Talk:Palmyra offensive (March 2016)

Someone should create a map...

I can't do it myself due to a lack of skills, sorry. --Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't edit the map I"ve created for this article becasue I don't have the time and my program is now broken... I suggest removing the map until I or someone else will make a new one.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have to edit the map anymore since the battle is over, although a .gif might be a nice addition. --Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR

What does this mean? It doesn't say anywhere. I would suggest using the expanded form since it only occurs a few times and isn't clear what it stands for (at least to me). Hollth (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Scrap that. There is a link I didn't notice before. Hollth (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

US reaction

I fail to see any good US source . All I see in google various websites which sneer at Mark Toner's ..er... weak comment. Also, it was before the fact. Is there any US reaction on the finalized state of the events? Of course, he expressed the general position of the US on the sides rather correctly, but in a dumb form, so I am not sure whether his comment is due here, especially since, as I said, it was not a comment on the victory. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As the article (and reaction) is about the offensive itself and not the victory, I think it is valid even if an after-the-fact reaction would be better. The context is also there, so I think it is written and explained well. Nevertheless, will be on the lookout for a more up-to-date reaction. Gomedog (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

re: "explained well": well, thank you; it was my text. Nevertheless I have to admit that I failed to could not describe how desperately Toner was trying to wiggle out of commenting on the issue. He stuttered this comment only when he was pressed hard against the wall, so to speak. And I understand him perfectly: giving credits to these Ruskies is losing face, so his answer was probably best possible at the moment. And Russian media is full of irony and sniggering at this. Of course, as a wikipedian, it is not my job to write this in the article... Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Russia sentiments in English Wikipedia

It seems like sources from Russia's news agencies like RT or Sputnik News will always be deleted from Wikipedia, no matter what they says. Like in this article, RT source about Russian casualties was deleted and was replaced by Western one.

That happened several times on other articles. And some people even said that Sputnik is "propaganda", but wait, Western news agencies don't have any propaganda it it ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen comarade, from what I"ve seen, many here are either neutral and searching for the best unbiasd sources and some others are pro-Russians. We work by WP:NPOV and if you see a spesific violation of NPOV feel free to share. I personally don't use RT too often because RT in many cases in not subjective and not imformative as other sources such as Reuters, AFP and AP. Many sources in this article are pro-Russian from what I can tell and they are chosen becuase of their reliability and not because of their agenda. So if there's a problem with this article, feel free to share it with us and we"ll see if it's really a problem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes people said that official Russian press is propaganda, because there is numerous evidence how they spin the news. They may be good sources about what Russian official say or about things outside Russian political interests/idiosyncrasies, but anything else is under suspicion. Yes you may say that Jews control american media, but Putin's grasp on Russian agitprop is incomparable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh? And Western media don't spin news? How is it neutral to push the Western POV and say everything else is "propaganda"? Information from all sources should be included if it is accurate. On the other hand, you also use the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights as a source, despite the fact that its reliability is highly questionable and its claims are not verifiable (while on the other hand, RT has not posted any lies regarding the Syrian conflict, or any other topic, for that matter). So whenever you say NPOV, what you really mean is the US government's official party line on the matter. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Times

It's "The Times" subjective opinion for the event, the link isn't on their source (even if they dream it). Therefore this information is in the "Commentary" section (such as in the "Kundus hospital airstrike" article). As for "dropping leaflets" - it's different topics with "media reaction". Please, write about "dropping leaflets" in another section, not in "Commentary". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.9 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't collect various subjective bullshit in wikipedia. It is encyclopedia, not collection of various speculations. We do have "Reactions" seciton, for official positions, but we will not collect rants of each and every journalist, per WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is not you decide it's bullshit or not. It's not WP:UNDUE, because it's not presented as the basic version of the events, but as the opinion of the UK's major media, and located in the relevant section. If you don't like separate "Commentary" section, I can do the subsection "Media reaction" in "Reactions" section.

Yes, it is wikipedians who decide what's buillhit or not. It is not opinion of media. It is speculation reported by media. Mainstream media if always full of bullshit. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Text in question "One example in the largely hand-written documents, which were given to Sky News and cannot be independently verified, is the regime’s recapture of Palmyra last month. It is claimed that Isis’s withdrawal from the city was arranged and agreed with Assad’s forces, which were widely hailed as liberators when they swept in." Here "cannot be independently verified" means "bullshit". Period. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

However, there's no basis for the removal of this information, we cann't assess the reliability, we can only refer to the sources, if you have a links to authoritative sources where this Times article referred to as a bullshit, you can add. But we can add that it information "cannot be independently verified".

The question is whether this information significant for Wiki. Some journalists have written that media coverage of Palmyra offensive has been controversial, I think it's an important aspect for historical article, so I will try to do the subsection and to add a few more links to various media sourses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.9 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes we can assess the reliability and we do it all the time. The phrase "cannot be independently verified" means that the information is not reliable and hence has no place in an encyclopedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, in my opinion you deliberately bring to absurdity, here we show the point of view of a particular media, but not the basic version of the article, it's obvious. I don't see real arguments against this information.

No it is not "point of view of particular media", it is point of view of a particular author. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, show Wiki guidelines, that the author's opinion is not equal to the opinion of the editorial board (ie, itself media) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.9 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please, this is called "wikilawyering". And stupid, too. No, it is not equal, unless you live in Russia or Saudi Arabia. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is called you have no arguments, just demagoguery.

Please read WP:CHEESE. ... Now,... wikipedia policies do not define relations between authors and editorial boards. Therefore your objection is stupid and does need any arguments other than a lecture about freedom of speech, journalist's ethics, and other propaganda of democracy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What is more, even if the information were reliable, wikipedia cannot collect random rants of zillions of journalists from thousands newspapers around the world. Newspapers are source for facts. Opinions and guesswork of journalists are not acceptable in wikipedia. Opinions of recognized experts in the subject domain (in our case, in international relations) do matter. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a random rants, this is reaction of major european media directly relating to this article. I doubt that Wikipedia uses only opinion of recognized experts in the subject, look at the links in the infobox in this article, they go to regular newspaper. In addition, my subsection deals specifically the media reaction, because it was controversial and it's an important socio-information aspect around events described, also you can see on my first link, that this opinion expressed by Marcello Foa journalist and political analyst, lecturer of the University of Lugano. But you just delete everything, because there's no opinion of "experts on international relations", despite hundreds of links on Fox News or Russia Today in Wikipedia. More like vandalism.

It is your personal opinion that it is a "reaction of major european media". Every media article has an author and opinions in wikipedia must be attributed to authors, not to some anonymous "media". Only if you find a reference which directly describes "reaction of media", then you can repeat so for wikipedia. Whereas opinions of separate journalists, as opposed to facts they report are are of undue weight to be listed indiscriminately. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This authoritative sources, not anonymous "media", that's enough. The fact that you don't consider them the "largest european media" and that "it's their reaction" is not a problem of my edits, it's your reductio ad absurdum. About the controversial media reaction mentioned in my first link. Again, this doesn't infringe Due and undue weight, because it's not the main opinion of article.

I strongly suggest you to read and understand or policy about reliable sources. Journalists are experts in news, but not in "everything". And yes, it is undue weight regardless main or not main for the article. Please read and understand WP:UNDUE policy. It is specifically used to weed out numerous trivia, factoids, and opinions or non-experts. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I strongly agree that journalists are experts in news, but not in everything. But what do you think it's undue weight - is your personal opinion.

Yes I agree that estimating undue weight is often a personal judgement of a wikipedian. BTW, please start signing your posts by typing four tildas: ~~~~ - they will be automatically converted into a signature similar to mine. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying that a particular quotation is coming from an expert, then I am OK with inclusion of it. Re: "despite hundreds of links to Fox News" - if the links are references to facts then no problem; trusted newspapers are considered reliable sources for facts. But journalists often express judgments which are way beyond their expertise, and these judgments have no place in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Most journalists don't have any education other than journalism, but they write about everything. Many important articles are based on an interpretation of journalists. But it's not the topic of our discussion.

I strongly suggest you to read and understand or policy about reliable sources. Journalists are experts in news, but not in "everything". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Staszek Lem that it is giving too much undue weight and possibly not per the reliable source policy. But, I agree for a slightly different reason. The primary source for the accusation of Assad-ISIL collaboration is an ISIL defector who brought some documents which he claims are proof. The media outlet itself said this is difficult to verify. I would think an ISIL defector isn't really the most reliable of sources. EkoGraf (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I significantly changed my edits in according to remarks, I hope now it's more complies with Wikipedia. 87.252.229.9 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to current version. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Commentary" section

Is this a discussion about this edit? If so, then no, it doesn't belong in here. The source is a blog and a cherry picked opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, I see that it's not. Just the same IP address which is trying to make other POV changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There are four links, not one blog. And don't rush to remove the information with which you don't agree until the completion of the discussion, thank you. 87.252.229.38 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How about you don't keep restoring this text until the completion of the discussion (which I initiated, despite your false claims in your edit summaries of "consensus")?

The first source is a blog. The second source is an op-ed piece - no, per WP:UNDUE. The third and four sources don't actually support the text you're trying to insert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You began to removing without debate, not I began to adding. Therefore, wait the completion of the discussion to any changes.

I don't think its was "false claims" - you can read the discussion above, the text was substantially changed.

1. Yes, the first source is a blog. 2. Robert Fisk opinion regarding Mid. East absolutely appropriate. 3. Agree, incorrect. 4. Disagree, its actually support the text you're trying to remove. 87.252.229.38 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you added this "Commentary" (big sign right there it's not encyclopedic), I removed it, you then kept restoring it with false claims that "there was consensus" for it even though you did not bother actually saying anything on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My two cents. Russian media did moan profusely that the West silences their glorious victory at Palmyra. One may also notice (here, in the wp article) the clenched-teeth comment of Americans, so Russian complain may have grounds. However the "commentary" of this kind must come from a military expert, not from a random politico, because the importance of the capture of Palmyra must be judged in the overall context, whether it deserved more coverage than other events. Also, did someone really count how much press compared to other events? Of course Russian media covered 10x more, but it was natural, it was their brag point. Therefore whether this section (about "Western silence") is appropriate and how it must be phrased deserves careful deliberaltion, rather than revert war. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Arguments about whether silence did take place:

• See our "Official reactions" section. Can one expand it with comments from other governments? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Is there any Western analysis of Russian press on the event?
• Did anybody review the weight of the opinions of Robert Fisk's opinion and Al Jazeera programme?
• etc...

Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, a slmple google search shows that major Western outlets (BBC, CNN, Reuters, NY Times, etc. etc. ...) did cover Palmyra, therefore the discussed "Commentary" is of doubtful "truthiness". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)