a source which is supposedly only "semi-reliable" it sure as hell gets used a ton in this article. I mean, I'd figure a "semi-reliable" source would be used sparingly. But this whole damn thing is basically written on the basis of crap from Masdar (hence the POV tags). If you can't back up the info with other sources and can only get it from Masdar, it simply needs to go, especially if it is even a bit controversial.

Third, you seem to be restoring Masdar (as well as RT) in places where it's not even necessary since we have other sources. What's the point of that? It's a "semi-reliable" source (whatever that actually means) and there are better sources, so why include it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And can you please link to the discussion where "it was decided" "about a year ago" that Masdar was "semi-reliable"? Not seeing it, either here or at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the texts where I restored Masdar used the wording: reportedly, according to, said or even claimed (even though WP policy generally doesn't accept this word because it is considered non-neutral POV). Check the Syrian civil war map discussion pages. It was discussed there for the first time and decided upon. Subsequently, it was also discussed a few times on some of the other battle talk pages. If you really have to know, I was one of those who advocated against the use of Masdar as a reliable source during that first discussion. However, I found later that it can be reliable in most cases and a compromise was agreed to when both Masdar and SOHR are used for mutual verification we present it as fact, but if one doesn't reaffirm the other, like in the controversial cases you pointed out, we use wording such as reportedly/according to. Removing one source over the other would be non-neutral behavior and would disrupt the balance that exists, which would mean that we would have to remove SOHR as well, and that would actually lead to the removal of most of our sources on the Syrian war. EkoGraf (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

One more time - "reportedly" is not good enough. And the extensive over reliance on this non-reliable or "semi-reliable" source clearly violates WP:WEIGHT, if not a host of other policies.

Also, in cases where Masdar (or RT) are not necessary since there are other sources provided, what's the problem with removing it?

SOHR is a different discussion altogether. Don't equivocate.

Can you provide links to the relevant discussions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me be specific here. EtienneDolet insists, and is edit warring, to add the text "the Syrian Army reportedly discovered bodies of dead civilians who appeared to have been raped before being killed by the rebels" to the article based on an unreliable source - Al-Masdar. Now, do you honestly think that just inserting that little word "reportedly" to such a controversial claim, made by a blatantly biased and propagandistic article, makes that neutral? Hell fucking no. It's still POV. It's obnoxious POV. This needs to go. At the very least please stop removing the neutrality tags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one objecting to masdar. All you do is keep angrily repeating "it's not reliable" "it's not reliable". It just seems you don't like it, but well too bad. Your arguments are not convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvmh (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Go away sockpuppet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

First, reportedly (beside the other expressions) is the wording that was agreed to through all those discussions. That you don't like it is your opinion that you are entitled to. Second, when Masdar and RT which are both pro-gov confirm a situation that is dis-advantages to the government, such as in this case where they are confirming that there are still 2-3 outlying districts being rebel controlled or contested, there is no reason not to use them. Third, it would seem consensus on the wording and source (minus you) was also reached here four months ago. Fourth, I have no time to look through years of discussion pages. Fifth, at this point you are edit warring against four editors (including me) that are in a consensus over the issue. I will simply repeat the compromise consensus that was reached between people who were pro-Masdar and anti-SOHR and those that were pro-SOHR and anti-Masdar. Both sources are to be used on the following basis - When both sources confirm same thing its presented as fact; When one source and not the other confirms one thing it is not presented as factual through the wording such as reported, according to, said and claim (although WP policy says to avoid this last one); Removal of one source (like you are trying to do) would lead to the removal of the other and would disrupt the balance of usage of one pro-opposition source and one pro-government that are both considered reliable or semi-reliable at best. Only thing I could do at this point is advise you to stop edit warring and start a proper discussion on the issue at the proper noticeboard, although most seem to be in agreement to use Masdar at the moment. PS Please refrain from using uncivil language such as Hell fucking no, which is not in accordance with WP: CIVIL. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

First, can you actually link to "those discussions" where it was agreed that "reportedly" was sufficient? Because I'm not seeing it here and if such an agreement was indeed made, it's highly suspicious, since it's... well, sort of ridiculous. Again, what matters "reportedly" BY WHOM. For example, if you have ONLY al-Masdar reporting on something, and no reliable sources picking it up, it's a pretty good chance it's bullshit. In which case al-Masdar shouldn't be used at all but if it is used (because of tendentious and tenacious edit warring to get it into the article) it needs way more attribution than "reportedly".

Skip second cuz it doesn't matter. Just to note that there is no positive value added in putting in unreliable sources into the article, period.

Third, no, there was no such consensus, there obviously still isn't and it isn't just "minus me".

Fourth, no, I am not edit warring against four editors. Let's see, there's EtienneDolet, EtienneDolet's buddy Khirurg, you and ... some throwaway sock puppet account. On the other hand there's me, MVBW and Iryna Harpy. And in terms of quality arguments I do dare say that we have them, you don't. I mean, even you yourself said that you initially opposed using al-Masdar, and that you only consider it "semi-reliable" (wtf that means).

Fifth, there's no quid-pro-quo in Wikipedia policy. There's no "I will let you use this unreliable source if you let me use this other source". That's ridiculous. Who tries to write an encyclopedia that way? Look, a source is either reliable or not and whether it's reliable or not doesn't have diddly squat to do with whether some other source is reliable or not. You want to talk SOHR, fine let's talk SOHR - but that's a separate discussion and whatever is decided about SOHR, it's just not going to make al-Masdar magically reliably when it's not.

I take your unsolicited "advice" into consideration, note that it is not actually "advice" but rather a thinly veiled attack as well as a false insinuation. "Most" do NOT seem to be in agreement "to use Masdar at the moment". It's a shit source.

My language as fine. Wikipedia is edited by adults and sometimes adults use adult language when appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Based on coverage here (and on the coverage of the chemical attack in a lot of other sources!), Al-Masdar News were openly engaged in promoting disinformation on the subject of Syrian war. Such sources should be generally avoided, just as any other "advocacy sources". If something was not described in other and presumably better sources, that something does not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically very source about the Syrian Civil War has been involved in spreading disinformation at some point during the conflict, including normally reliable Western sources, because they all rely on informants on the ground, who often have agendas themselves. Just because al-Masdar has reported false news, be it because they wanted to or because they did not knew better, does not make it a unusable source. Just as EkoGraf has said, SOHR is also not entirely reliable and has a strong pro-rebel bias, so it is natural that they would not cover (most) war crimes by rebels. We can only use the sources we have, and al-Masdar and SOHR, both with strong bias and not entirely reliable, are simply some of the best sources we have. Anyway, it was agreed in the past that al-Masdar can be used if certain conditions are met, and so we should include al-Masdar's claim about rebel war crimes, but only when adding "reportedly", "claimed" and so on. Volunteer Marek, while your attempts to improve articles by using only the best sources are admirable, your long-time crusade against al-Masdar is not appropriate. Not using al-Masdar would deprive us of the best pro-government source about the war we have, leaving us only with SouthFront (which is sometimes even worse in its pro-Assad bias), Russian media (little better) and pro-gov Twitter accounts, while many pro-rebel media outlets would still be used (SOHR, el-Dorar al-Shamia, Zaman al-Wasl, Raqqa is Slaughtered, most Western media, etc.), which would result in a heavy anti-gov bias in our articles. Applodion (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's apples and oranges. Reliable sources make mistakes but they are not purposefully trying to misinform. Reports from SOHR have been verified independently and they are discussed by other reliable sources. The same thing is NOT true for al-Masdar. And as repeatedly pointed out, adding a weak ass "reportedly" to an unreliable source is not sufficient. It does not make it magically reliable. It doesn't even alert the reader to the fact that the source is junk. It's NOT EVEN proper attribution. Also, I have no idea what "long-time crusade against al-Masdar" you're referring to. I mean, aside from the fact that I've been consistent on this in the past. Al-Masdar is junk and it needs to go, it just simply does not satisfy our policy requirements.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest Edit

Iryna I was clear in my edit that its not the source which is questionable but the sources quoted by the source which are questionable. Hearsay is not good enough for such a politicized and media-distorted topic as this one - particularly to support such a one-sided statement. Btw, Times of Israel may not be a questionable source but Al Jazeera most certainly is, and it's used heavily in this article without stating the source or "according to".Asilah1981 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a questionable source? Where did you get that impression? It's the 'go to' source for all commercial mass media outlets for international news in Australia. This is the same for other Western nation-states. I think you might be stuck in USA 2003 as regards your evaluation. It's had a decade and a half to grow to be a reputable, fact checking international news outlet (unlike Al-Masdar which is a small, local concern criticised by reliable sources). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryna, perhaps you don't speak Arabic, Al Jazeera Arabic is much more overt about their pro-militant agenda than their softened English language version designed for western consumption. I remind you it is controlled by a Middle Eastern dictatorship which is very much involved in the Syrian War. Even a few of its star journalists have been convicted for terrorism in western democracies, for whose liberation the channel has started a international campaign. That it is consumed in Australia tells us nothing about its reliability. In any case, I am fine with all outlets being used, as long as none of their statements are portrayed as absolute truth.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

We're gonna use Masdar but not Jazeera???? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we use all sources, but not choose and pick according to our own political agenda, which is what seems to be pushed here. No source is neutral in this conflict - or very few are. Perhaps the UN / UN agencies. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Arabic may be questionable to an extent, but Al Jazeera English seems to be reliable for the most part, even though their language is highly biased against the Syrian government (nothing strange there since its a Qatari state-funded media outlet). In any case, no reason not to use Al Jazeera, as long as what they are claiming is attributed just like what we do with Masdar. EkoGraf (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we are diverging from my original discussion with Iryna Harpy. I removed the Times of Israel sentence not because I object with the source but because I object with the flimsy nature of the statement within the source. Its a "a heard through the grapewine" kind of sentence which is not suitable for such a controversial article. Asilah1981 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Khirurg (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

One more time - it's not your job to evaluate what reliable sources say. That's original research. Saying "I object with the flimsy nature of the statement within the source" is just another way of saying WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. In other words, it's a (yet another) violation of Wikipedia policy. And it is (yet another) instance of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Christmas tree

I think the image should be removed since it is irrelevant to the topic of the article. I hope to hear the opinions of other editors as well about this issue.--R2D2015 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How's it irrelevant again? The picture accompanies the text which is conveniently positioned right beside it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@R2D2015: It's already been discussed by a few editors who are of exactly of the same opinion as yourself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If it was a symbolic object as part of the victory celebrations to mark the end of the battle then it is an entirely appropriate image to have in the article give the absence of any other image of the victory celebrations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that it is the most widely circulated image of recapture of Aleppo. Christmas tree should remain.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with R2D2015 - there was no consensus to add it and it's a subtle form of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the Christmas tree. It's a fact, and a significant one, that in December 2016, Christmas was publicly celebrated in Aleppo for the first time in years. I think we can all agree on that. The pic merely illustrates what is in the text. I fail to see how it is "subtle POV-pushing" or any such thing. Khirurg (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The only "subtle POV pushing" I see is the picture carefully excluding the thousands of people celebrating around the tree.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This removal here [25] is particularly POV. The material is factual, reliably sourced, and the sources faithfully quoted. Nothing POV or UNDUE here. Khirurg (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

VM just doing what VM has done for years with complete impunity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There's several editors here which disagree. And it's *selectively* quoted, so yeah, POV and UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason not to include the image. It conveys the celebrations conducted at the conclusion of the battle by the supporters of one of the beligerents. Also, the point of the discussion here is the image, not the whole sentence and its source that were removed in the linked edit. EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is problematic as well - it tries to portray the outcome as a "liberation" by Assad's forces and it omits the part of the source which says that it was Assad's supporters who were celebrating. As to the celebration of Christmas itself ... uh, yeah, people celebrated Christmas. It's what people do on Christmas. And....? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Liberation"? Where? Please don't distort. Both the wording used in the source and my wording are perfectly neutral. As for Christmas, well, it kinda hard to celebrate Christmas when bombs are flying, wouldn't you agree? Not too unlike here [26]. Khirurg (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in the sentence is liberation even mentioned. As a compromise, so to note who was celebrating, I left the part about who's supporters they are (that you inserted), I only changed it from Assad supporters to government supporters. EkoGraf (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I said. I said that the intention of the sentence is to give an impression of a "liberation". Which is exactly what's going on here. Uninvolved editors commenting on Khirurg's spurious WP:AN report have noticed the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So let me get it straight, Marek, you want a factual reality (the massive Christmas celebrations for the first time in years) to be censored on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because you would rather Wikipedia portray the entirety or vast majority of the population of Aleppo as supporting the rebels (a lie). Not cool.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no "censoring" going on here, just removal of inane POV crap. That's Wikipedia policy. And please don't tell me what I would or would not rather do. Don't ascribe motives or construct your little strawman. That's obnoxious and incivil.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Government supporters" is far more neutral than the loaded "Assad supporters". Thank you EkoGraf. It also seems there is a consensus emerging to include the Christmas celebrations (a no-brainer, if you ask me). Khirurg (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No such consensus is "emerging". Why do you think you're catching flak for this kind of nonsense in the WP:AN report you filed? Like this and [27]. Here's a clue - when you're busy pushing POV on an article and violating Wikipedia policies left and right you actually DON'T want independent eyes on an article, cuz then people see what you're really up to. So filing bogus WP:AN reports where uninvolved editors can see it is not a good idea. That one's free.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Only "flak" I'm catching is from drive-by users that share your POV. And why is it they haven't come to your aid here? And I have no problem with "independent eyes" here or anywhere. Khirurg (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And no Marek, people don't celebrate Christmas when their city is controlled by Al-Qaeda. So yes, its kinda relevant.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. Quit it with the Al-Qaeda crap. You're just flying your POV for all to see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no impression that the text implies a "liberation". Per the source, the celebrations are to mark both Christmas and the government's victory in the battle. Also, the source we used isn't even a pro-government source (International Business Times), so no reason to remove it. We wrote per the source what factually happened and that's that. We let our readers make up their own minds. EkoGraf (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of this text? People celebrated Christmas. Ok. And? The only purpose of including this text can be to convey an impression of how great this "liberation" of Aleppo by Assad was. It's straight up POV pushing and non-encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

How is Al Qaeda POV or "crap", Marek? Al Nusra are also known as Al Qaeda in the Levant.Asilah1981 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So? You're trying to pretend that all opposition to Assad is Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda. It's not and this line of pretending that it is is straight out of Assad/Putin/far-right propaganda sources. Hence, you're just showing your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, Marek, I don't get your point here. "For the first time since the civil war began, Christmas was celebrated in Aleppo, with a tree lighting ceremony. Participants waved Syrian and Russian flags and held portraits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah." What is POV here? That, and the image of the Christmas tree, are simply stated facts and undisputable. Applodion (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A demonstration in Qamishli in solidarity with residents of Aleppo on the day the Battle of Aleppo ended; 22 December 2016

In regards of undue weight to the pro-gov perspective of the domestic reaction if the Christmas image is included, we could also add an image that shows anti-gov protestors like the one I added to the right. Applodion (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that the pro-government demonstrations IN Aleppo had THOUSANDS of people and the current picture shows ZERO people (just a tree), whereas this picture is not in Aleppo and does show (a few) people. So I don't see the balance in this proposal. Where is the picture of the thousands of ecstatic people demonstrating? We all saw the images.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYiJF5OCgFQAsilah1981 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Are seriously demanding to see a picture of "thousands" of people in Aleppo demonstrating against the government that just took over their town and has been shelling the living fuck out of them for months????? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Prior to the battle, there were large demos both against and in favor of the government. Anyway, the focus of this article is military. Khirurg (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Anyway, the focus of this article is military" <- exactly, so what's the point of this "Christmas" stuff in there? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's see, because that happened immediately after the cessation of hostilities, and as a direct result of the government victory? Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Same thing can be said about the Paris and Tokyo solidarity images, which no one complained about. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that the photo should be maintained, because it is relevant to the text and provides a visual description of an important development for the war-torn city and its people. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not only do you 'agree' that it is relevant, you've essentially edit-warred it back in using a non-argument as your rationale. There is no consensus that any kind of image is warranted, yet your argument is that you think it's a good idea to retain it until such a time as another image replaces it? In fact, there's no consensus that the sub-subsection is WP:DUE within the scope of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, I'm fine with the current picture. So as the discussion continues for a better one, we can keep the current version. After all, most of us are in favor of its inclusion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there's another issue here - that image may not even meet Wikipedia's requirements of free content. It's a screen shot from a youtube video [28] of U-News.net (whatever that is (an unreliable source, that's what that is)) and there's no indication that the image or the video are free.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Marek, now this really turns into POV pushing. It is literally stated directly below the video that it is released copyright-free. Applodion (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean this is a reliable source, plus we WP:AGF an unknown quantity publisher actually owns the rights to the video? As for POV pushing, you've failed to address the fact that the entire section this is appended to is under question as to whether being WP:DUE within the scope of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any reasonable arguments against the inclusion of the text regarding the victory celebrations by the supporters of one beligerent at the end of this battle. If the rebels had won the battle and celebrated it we would have noted their celebrations as well. Also, your argument that the International Business Times is a junk source isn't really valid Marek since Wikipedia never questioned its verifiability. Between, Asilah1981 added several other sources now, all verifiable and reliable. In regards to the image, I'm fine ether way, but again no real reason to omit the image if its copyright-free. EkoGraf (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Umm, where did I say that "International Business Times" was a "junk source"? Nowhere, that's where. So I would appreciate if you didn't misrepresent what I've said. Now, I assume that you're referring to this edit. The "junk source" being referred to in that edit summary is obviously al-Masdar. Because it is. That claims still needs to go.

The issue with the Christmas celebrations stuff is different. It's inane, non-encyclopedic and intended to push a POV. So it's UNDUE. There's also plenty of reasons to omit the image. First, if we remove the non-encyclopedic text, then there's no reason for the image to be in there. Second, the image serves the same purpose as the text - to push POV. Third, the image is of crappy quality. I mean, it's a freakin' blurry screen capture and you can barely make out what it is. The only reason someone would want to put it in is to go over the top with the POV of a "celebration" (insinuating a "liberation"). There's no reason why it should be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no issue whatsoever with the Christmas celebrations. They are significant and were widely reported in reliable sources. And that's pretty much it. The rest of your post is just WP:JDL, which is why your "arguments" haven's swayed anyone. As for the Christmas tree pic being blurry, seems like you sure are able to tell what it is. Khirurg (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are indeed issues, which I outlined above. You are choosing to ignore them. And allow me to correct you: "your arguments haven's (sic) swayed anyone IN THIS DISCUSSION". But somehow I don't think that's the fault of my arguments, but rather a function of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. On the other hand, uninvolved editors who've glanced at the issue feel otherwise [29] ("yeah thats well encyclopedic. Did they sing carols too? Given the other contributions are equally inane I am not surprised VM removed them.") whether they noticed the same problem independently or were swayed by my arguments somewhere. This is really about your stubbornness, tendentiousness, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and complete inability to compromise, not the quality of my arguments (which is fine, thank you very much).

And btw, NY Post is NOT a reliable source. It's another shit source. And you've repeated IBT twice to make it look better. And "Straits Times" is really reaching.

Oh, and let me ask you again. You said, quote, "I have no problem stepping back from the topic area, provided others do the same (or even if they don't for that matter)" [30]. Now, did you just say that to get out of a topic ban, or are you actually going to stick to your word? And before you try to weasel out of it by pretending that your "stepping back" was conditional on me stepping back as well (not sure why I would do that), allow me to point out that you did write the phrase "or even if they don't for that matter". So what's it going to be? Will you follow through or were you just trying to blow some smoke up some admins' butt? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't have any arguments, all you got is WP:JDL, which is NOT an argument. Which is why you're resorting to casting aspersions and taunting. How's that working out for you? Khirurg (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I apologise. Since you were referring to claims and sources in the plural I assumed you meant IB Times as well. So again, apologies. Even if your arguments for the removal of the image were valid, that's not enough reason to remove the text as well. We are writing about factual events here that took place (the celebrations) which were reported/verified by numerous reliable sources. Whether you think they are insinuating a "liberation", which none of the cited sources support, is your personal opinion which you are entitled to of course. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the entire video (from which the Christmas tree shot is captured) is Creative Commons licensed, wouldn't a shot with the trumpet-playing Santas be more interesting and appropriate than the tree one? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

UN Report

UN confirms that "Following the re-capture of parts of Aleppo by the Syrian government in December, the United Nations received reports that pro-government forces were carrying out massacres of civilians in Eastern Aleppo. At least 82 civilians were killed, including children, described as war crimes" this should added into the article.Alhanuty (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That was discussed above. Allegations or "reports received" are undue for the lead. But we can add it to the body if you'd like. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Its already in the article in the section on alleged government war crimes. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

UN reports it,then it is not alleged.Alhanuty (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely, Alhanuty. EtienneDolet, since when has Wikipedia considered comprehensive UN reports as being WP:ALLEGED? Are you setting new precedents for WP:RS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To clarify the edit in question: the UN received reports, it did not make a comprehensive report on its own. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to provide source for very serious allegation

Volunteer Marek wrote:

EkoGraf, I want to thank you for your efforts at compromise. For now we can put this issue aside. Now... about al-Masdar and their neo-Nazi writers

Can I ask Volunteer Marek to provide us with a reliable source about "Neo-nazi writers" being employed by Al Masdar and their names ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a whole section above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Its just the one guy. EkoGraf (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf The 'one guy' was a founding member and deputy editor for years! There are only a handful of people involved in this news org, full stop. Now some fictional Board of Directors has posted an apology for not noticing that he was writing for Stormfront? Who are the members of the BoD? Who's trying to pull the wool over our eyes? And you're still convinced that a-M is a reliable source?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Volunteer Marek, but I don't see any reliable source writing about "Neo-nazi writers" at Al Masdar. Please can you provide a reliable source with this information? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a whole section above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to everything I have already previously said Iryna regarding this issue. EkoGraf (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf and MyMoloboaccount: Where is 'neo-Nazi writers' being used in the content of this article, or any of the articles surrounding a-M? All that is taking place is heated quibbling over the nature of comments on talk pages. This is not an article space, and making a lot of noise about potential BLPVIO is calling attention to it. Can we please try to stay on topic... and the topic that of a-M as a source. As far as I can establish, the well has already been poisoned by the publication itself as to its being WP:RS. No one is able to answer the question of who the BoD are; where the donations go; etc., etc. We wouldn't accept information from such publications under any circumstances in other articles. The only remaining question is that of whether it can, or should, be considered quasi-reliable for official statements and estimates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice: al-Masdar at RSN

Link to discussion. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made a formal proposal here [31]. Khirurg (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Another highly POV edit to the lede

This [32] is another terrible, unencyclopedic, ultra POV edit by Volunteer Marek. In addition to WP:PRIMARY, this "report" is just another of dozens of "reports" written by partisan Western and Gulf funded NGOs that no one will read and won't make a difference. It's addition to the lede is WP:TEND, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, and yet the latest attempt by VM to find a way to add "Russia! War Crimes" to the lede [33]. Khirurg (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that was fine edit by VM (first diff). Yes, this info (2nd diff) must be included in the lead as something highly notable and essentially a matter of fact.My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That material is not, in any way, lede-suitable material. But Volunteer Marek is uninterested in doing anything other than terrible, unencyclopedic, ultra POV editing. However, attempting to alter his stuff inevitably leads to his (joined by MVBW, if he has not temporarily "retired") relentless opposition, an opposition which, although almost always based on nothing more than invalid I-just-don't-like-it arguments, is still remarkably effective since it will never stop, ever. Reminds me of that line from The Terminator: it can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever, until ... it has gained its pov goals. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's you and Khirurg and EtienneDolet who are cramming material cited to a shitty source which employs neo-Nazis and advocates the use of chemical weapons (along with other crazy stuff) into this article, while at the same time desperately removing text cited to actual reliable sources like Reuters and The Guardian. How the hell does that work? Unless you can explain that, you got no business calling my edits "unencyclopedic" or "POV".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of war crimes by one side (such as those by the pro-opposition SNHR and VDC) against the other (the government) are notable enough to be included in the article, but not in the lead. Otherwise, if it were in the lead, we would have to include accusations by the government against the rebels as well for sake of appropriate balance. Accusations made by those alligned with one of the two beligerents are more appropriate to the alleged war crimes section. EkoGraf (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Between, I inserted the Guardian thing. You wanted it in the article, Khirurg wasn't objecting if it was somewhere other than the lead and if it was stated who was accusing Russia of war crimes. Since it was a matter of war crimes I put it in the alleged war crimes section, most appropriate place. EkoGraf (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I want to thank you for your efforts at compromise. For now we can put this issue aside. Now... about al-Masdar and their neo-Nazi writers... thoughts? I think that one is almost a litmus test of whether an editor is WP:NOTHERE or not. Anyone who supports using al-Masdar for controversial info after it's been revealed that their editor was active on neo-Nazi websites where he called groups "sand niggers" (sic) among other things, has no business editing this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion about both him and the remaining four controversial cites up above at the end of the compromise proposal section. If he wrote the controversial cites, feel free to remove them, if not, well... EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters. The fact that they hired him and then only "suspended him with pay" (i.e. gave him a free vacation in the hopes the thing would blow over) speaks to the reliability of the source in general. Like I said, *nothing controversial* can be sourced to this crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, like I said up above, if its a controversial issue that is picked up on by pro-opposition sources (like SOHR) it needs to stay (example dead soldiers bodies). This is in regards to the issue of presenting both sides narratives. However, if its a lone Masdar claim I really don't care ether way, however, at the moment most editors lean towards including the claims if they are properly attributed to Masdar. So until that is resolved the status quo should remain (that is, it should stay put). EkoGraf (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, if it's a lone Masdar claim and its controversial, given recent developments and information there's no way it "should remain". There's no "tyranny of the status quo" on Wikipedia. It's either in compliance with policy or not. This is a pretty obnoxious and tendentious violation of policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: No, you're advocating for WP:GEVAL. Neither VM or I have discounted the use of a-M for stats and official statements with attribution, but the use of an unreliable source simply isn't justified by attribution. The claims must be treated as bogus. Currently, there appears to be a lot of WP:CHERRY in order to substantiate a-M claims (i.e., the premise is that the source is 'the truth', followed by a mad scrabble to find other sources reiterating the claims... which all point back to a-M as the initial source!). We are striving to develop an article based on what RS tell us, not to apply false balance because it isn't nice not to depict something without including everyone's opinion on 'the truth'. Usage would be proscribed in the same manner as it is in the use of RT, TASS, Sputnik, etc. in articles surrounding eastern Europe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Can I ask you which sources reg. Syria are reliable considering the current situation? Which ones don't have a clear agenda, and from those which don't, which ones don't get their information from sources which have a clear agenda?Asilah1981 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: Please refer to WP:RS (more specifically, WP:NEWSORG for current affairs topics) and the WP:RSN. It's not my call. I follow community consensus as to what is or isn't deemed to be reliable, and evaluate the multitude of new sources being introduced to any given article according to what established sources say about those sources. Sounds simplistic? It is not. This is the most challenging aspect of editing, and requires that we discipline ourselves to uphold community consensus regardless of personal perceptions. Even if sources you (or even I) might construe as being representative of a Western POV are not to your taste, they have been deemed reliable due to their fact-checking and being independent of government and other constraints. Does this lead to the editor having to uphold consensus on articles they disagree with (sometimes vehemently)? Yes, it does. Again, this is an ongoing project, and we're here to ensure that the best mainstream understanding of any subject is represented. Bear in mind that we are writing for English language Wikipedia for the Anglophone world, therefore known quantity sources in the Anglophone world which are reputable take precedence. If the project is still around in 2077, this article will probably have changed from being dependent on media outlets to reflect what mainstream scholarship revolving around history has to say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair point Iryna. Just careful not to side too much with activist editors. It won't lead to a stable version of the article nor to consensus building.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Re this - what exactly is suppose to be the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Atlantic Council is a preeminent advocacy group, and an earnest one. Their contributors genuinely believe that the recommendations they're promoting are right. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE policy (note 8), this means they aren't suitable sources for ideologically contentious claims about entities with whom their donors have apparent conflicts (financial or, by extension, kinetic). Atlantic Council is not "academic" or "peer-reviewed" or "published by a respected publishing house", nor is it a "magazine" or "journal" or "mainstream newspaper". See WP:SOURCE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You point to note 8 in WP:NOTRELIABLE but I fail to see how any of this applies. Do they have a "have a poor reputation for checking the facts"? No. "lack meaningful editorial oversight"? No. "have an apparent conflict of interest"? No. " are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional"? No. "rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" No. So this appears to be a completely spurious tagging.

Likewise your claim in your edit summary that it's unreliable because "it pays contributors to advocate" is strange. It has employees. Like any other think tank. On this basis you'd have to tag every instance where pretty much ANY think tank is being used in Wikipedia. That's clearly not right.

However, all the criticism mentioned above DO apply to al-Masdar. And more.

I'm removing the spurious tags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, your tagging of the Independent, a source which is also widely used throughout Wikipedia and generally seen as reliable (AFAIK), is ... strange to say the least. Your stated reason is "Headline links to "Automotive Articles"". I have no idea what that even means and what you're talking about. "No apparent fact checking" According to whom? You? It fact checks like any other newspaper. "No link to any formal report". Since when is that a requirement for using a reliable source?

Seriously, none of these objections make an iota of sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean really, the article is chock full of unreliable sources like al-Masdar but you come in and start tagging the few sources which actually are reliable??? Wtf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera: For the record

Syria

Al Jazeera has been criticized over unfair coverage of the Syrian civil war. The channel's reporting has been described as largely supportive of the rebels, while demonizing the Syrian government.

The Lebanese newspaper As-Safir cited outtakes of interviews showing that the channel's staff coached Syrian eyewitnesses and fabricated reports of oppression by Syria's government. It refers to leaked internal e-mails suggest that Al Jazeera has become subordinated to the Qatari emir's assertive foreign policy, which supports Syria's rebels and advocates military intervention in the country.

In March 2012, Al Jazeera correspondents Ali Hashim and two others resigned from their jobs because of objections over the reporting on the conflict. They reported that Al Jazeera paid $50,000 for smuggling phones and satellite communication tools to Syria's rebels. Hashim concluded, “The channel was taking a certain stance. It was meddling with each and every detail of reports on the Syrian revolution."

Ahmad Ibrahim, who is in charge of the Al Jazeera's coverage on Syria, is the brother of a leading member of the rebels' "Syrian National Council". Al Jazeera reportedly put pressure on its journalists to use the term "martyr" for slain Syrian rebels, but not pro-government forces.

In January 2013 a former News Editor at Al Jazeera, who was from Syria, and had been at Al Jazeera for "nearly a decade" was fired without cause given, but in an interview stated their belief that it was linked to his/her resistance of ongoing strong pressure to conform to biased coverage of the Syrian civil war. The former Editor stated that the Muslim Brotherhood was "controlling the Syrian file at Al-Jazeera" with both organizations biasing news coverage in favour of the Brotherhood ousting the Syrian government of Assad by force and warning the then-editor "the majority [in Syria] is with the Muslim Brotherhood and [taking power] is within our grasp" so "thank your god if you get a pardon when we become the government." The source named the names of several other former employees who resigned in protest, including director of the Berlin bureau Aktham Sleiman, a Syrian, "who was, at the beginning, with the [Syrian] opposition" but resisted what the interviewee terms the "lies and despicable [political and ethnic] sectarianism" and concluded that "Al-Jazeera has lied and is still lying" about Syria and in favour of armed overthrow and of the Muslim Brotherhood.

References

Of these, only the first source is reliable. Note that this "former News Editor" is not even named.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh so Al Akhbar is not reliable but Al Jazeera is? Give me a break, man.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And since we need more sources....

Al Jazeera has been called a propaganda outlet for the Qatari government and its foreign policy, by analysts and by news reporters, including former Al Jazeera reporters. The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly Islamist perspectives, promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, and having a pro-Sunni and an anti-Shia bias in its reporting of regional issues. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• Yes, Al Jazeera should not be used for anything controversial and political that involves Qatari government, Masdar should not be used or anything that involves Syrian government, RT should not be used or anything that involves Russian government, etc. This goes to all sources that have a reputation to be "pro-government". Something that is not pro-government (e.g. NYT) can be used for anything. Also note that media funded by governments in democratic societies (e.g. RFE/RL) are usually not "pro-government". My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera doesn´t even report on Qatar´s internal politics , the bulk of its propaganda is related to Qatar´s foreign policy objectives(it blocked an article criticizing Saudi Arabia for example). The NYT can hardly be considered objective on this matter and as far as I know Al Masdar is based in UAE not Syria. Writing off all media that is not western or pro-western would lead to systemic bias. You guys are pushing for this. Asilah1981 (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am telling it should not be used for foreign or domestic policy of Quatar. I also said it does not matter where the source was based geographically. It is only important that Al Masdar has a reputation of being a "pro-Assad" newspaper, as follows from the coverage in many others sources (and as many contributors noted in discussion above). Meaning it has a poor reputation for "fact checking" (see WP:RS) when it comes to their "favorite". However, NYT has no reputation of being a pro-US government source. It has good reputation for fact checking.My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: This is a Wikipedia article, not a venue for pushing your own POV as to what constitutes neutrality. Personal opinions as to what you think of RS is pure WP:GEVAL. Again, I will reiterate to you that we don't write our own editorialised accounts, we follow what reliable sources have to say. Paraphrasing an essay on systemic bias doesn't cut the mustard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Then Iryna Harpy, try to be more balanced in your reverting yourself. I bumped into this article and noticed it was under attack by activist POV editors. Editing out the Christmas tree celebrations and Christmas mass as "propaganda" is just plain ridiculous, but you seem fine with that... - while immediately reverting a much less controversial - and well reasoned - edit of mine and refusing to engage on the talk page. Rather than lecture me about policies, please do try to support that they are followed in this article, by both sides.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: The revert you referring to is under discussion here, and in the section above. By the same token, I suggest that you practice what you preach. I cannot construe that as either being 'well reasoned' or neutral. If it has eluded, the brunt of discussions here is about the evasion of policy and best editing practices. Local consensus over spurious sources is not even close to WP:NPOV. You know that I have no personal arguments with you, but I do have arguments with changing the goalposts for all of the articles surrounding events in Syria. I also know that adding more sources (as you have) to verify that something was reported does not make it WP:DUE, and I know that you know that the edit summaries you are using are off limits. Please try to keep your behaviour in check (and I don't mean that as any form of threat), but am concerned that you're letting your emotions get the better of you... and I know, from our previous collaborations, that you're a far better editor than that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryna, I also have similar levels of respect for you as an editor and I know you try to stick by the rules and edit in good faith. This is a contentious issue and we all have our opinions, which probably diverge significantly. I´ll tone it down but I still have a lot to say on this matter (particularly your argument of changing the goal posts). But one editor here is neither constructive nor editing in good faith, for me this is the main problem. Note when I add sources I even avoid RT. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Asilah1981. Extreme events are always bound to elicit extreme reactions... and we're all humans first, editors second under such circumstances. I'd be grateful if you could resist the urge to shoot first, ask questions later with regards to the editor you're referring to. Aspersions do not bode well. You've only just entered the arena and have made a decision based on what the pack is saying. That does not mean that the pack are correct just because they hunt in numbers. There's another, far more public venue that suggests that the community and admins disagree. I think I should point out that you've been mentioned there, but I just observed that you don't appear to have been notified. Just a heads up, my friend. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I will refrain and thank you, but you are wrong to think I have been influenced by other editors. It was the edits in question which caught my attention, not the discussion of them on the Talk Page.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: Understood. I recognise that, without having watched or worked on Syria-related articles over a more protracted period of time, editing activities and comments can only be construed according to their immediacy rather than the full context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Al-Akhbar and Al-Masdar and Al-Safir are unreliable pro-assad networks,and we can't take their opinions as neutral,they are pro-assad.Alhanuty (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlAboud83: as opposed to syria.liveuamap.com that is considered WP:RS above? You know they use a ton of Al-Masdar news right? So how does that work exactly? That AMN is "pro-Assad" is POV:) --Dfroberg (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal

This removal is uncalled for [34], since the story was also picked up by SOHR (even if they interpreted it differently). Khirurg (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The rationale is clear in the ES: a-M is not an RS. As a matter of negotiations on proscribed usage, using it as the sole source for content is out of the question. Any usage of the source is only to be understood as WP:BIASED at best, and is only appropriate for estimates of casualties or statements from official sources involved in the battle. This proscription is not negotiable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Iryna, most agreed to use a-M if its properly attributed except (as per compromise) in the case when its a controversial issue that is only reported by Masdar. Which is not the case here. What was removed was a paragraph where we had both Masdar and SOHR report on the story. Per the proposed compromise agreement to which most agreed to, when its regarding a controversial issue that is picked up on by both sides (the government and the opposition) to present different narratives, such as this case here, we use Masdar as a source to present the government's POV in contrast to the opposition's (which was also displayed in this case). They were citing an SAA officer regarding the claim so it was coming from an official source. This is for the sake of neutrality (on our part) where we present both sides narratives on a controversial issue. If its a controversial issue that is reported on by Masdar alone then yes remove it. Between, the paragraph in question was once already discussed months ago and its wording (in the current form) was already negotiated. EkoGraf (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Iryna, I think that is a reasonable position by EkoGraf.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf and Asilah1981: No, it is not a reasonable position. As both sources have been questioned in the context of anything to do with Syria, splicing together reports to create content is a breach of WP:NOR. It's completely WP:UNDUE because Wikipedia is not news, and you are behaving like journalists reiterating what has been said by dubious sources as if you are adhering to balancing the content. That is not what you are doing, and local consensus does not override community evaluation of whether sources are reliable or not. I don't care how many straw polls are tossed around various venues. You're basically inserting crud any information you can get your hands on into the article because you want to pad out the article. Sorry, but this is just bad form. If you want to write the news, you both know that we have a sister project for such objectives. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait [35]....what? And that's enough with the aspersions and accusations ("you want to pad the article" etc...). Khirurg (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg: If you have problems with my comments, take it to the AN... and do not structure comments to make it look as if I was responsible for inclusion and deletion of article content you and other editors have been edit warring in and out of the article because that is the epitome of the definition of WP:Aspersions. We are talking about a particular edit, so don't try to shift the goalposts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Except you haven't given a single reason as to why that that edit was justified. Most users seem to think at al-Masdar can be used with proper attribution. "This proscription is non-negotiable" is not the kind of language conducive to consensus building. Which is presumably why you resorted to aspersions. The old "report me to AN if you don't like it" taunt is also not a good idea. Khirurg (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm following WP:CCC, and previous negotiations are not binding contracts. Indeed, my apologies for the AN taunt. I have already noted that I am respectful of EkoGraf and Asilah's editing (as I have been with you in the past), but my patience as to compromising content to accommodate editors trying to hold each other to ransom into overstepping the use of non-RS has worn thin. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"most users seem to think" is quite an exaggeration. Especially once you factor in SPAs and meat puppets. Regardless, it's pretty split. But we do have a site wide policy, WP:REDFLAG which represents site wide consensus. So edit warring this info back into the article is against consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, most is in fact do agree to include Masdar claims when they present a competitive narrative to an opposition claim (like SOHR's here), but of course to properly attribute it. If Masdar is the sole source of a controversial topic then ok, feel free to remove it. Even My very best wishes has agreed that if sources of equal reliability exist to use them both (in this case the second source is SOHR). Marek, we already went through how many people support the inclusion of Masdar and how many do not (not counting the sock-puppets), with the current count being 10 vs 5 for its inclusion. So, Khirurg's right when he said "most users seem to think" and it was not an exaggeration at all. EkoGraf (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If the only "other" source that exists, is one which says "yeah, they're full of it" then there's no reason for us to include the text based on al-Masdar. I mean, what would be the justification? Again, please read WP:REDFLAG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is the one who is saying "yeah, they're full of it" is a pro-opposition organisation, and in addition to their denial of the government narrative still acknowledged there were bodies (which is a fact then and not an unproven claim), thus we are obligated to present both sides narratives. EkoGraf (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, your argument in the edit summary was since it's only a non-RS that's reporting this. First, as it stands, there is no consensus at the RSN to exclude Masdar as a source or that its a non-RS. Second, the story on the discovery of the bodies was not reported only by Masdar but by SOHR as well although with a different narrative). And there sure is no consensus that SOHR is non-RS. The current wording of that paragraph was discussed and agreed to months ago (even by R2D2015 that you mentioned as being against Masdar). EkoGraf (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I will think up a new compromise text (without the usage of Masdar) as soon as the protection is lifted. Same goes for that ceasefire proposal sentence that you left unsourced. Hope it will be satisfactory. Until then, bye. EkoGraf (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection, of course, can be lifted early if you come up with a compromise that everyone agrees to. Feel free to work on it now. That, after all, is what the protection is for—to stimulate rather than mute discussion. El_C 05:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Soldier's bodies text - Pro-government sources claimed that rebels of Fatah Halab and Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (JFS) carried out a massacre of over 100 POWs prior to leaving the last East Aleppo neighborhoods. However, this was not independently confirmed[36] and the pro-opposition activist group the SOHR stated that the allegation was unfounded and that the dozens of bodies that were discovered belonged to soldiers who were killed during fighting in the southern outskirts of the city.[37] In addition, state media claimed the Army had found the bodies of 21 executed civilians in rebel prisons. The Russian defence ministry also reported the execution of dozens of people by the rebels. The SOHR confirmed bodies had been found in the streets but could not specify how they were killed.[38]

Ceasefire text - A ceasefire proposal was presented by a UN envoy in November; under the proposal humanitarian aid would be delivered to Aleppo following the cessation of hostilities. President Assad said the ceasefire plan was "worth studying",[39] and according to the UN envoy the Syrian government was "seriously studying" the proposal.[40]

EkoGraf (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy: does this draft and its sources work for you? El_C 06:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me text-wise. However I don't see why we shouldn't use Al-Masdar. Khirurg (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Confused: Iryna is your position that in a civil war between two parties, it is against wikipedia policy to record the statements and positions of one of the parties to the conflict? The Syrian government and Russia are media outlets are also questioned. Are their positions and statements to be removed altogether? What about the Russian Defence Ministry? Are their official statements to be banned as well? I'm not all that involved here but I just don't get this line of argument.

My (personal) position here is that the Syrian conflict is the first one in decades where western governments and media (save marginal outlets) have come down on one side of the conflict since NATO as a whole is (at least indirectly) involved in it, in what is clearly a (I hope temporary) revival of the Cold War. The bias on English-language wikipedia is systemic even without edit-warriors. This wasn't the case with the Iraq war or other recent conflicts, where balance of opinion and critical evaluation of sources was present on western media. Even liberal press in the US such as the New York Times is extremely hawkish on Syria, applauding Trump for his recent bombing without ascertaining responsibility. The only sources coming from Syria deemed "credible" by western sources or even NGOs are those in hands of opposition groups, and I don't see their reliability ever being questioned. English-language Wikipedia decides on what is reliable based on what western media says is reliable.

In any case, some thought and consensus building is required rather than taking on an extremist approach reg. sourcing. I note that EkoGraf has the right attitude, regardless of whether he is right or wrong and you should engage with him more constructively.Asilah1981 (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not really - at the end of the day, neither of the underlying sources is reliable. And this whole thing is just a propaganda effort by the Syrian government trying to counter the multiple, and well sourced, stories about the atrocities THEY committed while capturing Aleppo. Basically, when these stories started coming out (oh, btw, where are *those* stories, which can be reliably sourced, in this article? Oh, that's right, they got removed) the Syrian government began putting out these unverified claims of massacres by the rebels to muddy the waters. Standard disinformation tactic. So none of that should be included, since Wikipedia isn't a megaphone for Assadist propaganda. Now, if other, actually reliable sources can be found then of course we can include it. But so far no one's been able to provide them. Everything I just said is basically the Wikipedia policy of WP:REDFLAG. And this policy is more important and determines article content much more than personal feelings or various "I just like it" and "I just don't like it" that people throw around on this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Whether you or me think its propaganda is irrelevant. Our job is to present both sides narratives. Many would also consider the US/UK/France narrative against the Syrian government as propaganda on their part but we still include it. The source cited now is a secondary source (WP:SECONDARY), not primary (unlike Masdar was). Also, you seemed to have missed that the reliable AFP also reported on the alleged massacre of civilians citing the government (again WP:SECONDARY). You also fixated on the massacre text and didn't even respond to the proposal on the ceasefire text? EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No, our job is NOT to "present both sides narratives". Our job is to follow WP:NPOV which means following reliable sources. If something is not covered in reliable sources we don't go looking for non-Reliable sources just to include it. We most certaintly don't base our article around unreliable sources just cause it suits our POV and then claim "balance!"

What is the AFP source you're referring to?

I should clarify though - I don't have a problem with the "Ceasefire" part of the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(I don't think there ever was much dispute about the Ceasefire text, just how it's sourced).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I cited it up above [41]. AFP reported on the story citing state media bodies of 21 allegedly executed civilians were found. The same story by AFP was run by at least a dozen (or more) other media outlets (not linked to the government). EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced as to the reliability of this source. Also, can you provide the links to these "at least a dozen (or more) other media outlets" that you claim ran this story? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Since when is AFP not a reliable source? And the sources... [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]. EkoGraf (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• As removed [58]. this is a removal of controversial material sourced to questionable sources, Perhaps this can be re-written and sourced better (how exactly?), but this a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes As you can see up above, I have provided secondary sources not linked to the government who reported on a government allegation. The main ones being AFP and Deutsche Welle (both considered reliable). If we use these secondary sources, would that be appropriate enough? EkoGraf (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The text (along with the secondary reliable sources) would go like this - State media claimed the Army had found the bodies of 21 executed civilians in rebel prisons, citing the head of Aleppo's forensic unit Zaher Hajjo. The Russian defence ministry also reported the execution of dozens of people by the rebels. The pro-opposition activist group the SOHR confirmed bodies had been found in the streets but could not specify how they were killed.[59][60][61] EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The involvement of rebels in human rights violations is already prominently described in the body of the page and in the lead, even after this removal. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's focus here. At the risk of being repetitive, can you live with EkoGraf's compromise passage? El_C 04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Current version tells: According to an Amnesty International report, some of the rebel groups in the city engaged in summary executions, in some cases in public, on the basis of "quasi-judicial institutions", and so on. What else do you need? Adding essentially the same claim by Assad government (which was involved in the war crimes itself and therefore does not deserve any trust) does not really add anything here. Therefore, I would be opposed to including text suggested by EkoGraf. My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

So we do not appear to have consensus. EkoGraf, how would you persuade My very best wishes that the passage has a place in the article. In other words, in what way do you maintain it adds to what is already mentioned regarding quasi-judicial summary executions on the rebels' part? El_C 05:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are completely different incidents. The "quasi-judicial" executions in the Amnesty report were executions of people accused of common crimes, un-Islamic behavior, aiding the enemy etc...The Amnesty report is dated July 2016. The material EkoGraf proposes to add is about the execution of captured government soldiers in the last days of the siege (December 2016). Completely separate incidents. Khirurg (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes, how do you respond to the argument these are wholly separate incidents which, therefore, should be each mentioned. El_C 07:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes El_C I refer to the exact same thing Khirurg said. The Amnesty Report was referring to different incidents/types from this one. The ones mentioned by Amnesty took place during the battle as quasi-judicial killings, while the ones alleged by the government took place at the very end during the rebel retreat (different incidents, different period). This type of human rights violation (executions) by the rebels is not mentioned anywhere in the lead and has only one sentence in the section on war crimes (the Amnesty report). While for the government for example we have several paragraphs for barrel bombs alone. Anyway, it is not the same claim by the government. As for the trust issue, we are not citing a primary source, but a secondary reliable one. You yourself said the same thing regarding pro-rebel SNHR down bellow. EkoGraf (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

For someone not familiar with the subject in detail (like myself) this looked like repeating of exactly the same. This is a typical "due weight" question, and I think it was already too much about the rebels. Here is relevant "war crimes" section. It is structured as "Syrian government and allies" versus "Rebels". This is already wrong. There must be a sub-section about each side indicated as "Belligerent" in the infobox. Quite obviously, a lot more was published about the more powerful sides who bombed the population from the air. That should be reflected in the coverage of the section per WP:NPOV, and I think it is mostly reflected already. My very best wishes (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes I have no problem with reflecting the larger coverage of the government's barrel bombing campaign with more coverage here in our article. However, what we have here is one sentence about quasi-judicial killings by the rebels, while another talks about a totally different type of killings allegedly conducted by the rebels. Just because something similar occurred (and has already been written) doesn't mean we should exclude the other allegation (which was reported on widely at the time). EkoGraf (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes, looks like there's no dispute in so far as giving greater coverage to depicting the government's atrocities via their air campaign. But returning to the disputed sentence: were you persuaded that it constitutes a separate incident. El_C 00:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because I would suggest something different for this section. First, to re-title it as "War crimes" instead of "Allegations of war crimes". Second, leave only most reliable cases of actual war crimes (that indeed had happen essentially as a matter of fact), but do not include unproven allegations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the wording allegation was agreed to some time ago. If we would follow what you just said it would be a double standard to then leave in for example the pro-rebel SNHR data that you said can be used because its referred to by a secondary reliable source. Which is basically the same reasoning I explained for the allegation on the executed bodies (WP:SECONDARY). We can not keep allegations by one side, but not include the other. I have no objection to include allegations of war crimes by the pro-opposition VDC, SNHR or SOHR (which are already in the text cited by secondary reliable sources) and I think they should be included, but we then have to include allegations by the government as well. Initial objections were that the sources for these claims were unreliable. Ok, I replaced those (primary) sources as you requested with secondary reliable ones. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is just silly. There's a new excuse with each and every response from Mvbw and it seems to be just another deliberate obstruction to prevent a consensus from ever being reached. At this rate, this article will never be unprotected, and it has now reached a point of disruption. When Mvbw demanded additional RSs, EkoGraf went and got them. Then Mvbw demanded the paragraph be "re-written", EkoGraf went along and did it. Once the new text was proposed, Mvbw made the really sloppy excuse of conflating two separate incidents. And when Mvbw was proven wrong there, he said we should also expand on barrel bombs (by the way, on my count it's mentioned at least 15 separate times (including in the lead) in at least 3 separate paragraphs). And even after he's told he's free to expand on it, he then says allegations shouldn't be in the article. And I must say, that I commend EkoGraf's patience and his relentless good faith effort to reach a compromise. It's barnstar worthy performance here. But not every editor has EkoGraf's patience, and I can't help but believe that this type of stonewalling will wear thin the good faith efforts of any editor to reach any sort of compromise. That, I firmly believe, is the worst tragedy of it all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What can I say? I tried. El_C 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C And I thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Are there any objections to the compromise? Because if no one responds but then edit wars once the page is unprotected, I will be taking a dim view of that. El_C 03:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The first two sentences in the proposed paragraph are a no-go because these are based on unreliable sources. The next three sentences - out of the new sources provided by EkoGraf only DW is of unquestionable reliability. So ... maybe. I think the "ceasefire" sentence is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually a few more of those listed by EkoGraf are reliable (Japan Times, etc.) so I'm fine with the second part as long as the sources are reflected accurately ("An independent monitoring group could not confirm how they died.") Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I already proposed both at your talk page and at this discussion page a few days ago to cut out the sentences on the soldier's bodies. The two you object to. I'm glad you approve of the others. As for the monitoring group, I already included it in the text I proposed that they could not make that confirmation. But SOHR is pro-opposition, its not unbiased, so they should be described as such (pro-opposition). EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was before you found the additional sources (or before I saw you found additional sources) which is what is actually changing my mind here (note to others - that's how it's done). So I'm fine with it, except I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention Zaher Hajjo by name - he's not independently notable and that could raise some BLP issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no name, just the head of... etc, etc. EkoGraf (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why even that? What exactly is "Aleppo forensics office"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Best I can tell this "Aleppo forensics office" is something that the Russian news agency made up. Then it was repeated by RT. DW is just saying that SANA said this not that this is a thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we're a breath away from consensus—just let me know when you're ready for me to unprotect a day early. El_C 06:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, most major world cities have forensic offices (Aleppo being the largest in Syria). RT isn't mentioned anywhere in the sources, nor was it the one who relayed the report, it was AFP, which was further repeated by the 10 or so sources I cited (including DW). Russian agencies that are mentioned were talked about in the context they were citing the Defense Ministry, not in the context with the forensic office. The forensic office was cited by SANA. And there is no reason not to additionally attribute the SANA claim. If we exclude that SANA was citing the forensic office, it would look like SANA itself was the one who was making the claim. You said it yourself, this is what SANA said, and just like DW, we simply write what SANA said (attributing it to them). As to whether the office is made up or not we would need evidence. EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Report by UN from last month [62], confirming Aleppo has a forensic department. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support for the soldiers' bodies text, to get things resolved, but with the weasel word "claimed" changed to "stated". Regarding the neutrality and accuracy and validity of SOHC opinions on this specific story, does the SOHC have access to military rolls, have access to individual records of soldiers on active service, have access to day-to-day casualty figures or MIA figures for the Syrian armed forces? Of course it does not - so it is actually in no position to make an accurate statement on anything about this specific story and so should not be consider RS for this specific story. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days

Sorry again for my indecision with the prior protection that I reversed and quickly lifted. Obviously, this matter isn't resolved. There are several conversations about the reliability of some of the sources involved: on RSN, on AN, as well as several other pages (here, Talk:Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, and elsewhere). My suggestion is to look to the discussion at RSN as the main centralized venue, and bring back the decision from it to this and other -related pages. El_C 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection extended for another 3 days

It doesn't look like consensus was reached yet, so I've extended the protection for another 3 days. Please do your best to find a compromise you all can live with. El_C 00:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Network for Human Rights

Can we use data published by the Syrian Network for Human Rights after 2015?

The Network's website says, "The Syrian Network for Human Rights is considered one of the most distinguished and prominent sources of information and references for all the analytical and statistical studies issued by the United Nations."

But an official spokesman for the Network says the UN stopped using it as a source about three years ago.

From: Syrian Network for Human Rights (info@sn4hr.org)

Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information

To: [Dervorguilla]

Thank you for your kind question,

UN issued 3 analysis about the casualties in Syria, last one on April 2014, then they stopped, please see the UN website, in All of those main reports SNHR was prominent source,

Best,

http://sn4hr.org/

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:48 PM, [Dervorguilla] wrote:

Attn: Syrian Network for Human Rights

On January 9, 2017, you wrote: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights ... is a primary source for the United Nations on all death toll-related statistics in Syria." Report

Your website says: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights is considered one of the most distinguished and prominent sources of information and references for all the analytical and statistical studies issued by the United Nations." About Us

I ask that you name one analytical or statistical study issued by the UN after 2013 that mentions you as a source. Compare Google Search

Sincerely,

[Dervorguilla]

Cambridge, Massachusetts

The Network's January 2017 report says,

Toll of barrel bombs

SNHR team was able to document no less than 12,958 barrel bombs that were dropped by the Syrian regime warplanes in 2016...

These barrel bombs resulted in the killing of 635 civilians ... according to the victim documentation team at SNHR.

Is it OK to use these data? (Note that 635 civilians killed ÷ 12,958 barrel bombs dropped = 0.050 civilians killed per barrel bomb dropped.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Er, really subtle and well constructed email to them... Please point to where the UN has stated that they have not used the network's reports because they've done an about face on the reliability of the Syrian Network for Human Rights and consider any reports since then to be corrupt, unreliable, etc. They have been established as WP:RS. If you wish to WP:CHALLENGE their reputation, please bring reliable sources stating that there has been a change to the table. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Now, now. We can do without the sarcasm. But, indeed, challenging the Syrian Network for Human Rights reliability by virtue of lack of use by the UN after 2013, does seem like a problematic conjecture. There could be several explanations that may account for that. El_C 06:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The US really needs to start using barrel bombs - the evidence appears to indicate their usage has much less civilian collateral damage than American drones or guided missiles: just a few hundred of them have unintentionally killed thousands of civilians. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I've just made and proved my point that the Network is not what it says it is. (It says it's a "source of information and references" for the UN; see its current website and its Jan. 2017 Report.) Also, I doubt I'm going to find any other source that claims you need to drop 20 barrel bombs to kill 1 civilian... (Isn't that what they call "product disparagement"?) ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't there a campaign among the pro-rebel camp to stop using SOHR because it was too "neutral" and to only use SNHR as a source? I seem to remember from a few months ago. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can we use data published by the Syrian Network for Human Rights? Yes, we can use data published by reliable secondary RS (other than SNHR) that refer to data by SNHR. This is common practice. As about the number of 0.050, bringing such number to the article is simply ridiculous. One can derive any numbers, but they are frequently meaningless, unless interpreted by secondary RS. What this number of 0.05 suppose to mean? That Assad forces wasted a lot ammunition without any result? Or to the contrary, such number means that Assad forces were highly successful in targeting enemy combatants and had very little of collateral damage? We do not know until that was interpreted by secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"Barrel bombs are indiscriminate weapons designed to kill civilians" states the crude western propaganda machine - but the actual data here clearly shows they are not being used to target civilian populations and are not imprecise weapons - either that or they are dramatically unsuccessful at killing anything. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

See, using phrases such as "crude western propaganda machine" you both depreciate your own credibility as an editor and also make further discussions more difficult, since that kind of rhetoric basically signals an unwillingness to properly discuss the subject in a detached manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have a high regard for the assertions made by crude western propaganda machines, you presumably still believe in their assertions of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I don't think there is a need to have content explicitly stating 0.050 civilians killed per barrel bomb dropped - readers will be clever enough to work out that statistic for themselves. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, quit it with the strawman and making up bullshit claims about what I do or do not believe. And the sophomoric rhetoric. "If you believe in western propaganda you must believe moon is made of cheese because iraq WMDs!!!!!!" is so illogical of an argument that it's hardly worth replying to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)