Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Template:Findnote

Daily Telegraph and other "yellow-pages" media is sooooooooooooo authorative =) Why don`t we have an Wiki articles about Yeti or Space Invaders stealing food from your feezer in the night? So much newspapers wrote about it every day! 188.254.90.51 (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be in the infobox because they have played a big role in the battle of Aleppo. They still control the outskirts and surrounding areas of Aleppo and have done for a very long time and still launch attacks/fight against both government and rebel forces near the city and surroundings. So ISIS should be put in the infobox as a belligerent. They have participated throughout!--PaulPGwiki (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided long ago (years ago) on the discussion page to focus this article exclusively only on the battle for the city. ISIS is a littler over a dozen kilometers away from the city in the province's countryside. If they ever do reach the city we would add them. EkoGraf (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah i understand, its the battle for the city itself not including the surrounding area/countryside, that explains it, thankyou. And yeah if they ever do reach the city then they should be added.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They did reach Aleppo city back in late 2013 (with other rebel forces), but they were expelled from Aleppo city in January 2014. After that, they never really managed to return to the city proper, despite the repeated attacks throughout 2015 and 2016. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time (2013) they were allied with the rebels, and their conflict against the rebels in January 2014 lasted only for a few days before they were expelled. Only a few days of conflict as a separate force within a time-frame of four and a half years (time of the battle) isn't really notable enough to warrant them having their own column. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph makes no sense, I want to remove the phrase "and against the Kurdish People's Defence Units" because it makes no sense. I suggest either amending the grammar or removing this altogether.

Sammyh2000 (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you be more specific about why it makes no sense and what you would like us to change it to? Topher385 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They come from UN News portal: The use by armed opposition groups of what is known as a ‘hell-fire cannon,’ a homemade mortar that fires gas cylinders packed with explosives and shrapnel, is also totally unacceptable,” the High Commissioner said, noting that the use of such weapons constitutes indiscriminate attacks, as they are virtually impossible to aim correctly and have frequently killed and maimed civilians in Government-held areas. “As no military advantage can likely be gained from their use due to their inaccuracy, it must be concluded that their primary purpose is to terrorize the inhabitants of western Aleppo,” he added

There are other sources confirming that the rebels do indeed shell civilians and terrorize the population.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question though is whether or not they purposefully target the civilians, like the Russian and Syrian governments do, as military tactic. You know, like Luftwaffe strafing refugees on the roads in 1939, because that's pretty much what these two governments are doing. That's the difference. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is -- you Marek HAVE TO PROVE with factes that russian forces aimed civilian people. You have only rubbish propaganda in your words. So may be you are a volonteer of ISIS or Al-Quaeda than please correct your Wiki-name. Thanks. 188.254.90.51 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question though is whether or not they purposefully target the civilians, like the Russian and Syrian governments do, as military tactic. Of course they do, UN says so in the above statement and numerous sources state so as well. Why are you contesting this? The rebels in Aleppo include internationally recognized terrorist groups. That's the difference. Also, this "terrorize the population", I believe, is your own original, very POV, research and hyperbolic rhetoric which really just evidences your own biases in terms of editing this article What ? You realize this is a quote and statement from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? And the rebels include groups who routinely behead and execute people ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, report on the groups in Aleppo who you state "The question though is whether or not they purposefully target the civilians" and that "Also, this "terrorize the population", I believe, is your own original, very POV"

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/syria-armed-opposition-group-committing-war-crimes-aleppo-new-evidence

Armed groups surrounding the predominantly Kurdish Sheikh Maqsoud district of Aleppo city have repeatedly carried out indiscriminate attacks - possibly including with chemical weapons - that have struck civilian homes, markets and mosques, killing and injuring civilians, and have displayed a shameful disregard for human life, said Amnesty International today. Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director Magdalena Mughrabi said: “The relentless pummelling of Sheikh Maqsoud has devastated the lives of civilians in the area. A wide array of armed groups from the Fatah Halab coalition has launched what appear to be repeated indiscriminate attacks that may amount to war crimes. “By firing imprecise explosive weapons into civilian neighbourhoods the armed groups attacking Sheikh Maqsoud are flagrantly flouting the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets, a cardinal rule of international humanitarian law. “The international community must not turn a blind eye to the mounting evidence of war crimes by armed opposition groups in Syria. The fact that the scale of war crimes by government forces is far greater is no excuse for tolerating serious violations by the opposition.”

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's terrible to realize there are people out here who prefer terrorists close to al-Qaida over Russia and its allies. Some people haven't realized yet the Cold War ended decades ago! Piotr Ukalev (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While the text about "hell fire cannons" might be disputable, this text is about something different and clearly does not belong to the page because it describes events before this battle even started. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No it is not, it is about events during fight for Aleppo. Where did you get this idea?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I think all such materials should be combined in a single section entitled as either as "Human right abuses" or "War crimes". My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MyMoloboaccount, this is very relevant to the article.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Regarding this edit. I know we are an encyclopedia, and I know historical context is important, but the grammatical structure you restored carries an implication that the battle outlasted the "official end" of the war and so at some point stopped being part of the Syrian Civil War. My wording doesn't take anything away from the context-setting function of the sentence, because no one is going to think it started before the Syrian Civil War and later became part of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Aleppo (2012–present). 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/20161005053229/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49141 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005053225/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49158/ to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49158/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the US and Russia sectioned off from the rest of the belligerents? There's a line that separates them from the rest, and I'm wondering why.  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智  09:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page says that russisan and syrian forces indiscriminately bomb schools and hospitals. This has been proven to be misrepresentation of the facts, and that these "schools" and "hospitals" aren't used for their intended purpose, but as terrorist strongholds. See Vanessa Beeley reports as example. Mimosveta (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of western propaganda.DerElektriker (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is ridiculous, but what can be done? Our media reports it this way and we don't have anything better right now. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are terrorists in this article still called "rebels" ? There are nor "rebels" in Aleppo. It's a mix of different radical islamic groups. If we call them "rebels" then we need to call ISIL rebels to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even ISIL should be called terrorists. And yes, calling ISIL "rebels" is perfectly legitimate for Wikipedia. It's just unpopular and "militant", another relatively neutral term, is more commonly used instead. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "rebels" indeed has a strong scent of POV as it suggests bravery and legitimate resistance which can be disputed with a lot of arguments, from extreme abuses like mass beheadings, murder of captives and other proven severe abuses, further from the point that several crucial elements of the armed opposition consist of foreign merceneries and organizations declared terrorists in several UNSC declarations. Anyway, a wholesale use of "terrorists" would be POV as well. Why not using terms like militants, fighters, or armed opposition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.139.235 (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bravery/resistance and atrocities aren't mutually exclusive. The term "rebels" is really neutral - it only means that somebody has rebelled and is fighting against somebody who is/was in power. Nothing more. 94.253.224.183 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these "rebels" aren't even Syrian nationals, many if not most of them receive foreign payment, practically all of them get weaponry, gear, fuel, and ammo paid by external sources, so not few of them are rather foreign fanatics or local and foreign merceneries. Thus "rebels" is obfuscating that aspect which is worth to be considered as a factor of this "civil war". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.138.133 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest calling them armed factions : that is the most neutral term. They are indeed armed factions, which does not imply any moral judgement concerning their objectives. Because they are diverse in Syria, we cannot call them all insurgents nor terrorists. Michaël Lessard (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that they commit the sorts of crimes terrorist groups are known to commit and belong to groups that have been considered terrorists by even the US in the past? Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in Britain, the last rebel neighbourhoods have been abandoned. It's too early to definitively state in the article, but it's likely the end of this battle. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rt.com is generally recognized as a vendor of conspiracy theories, but is used a a source for at least two statements. If these statements are true, it would probably be good if a better source were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHarris (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is premature to show this battle might be over. The reason is that rebels still control 2 neighborhoods in West Aleppo. These are the Al-Layramoun and al-Rashidin suburbs. The sources do call them as neighbourhoods of Aleppo, not as separate settlements or town. So is it right to call it Syrian Army victory when some neighborhoods are still under rebel control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.159.240 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is unclear and there are conflicting reports. People shouldn't change the status in the lead or infobox until the dust has settled. We've had all four combinations of the two over the past 24 hours. Mezigue (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mezigue I wasn't talking about East Aleppo where the rebels are reportedly surrendering. I was talking about West Aleppo, the one which has been mostly in hands of the government since the beginning. There are 2 neighborhoods in West Aleppo however that haven't been captured, with Syrian Army instead focusing on East Aleppo. 117.214.159.240 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These neighborhoods are part of Aleppo city. I think it's incorrect to call the battle over until these neighborhoods have also been captured by the regime. We can, however, make a note that East Aleppo was taken by the regime, and that they now control ~95% of Aleppo city. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The battle for the eastern part of the city is nearly over, however rebels still holds two neighborhoods north to the city as will as one neighborhoods south west to the city as our wiki map shows, also SDF controls Shaikh Maqsood and the surrounding area, the conflict and the title should site that this battle is ongoing 3bdulelah (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completed the last offensive on the city. Al Bab, Al Rai and Azaz are controlled by the Turkish army and the FSA. All three belong to the city of Aleppo. Battle for Aleppo is not over yet because parts of northeastern municipalities controlled Islamic State. Severozapdne parts of the Municipality of Aleppo controlled by Kurds.--Baba Mica (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Free Army has been defeated Syria is not at war with Turkey. The battle is over.Both the Russian and Arabic wikipedia's have it as so. --2601:3C5:8200:B79:6915:97E6:95C7:A2B9 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bab, Rai, and Azaz are part of the greater war over Aleppo governorate. The Battle for Aleppo city is largely over, but not quite. Even after East Aleppo completely falls, Syrian rebels still hold the following areas in the Western outskirts of the city: the Military Research Center, Layramoun district, Rashideen district, and a part of Zahraa district. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Aleppo city, The battle for the eastern part of the city is nearly over, however rebels still holds two neighborhoods north to the city as will as one neighborhoods south west to the city as our wiki map shows, also SDF controls Shaikh Maqsood and the surrounding area, the conflict and the title should site that this battle is ongoing 3bdulelah (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As 3bdulelah says, the subject of this article is the battle for the city itself, not the whole province. SDF is not in a conflict with the government, so that they still control Shaikh Maqsood doesn't mean there's a battle there. As for Layramoun and Rashideen in the city's outskirts, even though they are still rebel-held, overall, reliable sources state after this the Battle of Aleppo would be over. We write per what the sources state. Also, we had the Siege of Homs article which we concluded because reliable sources stated the siege of Homs had ended after the Old Homs areas was captured by the SAA, even though rebels are still besieged and holding out in one district on the city's outskirts. EkoGraf (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least wait for the evacuation to begin? It is too early to show it as a victor because a rebel commander has stated that ceasefire might break as has in the past. Why are you people so hasty? As from what I'm reading the sources are considering "the battle is effectively over". Some editors had even declared the battle as over using Twitter sources. Can't you wait for some time? 150.129.197.84 (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should go by the sources here. The 3 neighborhoods are pretty outlying anyway. But We should wait for rebels to surrender and leave. Besides I think this is the first military article where "reported victories" is being used in infobox. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As of now its still ongoing until the rebels leave. EkoGraf (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notice, it is now much past time the rebels were supposed to be evacuated. However, not even a single person, even civilian has been evacuated (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-delay-idUSKBN1430BS). For the time being, it is better to leave this battle as ongoing until the evacuation starts. There's no telling if the agreement might break down. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are still resistance fighters, but there is no way those 3 neighborhoods will make any difference.The battle is over. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about the three districts anymore. Its about the surrender deal being carried out. As is usual some sources prematurely declared the battle as over. But sources are now reporting, the agreement is not being carried out (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-delay-idUSKBN1430BS) with rebels blaming Shiite militias (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/14/syria-rebels-civilians-obstructed-pro-assad-shiite-militias/). There might be a danger that the ceasefire might break. Instead of making premature edits, we should wait for the agreement to be fully implemented and evacuations to start. Wait for some time please. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree several wikipedias including the Russian and Arabic wikipedia have the battle ending today. Also not every battle ends in a surrender some end in a capture of a city which is what happened. I don't think my edits are premature, wikipedia had this same problem with people wanting to make the Iraq War go on longer when it was already over. This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just of note this is causing a complete contradiction with Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Knowledgekid87--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know some will have prematurely nominated it based on some editors declaring it as over and only those who nominated it are at fault. But we here go by sources, not Arabic Wikipedia or someone choose to nominate it. The battle was declared as ended by some earlier because the rebels had agreed to a surrender agreement. But if there's no surrender, until then the battle cannot be considered over. How can a surrendered battle be considered over when there hasn't been a surrender? As for nonsense accusations like I'm "pro-freedom Syria" or telling me to move on, that is not good behavior. Please don't bicker over this issue. What are you going to do if the battle reerupts within a short time because the agreement might be broken by someone? Still show it as ended despite that it wasn't? And as sources are now declaring the surrender agreement is yet to implemented, we must wait. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera and Reuters now are clearly saying there is a ceasfire holding (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/residents-east-aleppo-anxiously-await-evacuation-161214033846622.html) (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN14300Y). Any battle that is over doesn't have a ceasefire. Yes, you have clearly made premature edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out that Al Jazeera and Reuters clearly say there is a ceasefire holding and the surrender agreement hasn't been implemented. If you still disagree, I suggest we seek a consensus from the wide community instead of edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of battles and wars end in ceasefires. Take wars involving Israel like the 2006 lebannon war that didn't end in a surrender from Hezbollah but the war is still considered over.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitloop11 This isn't a war. It's a battle for a city. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting me or anyone else repeatedly, I suggest to you that we seek a consensus over the issue. Whatever most of the community supports, we will go with it. Are you ok with it? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Ok how about Battle of Shuja'iyya that didn't end in a surrender. Also Looking at this edit and others you seem to be pro-Syrian Free army (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(June%E2%80%93October_2016)&diff=prev&oldid=750351318)--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are ridiculously calling me "pro-free Syrian Army". I made the edit because I thought the battle was still ongoing. Should I call you "pro Syrian Army" because you are showing government victory? Don't falsely accuse others of bias because theyt contradict your edits. And one thing you are forgetting, the battle you are propping up to me wasn't for capturing he city, but for eliminating terrorism or in this case Hamas ("terror fortress" is stated in the lead). The rebels still control territory per CNN in Aleppo (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/14/middleeast/aleppo-syria-government-gains/). The battle clearly hasn't ended yet. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is tons of other battles involving cities I could post, but it's kind of pointless because you'll make up an excuse. The majority of the city has been captured and there is a ceasefire. That sounds to me like a pretty good indication the battle has reached it's end. Focusing on such minor things such as three neighborhoods is very trivial.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never talked about the 3 neigborhoods here. I am talking about ONLY east Aleppo which CNN said rebels still control territory in. And you well know the offensive from November 2016 is for entire Eastern Aleppo. Now you yourselves made your earlier edits stating about sources saying its over. But when I present you sources that contradict your stand, I am making an excuse? You have been bashing me since the beginning without reason. Your constant insistence that only you are correct is harming the quality of the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar News too is now reporting that the evacuation has been indefinitely postponed. Not just that it says there was also sporadic gunfire and the agreement might break down. (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/evacuation-jihadist-forces-delayed-east-aleppo/) I already cautioned that such a thing might happen, and this is why I thought against closing it in case the ceasefire doesn't hold. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ceasefire has now been broken barely hours after it came into force with shelling being resumed n rebel-held areas [1]. I already said to wait as this might happen and it did. As such now, there is no reason to show this battle anymore as ended especially seeing the ceasefire didn't even last for a full day. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The data in the box - 108,174+ people killed on the opposision side - are incorrect! The reference is to the Violations Documentation Center in Syria report, which gives this number as a total CIVILIAN death toll in THE WHOLE Syria (both sides), not only Aleppo! Apparently (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/26/the-death-toll-in-syria-what-do-the-numbers-really-say/) it's hard to find any reliable data for now, so I would remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.85.221 (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As major media sources have definitively claimed that the battle ended yesterday,^[1][2][3][4] I've edited the infobox. I'm aware of ongoing skirmishes and fighting, but it's clear that the main phase at least is over. That's why I've edited in an ongoing "skirmisher" phase along the lines of several other articles. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely absurd. Even if it were just skirmishes, by definition the battle would not be over. Now more bombing is reported today 14 december and the ceasefire has crumbled. Everyone needs to stop jumping the gun on an ongoing event. Mezigue (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mezigue, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. We could endlessly change the status based on how much fighting is still going on but that's not what we're supposed to do. When all reliable sources state that the battle is over, that means we say the battle is over. You're saying that the definition of a battle and the amount of fighting still happening means the battle is not over, but this clearly constitutes WP:SYNTH. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What ON EARTH are you talking about? Fighting is going on today 14 December hence this is not over. There is no synthesis in that. Mezigue (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsgezinde There are no skirmishes. Some of the sources prematurely declared the battle as over when a cessefire was reached, I stress ceasefire. This isn't the first battle thwy have declared over prematurely. Others battle like Sirte, Rutbah in October 2016, Fallujah, etc are examples that essily come to mind. Others however declared it as "effectively over". It is usual for ceasefires to be enforced and be broken in a conflict. Now the whole surrender deal is broken. Classifying it as "skirmishes" is actually SYNTH when sources are clearly now saying fighting has resumed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsgezinde If you need further proof that these aren't skirmishes, Syrian Army has captured more rebel-held East Aleppo today (http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-russia-idUSR4N1E4021). I had already stated to everyone earlier to wait for some time. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this probably will be a victory for the Syrian government, I think we should wait until the situation has crystallized. Reports say that new air strikes and shelling are going on, and that fighting resumed on Wednesday, the 14 December.[2]--R2D2015 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MonsterHunter32 and Mezigue. Yesterday's declaration the battle was over was premature due to the announced ceasefire which already collapsed today with heavy fighting, air-strikes and shelling resuming. Rebels still holding 2.5 square km of territory. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly agree, may god have mercy on all of the innocent people caught up in this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other editors that the battle should be kept open. Classifying it as skirmishes is incorrect seeing the recent violent clashes, the breaking of the ceasefire and the Syrian government forces advance. 61.1.57.77 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016

It's like the Battle of Berlin even once it ended in early May 1945 there was still fighting going on until the end of May. The OP is right.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:5DAC:80EC:6D44:FAA0 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The battle went on OUTSIDE Berlin not inside. The battle INSIDE Berlin was over on 2 May. The battle of Aleppo is going on in Aleppo where a large number of rebels in East Aleppo haven't surrendered and control territory. It was only a ceasefire which fell apart hours later. And Syrian Army made a large advance today. That is not a skirmish. I know some hastily want to declare this battle as over without considering all the facts, but it isn't. A new deal has reportedly been reached, though Hezbollah denies it. But unless they actually evacuate and withdraw, it is premature to say it is over. There is no hurry, the world won't end without closing it for some time. 61.1.57.77 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar is now reporting that the rebels have blocked the evacuation of the wounded people from Foua and Kefraya, in exchange of which rebels are to be evacuated from East Aleppo. It also states that the Syrian Army will again attemp an evacuation in Foua and Kefraya again tomorrow, if it fails, then it will likely halt the evacuation in Aleppo. (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/militants-exit-east-aleppo-also-blocking-civilians-leaving-fouaa-kafraya/) 117.199.87.92 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even after Japan's surrender on Aug 15 1945, there were ongoing skirmishes in the Korean peninsula and Manchuria between the Japanese imperial army and the Soviet army. But it does not mean that the situation was not over after the surrender. The ceasefire has been settled in Aleppo. All the rebels are being evacuated, except few reckless guys. I would say that the battle is over. Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, we aren't having skirmishes here. When the first ceasefire attempt collapsed they were back to total war with shelling, air-strikes etc. Hardly skirmishes. The current ceasefire can also easily collapse, we don't know, and we cann't predict, WP: NOTCRYSTALBALL. There is still a force of 5,000 rebels holding three districts in Aleppo and the Syrian and Russian militaries have both said their operations in Aleppo are coming to an end, but have not just yet finished. When the last of the rebels leave, without a return to fighting, and the Army assumes control of those last three districts, then its over. EkoGraf (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While giving your example you forgot that the Japanese holdouts didn't control any territory (they were like modern-day insurgent guerrilas) and the rebels haven't surrendered. The deal was for evacuation and surrender after which Syrian Army will control east Aleppo. By the way, this is a battle for a city, not a war for a large country.MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the ceasefire and the deal have collapsed again (http://news.sky.com/story/assad-forces-have-completed-aleppo-liberation-russia-claims-10697666). There's no point in giving examples whose end results have vast differences with this battle. Such deals have been made in the past in the civil war but have many times been collapsed. Besides there is no hurry here. The world won't end without it. Oncerebels do nt control any territory, I promise this battle will be shown as closed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(TP/References)

Please refrain from disruptive edits from other Users, autoconfirmated or Anon. The use of Sources and criteria should be used for every revert. See WP:JDLI Mr.User200 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need to use an adjective in the outcome of the battle? Why not simply write "Syrian government victory", the end? It is short, simple, concise. Basically, what is a difference between a "victory" and a "decisive victory"?
The war is not yet over, anyway, so using this term is misleading and premature. Also, considering the massive amount of human rights abuses and mass murder, some have labelled it a "pyrrhic victory" [14][15][16]. I suggest we use the most neutral wording and avoid any kind of contentious claim, such as "glorious victory", "majestic victory" etc. --R2D2015 (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase decisive victory is commonly used here on Wiki. Check some articles (= their infoboxes) about famous battles.

As for your sources: the first one is Ukrainian, second British, third American (moreover, this source is quite outdated because it has been written sometime in autumn, before the US elections). It alone speaks for itself, apart from the actual text of those articles which are obviously biased and propagandistic, full of notoriuos waffles like "moderate rebels", "brutal Russian campaign" and blah blah... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources that refer to the Syrian government's victory as a "turning point/decisive" is large. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well call the Holocaust a "decisive victory" by that logic. I simply cannot understand the reasoning for applauding to such an utter destruction.--R2D2015 (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany was destroyed after the Holocaust, it did lose, decisively and completely, so what's your point? The term "pyrrhic victory" applies when the winning party has suffered huge casualties that they are unable to hold the city. Civilian casualties and human rights abuses don't count and does nothing in undermining the military capacities of the winning party. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive victory. Per everyone else, per the large number of sources that have called it both a turning point and decisive, and per the definition of the term decisive victory. EkoGraf (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support having "decisive victory" in the infobox. It was decisive from any viewpoint you look at it. --Երևանցի ^talk 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we always mark any Syrian Army victory as decisive? Even in Palmyra we called it decisive and then they lost it and more of it's surrounding territory after only 9 months! After 4+ years of fighting and 1000's of KIA regime solders and distraction of the city and hundreds of civilians fleeing the city and with SDF controling shaik Maqsood and the rebels still around the city and in fact still present in Rashdun, Layramoon and the Research center this can't be anything but a Pyrrhic victory. http://www.arabnews.com/node/1027461/columns https://magpie68.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/fall-of-east-aleppo/ https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/topic-day/aleppo-pyrrhic-victory-moscow-and-damascus http://surrey604.com/blog/2016/12/14/assads-pyrrhic-victory-what-the-fall-of-aleppo-means-for-syria/ 3bdulelah (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces and a Wordpress blog cannot be used. Besides they have taken control of almost all districts of the city. Rebels don't seem to be in a shape to capture it. Besides as far as I remember, the Palmyra offensive was launched by ISIL when Syrian Army was busy with Aleppo. Because of this they were able to capture it, however started being beaten back omce reinforcements for the Army came. 117.199.84.230 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are just adding another reason to call it a Pyrrhic victory, Assad lost areas in Syria because he was very focused in Aleppo, btw clashes still ongoing on the remaining Rebel held 3 neighborhoods so it should be marked as "ongoing" for now. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We write per the sources. Sources state that with the capture of rebel-held East Aleppo the battle has concluded, and most reliable (neutral) sources state that with the SAA's capture of rebel-held East Aleppo the course of the conflict (and possibly outcome) has swung in favor of pro-government forces, which would make it a decisive victory (for which most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still can not see why you call YPG factions in Sheikh Maqsoud SDF... THEY ARE NOT ! Your understanding is erroneous, SDF have not replaced YPG. SDF is a U.S arrangement incorporating YPG and Arab fighters under U.S commandment in their anti-ISIL campaign northern Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.102.82.173 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battles usually don't have map like this where a map is simply shown as under one side control. I think a new map should be created showing the major offensives and advances over the 4 years. This current map should be kept as separate becuase it is used in other places like the module and Syrian civil war. 117.199.84.230 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why statements by two people who are obviously very notable (or is this gonna degenerate into pretending that John Kerry and Angela Merkel are not notable anymore, like happened with John McCain) are being removed [17]? These are obviously very pertinent and on topic so they should be included. The sources, again, as with other info, are reliable. This appears to be more of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

How exactly do you edit collaboratively with individuals who edit with complete disregard of Wikipedia's content policies? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion at the RfC. The claims by Kerry and Merkel are based off of reports from unverified and unknown claimants. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more time - who cares what they are based off of? Your opinions about what they are based off of are completely irrelevant. All that matters is that a) these are notable individuals and b) their statements are widely reported in reliable sources. If you don't care to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, go edit some other place on internet. NPOV and RS are non-negotiable. See WP:NOTHERE. See also WP:ADVOCACY.

And I don't see anything in the wording of the above RfC about Kerry or Merkel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The underlining argument is that all these sources are basing their entire knowledge of civilians being killed through unidentified, unverified, and unknown claimants. Switching the UN and Washington Post with Merkel and Kerry does not change that fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the "underlining" (sic) argument, you're making stuff up. The underlying argument is that reliable sources are reporting what Merkel and Kerry said. What you happen to think about "claimants" is completely irrelevant as it's original research. Again, if you wish to write about how you think these are "unidentified, unverified, unknown claimants" you can go post on Reddit, tweet about it, share it with your facebook friends, send out personal emails, or start a blog. But as far as Wikipedia - an encyclopedia based on reliable sources goes - if it's notable (it is) and it's covered in reliable sources (it is), we report it. What you are trying to do is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by second guessing reliable sources. Which, along with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, is a textbook example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(By your logic we shouldn't have an article on the Watergate scandal since that too was based on an "unidentified, unverified, unknown claimant" (until 2005). Which of course would be ridiculous. As is this notion right here.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Politician so-and-so said this" and "politician so-and-so said that" is of very little encyclopedic value, much less lede material. It's that simple. Especially when said politicians are clearly partisan and support one of the parties in the conflict. Athenean (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it's Merkel and Kerry. So I see WE ARE going to argue about whether Angela Merkel and John Kerry are "notable". Jesus Freaking Christ.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. No need for histrionics. This is not lede material, pure and simple. Per WP:LEDE, the lede is meant to provide a summary of the article, not "VM's favorite cherry picked politician quotes". Tell me what part of WP:LEDE you do not undestand and I will try to explain it to you. Besides I find it weird that instead of trying to add this to, say Aleppo massacre, you are edit-warring like mad to insert it in the lede here. Did someone say "revenge editing"? Athenean (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you tell me which part of WP:CIVIL is giving you so much trouble? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "civility card" again. Whatever happened to Merkel and Kerry btw? Athenean (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate topic from the RfC above so it warrants its new section. We have reliable sources for both. But I am actually... "aghast", to put it nicely, at the logic that says that the burning of some vehicles is fine for the lede (because the rebels, allegedly, did it) but the mass murder of civilians is "undue" (because the government forces did it). Anyone care to defend this odious logic with specifics? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of whether SOHR is "a joke" and "unreliable" (in April) or a-ok to be used (in December)

Here is the funny part. The material on buses being burned was added by User:EtienneDolet on December 18, 19:05 [18]. They sourced it to a BBC piece which relies on the... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, SOHR. Why is this funny?

This is why

That link above is to a discussion where EtienneDolet impassionately argues that SOHR is "not a reliable source". Because "SOHR is a highly partisan outlet". Because "SOHR was rejected at the RSN by non-involved users" (actually, that's completely false, but there you go). Oh wait, this one's a gem. In the above EtienneDolet is actually citing BBC which cites SOHR. But here he says, quote, "I don't believe that just because BBC or some other western news outlet cites him in some article would change that blatant fact." I mean, you can't make this up.

More, all quotes:

• "Citing a bunch of sources isn't going to make the SOHR anymore of a joke than it already is" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 2:30 (I don't think that was meant as an April Fools joke)
• "It was the use of SOHR as a source in general, whether it be by BBC, Independent, Sputnik, and yes, even Wikipedia. (that ED rejects)" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 4:37 (my emphasis)
• "There's plenty of academic sources out there that point to the fact that the SOHR is nothing but a mouthpiece of systemically biased western news media" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 1:30. When asked to provide these "academic sources" ED linked to a well known conspiracy website and a anti-semitic online magazine (read the discussion linked, diffs in there)
• "Well, these are academic sources" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 5:46, when the nature of the websites he linked to was pointed out to him.

So EtienneDolet, how in the world do you square your previous adamant insistence that SOHR is not reliable, even when quoted by these evil biased "western sources", but here you insist on not only using SOHR in the article but even cramming it into the lede? Just because in one instance SOHR wrote what you WP:IJUSTLIKEIT and in the other what you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? I mean, I don't see what other conclusion is possible, given all this evidence.

I said this was funny. It's actually not. It's sad and disruptive and pretty clear evidence of simple WP:POVPUSH and WP:ADVOCACY Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the SOHR is not the only organization that cited the incident, and certainly not the first to do so. You tried to make it seem that way, but it turns out that the article doesn't cite only the SOHR. There's others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, completely false. Again. In the BBC source the claim is explicitly attributed to SOHR. Which you doggedly insisted, in April, was "not reliable", "a joke", "nothing but a mouthpiece of westernblahblahblah". And the BBC source is the ONLY source you've provided. I don't know what you're trying to do here - it's not like it's that hard to click on the diff and check [19]. The version on the left is yours. I mean, whom should I believe, you, or my lying eyes?

So, can you provide a coherent explanation for why in April you fanatically tried to remove SOHR from one article, and now you insist on it being in this one? I mean, something other than that one is a WP:ILIKEIT and the other WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried removing SOHR from any article. Never did, and never intend to do so. The SOHR is characterized as pro-opposition and anti-Assad by many western news media outlets such as the BBC, Independent, Reuters, Times, and etc., so I find that it has a potential for bias. And again, you made it appear as if the SOHR is the only source used in the BBC article in this edit. However, the BBC source quotes not only them, but many other sources along with photographs and video which render these incidents verifiable. Even western sources couldn't wiggle themselves out of it this time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sure did [20]. Let me quote you directly, verbatim, word for word, exactly: "*Exclude The SOHR was rejected at the RSN by non-involved users" (note, your claim was false and one these "non-involved users" quickly showed up to correct your misrepresentation)

And please don't start some WP:WIKILAWYERing argument over whether the words "remove" and "exclude" mean the same thing. I'm too tired and it's almost Christmas. And I really don't appreciate your continued attempts at trying to gaslight me.

You also sure did spend a lot of time arguing that it was unreliable, that it was "a joke" (sic), that it couldn't be used, even when it was being cited by other sources (sic), hell, you claimed that there were "academic sources" which backed you up in your view of SOHR (those said "academic sources" turned out to be far right conspiracy websites) [21]

And yet, here you are, trying to use SOHR as a source, because this time, they said something you like. Because these "many other sources" you claim are mentioned in BBC article consist of... Syrian state media.There's also a statement from opposition forces but they don't blame "the rebels", so it's hard to see how you'd think that supports your text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on a talk page is far more different than editing main space. With that said, I never removed SOHR from any article on this project. I'm always very cautious of having my personal opinions influence my editing, especially when it's against consensus (which happened to be the case at that article). If I really did act upon all my personal opinions, I'd be deleting SOHR all over Wikipedia. But clearly, we need to abide by what the community says, learn to let things go, and move on. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First rule of WP:NPA is: comment on content, not on contributor. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't just a comment on a talk page. That was... many many many many many comments and a !vote in an RfC. Which you were very adamant about. Didn't you try to take me to ANI over it? Or was that something else. But ok. So now you're saying SOHR is reliable? Just want to make sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly about content, just by a particular user. It shows a pretty clear pattern, don't you think? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. On one hand, you say that it's about content yet you also say there's a pattern or whatever. If you have a problem with such an editing pattern, talk to me about it directly or raise issue with it elsewhere. But to dedicate an entire section in an aim to lash out on an editor is nothing short of a personal attack. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a pattern in how you edit CONTENT. And I am talking to you directly right here. I'm asking you to provide an explanation for how you edit content, which doesn't lead to conclusion that your editing is just a WP:ADVOCACY and WP:POVPUSH. Because, as I've laid it out very clearly above, right now it's sort of hard to escape that conclusion.

To be perfectly clear - yes, I am saying your edits are non-neutral. I have also provided evidence to that effect, diffs and all. Criticisms is not a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to criticize me for not being neutral or whatever, drop a note on my talk page and let's discuss. Otherwise, the talk page of the Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) is not an appropiate venue to bring up such charges. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it concerns edits you made to this article, it's perfectly appropriate. We are already discussing and I'm still waiting for your explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is still unresolved as you haven't explained why at one point in time SOHR was "a joke" and "unreliable" but now it's okay to use. So please don't hat it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet, please stop trying to hat this discussion. I genuinely want to know why you think that it's okay to use SOHR on this article when you were so adamant that it was unreliable and "a joke" just a couple months ago. And this is not a personal attack. Yes, criticism, but not a personal attack. Without being able to address your editing we cannot solve the content issue involved. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also hard for this to be a "personal attack" since I mostly just quote things you said verbatim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, don't play word games. Criticizing an editor and not on content is a personal attack. That's what you're doing, and you even admit to it. So if you want to criticize me and my "pattern", take it elsewhere. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am criticizing your edit practice in regard to content. In particular, how you have a tendency to dismiss sources as "unreliable" in one instance, then turn around and try to use them when they suit you in another. This has actually happened on numerous occasions, but the above discussion is focus on the incident relevant to the content of this article. That's not a personal attack. I mean, I understand, no one likes being criticized and the above diffs aren't very shiny, but that's not attacking you. That's trying to figure out how make this article better (where and how do we sources the burning buses stuff). And also helping you become a better editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I could've swore you said "pattern" somewhere on this thread. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to my statement? Because I'm not clear on what in it it is you're replying to. Apparently now SOHR has magically become "reliable" - so are you fine with using it throughout in a consistent, neutral manner? Regardless of whether its reports are "pro-Assad" or "pro-rebel"? If so, how do you reconcile it with your extreme position from April? If not, then... well how do you justify that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to bus burning

The bus convoy burning, though a verified event, is not important enough for the lede, imo. The only pattern is that pov content addition causes disruption - the bus convoy burning content in the lede is there as a reaction to insistence on the insertion of pov unverified propaganda content into the lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm open to discuss whether it should remain in the lead or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging the bus content issue. But the pattern still remains. Is SOHR not a reliable source, as EtienneDolet from April argued so vehemently, or is it a reliable source, as EtienneDolet from December insists? And why the difference? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - I actually removed it from the lede without reading this. I tried to make the intro more of a general overview though, and I think it's fair to say that the argument Volunteer Marek had against the point was that it was too specific, so I believe the change of tone I was aiming for is a good justification for its removal.

However, as Tiptoethrutheminefield mentioned, it seems that the bus burning was included as a sort-of balance ('balance' is perhaps a bit generous, maybe 'counter' is more accurate?) to criticism of Assad and Russia, but not the rebels (not the right way to go about balancing the intro anyway). I removed the bus bit, but didn't remove the "double-tap" accusation (I googled it quickly and found a lot of hits from news sites, so decided to keep it) so I can see why it might appear I was pushing a pov. That's not the case, but I'm still a bit uncertain about whether the significance of double-tap bombs is sufficient for its current (prominent) placing in the intro of the whole article. Thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 03:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting in the effort (though I think this is the wrong section of the talk page). However, I still think that at least a brief mention of the UN reporting killing of civilians should be in the lede, as it's the culmination of the battle and also because it was so widely reported on (hence all the protests and demonstrations in London, Paris, New York, etc.) I actually don't care if the precise number is included in the lede, but a general statement is definitely warranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Marek, you don't own the article. See WP:CONSENSUS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "culmination" argument is very weak, and a few small demonstrations by Islamist sympathizers even weaker still. It appears we have a clear consensus not to include. Time to move on. Athenean (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is still ongoing and I've noted that you almost immediately started to reinsert your POV into the lede, after Jr8825 got done with his changes. And the fact that you refer to the turning off of the Eiffel Tower lights as "small demonstrations by Islamist sympathizers" sort of illustrates your bias here. Can you at least try to hide it a bit more? It's sort of embarrassing to watch.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of fact are not "POV". It's interesting you see it that way. Anyway, you are entitled to your views. Just be aware that edit-warring against consensus is a bad idea. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And watch the civility while you're at it. You're doing it again. Athenean (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but since when is describing the turning off the lights at Eiffel Tower as the work of "Islamist sympathizers" a "statement of fact"? I have been way more patient and civil than you have been.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mischaracterizing once again. I said the demonstrators were Islamist sympathizers, not the Eiffel Tower stuff. Or is the the "hell cannon" stuff you consider POV? Athenean (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. The same sources which discuss the Eiffel Tower discuss the demonstrations of solidarity with the people of Aleppo. So yeah, when you refer to these folks as "Islamist sympathizers" you are including the mayor of Paris, the people of Paris, the thousands in London and the hundreds in Sarajevo and other places throughout the world. You are basically saying that anyone who does not agree with your view of things is a "Islamist sympathizer". Which is a slur. Wait... am I an "Islamist sympathizer"?

Anyway, you shouldn't use highly charged, biased and POV language like that, in what is potentially (or make that, most likely) a false accusation/assertion, without backing it up. Where are your sources that these are demonstrations by "Islamist sympathizers"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still mischaracterizing. If you think I said the mayor of Paris is an islamist sympathizer, isn't that a BLP vio? Shouldn't you do something about it? Athenean (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let alone the fact that a dozen or so Syrian Kurdish protesters are being characterized as "Syria's Kurds". Didn't know so little Kurds lived in Syria. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about the Kurds is really quite comical. First the source is ARA News, which is owned and operated by the KRG government, hence not reliable, second the photo literally shows 3-4 people demonstrating - in Iraqi Kurdistan. Doesn't get any more absurd. Athenean (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that does not make it unreliable. Also it appears your math skills could use some work. And also, I can definitely think of things more absurd. Let's see, arguing that a couple buses being burned belongs in the lede of this article, but a massacre of dozens of civilians is "undue" defiantly qualifies. The idea that Angela Merkel and John Kerry are not notable because they're "just some politicians" would also fit the bill of "more absurd". The idea that large demonstrations in major European cities (and Jerusalem) and Paris turning off the lights on the Eiffel Tower is just the work of some "Islamist sympathizers" - yup, that too will work as "more absurd". And of course arguing so strongly that a source, SOHR, is "a joke", is not reliable, "a mouthpiece of western propaganda", but then turning around and trying to use it because it says something that fits one's POV. Yeah that's absurd. I probably missed a couple other absurdities of the past couple days. And I'm sure more is coming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you arguing that a KRG owned sourced meets the criteria for WP:RS? Let's hear it. And you would be well-advised to keep the snark about "math skills" and "absurdities" to yourself, if you know what I mean. Athenean (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're the one who first described edits as "absurd". Or is this one of those things where you get to be uncivil to me all you want, make personal attacks and threats (which I've already documented at your talk page), but the moment I express a criticism of your editing and commenting style you start crying "civility! civility! civility!" ? As for math skills, you claimed "shows 3-4 people demonstrating", which is clearly not true. If you don't want to get called on it, don't make false statements. And ARA News is at least as reliable as several sources already being used in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "absurd" I meant the demonstration of 3-4 "Syrian Kurds" (not even sure if all 3-4 of them are demonstrating - some appear to be just chillin'). I see assuming good faith didn't last very long. Oh well. Athenean (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: I was thinking the same thing about the "double-tap stuff". I think it's fine in the body but too much for lede. The paragraph should end with "Hundreds of thousands...". And thanks for your hard work, much appreciated. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jr8826 said, there's extensive coverage of it in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEDE again. The double tap stuff is too much detail for a three paragraph summary of the article. Athenean (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's two words, so no, not really.

It's actually a whole sentence, and a fairly long one, so yes, really. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's couple things here. First, there's the purposeful targeting of rescue workers and hospitals. Then there's the double-tap attacks. And here is why the double tap is important - because it constitutes a war crime. It's one thing to shell a civilian structure or area. That happens regularly in these kinds of sieges, especially if civilian and military targets are close by. But making a double-tap attack is an obvious attempt to terrorize the local population. And that's *precisely* why this practice by the Russians got so much coverage in reliable sources. Now, the phrase "war crime" should in fact be in there, to highlight the importance of these double tap strikes. But hey, that got remove too. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it's not "two words" then? No one is saying double-tap strikes aren't bad, of course they're bad, it's just too much detail for what is supposed to be a summary of the article. It's that simple. Nothing more. Athenean (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. That happens regularly in these kinds of sieges, especially if civilian and military targets are close by. But making a double-tap attack is an obvious attempt to terrorize the local population You have already been told on this page that UN considers rebel hell cannons shelling civilians an attempt to terrorize the population. Why are you denying this again?

UN News portal: The use by armed opposition groups of what is known as a ‘hell-fire cannon,’ a homemade mortar that fires gas cylinders packed with explosives and shrapnel, is also totally unacceptable,” the High Commissioner said, noting that the use of such weapons constitutes indiscriminate attacks, as they are virtually impossible to aim correctly and have frequently killed and maimed civilians in Government-held areas. “As no military advantage can likely be gained from their use due to their inaccuracy, it must be concluded that their primary purpose is to terrorize the inhabitants of western Aleppo,” he added--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can substitute in a shorter sentence about Russia being accused of war crimes by human rights organizations for its bombing campaign if you want. Want to make a proposal as to the wording? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's already implied. Of course, the idea is to have "Russia" and "war crimes" appear in the lede. Why am I not surprised? But this [22] I mean, really. Empty grandstanding by one of the staunchest "regime change" proponents out there. In the lede, no less. This lede fixation needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only already implied as long as the double-tap sentence is in there. You remove the sentence then there's nothing to imply it. That's why it has to be either, or, or both.

And it doesn't matter what your opinion of Powers is. What matters is that this was something extensively covered in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of "not the right way to go about balancing the intro" this addition by Athenean is basically that. He's adding these "hell cannons" to "counter" the fact that the Syrian Army used barrel bombs, in a typical false equivalency. Additionally, please not how it's being done, in particular with regard to the clause that follows it.

Too bad the rest of the wikipedia community does not agree with you. Once again. Athenean (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original (Jr8825's) text: "including extensive use of barrel bombs by the Syrian Air Force,[88][89][90] repeated targeting of hospitals and schools,[91][92] and indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas"

Athenean's text: " including extensive use of barrel bombs by the Syrian Air Force,[88][89][90] and makeshift hell cannons by the rebels, repeated targeting of hospitals and schools,[91][92] and indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas."

The original text, which is based on sources, correctly attributes ALL of these things to the Syrian Air Force. Athenean's version, by sneaking in that "by the rebels" into the middle of the sentence now makes it seem like the "targeting of hospitals and schools" etc were done by the rebels.

See the problem here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the sources you rely on wouldn't mention anything about the use of hell cannons by the rebels to target civilians, but it's quite easy to find sources that they do. Athenean (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement, aside from being weird and false, is also a total non-sequitur.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you know what, I'll bite cuz I'm curious. Since I take great care to only use reliable sources - I presume these are "the sources you (that'd be me - VM) rely on" you refer to - what exactly are these "sources that do" that are "quite easy to find"? Can you please provide them? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek, just to clarify, my revision doesn't actually attribute all of those events to the Syrian Air Force, it only blames it for the barrel bombs (hence the comma before starting another clause). The other two bits ('repeated targeting of hospitals and schools', and 'indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas') do not place blame. Both the rebels and Syria/Russia have fired upon civilian areas with inaccurate weaponry (Rebels - mortars/shells, Syria/Russia - airstrikes/shells) and sources attest to this. Perhaps one side caused far more damage (I'm thinking Russian airstrikes), but right now I haven't got the time to gather sources and argue for a consensus in order to add a controversial statement such as that in the lede. Jr8825 • Talk 12:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is a difference between shelling areas where civilians live with crappy and imprecise artillery (which is what the rebels have done) and purposefully targeting hospitals and schools to terrorize the civilian population, as the pro-Assad and Russian forces have done. That's why actually that word "purposefully" belongs in there. This difference is indeed found in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, including UN and AI that point out the atrocities and shelling of civilians by the rebels. Including hospitals and schools. I will be more than happy to add them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount - I agree. Both sides, including the rebels, killed civilians. That's why the sentence It was marked by widespread violence against civilians,[86] repeated targeting of hospitals and schools,[87][88] and indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas.[79][89][90][91] doesn't specifically mention any side. I've also reverted your edits adding in 'terrorize the inhabitants of western Aleppo' since both sides have been accused of the same thing and it's unnecessary to provide an analysis of the hell cannons in the article overview - that belongs in the main body. See my edit summary for my explanation. I think what might be a good idea is adding a sentence along the lines of both sides have been accused of using civilians to their own advantage (for tactical gains/propaganda/protection from the enemy/information war) etc (rewritten obviously). Jr8825 • Talk 13:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good idea to phrase this neutrally, that both the Syrian government and opposition,including terrorist islamists groups fighting it have been accussed of war crimes and abuses, what definitely needs to be made clear is that rebels comitted atrocities too and part of the rebel force is internationally reckognized as islamic terrorists(UN mentions this clearly)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is also recognized as a terrorists groups, so we can either call this a "terrorists vs. terrorists" wording or use neutral, unbiased wording that avoids contentious labels. --R2D2015 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah's status as a legitimate political party, a terrorist group, a resistance movement, or some combination thereof is a contentious issue.[45] The Arab League,[46] United States,[47] France,[48] the Gulf Cooperation Council,[49][50] Australia,[51] Canada,[52] the Netherlands,[53] and Israel[54] have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The European Union, New Zealand and the United Kingdom[55] have proscribed Hezbollah's military wing as a terrorist organization, while making a distinction with Hezbollah's political wing.[56][57] Russia considers Hezbollah a legitimate sociopolitical organization.[58] China remains neutral, and maintains contacts with Hezbollah.[59]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Etienne Dolet. [25]. There's nothing "pointy" about representing the source accurately. The previous version was a cherry picked sentence which omitted a key statement from the source. Two actually if you include the part about "quasi-judicial institutions" which ED also removed. It's hard not to get the feeling that ED just blind reverts any of my changes on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bit that says: "while government forces have been responsible for the majority of violations in the conflict in Syria" is not directly related to the subject matter of the sentence. So yeah, it's pointy. As in, it's there to make some sort of point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's straight from the source, and there is a reason why it's in the source. Omitting it misrepresents the source. Nothing pointy about accurately using sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I think this "correction" by ED was wrong. The source puts atrocities by rebels into certain perspective, and that perspective must be kept in the text. The phrase also logically connects two subsections of section "War crimes". My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate section for the government atrocities. This is wholly unnecessary. Athenean (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's a short qualification, and without that qualification the source is being misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Misrepresenting" would involve changing the meaning of a source, as in a source saying "X committed atrocities" and we writing "Y committed atrocities". This is not misrepresentation. We are not under obligation to reproduce the wording of a source verbatim. Otherwise we might as well just cut and paste a bunch of sources and be done with editing. Athenean (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This picture seems a bit misleading to me. Its caption reads

During the evacuation, rebel factions burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians

even though it illustrates buses that were used in the evacuation of two separate villages as part of a negotiated deal that encompassed Aleppo. The article body now explains this (kudos to EkoGraf), but it's a bit hard to explain that in a succinct caption. I've come up with:

Rebel factions burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians from two besieged villages, which were part of a negotiated civilian evacuation agreement also encompassing Aleppo

but I'm not sure it's particularly clear and it's pretty long. Is the picture unnecessary given the existing text? Any thoughts/suggestions for a better caption? Jr8825 • Talk 22:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Rebel factions burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians from two rebel-besieged villages concurrently to the Aleppo evacuations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkoGraf (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jr8825 • Talk 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the addition of "Syria's Kurds also protested against the Syrian Army's disregard for civilians in its attack on the city. One Kurdish activist stated "Civilians in that war-ravaged city have suffered the most under attacks by regime troops and their allies, like Russia, Iran and Hezbollah." a bit much. The photo literally shows 4 people standing around holding signs [26] (there are some others in the background but their role is unclear). Worse, this is taking place in Iraqi Kurdistan, not Syria. And lastly, ARA News is wholly owned-and-operated by the US-backed Kurdistan Regional Government, which is hostile to the Syrian government. Athenean (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"shows 4 people" -- scroll down to the video. Clearly not just 4 people.

"this is taking place in Iraqi Kurdistan" -- well, yeah, that's why it's in the "Foreign Reactions" section. I mean, the protests in London also took place in British London, not Syria.

" ARA News is wholly owned-and-operated by the US-backed Kurdistan Regional Government" - so what? That doesn't make it unreliable. Indeed, this source is helluva lot more reliable than Al-Masdar News. And helluva more reliable than RT news or some dude's blog.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the video shows, what, 14 people? 15 maybe? And this is used to say in wikipedia's voice "Syria's Kurds"??? There's two million Kurds in Syria, if they wanted to demonstrate, they would have. And ARA News is government-owned media - same as RT. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the protests, for obvious reasons, are not in Syria. If you want to say "some of Syria's Kurds" or something then that's fine.

And it's already been explained a million times that the fact that a source is government owned is NOT what makes it unreliable. In the case of RT, it's not that it's Russian government owned. It's the fact that it publishes shit, fake news, and stuff like Holocaust Denial [27]. I have seen nothing from ARA News that even comes close to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that it publishes shit I suggest being less vulgar.nd stuff like Holocaust Denial [28] Holocaust denial is illegal in Russia, and the link you provided make it clear that no Holocaust denial material was published by RT. I suggest removing this false claim.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they just gave a prominent Holocaust denier his own tv show, but I guess they made him promise to not do any denyin' while on air, and just keep it to his twitter and podcasts (And the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to outlaw the death penalty, [29]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not clear whether the source uses "staged" in a negative or non-negative way. Which is why it is best avoided, and also per WP:PARAPHRASE. Again, I find fixating on this one word counterproductive. Here's a source that conveys the same meaning but without staged [30]. Athenean (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iryna Harpy, insert that pov tag again in that manner [31] and I will report you. If you want to insert that tag, you are required to open a discussion section here, specifying exactly what content problems you have identified that justifies inserting the tag and what needs to be done to the article remove it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

My edit was reverted with a comment (edit summary) that it contradicts an RfC [32]. Which RfC? Yes, I can see an RfC above on this page, but do not see how my edit contradicts it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

How about you explain why you are removing text sourced to actually reliable sources [33]? One, with regard to the burnt buses, you are removing the info that the Free Syrian Army condemned the attack, and this is from a source YOU added! Two, you are removing info on the use of chemical weapons which is also well sourced. Three, you are removing info on the discussions at the UN, which is also well sourced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, here's what you actually did:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That pretty much sums it up. Not to mention that this [34], this [35], this [36] and this [37] look very much like "revenge edits", performed after marek has used up his revert-of-the-day, to "get back" at the editor reverting him by adding material that the other editor won't like but won't be able to revert because he also has used up his revert of the day. Very disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Al Masdar is not a reliable source.

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

1. See bare assertion. You can repeat it all you want, it doesn't make it more true. Also funny you mention EkoGraf, because [38]. We use al-Masdar here as EkoGraf explained to you, here and everywhere. I know you don't like it, but you don't call the shots here. The matter is settled.
2. [39].
3. "The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees a global treaty banning toxic warfare, had no immediate comment."
4. See [40].
5. See #1 above.
6. See #2 above.
7. See #1 above.
8. See #1 above.

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

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

• Hello, Хирург(Khirurg)! I am sorry, but you misinterpreted the edit. Here is edit in question by Molobo. It inserts reference to RT TV (bad source for such content), removes claim reverenced to Reuters, removes claim referenced to The Guardian, and inserts several claims referenced to Al-Masdar News, a source that maybe notable, but hardly reliable for this subject [41]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

One thing is certain. Edit summary in revert by ED [42] was misleading: my edit was not a violation of the RfC. Thank you all for answering my question. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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

User:BU Rob13, I agree. However, seeing as how EtienneDolet has repeatedly gamed AND violated 1RR on both this article and related ones in the past couple days can you please ask him to self-revert? I don't see why that kind of disruptive behavior should be rewarded. I have asked but it's fallen on deaf ears [43], [44]. At the very least this addition needs to be undone to return the article to status quo ante, especially since that is a pretty blatant case of POV pushing based on an unreliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BU Rob13, VM is accusing EtienneDolet of what he himself is guilty. Regarding re-starting old edit-wars, this is exactly what VM is doing. Back in December, Etienne added a pic of buses that rebels burned [45]. And just the other day, VM removed it without so much as an edit-summary [46]. This is who is trying to re-start old edit-wars, all the while lying to you and trying to manipulate you. Khirurg (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, the accusation that Etienne is restarting an old edit-war by adding the christmas pic is also a total fabrication. I added some text about Christmas celebrations in Aleppo several months back [47], but there was never any edit war. The material is solidly sourced and uncontroversial. No one challenged it, there was never an edit-war (care to produce diffs of that so-called edit-war Marek? That's right, didn't think so). He is straight up lying to you. Khirurg (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also how he tries to get under my skin by mocking [48] a typo I made [49] ("textbok". This is the kind of talkpage tactics we are talking about here. Khirurg (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The last stable version (though probably not perfect) appears to be this, [50] on 13th April. Will you both agree to revert to this one? After that, any clearly uncontroversial additions can be put back and the rest discussed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Ok, we're getting somewhere here, however, this is not lede material. If the UN Security Council had passed a resolution condemning Russia of war crimes, that would be a different matter, but this is just UN ambassadors making accusations. It's a nothing-burger. I can agree to it being added to the body article (in the reactions section perhaps), but definitely not the lede. Remember this [51]? Khirurg (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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 [52] is updated using Al-Masdar among other sources). Khirurg (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 [53] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My suggestion would be an extensive use of the recent UN report about the battle of Aleppo [54] 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)[reply]

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

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

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