Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Neutrality disputed since Dec 2016

Who is still disputing the neutrality of this article and what basis? Please speak up. El_C 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone?Asilah1981 (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh don't dare question the existence of the Eternal Sacred Tagging (peace be upon it). I got a flurry of very nasty banning threats when, in January, I dared to question its validity! Doodling the Prophet Muhammad in a room full of FSA would be less risky. Basically, Volunteer Marek wants it tagged - and that is enough. He doesn't actually need to give a rationale for it being there, nobody actually needs to give a rationale for it being there. So it will be there forever because nobody knows exactly why it is there and thus cannot address whatever alleged specific issues with the article need to be fixed in order to remove it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the NPOV portion of the tag unless there are specific issues to be addressed, concretely. We cannot have an NPOV tag applied to the article indefinitely. To whomever wishes to retain the tag, the basis for which needs to be maintained regularly. Thanks. El_C 02:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hold up. We addressed ONE issue. There are still others. Buses, Christmas celebrations, use of unreliable sources, undue weight etc. And I've given plenty of rationales - I mean look at this freakin' page. I don't see why I need to repeat the rationales all over again. Also, didn't you just come off a block for getting a bit snarky with your comments about me?

You want the tag removed? Here is how you address the specific issues: 1) to the extent possible replace al-Masdar with alternative sources 2) remove al-Masdar as a source where it's not needed because there already is an alternative source given, 3) figure out this bus attack thing and write it properly (some - little bit - of progress has been made in that regard but it needs more), 4) drop this silly thing about Christmas celebrations or at least cut it down to a single, short, sentence. That actually applies to that whole POV ridiculous paragraph about "victory celebrations", 5) stop removing reliably sourced (guardian, reuters, etc) info per some IJUSTDONTLIKEIT about chemical attacks, motions at UN etc. (go back through talk and history to figure out all the instances where this has been done)

Anyway, there's probably more but this is just off the top of my head. So here you go, does that answer your assertion that "nobody knows exactly why it is there and thus cannot address whatever alleged specific issues with the article need to be fixed in order to remove it. "? Is that specific enough? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That comment about block and snarkiness was directed at Tiptoe, not El_C.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C - the mere fact of you initiating this talk section to ask why the page is npov-tagged actually created sufficient justification for the tag to continue to be there! Unfortunately, NPOV tagging which allows an article to be tagged forever is allowable under current guidelines and cannot be stopped without reforming those guidelines. When an article is tagged with a npov tag there is, astonishingly, no requirement to clearly state the reasons for the npov tag to be there. In this case it allows a continuous stream of new "reasons" to easily be brought up by VM to sustain the tagging even if his current "reasons" were ever to be addressed to HIS full satisfaction. For example, VM has, above, raised an entirely new thing, the Christmas celebrations, something unmentioned by him in any previous npov tag justification. 50% of his previous npov-tag issues were addressed in just a single edit [1] - the rest of them concerned the use of al-Masdar as a source, an issue which should have been resolved by taking it to the RS noticeboard and which is now almost resolved. The npov tagging guidelines need to be reformed so that any editor who npov tags an article tag is required at the same time to explain clearly, in a newly-created dedicated section on the talk page, all the issues they think justifies that tag. This would create a clear roadmap to the removing of the tag because those justifying issues can then be individually discussed and settled. The justifying issues would have to be proper serious issues that can be claimed to unbalance the whole article (not trivialities like photos of Christmas trees) and it would not be allowable to retrospectively add new issues to support an old tagging. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

" When an article is tagged with a npov tag there is, astonishingly, no requirement to clearly state the reasons for the npov tag to be there." - actually, there is such a requirement. But dude, I just explicit clearly stated the reasons. So what in the world are you going on about? And seriously, read the freakin' talk page, there's a ton of stuff about the Christmas celebrations. Look through the history of the article. Reverts and rereverts on that topic. So again, what in the world are you going on about? Your statements are blatant falsehoods whose falsehood can be easily confirmed simply by ... looking at this discussion right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. The wording used in the guidance notes is "should", not "must" - so it is optional. Nor is it detailed what the form of the explanation/justification should be if the tag inserting editor avails themselves of the "should" option. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, what is POV about reporting on the victory celebrations? They did happen. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

So, be bold and correct the neutral point of view imbalance directly—either that or make concrete suggestions on the talk page on how to remedy it. But the tag cannot stay without these efforts being undertaken, regularly. It's not how NPOV tags are supposed to work. They are not fixtures. El_C 16:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The NPOV portion of the tag needs to be actively maintained, with concrete steps taken to resolve it, or it's not appropriate to just have it in place for months on end. It undermines the article that way. Let's not conflate it with the other two components of the tag (issues pertaining to reliable and partisan sources). Thanks. El_C 15:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the guidelines that insist on that. Regarding my comment that your question about why the tag is there justifies the tag being there, read this [2]. Baseball Bugs opinion that "there is discussion about the tag on the article's talk page" refers to a section (this section [3]) created by an editor who was asking why the tag was there. As you can see, the section contains nothing at all about the reasons for the tag being there - but that was still sufficient, as far as some administrators were concerned, to justify the tagging. Would you be interested in working to get the tagging guidelines reformed, basically turning a few current guideline "shoulds" turned into always required "musts"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just going to summarize two of the issues that were mentioned for El_C. The victory/Christmas celebrations were already discussed up above. Regarding the image of the celebrations, out of 10 editors, 7 were for its inclusion, 3 were against. Regarding the text about the celebrations, all of the editors who were for the inclusion of the image were also for the inclusion of the accompanying text beside it, while two voiced objection regarding the text. Each editor expressed their own rational for and against. As for the Guardian sentence that was being removed, I reworded and inserted the sentence and it has been there for the last two weeks. EkoGraf (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Gee, but Tiptoe just told us that the Christmas celebrations have never been brought up before! Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We see in the above comment exactly why reform of npov tagging is urgently required. VM thinks it acceptable to trawl through everything brought up in this talk page over the last few months to sustain an article npov tag that has been in place since last year and whose original issues have been settled. It is a methodology that will result in permanent tagging because new "issues" will always be found to retain the tagging. Does VM seriously think a trivial issue like a Christmas tree photo is enough to justify an entire article being npov tagged? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoe, you've come up with... what, five different mutually contradictory stories now? As soon as one is shown to be blatantly false you just make up another one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just stating as it is. EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I'd like to please see a sincere effort to resolve the issue with the NPOV portion of the tag—it just can't stay in place as a fixture. El_C 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Christmas

This is not a return to the above debate about the tree, but specifically about the claim that Xmas was "celebrated in Aleppo for the first time in years" in 2016, a claim made above and in the article, which I have just deleted from the article. I have no doubt this will be queried, and quite likely reverted, so here are some examples of Xmas being celebrated in Aleppo. If you want to edit the wording, make sure it reflects this reality: 2012: http://catholicphilly.com/2012/12/news/world-news/bishops-describe-christmas-in-besieged-aleppo-syria/ 2014: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11305130/Christmas-in-Syria-Praying-for-peace-in-a-war-torn-land.html https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2014/12/25/christmas-in-syria-a-sombre-affair http://en.synod-sl.org/christmas-celebration-in-the-church-of-aleppo/ 2015: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zaher-sahloul/a-syrian-christmas_b_8874088.html https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2016/1-april/news/world/aleppo-congregation-celebrates-easter I got more if you want. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems what the source actually was saying was that this was the first celebration in five years... under that particular Christmas tree. That sort of highlights the problems with this article. It also highlights that this is triva which, as I've already stated, is WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to accept good faith here because it is hard to accept that the above doesn't understand that what was being reported on was about the first public outdoor celebrations. It was obviously not a private indoor celebration at home or a church service that was being talked about since as long as even a single Christian had remained in Aleppo, Christmas would have been continued to have been noted by them in Aleppo because it is an event that is integral to the Christian faith. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just add word "public" and sorted.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Church celebrations are or at least can be, "public". Anyway, now you guys are doing original research in an attempt to justify the misleading text present in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This was your main reasoning for retaining the NPOV portion of the tag—anything else to justify it staying in place? If so, let's deal with it in the next subsection. El_C 09:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of al-Masdar. Removal of well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking about the NPOV portion of the tag—not the other two components. El_C 07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I've gone ahead and removed the NPOV portion of the tag. The two sources portions should be sufficient for our purposes here (for those reasons stated above). And so (hopefully) ends a portion of the tag in place since last year (inappropriately so, since it was not attended to actively). El_C 07:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: While I appreciate that you are trying to maintain some form of order, there is no cut-off date for the removal of NPOV tags until such a time as the POV issues are addressed where it is evident that there have been high calibre policy and guideline discussions over these issues. There are numerous articles across Wikipedia still carrying NPOV tags 5 years after the tagging for good reason. The fact that there are still unaddressed POV problems does not disappear because editors have grown tired of the dispute, or have stopped editing. Such tags are not used as badges of shame, but alert the reader (and other potential editors) to the fact of there being problems with particular content, and that they should be wary of reading that content as fact. In a nutshell, if disputed content remains in place, it does not cease to be disputed (and misinformation) by means of having become default content simply because there is no consensus, therefore WP:CCC cannot apply. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

But NPOV tags need to be actively maintained, do you not agree with that? NPOV tags are not meant to be a fixture for someone to convey a general disagreement with the article, but rather, need to point to specific contested passages and items. El_C 04:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"need to point to specific contested passages and items" - yes, but this has been done. You're confusing "problems have not been pointed out" with "problems have not been fixed". The tag is here cause of the latter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag restored

What else do you find violates NPOV, Volunteer Marek? El_C 06:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is still poorly sourced material.

The false equivalence in the lede paragraph which starts with "Various claims of war crimes emerged during the battle...", which inaccurately summarizes the article body.

The buses thing is still undue and the whole section on rebel atrocities is problematic because it mixes up various kinds of rebels as if they were one unified group. This is actually a pretty major problem with the article and it will take some effort to fix it.

A good chunk of the stuff in "victory celebrations" is still undue.

And if you give me some time I can go through and find all the diffs where reliably sourced info was removed or "hidden" (tucked away in some obscure corner of the article where nobody would see it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There are already tags for issues relating to sources. I am (still) only asking about the NPOV portion of the tag. El_C 06:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the exact contested non-NPOV passages so that editors could attempt to bring those up to NPOV standards. El_C 06:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I've explained it sufficiently. The entire paragraph added by EkoGraf. The paragraph in the lede is missing information on the relative scale of atrocities. The section on the rebels is POV because it pretends that the rebels are one unified force and atrocities by one group can be attributed to anti-Assad rebels as a whole (that's like quintessential POV right there).

Anyway, I've got to turn in. So if you want a bit more detail you'll have to wait. But I think I've articulated the reasons for the POV tag sufficiently for now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just an aside, but with recent edits by 2AZ1A, I'd add the tag back in even if all other problems had been fixed (which they haven't). It's sort of hard to make an article NPOV when editors keep trying to add NEW POV material to the text.Volunteer Marek (talk)`

Where exactly do you see a POV issue with elements of the article as it stands which I have edited? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd add the tag back in even if all other problems had been fixed—That's not acceptable and is tendentious. Tags are not added preemptively. Nobody owns this article. I suggest, and in fact insist, you approach the NPOV tag in good faith and not as a fixture for future problems. El_C 07:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No tags have been added "preemptively". All I said is that since 2A1ZA introduced new POV into the article even if there was no justification for the tag before, there would be one now. I *am* approaching the NPOV tag in good faith and I don't appreciate you suggesting otherwise. What "future problems" are you talking about? I am having trouble making sense of your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What am I talking about? What are you talking about? My comment is crystal clear: you say I'd add the tag back in even if all other problems had been fixed—and I'm telling you that approach is not acceptable. El_C 08:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not "crystal clear". One more time. Nobody added a tag "preemptively". Nobody suggested a tag be added "preemptively". What are you talking about? You appear to have completely failed to understand my comment. This is not my problem. But let me try one more time - all I said is that even if there were no POV problems with the article before, there are now. This is not some kind of uber complicated postulate that is hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It, indeed, is not complicated. I can keep repeating myself, but I can't explain myself any more clearly. If you intend on re-adding the tag even if all other problems had been fixed—well, that's would not be an acceptable approach. El_C 08:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. The key word there is not "all" or "even if" - it's "other". As in "other than the ones that are present". Please stop lecturing me about something that exists only in your imagination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hardly my imagination, and I am not "lecturing" you. El_C 08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You completely fail to understand what I said, then, yes, lecture me with the little comment "I suggest, and in fact insist, you approach the NPOV tag in good faith", chide me for being "tendentious" for something I have neither done nor suggested doing, call an approach which you mistakenly believe I'm advocating "not acceptable", ascribe some intentions to me, which I did not express, and just generally double down on the original mistake in understanding you have made. It'd be much simpler if you just said "sorry, I apologize, I misunderstood your comment". Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

How else do you expect your comment to be understood when you say I'd add the tag back in even if all other problems had been fixed? El_C 09:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, exactly as it's written? Look. Get somebody else to explain it to you since you obviously are not going to listen to my explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C Please stop quibbling over semantics and calling it disruptive editing. It is your refusal to drop the stick that has become tendentious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Iryna Harpy. It is in enough short supply here. El_C 00:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: My apologies for being short with you, however I did not read your interpretation of VM's comment into his comment. This thread has been reduced to a protracted piece of frustrated misunderstandings that are taking up more space and energy than they're worth. Could we please drop this line of finger-pointing as I do believe that we're veering right off topic and are getting carried away with being defensive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Elaboration on nature and sponsorship of rebels in Aleppo

I only today made some edits to this article, but upon reading it I was stunned by the grotesque omission to state and elaborate the warlordist and jihadist nature as well as foreign (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi-Arabia) sponsorship of rebels in Aleppo. This article apparently seeks with much rhetoric tricks to invoke the fantasy propaganda narrative that the population of Aleppo would largely identify with the rebels, which according to each and every unbiased report is far from reality (at least since experiencing their warlordist and jihadist rule). To quote from one such report, "no one is 100 percent with the regime, but mostly these people are unified by their resistance to the opposition." It would be nice if this article would live up to Wikipedia standards and reflect, not seek to hide and distort, the well documented facts about the "rebels". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Dear User:Iryna Harpy, instead to trying to delete this contribution to the discussion on how to improve the article, you might wish to address its concrete issues, like the multiple abuse of the term "Aleppo" as a synonym for "rebels" in the article, only one of which I replaced with a clarification term before. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as you have material that is both reliably sourced and relevant to the article, by all means add it. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. But please keep due weight in mind. Also, this talk page header is a bit much, don't you think? El_C 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not only the header WP:SOAP, but so is the loaded language of the 'comment' per WP:TPG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Softening the headline name I gave to this talk page section. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits misrepresented the sources - it was New York Times saying something, it was just one dude they happened to interview.

Your recent edits also restored redundant text, text which was already in the article.

Your edit summaries were insulting and constituted personal attacks.

You running to my talk page to try and intimidate me with a warning for no reason was obnoxious.

You accusing others of "edit warring" when you keep adding the contentious material to the article is disruptive. [4]

In other words, same ol' same ol' as far as this topic area is concerned.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You are aware that I addressed all issues you mentioned (regrettably as edit summaries for bulk deletions instead of talk page discussion or modification), right? And an edit warring warning on your talk page for an obvious breach of 1RR was warranted, I note that you deleted it. Still hopeful for improving the article in a good faith spirit of cooperation. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No you did not address these issues. Your edit summary was, quote, "Restoring the most notable and well sourced content which the edit warrior deleted, some reformulation in detail. Do not do edit warring, use talk page to discuss improving the article". That's not "addressing the issue". That's "using WP:BATTLEGROUND language and making personal attacks" which actually makes "improving the article in a good faith spirit of cooperation" HARDER.

And stop it with the false accusation that there was a "1RR breach". There wasn't. You're the one who restored it to the article after it was challenged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read my last edit and the article as it stands? It explicitly attributes one quote to the NYT and two quotes to local sources, perfectly correct. And shelling Sheikh Maqsood is one integer paragraph now, no redundancy whatsoever. These are the only issues you mentioned (regrettably as edit summaries for bulk deletions instead of talk page discussion or modification), right? I did not add anything that was challenged. However, you did most obviously breach 1RR before. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The change you made to the content was, in fact, predominantly based on unreliable sources being used to pad out the pre-existing WP:RS. The 'local' sources you cite have been discussed at length as being unreliable. Please engage in discussion on this talk page and desist from your WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, language, and general attitude to other editors and the refactoring of content in the article itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think this edit uses several questionable sources including Al Masdar and RT to support very strong claims. Most important, I do not understand why this user wants to remove good summary by Amnesty International [5]. It tells already: "Armed groups surrounding the Sheikh Maqsoud district of Aleppo city have repeatedly carried out indiscriminate attacks against civilians, markets and mosques. There were allegations that the Army of Islam group may have used chemical weapons". My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: Please pay attention to this talk page and, as a sign of good faith, undo your revert here. As has already been noted, the Amnesty International source was pre-existing prior being padded out by unreliable sources. Check what you are doing carefully before you 'bulk restore'. As for the single instance of the Rudaw Media Network article analysing Amnesty International's position, since when was a statement like, "...Amnesty International's regional director suggested that the attacks on Sheikh Maqsood constitute war crimes." [my emphasis] acceptable per WP:CLAIM, and when did Rudaw Media become RS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Then Iryna just substitute the source for the original AI report!Asilah1981 (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: You're asking me to 'substitute'(?) unreliable, POV sources, despite the fact that the entire paragraph has been challenged as POV garble. You restored it, ergo the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus for the content as being WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Iryna I'm asking you to be more precise in your deletions. Leaving what is acceptable. I don't care about onus its about building trust among editors in conflict. That leads to consensus building. So far, I only see accommodating behavior on one side of this dispute. I still think Volunteer Marek needs to be topic banned if we are going to achieve any progress here. 98% of the edit-warring are sparked and aggravated by his radical agenda-based intransigence. I am told he was part of an organized group of russophobic editors which was eventually uncovered by admins and blocked for their co-ordinated destructive editing. (Note I am neither Russian nor care much about Russia). Asilah1981 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a whole lot of editors got banned for that many years ago, but most of them have since come back to Wikipedia under different usernames and are up to the same tricks. One of their strategies is indeed to fully revert any edit that isn't 100% perfect if it's made by an editor who doesn't agree with their slant, rather than to only fix the questionable part of the edit. This and other tactics make attempts to improve articles that they patrol extremely wearying, and the only chance to succeed is if there are substantially more editors on the other side of the debate (say, 5 to 1). Thank you for making an attempt. Esn (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Al-Masdar

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A rough consensus has been established to:

1. use al-Masdar for non-controversial information (not disputed, and not likely to be disputed, such as territorial changes, commanders, troop movements);
2. to use them with attribution (such as "according to al-Masdar", not just "reportedly", and the first time such a mention is made giving some qualifier such as "pro-government") where they are giving one side of a topic that is disputed; and
3. not to use them as the sole sources for inherently controversial information (such as massacres, chemical weapons, pro-government demonstrations, conspiracy theories).

This is roughly the second variant ("exclude those kinds of [i.e., controversial] claims ... if Masdar is the sole reporter") of EkoGraf's compromise proposal below, and Khirurg's very similar proposal on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 225#al-Masdar news at Battle of Aleppo, Stormfront, Neo-Nazis which have met with overwhelming support. Several people objecting to the use of al-Masdar have brought up the point that this RfC is invalid, since it could only establish a wp:local consensus, and that wider opinions should be sought on the reliability of al-Masdar, namely at WP:RSN. This was done, as linked, did meet with noticeable participation, including several people not from the discussion on this page, and again, noticeable supermajority support was reached for Khirurg's proposal there, as for EkoGraf's here. It is also in accordance with the longstanding way we use established sources that are believed to be biased (specifically as described in WP:BIASED); we use them with care, but don't leave them out entirely just because of this. --GRuban (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Should al-Masdar be used as a source in this article? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support. Al-Masdar has a track record of accurate reporting, they have people on the ground in Syria fluent in Arabic, and are usually among the first to report breaking news. Yes, they are slightly partisan, but in this conflict there are no neutral media. They should be used with some caution, but they are not fake news or any such thing. Moreover Al-Masdar is already widely used throughout wikipedia (for example this map [6] is updated using Al-Masdar among other sources). Khirurg (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Al-Masdar does NOT have a track record of "accurate reporting", quite the opposite in fact. Please prove your assertion. For example, by providing other sources which treat them seriously.

They're "breaking news" is often ... yes, fake news, which cannot be found in any reliable sources and only gets repeated by far-right fringe website or similar outlets.

Calling them "slightly partisan" is a joke. They are an unabashed propaganda source which specializes in misinformation.

Whether Al-Masdar is "widely used throughout wikipedia" is completely irrelevant as to its reliability. If it is, then it shouldn't, and should be removed from other articles. You don't fix a problem by making it worse. What kind of logic is that?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In about 3/4 of the cases they report (most primarily territorial gains/losses) they are also reaffirmed by the pro-opposition SOHR. So yes, in this specific regard they are for the most part accurate in their reporting. Removal of Masdar throughout the other articles would lead to a complete collapse of balance between pro-gov Masdar and pro-opp SOHR (which are the two primary sources). This would create the appropriate setting for the removal of SOHR as well and then all those articles would be robbed of almost all of their content. Wikipedia is based on neutrality, and per that neutrality we are obligated to present both sides POV, whether someone likes that POV or not. EkoGraf (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So we could possibly use'em in those cases - as "semi-reliable" - but there's no way they should be used for controversial stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation: "We can use them for stuff I don't care about, but not for stuff I don't like". Khirurg (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth or misrepresent what I'm saying. Your "creative interpretation" of what is really a straight forward restatement of Wikipedia policy is a classic strawman tactic and ... it's sort of obnoxious too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Support. I can only repeat what I have been repeating for some time now. Masdar was previously discussed several times at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War during the past year or two and declared to be reliable. Each time, consensus was pro-gov Masdar was reliable enough as pro-opp SOHR to be used. Further subsequent discussions, including on some various battle talk pages, reached a compromise solution with those opposing Masdar, under which: when we cite something by both Masdar and SOHR we present it as fact; when we cite something only by Masdar we do not present it as fact but instead use the wording such as reportedly, according to, said or extreme case claim. Masdar and SOHR are virtually the two main sources of information on Syria due to the lack of independent journalists on the ground. Removing one could disrupt the balance that has been established and could lead to the removal of SOHR as well, which would then leave us without 80 percent of our sources on the Syrian conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As already explained, the discussions at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, to the extent that they weren't completely ridiculous ("I authorize al-Masadar as reliable" some guy proclaims!) or inundated with sock puppets and banned disruptive users did NOT "declare them to be reliable". In fact, such discussions CANNOT "declare" sources reliable. And the reliability of SOHR is neither here nor there. What kind of nonsense is this? Where does it say that if you decide one source is unreliable you have to also decide another one is unreliable as well? Huh? This appears to be just a tendentious tactic someone came up with to hold the article(s) hostage and force others to allow the use of this crappy source. What balance? al-Masdar, which you yourself admitted was probably unreliable (or "semi-reliable" wtf that is) is used to a ridiculous extent in this article. Removing it would be RESTORING balance to an article and topic that's stupidly lopsided with POV right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing it would leave a large number of anti-Syrian government sources/views which would not be neutral. Both sides POV need to be presented. We would have to remove those as well and then the articles would be robed of most of their content. I also again remind of WP: CIVIL. EkoGraf (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Such as? And "both sides POV need to be presented" only to the extent these are in reported in reliable sources, otherwise we violate WP:WEIGHT. And Al-Masdar is not a reliable source. Now, IF an actually reliable source repeats what they say, yeah, you can use it then (again, minding WP:WEIGHT) by we DO NOT achieve "balance" and NPOV by including non-RS sources in the article. This is Wikipedia 101.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Invalid RfC. As explained below, this belongs at WP:RSN since 1) local consensus cannot override site wide consensus as established by WP:RS and 2) at RSN we have at least a hope of getting independent eyes on this rather than the usual tag teams of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors that have plagued this topic area for years.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You are acting like there is a site-wide consensus regarding Masdar (against it), which there isn't. And yes, so far we have had multiple local consensus and for the most part they are in favor of Masdar. Again, reach a new ether local or better yet site-wide consensus through discussions instead of edit-warring, that's how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: This is misuse of localized consensus, and you know it. I fully understand that you're trying to use it for some form of balance for stats (as we've done in a lot of articles covering current affairs), but that is always done having established that the sources are WP:BIASED via the RSN, and with explicit attribution as to where the information is coming from. This is a malformed RfC which has been contrived to omit the question of whether al Masdar is reliable in any shape or form. This is asking for broadly construed consensus for the use of al Masdar without attribution or any other form of caution. Incidentally, the "Aleppo victory celebrations" sub sub-section to "Reactions" - now complete with suitably solemn yet heart-warming photo to go with the warm and fuzzy 'human interest' focus on flag-waving - is pure tabloid standard crud which we wouldn't dignify with a mention on any other comparable article. No, Wikipedia does not use just any sources for the sake of WP:GEVAL. Asking for an unquantified source to be rubber-stamped ready for a mass roll out is completely and utterly unacceptable for the standards we are purportedly upholding. Pure WP:ILIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Support It should be use to uphold the neutrality of the article and to provide a full perspective.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: You're simply !voting for a rendition of this article for the purposes of WP:GEVAL and WP:ILIKEIT. That's a !vote for POV, not NPOV. Given that you and EkoGraf have changed your positions on out-and-out support for the proposal, I think it would be prudent to change your simple 'support' votes to reflect that the use of the source would be with heavy restrictions. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not the way EkoGraf's proposal or the discussion concerning his proposal reads. It doesn't discuss "heavy restrictions", it merely suggests that controversial claims made by al-Masdar or claims made only by al-Masdar should require more attribution. So you can essentially be in support of the RfC AND be inclined to EkoGraf's proposal as well. EkoGraf's proposal will be a helpful guide for the community to implement the result of the RfC. Nothing to be confused about here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Support as nominator. This article needs a balance when it comes to two opposing forces, pro-government and pro-opposition. Hence why al-Masdar can be useful. EkoGraf's compromise proposal is also something to consider. It'll setup a good guideline on how the result of the RfC should be executed. If we add controversial claims by al-Masdar, we should properly attribute it to al-Masdar. If al-Masdar is the only one citing a certain event, then we should also properly attribute it to al-Masdar (a good example of this is EkoGraf's recent compromise edit here). This should apply to pro-opposition sources as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Invalid RfC per Volunteer Marek (above). The reliability of sources is a lynchpin of WP:NPOV, and NPOV is a policy which defines the entire project. Local consensus as to the use of sources that have been undiscussed and unquantified by the Wikipedia community cannot even begin to be discussed until it has been evaluated. Bypassing the defining phase of the calibre of a source is bad practice... and posting the most simplistic, twee notification of the RfD on the RSN in order to be seen to be following protocols as asked of the nom reads as gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: notifying the RSN was the advice of admin BU Rob13. So I followed their advice. If the RSN wants to get involved, they're more than welcome to. After all, they are made aware of this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I'm well aware of the circumstances under which you finally made a quick mention of the RfC on the RSN. Please read my comment again. Setting precedents for turning the process upside-down is contrary to the spirit of the project per WP:NOT#DEM and WP:CHAOS. While we may not be a bureaucracy, using PAGEDECIDE was inappropriate in the first instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, your comment left out a critical point: notifying the RSN was a suggestion from an admin. Your comment reads as if I alone decided that it would be appropriate and then you turn around and accuse me of gaming the system and that I'm creating chaos. That's not a fair judgement at all. So if an admin made that suggestion, are you implying that the admin's suggestion would be equivalent to gaming the system as well? Also, the RFC in itself wasn't my own idea. In fact, BU Rob13 was the one who suggested that an RFC should be initiated. If you think his suggestion is invalid or illegal, take it up with them. But please don't misrepresent the circumstances of this discussion and the consensus building process that comes along with it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I call sabotage and disruption. It is quite clear which group of editors is working towards a compromise and which group is shouting, filibustering and attempting to derail the process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an RfC, however, it is quite revealing that one group of editors so vociferously opposes it. Could it be because it's not going their way? Nah, couldn't be. Khirurg (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg: If you feel that there is a problem with the process here, I suggest that you take it to the WP:ANI instead of plastering this page with WP:Aspersions. I would welcome further discussion of the WP:DE behaviour of some editors here. Or, perhaps, it would be more prudent to take it straight to WP:AE... Reading over your comments on this talk page, there is more WP:BATTLEGROUND than substance in your input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you think are accomplishing with these snide comments you have left throughout the talkpage (so much for "substance"), but whatever it is, it's not going to work. It is painfully obvious which editors are calmly trying to resolve the dispute and which ones are kicking up sand, making noise, and engaging in battleground behavior. Khirurg (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support its use. Al-Masdar is one of the few news agencies that have staff on the ground in Syria, and is a real asset for editors who want to dig out raw information. I've often witnessed Al-Masdar providing breaking stories earlier than any other news agency. For example, it was the first news agency to report the Russian/Syrian and Kurdish territorial swap near Manbij. It took a couple of days before Western sources picked that up.

And when it comes to incidents that Al-Masdar alone reports, I'm okay with the EkoGraf approach: more attribution. But I believe this should also be applied to any controversial claims, and should not be limited to Al-Masdar, seeing that there are other organizations like the White Helmets and SOHR that also have an obvious bias, and are quite open about being funded and supported by Western governments. Lastly, I don't see this sort of procedure as "invalid", given that the RS/N was notified of this discussion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: It's irrelevant that they beat other sources to reportage of any incidents because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Being the first to report on events does not establish that a source is reliable. You are also overlooking the presentation of the RfC: a blanket question as to whether al Masdar should be used as a source for this article. The first part of the discussion of the use and proscriptions (if needed) of any source begins with the discussion of the validity of the source. Ensuing discussions as to proscriptions take place after it is established whether the source is reliable, WP:BIASED (therefore inherently to be proscribed in its usage), or an unreliable source, full stop. Please read the AfD examples of criticism of al Masdar by other sources. The question of reliability is not a matter of your POV or my POV, but that of what third party WP:RS have to say about their reliability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Syria is one of those rare conflicts where no media outlet (not western not local) seems to be neutral. As long as they have not been caught in blatant craziness or verified lies, should be included.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. So your !vote is in favour of developing an article based on whatever sources report on the subject. As for it being 'one of those rare conflicts', there's nothing 'rare' about it. Media attention has a solid history of moving on to fresh fields. There are numerous ongoing conflicts around the world that have fallen out of the public eye at any given moment in time. That does not mean that Wikipedia fills in the blanks by using absolutely anything available. Next step: Joe Blogger's latest home-spun take, plus any forum where anyone and everyone who has an opinion gets a chance to editorialise. Sorry, but when it comes to encyclopaedic content 'nothing' wins hands down over 'it's better than nothing'. Also, pitting 'Western POV' against 'local' is a nonsensical POV argument for inclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Something like Al Jazeera should not be used for anything controversial and political that involves Qatari government, Al 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) 20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• One more time - local consensus on an article talk page CANNOT override site wide consensus as captured in WP:RS. You can't decide that "oh we're gonna use a non-reliable source just on this article" because that violates the WP:5PILLARS. So no. You can't decide this by RfC. You can take it to WP:RSN. But this brigaded RfC is not going to fly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• No - this isn't the right place to discuss this. As per WP:RS, there isn't a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Stickee (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• This should either go to WP:RSN or have a notice posted there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Good idea. I notified the RSN board just now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Having checked the RSN, the issue of whether it is a reliable source has not been discussed in any detail... ever. Editors working on the article, plus discussing the content currently, are all aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not a !vote, nor is it a democracy where Wikipedia-wide community decisions based policy and guidelines are bypassed in order to turn the reliability of a source into a PAGEDECIDE issue is not acceptable practice. I was going to impose a TBAN on myself, but using this article talk page to host an 'on the quiet' alternative to common sense protocols has pushed this from being subject-specific issue into an across-the-board issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Like I already told Marek up above, the issue on Masdar's reliability was discussed in detail, several times at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War during the past year or two. Each time, consensus was pro-gov Masdar was reliable enough as pro-opp SOHR to be used in Syrian war-related articles. Further subsequent discussions, including on some various battle talk pages, reached a compromise solution with those opposing Masdar, under which: when we cite something by both Masdar and SOHR we present it as fact; when we cite something only by Masdar we do not present it as fact but instead use the wording such as reportedly, according to, said or extreme case claim. Masdar and SOHR are virtually the two main sources of information on Syria due to the lack of independent journalists on the ground. Removing one could disrupt the balance that has been established and could lead to the removal of SOHR as well, which would then leave us without 80 percent of our sources on the Syrian conflict. PS I posted this same text up above in case some read only the first subsection of this RfC section. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryna's point is that a decision made on an article talk page cannot override site wide policy such as RS, hence the appropriate place to discuss this is WP:RSN. And seriously, taking a peek at the discussion at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, it's a whole bunch of sock puppets, fly-by-night accounts and users who have been banned for disruptive behavior. That's not consensus. In a few discussions where you get long term editors it appears that they oppose the use of al-Masdar. Then you get weird ass stuff like this [7] where some random user makes a unilateral declaration that they "authorize al-Masdar as reliable". What the fuck is that? It's a joke not "consensus". And the one user who seems to vehemently support using al-Masdar (and opposes SOHR) is the guy who got topic banned from anything to do with Russia and Syria. Seriously, trotting out these past discussion as some kind of support for al-Masdar's reliability is just lame.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would again ask that you refrain from language that could be considered not per WP: CIVIL. Also, this is not the place to start bashing or accusing your fellow editors about any behavior that may or may not have taken place after consensus had already been established. Otherwise we would have to research and discuss everyone's (including yours) history of edit warring and being blocked. You can object to the consensus that was established, but however way you turn it it was established and implemented for almost two years. Now, you are in need of a new fresh consensus through discussion. That's how Wikipedia functions and that's what we have started here. PS At the moment there exists no site-wide policy regarding Masdar's reliability one way or the other (so there is no overriding), only the local ones due to the nature of SOHR and Masdar being the two primary sources on the conflict and almost no neutral ones being present. EkoGraf (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Volunteer Marek is still under sanctions regarding his incivil behavior and was warned against continuing such behavior, I urge him to stop using vulgar and aggressive language, that doesn't contribute to character of encyclopedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As you well know, I'm not under any sanctions, so please stop making shit up. I use words appropriately and not gratuitously. Your passive aggressive hounding of me across dozens of articles however is a different story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, here is a story which describes the "quality" of Al-Masdar's editor's reporting [8]. Anyone who says this is a reliable source for anything controversial is deluded or lying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And this pretty much describes how Al-Masdar is in the business of spreading fake news and conspiracy theories. I'm sorry but there's no way that a discussion on an article talk page can "declare" what is essentially a fake news website to be "reliable" (or even "semi-reliable"), especially for anything controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Ok I am going to try and propose a compromise here. The whole current edit war started due to Volunteer Marek's objections to Masdar as a reliable source, primarily when it comes to its claims of alleged massacres being committed by rebels or some other similar controversial topics. As most know, pro-government Masdar and pro-opposition SOHR are virtually the two primary sources that have been used for the past several years in all articles related to the Syrian war. This is due to the fact independent neutral sources are almost non-existent in Syria. Furthermore, a multitude of foreign media outlets have also cited ether Masdar or SOHR or both in their reporting due to the non-existance of other sources. Local agreements have been repeatedly established and maintained for years by Wikipedia's editors that for the sake of neutrality, and our obligation as Wikipedia editors to present both sides POV, we were to use both Masdar and SOHR...and in the following manner. When something is confirmed by both Masdar and SOHR, we present it as fact. When something is only reported by ether one or the other we use the wording such as: according to, reportedly, said or the extreme expression (per Wikipedia) claimed. Volunteer Marek primarily objected to the wording reportedly because it does not state who is making the claim. So, when it comes to the extreme subjects like these (massacres, etc.) I would propose that instead of reportedly we use the wording according to or if need be claimed and attribute it properly to pro-government Masdar or something along those lines. The point is, if we removed Masdar, we would need to remove SOHR as well, and that would leave virtually all of our Syria articles without the majority of its content. Masdar has primarily been used (like SOHR) as a source for territorial changes in Syria (which can be seen) at the Syrian civil war map and elsewhere for years. This is because at least when it comes to territorial changes, Masdar and SOHR (despite their pro-gov and pro-opp bias) overlap in their confirmations in 3/4 of the cases. So at the very least in this regard Masdar is mostly reliable. So my proposal is, to leave Masdar when it comes to territorial claims/changes, while when it comes controversial topics/claims of massacres, chemical weapons, pro-government demonstrations or some kind of conspiracy theories etc, a more concrete and stricter language is to be used when it comes to who is claiming what (but ofc needs to be balanced with pro-opp sources). So basically, as per Marek, the word reportedly would be considered a too vague term to be used in such claims and would need further attribution. Or if need be that we exclude those kinds of claims along with Masdar all-together if Masdar is the sole reporter and nobody else picks up on it (not even pro-opp outlets), because honestly yes this may be giving too much weight and in violation of WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. EkoGraf (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good start. I'm currently quite busy but I will take a closer look at it soon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

But let me clarify that "the current edit war" started because some users tried to readd material which had no consensus to begin with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm always fine with adding more attribution. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I just made a compromise edit as a first step in line with what I proposed up above. I removed Masdar's claim of dead and raped women and children being found recently since it was only reported/claimed by Masdar and nobody else. EkoGraf (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: But that's not what I understood from your comment. I merely wanted to apply more attribution to claims made by al-Masdar (or SOHR for that matter). If we do that, I don't see why it has to go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good with two reservations: Referring to AMN as "pro-government" each time is poisoning the well. We would similarly have to refer to SOHR as "pro-opposition" at every mention. Wouldn't work. Also not sure what you mean "not even pro-opp" outlets - those are generally in opposition to AMN. As long as there is proper attribution, I think it's ok to use AMN even if it is the sole reporter. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Referring to Masdar once as "pro-government" the very first time we attribute the claim to Masdar would be enough, it would be redundant to repeat "pro-government" over and over again throughout an article. But again, it would be necessary to emphasis at the first mention of Masdar that its pro-government so our reader would know from where the claim comes from. Also emphasising once at the first mention that SOHR is a pro-opposition activist group would be needed. As for the other thing, I meant if nobody else picked up on a claim (not even the opposition in an attempt to deny it) it would probably be non-notable to mention it anyway. EkoGraf (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So then you are proposing that something claimed in al-Masdar is denied by the opposition, it would be ok to mention it (with proper attribution)? Khirurg (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Yes of course. One side claims one thing, the other claims another or denies what the other side is saying. All POV presented that way. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I meant that if Masdar was making a non-notable (but controversial) claim that nobody else picks up on that it would maybe be undue weight to include it and also possibly propagandish (as Marek would put it) in nature when taking into account Masdar's pro-government stance. I'll reinsert that claim for now until everyone else voices their opinion and we see where we at. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the reliance on other news outlets, particularly from the West, to verify claims would defeat the purpose as to why AMN is needed in the first place. Remember the balance you were talking about? Well, that balance is going to be needed to create a more neutral encyclopedia. I don't see how that can be possible if were only allowing one side of the spectrum have all the say. I'll say it again, I don't see a problem with AMN just as long as it's properly attributed. That goes with other sources that are openly anti- this or pro- that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Yeah, basically I totally agree with both you and @Khirurg:. I'm just trying to find some kind of middle ground here and compromise with the others. Hmmmm.... Maybe we can try it this way. If its something controversial that is only reported by Masdar we will: attribute it to Masdar, use the expression that they claimed it and also note that it was not independently verified. EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded that paragraph as I described. EkoGraf (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. However, if something is controversial and it is ONLY reported by Masdar then we simply should not include it per WP:REDFLAG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I voice support for EkoGraf's proposal, and for his earlier post on 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC). The Al-Masdar News article recently went through an AfD and it is quite clear that most "mainstream" Western sources that have bothered to comment on the news agency either describe it as having a pro-regime editorial bias or (much more often) simply cite its reporting about some event without saying anything further about it. It seems entirely reasonable to me to allow both SOHR and Al-Masdar, while trying to let the reader know when the information may be in doubt because it's reported by only one of them. I've seen Al-Masdar make corrections in subsequent articles when they've gotten things wrong, too. Esn (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I also find EkoGraf's proposal very fitting, and voice my full support for it. As said several times in course of this discussion, al-Masdar is an important source despite its bias. If we make clear that it has this strong bias before the controversial claim, and then link it to al-Masdar's Wikipedia article, where its problems and criticism are outlined, it would put the claim in context. Applodion (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• As EkoGraf tells, Masdar is a "pro-government" (meaning pro-Assad) source. Yes, it is exactly how it was described in a number of other sources. This is just like 95% of newspapers in Russia are "pro-Putin". And how about US? Are they all pro-Trump? Where they all "pro-Obama"? Of course not. This is the difference between good journalism WP:RS (CNN, NYT, whatever) and "advocacy sources" that are always "pro" or against someone, just like Joseph Goebbels was definitely pro-something. Bu wait a minute, maybe they are pro-Assad just because he is such a wonderful person? No, this is not the case, as we all know. Just to summarize, no, this is not really a good source for the Syrian war. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"And how about US? Are they all pro-Trump? Where they all "pro-Obama"? Of course not." There are certain topics on which there is, for some reason, widespread consensus among mainstream Western journalists which is not reflected in the public opinion of the audiences they serve. An example which may be relevant to us is that they have been accused of being state propaganda when it comes to reporting on Syrian or other Middle Eastern wars, most recently by Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept: "In wartime, US television instantly converts into state media". I have not noticed Al-Masdar being consistently false with the facts, and I have noticed them issuing corrections when they made mistakes. Their relatively rare editorial articles are mostly pro-their-own-side, and their news articles tend not to emphasize embarrassing details, but that can be generally said of the media from every side of this conflict. It's true of the BBC/Reuters as well: [9] Esn (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, these constant comparisons of Assad to Hitler are getting old already. *Sigh* Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wishes, nobody disputes they are pro-gov. However, our 2 main sources for most of our Syria content are ether pro-gov Masdar or pro-opp SOHR, because 3rd party sources mostly don't exist. Removing one would have to lead to the removal of the other and that would basically rob most of our Syria content. When it comes to territorial changes Masdar and SOHR agree in 3/4 of the cases so in this regard its mostly reliable. The main point of contention are any controversial claims (non-territorial) made by Masdar that could possibly be seen as propaganda. We are trying to agree on how to proceed in those cases. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the simple solution here then would be to agree that we can use Masdar for territorial changes, but not for anything else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

However, it looks like most users here would be fine if al-Masdar would be properly attributed in such cases. For the sake of reaching the compromise as outlined by EkoGraf here, that would be our best bet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I support EkoGraf on this, the use of Masdar, properly attributed, is necessary to uphold neutral point of view of the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does appear that even at this early stage, a large group of editors (myself, EkoGraf, Esn, Applodion, Molobo, Etienne) support using Al-Masdar, with proper attribution(details to be worked out). 22:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khirurg (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Add my name too. This is nothing more than applying to this article the same standards that apply to all articles. Deciding on that requires little discussion. Exceptionalism is not a good thing, especially if it appears to be there just to support npov tagging. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"applying to this article the same standards that apply to all articles" <-- Exactly! So why are you trying to insert text based on non-reliable sources, in violation of WP:RS into the article? Why are you insisting that the WP:NPOV standard doesn't apply to this article? Why are you (that's a general "you") forced to invent these new taxonomical categories of "semi-reliable" (sic, lol) sources just to justify your edits? Yes, that is exactly what this article needs - same standards that apply to other Wikipedia articles. Why are you doing the opposite of what you say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg: A) This is purportedly an RfC, not a !vote; B) This is purportedly an RfC, not a !vote; C) This is purportedly an RfC, not a !vote. This RfC was opened yesterday. The fact of its existence has only just been made known at the RSN as advised by an admin. Allow it to run its full course before counting your chickens. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Who said we're "voting"? Remember, we must assume good faith that "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it." And that "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." So I don't think any user here sees this as voting, especially when a great deal of time and energy is being spent looking into alternate proposals and compromises. In other words, no one is simply "voting", we are discussing ways and means to make this article better through RFCs, consensus building, discussions, and compromise proposals. There's nothing wrong with that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be an extensive use of the recent UN report about the battle of Aleppo [10] as much as possible, since it is the most neutral and reliable source we have. This would mean that the article could be completely rewritten, though, especially in the background section. --R2D2015 (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: al-Masdar, a source which EkoGraf has reluctantly described as "semi-reliable", but which really is just a piece of crap non-reliable source, is used in the article ... TWENTY EIGHT times. Best I can tell, out of those twenty eight times, maybe five are instances where it's being used to source units involved in the battle or territorial changes, which is relatively uncontroversial so this may be perhaps justifiable. The other twenty two or twenty three times, it's pretty much being used for straight up POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't reluctant a bit to call it semi-reliable. Since its pro-government I deemed it as such due to the controversial claims it can make from time to time which don't pan out always (although that doesn't mean its always wrong). When it comes to territorial changes, units etc its pretty reliable and the pro-rebel SOHR overlaps with Masdar in this regard for the most part. As for the other thing, as most editors seem to agree, for the sake of presenting all sides POV, it is proper to present pro-government claims in this conflict, just as much as we are presenting anti-government claims. Removing one beligerent's POV over the others would not be neutral. As such, we cite Masdar, but we attribute the claim properly (as most agree) and thus make sure our reader knows its coming from Masdar. EkoGraf (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Between, I had the time so I went through the whole reference list and counted. Out of 369 sources used in this article, only 22 Masdar reports are used (7 of which in the infobox alone - units, troop strength, commander names) while of the remaining 15: 10 are for territorial claims (which you said are justifiable), one regarding a ceasefire proposal and only 4 are for controversial claims (as you put it). Besides these, there are only 2 RT reports (one unit and one territorial) and just 1 SANA report (a denial). So that's a total of 25 pro-government reports (not even 28 that you said for just Masdar). In contrast, we have 18 pro-rebel reports: 10 from SOHR, 3 from Syria Direct, 2 from the SNHR, 2 from El Dorar and 1 from a pro-rebel twitter poster. EkoGraf (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A single listing in the reference list can be for multiple instances of use - so it's 28. Also, the article DOES NOT have 369 *sources*, it has 369 *citations*. Even if all the other ones are for territorial claims and/or troops, whatever is left over, the controversial uses, should NOT be in the article. Note also, that your previous argument was that "if we remove Masdar there won't be much left". Well, if there are "only" four instances (there are actually more) of controversial use, then it wouldn't affect the amount of info much, would it?

The problem with "attribution" is that most readers won't know jack about Masdar. That's one thing. The other thing is that when a unreliable source is being used this extensively, attribution or not, you run into the problem of undue weight.

There's a simple time tested, tried and true rule of thumb - if the info is really true and pertinent and not undue, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a second, reliable, source, to back it up. If Masdar (or other unreliable sources) are *the only* sources making some thing up, errr... "reporting" on something, then we shouldn't include it. That's it. That's how Wikipedia works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And we haven't even gotten to WP:REDFLAG which says: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (emphasis in original). So take the stuff about these supposed raped bodies discovered by Assad's troops. Is it a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"? Yep, it sure is and no, it is NOT covered in MULTIPLE MAINSTREAM SOURCES. This text, added by EtienneDolet is in blatant and obnoxious breach of Wikipedia policy, WP:V. Not guideline, not essay, a policy. And it's obvious. And he knows it. And he put it in anyway. And then edit warred to keep it in. That's a big problem. That's topic-ban level infraction. So really, stop enabling him/them. We can keep the territorial changes and units but the other crap simply needs to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Only two of the 22 individual reports are cited more than once, and in those two cases they are again citing only units, nothing controversial. Out of the 28 citations of Masdar, 24 are for operational/combat issues and/or unit names and commander names. Only four times is it used for what you characterized as controversial issues. So its not being used only five times (as you said) for uncontroversial issues. EkoGraf (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so let's remove those four times. In fact, we have an obligation to do so, per WP:REDFLAG. And you know, the fact that they had neo-Nazis writing for them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I again refer you to what most editors have agreed. That if a claim is attributed properly and clearly to Masdar, there is no reason not to include the claim as an appropriate counter-balance to all the anti-government claims (which are numerous). As for the neo-Nazi thing, I only now saw your new section al-Masdar and Stormfront. As far as I see it - it was not multiple neo-Nazis, but just one; Masdar suspended him after they were made aware of his views; and if he wasn't the one who wrote those four controversial reports then again no reason to not include them (I wouldn't object to their removal if they were written by the specific guy in question). EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea, suspended him with pay (gave him a free vacation) in the hope the spotlight would go away. No. The fact that they hired him in the first place evidences what kind of source they are. AND one of the other editors claimed that PA's Stormfront posts were just "controversial". Because you know, writing about "beating up sand niggers" (sic) is "controversial" rather than genuinely fucked up.

Al-Masdar cannot be used for anything controversial, and I don't care what the meat puppets and battleground warriors on this talk page want. This is Wikipedia policy, which is non-negotiable. I don't care about the bullshit WP:GAME RfC above either. We are simply NOT using neo-Nazi employing sources on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I went through all four of the controversial cites. Two of them are cited in regards to the discovery of dead soldier's bodies. According to Masdar, they were POWs who were executed by the rebels. These two need to stay and we are obligated to include them because - the pro-opposition SOHR also reported on the discovery of the bodies, but of course they presented an alternative narrative (that they died during fighting). So, we have both a pro-opposition and pro-government source who are presenting two different narratives on a story. Both claims and both sides POV presented and neutral balance upheld. As for the other two cites I'm fine ether way (whether they are removed or remain), although for now most editors are for the inclusion of the claims if attributed appropriately. So until that is resolved we have to wait. EkoGraf (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed one of the two sources for the bodies since it was redundant, it was citing something that was mentioned in the other Masdar report as well (that they were allegedly captured during the 4-year battle). We down to 3 controversial ones now, I guess we making progress hehehehe. EkoGraf (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Replaced another, now its two. One, regarding the soldier's bodies should remain (since it was notable enough that SOHR tried to provide a different narrative). The other, regarding the claimed raped bodies, I'm fine ether way, but like I said, since most lean towards including it if properly attributed it should remain until a final decision is made. EkoGraf (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Nothing controversial from al-Masdar. I mean, hell, now even the main editor of the source is saying [11] "I have decided to reevaluate al-Masdar" and "We are no reviewing the way al-Masdar works" which is pretty much the source itself saying "yeah, we're not reliable".

Although on the other hand, that main editor has said some really messed up things himself on several occasions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not actually true that "most lean towards including". The thing is that editors like EtienneDolet, Khirurg/Athenean, Tiptoe and, well, yourself, just keep repeating it, but many other editors come here, voice their objection to it but don't stick around (because frankly, dealing with you guys is extremely frustrating, you less than the other three). For example in this section R2D2015, Jr8825, 3bdulelah and even Applodion say the source is unreliable. Then there's myself, Iryna Harpy, MyVeryBestWishes, Stickee. Also Alhanuty above. So there's no consensus for inclusion at all. And like I said, Wikipedia policies, WP:REDFLAG, WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump everything.

Let me also remind you that you haven't addressed the issues raised by WP:REDFLAG at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about our current discussion Marek. Also, you seem to have forgotten about a few people and miss-interpreted the opinion of others. If you check again, my recent proposal regarding attributing a controversial Masdar claim clearly to Masdar was supported by: EtienneDolet, Khirurg, Tiptoe, Esn, Applodion, MyMoloboaccount, Fitzcarmalan and Asilah1981. Your stance has been supported by: Iryna Harpy, MyVeryBestWishes, Stickee and Alhanuty. R2D2015 approved of my earlier cleaning up of texts where I still left both sides POV (including Masdar's), while during the current discussion he only made a suggestion regarding OHCHR. 3bdulelah has been against Masdar for years, but hasn't been involved in the current discussion at all (last message was four months ago). Jr8825 hasn't voiced his opinion on ether Masdar or the compromise proposal recently, to be precise, hasn't voiced it for the last four months (per edit history seems he has mostly retired from Wikipedia). So please, if you want to count (although Wikipedia is not a democracy), count those that are involved in the current discussion and not those from months in the past and are un-involved at the moment. And per that, out of the 15 of us that expressed their opinions recently: 9 are for the inclusion of Masdar (with proper attribution), 5 of you are against Masdar and 1 has made a suggestion. Again, we are not a democracy, I just wanted to point out to what most are leaning to and that I was correct in my description of the current balance of opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

al-Masdar and Stormfront

So it seems one of the editors from al-Masdar was active on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront, posting racist and offensive messages. You guys still think al-Masdar is "semi-reliable"?

There's. No. Fucking. Way. You're using this source for anything controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I heard about this. But you fail to mention that the Board of Directors of Al-Masdar issued an apology and stated: "Al-Masdar finds such behavior wholly unacceptable and strongly condemns it, as a result this individual officially resigned as of today and will no longer be affiliated with the company in any way." Scandals can occur even in the most notorious of news outlets. However, if a NY Times editor was caught making the same offensive remarks at Stormfront, we wouldn't be dismissing NYT as a source altogether on Wikipedia. Al-Masdar shouldn't be treated any differently in that sense. Also, in regards to Al-Masdar being semi-reliable, it's really not that big of a deal to use that word. In fact, per WP:RS, reliability is viewed on a spectrum. Check out the Overview section and the picture right beside it. Some sources can be more reliable than others and etc. This is just a general observation and doesn't necessarily have to deal with this discussion. Last but not least, please stop cursing (i.e. "There's. No. Fucking. Way."). See WP:CIVIL. We don't want to make the talk page a toxic environment because that'll discourage non-involved users from participating. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Quit making bullshit excuses. This is a source which wouldn't be considered reliable EVEN IF they didn't have neo-Nazis writing for them. And quit it with the idiotic imaginary stories about New York Times - the whole fucking point is that the New York Times DOESN'T have neo-Nazis writing for it. This is so incredibly dishonest of you that it beggars belief that you're still allowed to edit this topic area. Your willingness to sit there and make this bullshit up is what is "uncivil" and an insult to anyone with a sense of decency.

And oh yeah, this does bring up another fact - you have tried to use anti-semitic conspiracy websites in the past as sources, claimed they were "reliable" and you even claimed they were "scholarly sources". Once can be a mistake. But when defending these kinds of sources becomes a pattern, it's clear you're WP:NOTHERE and you have no business editing Wikipedia.

You. Are. Not. Using sources with neo-Nazi writers in this, or any other articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say NY Times has neo-Nazi editors. But if it did, would you say it's not RS anymore? Or another example, I know WSJ allows Armenian Genocide denialists to publish full page propaganda ads, would that automatically dismiss them as an RS on Wikipedia? I wouldn't think so. "Using sources with neo-Nazi writers..." - but we're not doing that. He clearly resigned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck about NY Times or WSJ in this discussion. It's completely irrelevant. You are being incredibly disingenuous and dishonest. Those comments alone are block worthy.

And you're being even more dishonest with the "we're not doing that. He clearly resigned". Yeah, he resigned after he got busted. But all along he was writing for this source. So more bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Resigned? He was booted out with Leith Fadel tweeting that he (personally) had recently been ill (what, for so long that he hadn't bothered to check on his trusted co-founders for years?), and expressed his disappointment with the revelation! Oh, yes, Leith Fadel runs a tight, non-partisan ship... I'm a little hazy on whose version of reality you're promoting, EtienneDolet, but your interpretation of what has been sourced - as opposed to what is meant - seems to coincide with fiction rather than fact. I really don't care whether you believe what you're saying to be true, but I find your twisting of fact to be highly disturbing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the BoD of Al-Masdar doesn't hire neo-Nazis and spread Nazi propaganda purposefully. The BoD didn't know about it and forced him to resign after they found out. If they didn't apologize and still kept him, well that would be a different story and I would be the first one to remove Al-Masdar all over Wikipedia. But that's not the case. This is just my observations. Would like to see what other editors have to say about this as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop making bullshit excuses. Do the right thing and remove any controversial text sourced to Al-Masdar. It's a chance to show that your purpose here is actually constructive, and you need that chance because these last few comments do not make you look good at all. It really is a chance. I suggest you take it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a speedy about-turn from what you just asserted, Etienne. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Who are the BoD? I can't seem to find anything about them prior their 'apology'. Do you have RS listing the members and their credentials? Anything? I can't find anything on them on the a-M site, nor anywhere else. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with Étienne Dolet. The Grudges (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC) (strike sock ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

Yes, that would explain why your very first involvement on this talk page was to blank discussions you don't like. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh gee, another brand spanking new account showing up to brigade and disrupt the discussion. And then someone's gonna use this to claim "consensus". So tired of this crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Raised the issue at WP:RSN [12].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if they hire Neo-nazis this is irrelevant, do they check their facts?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What'd you think? No. Like I already said, this source would be unreliable EVEN IF they didn't have neo-nazis writing for them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Care to provide another reason?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Like what? Do they fact check? No. Did they have a neo-Nazi writing their articles? Yes. Do they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? No, the opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Like other then their ideology, which is irrelevant. Now the issue of fact checking is a valid reason for exclusion, as long as we are using them for facts, and not their opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Masdar is a good source when it comes to territorial changes (advances/losses), when citing commanders and/or units or casualty figures. This can be seen in the fact that 80-90 percent of the territorial changes reported by Masdar are also reported by the pro-opposition SOHR. So in this case they are reliable. However, the problem here is controversial claims (as Marek calls them) by Masdar, for example massacres or some-such. I have argued (as seen up above) that if a story (like the discovery of the dead soldier's bodies) is reported on by both Masdar and pro-opp SOHR (which they were), and they present two different narratives (which they did), we present both sides point of view (pro-gov and pro-opp) and we attribute the pro-gov claim to Masdar. That way both sides are equally represented and neutral balance is established. As for if a claim is made by Masdar alone, and not reported on by anyone else, I am fine ether way (whether we include it or not). But, at one point, I did propose (up above) that maybe for the sake of compromise we leave these claims out (due to possibly WP: UNDUEWEIGHT). Finally, in regards to the neo-Nazi writer, even though he doesn't seem to have expressed his Nazi views in the articles he wrote, I said it would be possibly OK to remove any controversial claims if they were written by him. EkoGraf (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So we also do so the other way, only report controversial claims such as massacres when Masdar agrees they happen? In war both sides tell lies and exaggerate, As long as we say "according to..." I can see no valid reason for excluding them based upon their ideology or even the fact they are a government mouthpiece. In war both sides must have their version in our pages, any thing else is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not Wikipedia policy. We cover "both sides" to the extent they're covered in reliable sources else we violate WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. If it's impossible to find another reliable source that reports on what a shitty outlet like al-Masdar said, we DON'T include it. There's no way we're going to base our articles on what some neo-Nazi claimed, attribution or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Basically, essentially, I agree with you. Just as I agree with the other eight editors who have expressed the same opinion in this discussion and its the main reason I am arguing this much for the inclusion of Masdar as a source in the Syrian civil war, whether what they are saying (regarding controversial issues) is true or not. Because, for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality, both side's (both beligerent's) POV needs to be presented and we can not exclude one over the other. I was simply trying to maybe find some middle ground with Marek and Iryna. But in any case, basically I agree with what you are saying. EkoGraf (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Both sides POV" needs to be represented to the extent its covered in reliable sources. That's what policy says. NOT "in equal amounts". Al-Masdar is NOT a reliable source. What you need is to show that these allegations have also been reported on in other, reliable sources. They haven't. Without that, WP:REDFLAG applies and all you basically have here is a fake news website that employs neo-Nazis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

First, it is reliable when it comes to military/operational matters. Second, it reports on the government's POV/narrative. Whether you or me think that narrative is reliable or not doesn't matter. We are obligated to present it as much as we present the narrative of the US/UK/France who are anti-Assad. Many think Russian media outlets are not reliable but we still use them in the Ukrainian conflict articles because they are one of the beligerent's whos POV we need to present. Third, it was one Nazi guy (not multiple), there is no evidence they were aware of his personal views, they suspended him the moment they were and Masdar itself didn't promote neo-Nazi views. But really, Slatersteven said it best, we can not exclude the opinion of someone based on their ideology. Fourth, calling it fake news is a POV term. Fifth, for the most part there are no reliable sources in Syria. Finally, I find myself simply repeating the same thing over and over. So, I'll simply stop. If any new editors show up, I'll say I simply agree or disagree with them and refer them to what I said (multiple times) throughout this talk page. So I'm signing off. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know whether it's reliable with regard to military/operational matters. What I do know is that it is not reliable for anything controversial. And it's not just the "narrative" that it reports on. It "reports on" supposed events and occurrences which are not backed up by any other sources. And it has been accused of being fake news in that regard.

And again, they suspended him, when it came out (you don't know when they became aware) and even then, suspended him with pay. al-Masdar has promoted a whole host of fringe views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Just noticed this little dialog; so a short summary; AMN knowingly hires nazis, make shit up, only relay the Assad narrative, are not accurate in any way shape or form and promote a host of fringe views and is complete fake news... did I miss anything? Man, I underestimated you! You must have spent thousands of hours analyzing the tens of thousands of articles and videos AMN published based on field reports from people on the ground the last 2½ years as well as the tens of thousands of references and attributions from all over the world. Oh dear, Kudos! A few minor corrections to your excellent work here; AMN does fact-checking, quite a bit actually, AMN has to, the Syrian government claims are more than ludicrous quite often, and guess what; AMN has sources in other factions of this conflict besides the government and military. --Dfroberg (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Question to the room; in this discussion, the word "controversial" has appeared a few time, does anyone care to elaborate on what kinds of news that would entail? --Dfroberg (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627062418/http://archicivilians.com/2015/06/18/infographic-fatah-halab-military-operations-room-coalition-of-31-rebel-factions-syria/ to http://archicivilians.com/2015/06/18/infographic-fatah-halab-military-operations-room-coalition-of-31-rebel-factions-syria/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://syriareport.net/report-maher-al-assad-commanding-homs-assault/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49158%2F

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

This page has been tagged since May as having multiple problems, and specifically disputed neutrality and unreliable sources, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed here. Is this still considered an issue? Are there specific sections or sources in dispute? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Rebooting this in light of these edits and this revert. Personally, I think we can remove the NPOV template but need to keep the source template for now. I think recent edits/reverts show reliant we are on Al-Masdar (and also SOHR) for detail. A-M has been subject to numerous discussions, with no real consensus, and a working policy of using it for uncontroversial troop movements but not for controversial claims or statements about rebels. I think that, in addition to its poor reliability, there are two other issues with using A-M (also true for SOHR): (a) notability, i.e. if we can't get a better source than A-M, is it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedic article?, and (b) original research, i.e. the fact that A-M reports are typically "breaking news" items and therefore constitute primary sources according to Wikipedia policy (see WP:PRIM) which should be replaced as soon as possible with secondary sources which themselves ideally draw on multiple sources (again, something similar could be said of most daily SOHR reports). Most of the material citing A-M falls into two categories: (i) blow by blow accounts of the taking of this village or that farm (not too much in this article, but some, including in the "strategic analysis" section), and (ii) details of commanders and troop numbers. Re (i), I think this detail should be trimmed as non-encyclopedic. Re (ii), I think this is probably partly unavoidable, and is fine for pro-government forces but we should avoid it for rebel forces (and probably other way around for SOHR). Thoughts? And do we need the timeline at the bottom (presumably what the added and removed PROSE template related to)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A rough consensus (after much discussion) was achieved in May of last year, with the guidelines being to: "use al-Masdar for non-controversial information (not disputed, and not likely to be disputed, such as territorial changes, commanders, troop movements); to use them with attribution (such as "according to al-Masdar", not just "reportedly", and the first time such a mention is made giving some qualifier such as "pro-government") where they are giving one side of a topic that is disputed; and not to use them as the sole sources for inherently controversial information (such as massacres, chemical weapons, pro-government demonstrations, conspiracy theories)". Following this, the language was cleaned up in the article substantially, if not totally at the time. When it comes specifically to territorial changes it has been deemed reliable enough since they and SOHR overlap in their reporting of most cases of changes of territory. I also think the NPOV template is unnecessary and can be removed since I don't think there is anything really non-neutral that is in dispute at the moment. As for the source template, if you think it should stay I'm fine with that too. Regarding the "strategic analysis" section, I checked, and Masdar shows up only once for one sentence I also think is not really relevant enough and you can remove it if you like. As for the commanders, units and troop numbers, Masdar has been used for the names of two pro-gov commanders, one force on the pro-gov side and a troop number on the rebel side. So the first three are OK I think, as for the fourth we can either add a note in brackets beside it as a pro-gov claim or find a better source. I will try and find one when I have a bit of time. EkoGraf (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There is also the UNDUE issue where the text is basically a blow by blow, include it as it breaks, kind of narrative which really isn't encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Those can be moved to the yearly timeline articles on the battle, if seen as superfluous for this main article on the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks EkoGraf. I agree with everything you just said. I also looked at the pages for each of the sub-articles on this battle, e.g. Aleppo offensive (September–October 2016) which have exactly the same issues. (Thanks Applodion for already replacing one of the sources I tagged on one.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Was about to say the same, thanks Applodion! EkoGraf (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I also have to agree with the points above; I think it would be best to look for books and journals which have been written about or at least mention the battle. These are most likely to contain neutral or at least reliable information for the article. Applodion (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nujabaimage.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Map

Lightspecs, please elaborate on your revert of my edit in which I removed an inaccurate map. Display name 99 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Applodion, you should have gone to the talk page to engage in discussion rather than revert again. Here is my proof. Firstly, I temporarily lived in Aleppo in early 2021 and personally saw for myself the YPG flag flying over Sheikh Masqood and a Syrian Army checkpoint outside of the neighborhood with a smaller YPG flag on the other side of it. I would like to hear either you or Lightspecs explain how that happened if the map is accurate. Also, here is a source establishing Kurdish control over the neighborhood as recently as April of 2021. [13] For the fact that the towns immediately west of Aleppo were still under terrorist control at the time of the end of the Battle of Aleppo, please see Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020). The Syrian state did not regain control of them until early 2020. Please remove the map from the article. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I agree with you, these areas should not be marked as controlled by the Syrian government. Just fyi, per WP:NOTNEWS you cannot add things you witnessed to Wikipedia if they are not covered by reliable secondary sources. Alaexis_¿question? 06:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Applodion, in addition to the sources provided by Display name 99, the map contradicts the map to the right. The towns to the west of Aleppo were only taken by the SAA much later. For example Haritan and Anadan were only taken in early 2020 [14]. Alaexis_¿question? 06:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out these issues. I would like to note that the status of Sheikh Masqood is kinda... disputed. Nobody claims that the district is under full government control; the SDF still has a presence there, there is a separate police, and the district has its own council. However, Sheikh Masqood has not become part of Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and it formally reintegrated into the Syrian government sphere at the time of Operation Olive Branch in return for the government support for the SDF.
Either way, we can remove the map again. It is not very useful anyway. Applodion (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. However, Alaexis, the thing which I witnessed was covered in the news source to which I linked. Anyhow, the matter is settled now. Display name 99 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Decisive

I see no reason why this particular article should ignore a very clear and specific piece of MOS. There's no clear standing consensus from before and there's certainly not consensus now.Unbh (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be very strong justification for deviating from WP:MOS and I see none here. Alaexis_¿question? 16:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Some battles help a lot to achieve strategic or tactical objectives, others less so, and in order to avoid arbitrary gradation we have only two most obvious and (usually) uncontroversial options: victory and loss. Any deviation from this rule would require exceptional circumstances. However, I've seen no consensus that the Battle of Aleppo was that unique in the whole of the humanity's military history. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a bystander:

...in November, government forces embarked on a decisive campaign that resulted in the recapture of all of Aleppo by December 2016.[88] The Syrian government victory was widely seen as a turning point in Syria's civil war.[89][90] The large-scale devastation of the battle and its importance led combatants to name it the "mother of battles"[91] or "Syria's Stalingrad".[92]

It's not an ordinary battle here, so "decisive" can be justified here. Decisive campaigns lead to decisive victories.

There should be very strong justification for deviating from WP:MOS

No, there shouldn't. The WP:MILMOS contains this: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. And since "decisive victory" was here for a long time and was sourced, I would actually say that there should be "very strong justification" (not just "per WP:MOS") to remove it.

I see no reason why this particular article should ignore a very clear and specific piece of MOS. There's no clear standing consensus from before and there's certainly not consensus now

To be honest I don't see any "clear-standing consensus" for the "very clear and specific piece of MOS" in the first place. There were only some local discussions after which this change to the guideline was made. And I advise you to stop your crusade against "decisive, tactical etc. victories" purely to "comply" with WP:MILMOS without considering its appropriateness in each particular case. Again, we should use common sense. --Oloddin (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)