Talk:Central Syria campaign

Sources in article
I added "one source" tags to section which were completely or largely reliant on a single source, as per WP policy - see Template:One_source. This has been undone by with no explanation. Is there a reason it is acceptable for whole sections of this page to be reliant on single sources? (Especially ones not considered WP:RS according to repeated consensus at RS noticeboard?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See the article again.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's actually been no clear consensus at the RS noticeboard regarding Masdar despite repeated discussions. Some editors think its unreliable, some don't. What most have agreed on is that its generally reliable when it comes to territorial changes since its been mostly consistent with what pro-opposition sources have reported, especially SOHR. As for any other claims that could be controversial, such as claims of massacres etc, in those cases Masdar would be used only if properly attributed and in combination with counter-claims by the other side (the rebels/opposition) for the sake of a balanced presentation of both sides POV. However, I do agree that some sections in this article are a bit too over-reliant on Masdar. So, if you agree, in the coming few days I will look up to add other non-Masdar sources as well to those particular sections. Such as SOHR, Reuters, etc. EkoGraf (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ekograf. That's great. Have tagged the most egregious sections. It would be great to add other sources and be clear about attribution. I don't think that SOHR is a great source either, by the way, but at least where it and al-M agree that's good triangulation. SANA, also cited here, is not a reliable source at all, except maybe for statements by the Syrian government. As you say, anything controversial needs multiple sources. I particularly think a-M is a very bad source for rebel activities, e.g. defections. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re this edit, Mr.User rightly points out the one-source template is already at the top. I'm not sure if I put it there accidentally or it was another editor, but that template should be used for sections and not articles. I will restore it to the sections and remove it from the top. Just leaving this comment here in case it looks like I am reverting Mr.User's correct edit.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

US/ISL collusion
Can people look at claims (written in by an anonymous editor) in the Isis retakes town 200 miles into Syrian government territory in surprise counter attack section, which are very contentious and currently poorly sourced and lengthily described. Current wording clearly attributes to sources and makes clear these are allegations, but I'm still not sure this is done carefully enough, given Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)