Talk:Siege of Nubl and al-Zahraa

Al-Masdar
Re this revert by As stated in previous discussions, in regards to territorial changes, Masdar has been found to be mostly reliable. Also, no reason to remove the sources. "reportedly" the wording to which we agreed to when we could only confirm it via Masdar. When both SOHR and Masdar confirm, we use both sources and present it as fact The reliable sources noticeboard has confirmed that Al-Masdar should not be used for controversial claims, only uncontroversial claims about territory or pro-government deployments. This particular siege is one of the most controversial in the conflict so we need to be bery careful with sources. I won't revert or fight over these edits as it's not that big a deal in the case of the edits reverted, but for example I'm not sure why we need to include an Al-Masdar reference when we already have a Daily Star (Lebanon} reference. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Daily Star source only confirmed that government forces "seized territory" near the towns that day, while the Masdar source goes into more detail what territory it actually was (the industrial area that we mention in the sentence). That's why we need both (one to confirm they seized territory, and the other which territory it was). EkoGraf (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I accept that justification. (Although sometimes I think we are too detailed in our accounts of minute territorial changes, but that's another issue!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)