Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 44

Bodies of those murdered by Assad's forces being burned in a specially constructed crematorium - reliably sourced info being removed
EkoGraf, I'm glad you agree that the fact that thousands of bodies being burned in a specially constructed crematorium are "worth mentioning". Actually... what the fuck? Of course it's worth mentioning! And this is the biggest story on this topic in months. So yes, it needs to go in the lede. Without that al-Masdar bullshit and their malicious dishonest spin on the State Dept. presser.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "And this is the biggest story on this topic in months."? That's just your personal observation. It can be easily argued that the Shayrat airstrike was a bigger story. Plus, these are nothing but allegations. The State Departments language shows that they're only making assumptions based off of photographs and that its quite possible it might not even be a crematorium at all. They said "possibly". So no, not lead material. I don't mind it going into the body of the article as long as it's presented in a WP:NPOV way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's the observation of something like 90 reliable sources available on this topic. yeah ok the missile strike is up there too. The point is, this is lede material even if it bothers some people's twisted preconceptions.
 * And as I said at the other article - stop making crap up about primary sources. THAT is original research. Look, it's easy. Find a RELIABLE source which talks about this and we're good to go. Otherwise leave this aktashite nonsense the phoque out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, a lot of those sources actually use the word "alleged", "claimed", and "accused". After all, they're basing their assumptions off of photographs and are doing guesswork. The State Department was honest enough to say "possibly" when pressed that it may just be a warmer part of the building. I see no reason to say any of these allegations are true. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's what these sources do, we can do that too. But that's NOT what you're doing. You're adding a shitty source that used to employ a neo-Nazi to source some bullshit about the word "possibly" that cannot be found in any reliable source. I don't care how you see it. The fact that you're willing to engage in mass murder denial has been established by your actions, the only thing that your comment adds, is that you now explicitly confirm it.
 * Gee, let me go out into the internets and find a source as good as al-Masdar that uses the words "possibly" and "Armenian genocide" in a way similar to what you're trying to pull here. 100$ says I can do it easy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Armenian Genocide is actually proven. This, however, is not. After all, it wasn't Al-Masdar that used the word "possibly", rather the State Department. You know, the very same entity that made this claim in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sight*. Look, reliable source or it goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is just as easy - easier - to find sources which try to weasel the subject of Armenian Genocide and which are comparable in quality to "al-Masdar" (or even this WION whatever that is). What you need are RELIABLE sources. How do you not understand this simple request? Oh, because you can't find such sources. So you're trying to bluster through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I still don't see how "However, when pressed by a reporter if it could simply be a warmer part of the building, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones responded "possibly". could be a misrepresentation of the exchange that occurred at the press briefing. And I still don't see how Al-Masdar misrepresented the exchange either. It's not reporting on a controversial event, rather it's reporting what occurred at this particular press briefing. If you can convince me how a press briefing is controversial, then we won't have to use Al-Masdar and just stick to the primary source. Either way is fine with me. Also, if you have a problem with WION, send it to the RSN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Not really, I do have a source. The State Department itself." - quit playing stupid games. You know you need a reliable secondary source. And you really need to stop with this "non-controversial" wet bucket of shit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: WION. Nope that's not how it works. You want to use an obscure website for controversial claim? YOU take it to WP:RSN. Burden of proof is on you. Quit obfuscating and being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:PRIMARY we can use them as long as we directly quote them or use them as a matter of fact. And yes, press briefings, or articles that provide a summation of them, are not controversial. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna sit and wait for that reliable secondary source, while you peruse WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes State Department press briefing not reliable though? And saying it's WP:PRIMARY doesn't help because we're not interpreting or misrepresenting what the State Department said. We're merely using it as a matter of fact and quoting them directly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, first, I would remind you again of WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. Now, regarding the crematorium allegation, like I said, its notable enough to be in the article (where I moved it in the context of the already existing paragraph on the prison), but its not notable enough to be in the lead when taking into account many other notable events that have also taken place during the war in the last six years. Regarding to what is included in article leads, please see WP:LEAD. We summarize the main subject of the article, as well as the most important points. This one allegation consists of only two sentences in the whole article. It is more appropriate, per WP:LEAD, to be included in the lead paragraph of the article on the prison itself. And it is already there. In any case, the reliably sourced info (regarding the crematorium allegation) at the moment isn't removed and shouldn't be removed. As for the State Department briefing, I refer to what EtienneDolet said regarding the proper usage of primary sources. Also, a second (non-Masdar) source regarding the possibly remark was also cited. That you consider WION an obscure site is your personal view. And a press briefing exchange is not really controversial or a claim. EkoGraf (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say and couldn't have said it better myself. Khirurg (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, first you repeat this ridiculous "it's not controversial claim". Specifically your claim is that "a press briefing exchange is not really controversial". I don't even know what that is suppose to mean. That's like saying "a newspaper is not a controversial or a claim". It makes next to no grammatical sense. The TOPIC of this press briefing, the TOPIC of the text being discussed, the TOPIC of this article is freakin' controversial. Because it's about the murder and burning of thousands of people. Stop it with this dishonest line that "this is non-controversial".
 * And WION IS a obscure non-RS source. And this is an opinion piece anyway. See WP:REDFLAG. The very fact that you guys cannot find an actual reliable secondary source to back up this text and instead try to rely on junk like al-Masdar, pretty much evidences that this is a bunch of crap. And oh yeah Khirurg, all that "me too!" comments do is suggest that you're only tag teaming but not actually contributing to the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

the crematorium is confirmed by reliable sources and it must be mentioned.Alhanuty (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly my opinion Alhanuty. My problem was its not lead material for this specific article. For the article on the prison itself, yes it is. As for the briefing thing, I'm not going to press this rather trivial issue, so whatever. My main concern was with the lead thing. EkoGraf (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As of now, it is nothing but an unverified claim (the photos are eerily similar to Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD photos), and certainly doesn't belong in an article about the wider war, per WP:Undue. It can be discussed in one of the specified spin-off articles. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * it's nice that you mention that. It's also quite interesting to note that the top inmates at the Sednaya Prison have all survived and left the prison unscathed. And we're talking about the top leaders of ISIS and rebel factions here. I wonder, if the security personnel in this prison were really out to kill their inmates, wouldn't they killed these guys first? To top it all off, many of the inmates have reported to Amnesty (who, by the way, don't even know about the crematorium) that the bodies were simply buried outside of the compound. All of this is sketchy, to say the least. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources which say so then we can talk about it. For now, this is a meaningless personal opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The "possibly" quote from the State official is referring solely to the snow drift photo, not the other physical evidence for the crematorium so going into such detail in an already long article is unnecessary. In my view, prison/crematorium story is clearly important, should be in article, but discussion of detail should go to Human rights violations during the Syrian Civil War and the specific article about the prison.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup and OK to both Funk and Bob. EkoGraf (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, nothing is confirmed here, even with the other photographs. To quote Jones:


 * These are just assumptions and guesswork. The State Department has no evidence. Looking at photographs and assuming it's a crematorium doesn't count as evidence. Making it "consistent" with a crematorium doesn't make it evidence either. I do agree, however, that this discussion might have to go to another article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry. For the millionth time, what you need here is a RELIABLE SECONDARY source not your own WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. How long you've been on Wikipedia? How you don't know this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ...long enough to know that we shouldn't be using such language like this, making it appear that such a crematorium unquestionably exists despite none of this having been ascertained by the State Department. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From NY Times: "Human rights groups said they were surprised by the Trump administration’s assertions, in part because some of the satellite photographs have existed for years and are not conclusive." It's funny, everything else stated by the Trump administration is usually scrutinised and dismissed, except when it comes to absurd claims about Syria. Gassing, crematoriums, what next? FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See that's a perfectly respectable source and if you want to put that in I got no problem with it. Just take the al-Masdar crap (however it is being disguised) out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where exactly do you see "al Masdar crap"? By now, no media outlet is many notches above that when it comes to credibility on Syria; all rely on biased sources that are impossible to validate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the quote being removed here by a different user. Originally EtienneDolet added this (not sure if he was the one who did it here or if it was one of his buddies) sourced to al-Masdar news. I removed it in other articles. He claimed that it was "non-controversial" (because, you know, the burning of bodies in a crematorium of thousands of bodies is "non-controversial"). After I pressed on it he added a second source, something called wion.com. But it's still exactly the same text, now with just a different crappy source. It's EtienneDolet being cute about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And now even the normally staunchly anti-Assad Der Spiegel casts doubt on the crematorium story. For those who don't speak German, the key passage is: '''But: Amnesty has spoken with former prisoners, prison guards and judges in the past years. None of them ever mentioned a crematorium in Sednaja. Instead, fugitive officials of the regime had reported that the Syrian military buried the dead in cemeteries that lie on the army grounds around Damascus.''' Khirurg (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece by one dude. Who is that guy anyway? Is this notable/due? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not "an opinion piece by one dude" (nice try), it's reliably sourced information that you don't like. Khirurg (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A suggestion. I think editors need to adopt a policy of non-engagement with Volunteer Marek when he adopts extreme positions and, instead, explore alternative routes to resolving disputes that he says exist. There could never be valid arguments that would support a disputed and unproven allegation by a single source related to a very minor side issue to be inserted into the lede of an article dealing with a entire war that has lasted years, has been fought on numerous fronts, has involved numerous sides, huge numbers of casualties, and has wrecked an entire region. Why did VM start this thread arguing for such an impossible outcome and even repeatedly edit it into the article, ? Was it because his goal all along was to first argue for the extreme and then exhaust everyone into agreeing to a "compromise"? I do not think an unproven allegation by a single source related to a very minor side issue should be anywhere in an article dealing with a entire war that has lasted years, has been fought on numerous fronts, has involved numerous sides, huge numbers of casualties, and has wrecked an entire region. An article, moreover, that is already tagged as being overly long. But there it is , as an attempted compromise. I suggest that whenever VM adopts an extreme position, we start a RfC to consider that extreme position and that we do not go through a long and draining process to be manipulated into offering a compromise that in reality incorporates everything VM had intended to have from the outset. VM can also try to close down any future revisiting of the issue by claiming the current content is the settled decision of talk page consensus. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why did VM start this thread arguing for such an impossible outcome" "blah blah blah extreme position" - uh, this "impossible outcome" being "removing crap sourced to a non reliable source". Sorry, that's not an "impossible outcome" or an "extreme position". That's Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You prove my point. In your post that started this thread there was the demand "this is the biggest story on this topic in months - it needs to go in the lede". The lede demand was quietly dropped once your real aim was attained. Wikipedia's policy is not the policy of a middle-eastern carpet bazaar salesman who starts by demanding four times the normal price so he can convince tourists they are getting a bargain when it is haggled down to twice the normal price. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Volunteer Marek, honestly you should be topic banned.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to support Asilah1981 initiative for the topic ban on Volunteer Marek, various allegations and fallacies are not facts obviously, information about contentious issues such as conflicts already have lots of speculations, allegations, falsehoods and half-truths GroundlessAir (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Map Update
Lots of areas need updates on the map. For example, a string of villages and positions close the Homs-Palmyra Highway(Tadmuriyah, Al Khailiyah, Air Defence Base,Abu Qila Dam) in addition to the Al Mahr fields were long liberated from ISIS by the SAA more than a month ago, are still shown as ISIS held.

In light of the huge advances made in the Syrian desert in the last couple of days by the SAA, major changes need to be made on the map such as the Zaza Checkpoint,Al Ulayyaniah, Shaghim Crossroads(currently shown as rebel held) as well as the Al Sawwanah and Khunayfis Phospate mine areas(currently shown as ISIS held) being shown as SAA held — Preceding unsigned comment added by GERALD710 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Shortening the article
1 Shorten Timeline

Should we remove the timeline?

The timeline already exists in Course of events of the Syrian Civil War. It also appears to be a word for word copy and paste. Like c'mon.

It feels like the banner reading "This article may be too long to navigate comfortably" has been here longer than the war itself. Someone should do something already. Let's shorten the article Crewcamel (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * }

2 Belligerents of the Syrian War

The list we have is very long. This is what it looks like currently: Syrian War Belligerents

We need to keep certain parts of it but others must go. My suggestion is to keep the summaries of Ba'athist Syria, the Syrian Opposition, the SDF, ISIL, and the Western Coalition. keep

The National Defense Force, Shabiha and Christian Militias i believe should not have their own summaries and should be removed

Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and the foreign shia militias should be moved to "Foreign involvement" move

How does that sound? --Crewcamel (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not sound good. Having some degree of content overlap is fine, and all these materials are relevant and important for describing the war. You need to wait. If a few other people will look at this and support your changes, then they can be done. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The header saying this page is too long has been here forever. (several years at least) Not to mention it says the article should be around 137 kilobytes and it's currently close to 400k. So it's obvious that not "all of these materials are important". I'm just trying to be the one that finally does something.
 * You're right that i should wait. However it's very difficult to get a discussion going here. If no one answers i go ahead with the changes. Crewcamel (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is your first edit. You tell that the course of the events was mostly split already to page Course of events of the Syrian Civil War if I understand correctly? OK. But you simply removed everything from the section. Instead, you suppose to make a brief summary of the timeline and keep links to other pages where these events are described in more details. Simply removing everything and leaving only links is not the way to fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think i went too far with the timeline. But do you disagree with the edits i made on the belligerent's section? Because you reverted those too.

Does anyone else having any opinions on this? 20:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

3 Infobox

I have a "draft" sorta on shortening the Infobox. The info box is currently very long and completely unreadable on mobile. Here is my suggestion: Crewcamel (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I'll give this about a week. If no one answers i'm making the changes. 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll answer by paragraphs. (1) - we certainly shouldn't remove the timeline as conflict history is in fact one of the main interests of readers; we should however significantly shorten it to abstracts of each phase and that is what i've been doing by creating Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War, Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War and soon to be created 2012–13 escalation of the Syrian Civil War (which would cut significant part of this article leaving only abstract). (2) generally agree to shorten the belligerents section, leaving an overview abstract and main belligerents list with wikilink to the main article. (3) I do not agree with this version of infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what makes you disagree with my version of the infobox? Crewcamel (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't simplify the infobox because of mobile constraints - it was decided to make four columns for a reason: There are at least 4 notable sides in the conflict (actually even 5 or 6) and we cannot simplify it to 3.GreyShark (dibra) 19:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized i accidentally removed isil from the column so forget you saw that. What i did change tho was i removed unnecessary names and hid others in a collapsible list among other things. I think those changes are acceptable for shortening the infobox 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs)


 * You still deleted several major factions such as Ahrar al-Sham and Tahrir al-Sham (two of the largest rebel groups) and all of their leaders. Once again, this is extremely damaging to the infobox. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think we should remove instead?Crewcamel (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything major should be removed from the infobox, actually. It is currently fine and removing anything significant would cause factuality problems. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * C'mon. Do we really need the Army of Monotheists in the infobox? Their article is a stub so im not sure if they're even notable enough. At a minimum i would like to Collapse Syria's allied groups and lesser known commanders. The infobox is obnoxiously long and it's probably discouraging many visitors from reading the article (hence the "This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably" banner at the top of the page) Crewcamel (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with user:Editor abcdef - Ahrar al-Sham and Tahrir al-Sham are major war factions of the Syrian Civil War, having equal or more armed men than ISIL each of them (as of 2017 - Ahrar al-Sham with 20 thousand fighters, Tahrir al-Sham with 31 thousand, while ISIL having less than 15 thousand militants in Syria).GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Splitting a subsection of timeline
I've performed the split of 2012–13 escalation of the Syrian Civil War into a separate article, reducing the timeline size by 66K, which significantly reduced the article length. Only a short abstract is now present in the article, as previously has been done with Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War and Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War. With current size of the Syrian Civil War article still large (~340K), i suggest to continue this reduction of timeline length by splitting 2014-15 Islamist conflict and US intervention phase and reducing the section on 2015-16 Russian intervention phase to a short summary - this way we would certainly drop the size to below 300K and maybe even 250K.GreyShark (dibra) 06:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * for your attention.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the ISIL-related campaigns are already covered under the inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War, the Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present), and the 2014 Eastern Syria offensive. I do agree with an article on the US-led intervention phase (Sep. 2014 - Sep. 2015) though. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point - i would suggest making that article a phase article on Islamist-led conflict and US-intervention lasting from January 2014 to the beginning of Russian intervention on September 2015. Anyway the inter-rebel fighting article is already focusing on 2014-15 timeline with very little information on further events. Wdyt?GreyShark (dibra) 07:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we have any sources that refer to this time–period as such? We might be running into original research issues by arbitrarily determing what is and what was not a distinct phase of the war. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will check on sources, though the logic of determining the phases has been established as community consensus at the Syrian Civil War infobox. Please see the relevant discussions in this regard.GreyShark (dibra) 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * check the 2016 overview by Independent with notable events on the course of the civil war - this is not a phase divided timeline, but a good indication for notable events which mark various phases. A more specific separation is made by Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, which as of 2015 separates the following phases of the conflict: 1. "2011 - Revolt and repression"; 2. "2012 - All-out war"; 3. "2013 - refugee crisis"; 4. "2013 - chemical weapons"; 5. "2014 - the rise of the Islamic State"; 6. "2015 - four years on". Based on this separation, "2011 - Revolt and repression" overlap with Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War and Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War, while "2012 - All-out war" overlaps with 2012–13 escalation of the Syrian Civil War, with "2013 - refugee crisis" and "2013 - chemical weapons" being sub-topics. The "2014 - the rise of the Islamic State" is parallel with Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War and American-led intervention in Syria. Finally, "2015 - four years on" is a partial overview further overlapping with American-led intervention in Syria. The Al-Araby article was published prior to Russian intervention in September 2015, which i assume most can agree marks a new phase of the war.GreyShark (dibra) 06:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with reducing the timeline but i would suggest not creating new articles based off what you remove. I think creating a new article just for the 2012-13 phase amounts to WP:CONTENTFORK considering every phase of the war already exists in Timeline of the Syrian Civil War Crewcamel (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Timeline is just a timeline and not an organized article. War phases on the other hand are important articles, which shed light with more detailed on specific periods of the conflicts (which are only generally covered at the main page).GreyShark (dibra) 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus required sanction
The "consensus required" sanction has been added to this article, as now reflected at the top of the talk page and the edit notice. The full text of the sanction is "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." If you have questions about whether an edit violates this sanction, ask before making it. Ignorance will not excuse blatant violations. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You know that clause confuses the heck out of people, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to consider alternatives if editors didn't refuse to follow WP:BRD in the absence of a sanction requiring it:  . There's nothing terribly confusing about requiring consensus before restoring something that's been challenged. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the "D" of the BRD. Not my fault if the other guy failed to respond.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All the more reasons we have a page explaining it. El_C 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You know that sanction is a gift horse for those rug salesmen and their haggling technique that I mentioned earlier because it completely ignores established and fundamental editing standards like the obligations to use reliable sources and give appropriate weight to content. It does not solve any conflicts - it merely prolongs them indeterminately. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd maybe buy that if I actually saw evidence that editors took to the talk page and started an RfC before complaining about how the evil sanction is preventing them from making their preferred change to the article. I rarely see that before someone bitches about this sanction; they just chalk it up as a bad cause. Note that consensus involves weighting arguments that aren't based on policies accordingly. Try BRD thoroughly before you knock this sanction. You may be surprised. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob13, are you not required to give justification for your actions? What specific problems do you claim exist that justify this sanction for this article? What problems do you claim will be solved by having these sanctions? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The low-rate edit warring that has been going on for months (both in this specific article and the topic area more broadly) will be greatly reduced on this page by this particular sanction. It will force more talk page discussion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what I meant when I asked for "specific problems". Obviously the sanction you are applying is "specific" for this article. I wanted you to tell us what specific ongoing content issues you think will be solved or lessened by this sanction, and for you to explain why you think those specific issues will be solved or lessened by it? I see no issues here that will be solved or lessened by it. If anything there has been too much discussion, not too little (there are forty three pages of Talk archives!) The problem is that much of it is discussion intended to obfuscate, to bargain, to exhaust, and to delay - the very things I think this sanction will encourage more of. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The immediate cause of the sanction was the diffs I shared above, but they cannot be viewed in isolation of the fact that there's been low-rate edit warring occurring on this page for months (years?). Currently, one person makes a change, another reverts. A week later they do it again. A week after that they do it again. Both sides call that progress for some reason, when it's really a big waste of time for everyone. If things were discussed on the talk page after the first revert, we'd get things done rather than just changing things back-and-forth. The big problem with talk page discussions is that participants do not make them RfCs or seek an uninvolved closer once things peter out. I'm asking you to try that. Come grab someone uninvolved in the content itself (me, for example) and ask them to assess consensus. You'll likely be surprised how far you can get with that. Look through the talk page archives at how few discussions have been closed. That's the big problem - no resolution to the discussions - that makes discussing in this topic area unproductive at times. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The obvious problem with this sanction, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is that aside from being confusing as hell, it is so easily game-able. Anyone with half a brain and even a weak familiarity with how Wikipedia works can obstruct and obfuscate on the talk page sufficiently enough to make it seem like "no consensus" exists. And if a couple of their tag-team buddies jump in, they effectively act as gate keepers of the article or even a topic area. The crucial problem with this sanction is that it does not address content. Text which is well sourced to multiple reliable sources, which accurately reflects these sources and which is of encyclopedic value should be IN the article regardless of what a few battleground warriors feel. Likewise, text based on ... lame, weak, sketchy, whatever euphemism I'm supposed to come up with here to avoid using a perfectly fine descriptive and accurate word "crappy" ... unreliable sources should not go in. POV and RS are PILLARS. Discretionary sanctions, especially confusing and gama-able ones are not. So this is not very helpful, actually. Unless admins start taking seriously the content-related disruptive behavior and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that's been plaguing this topic area.
 * As far as "discussion" in BRD goes - look at some of these talk pages. There's a TON OF DISCUSSION! But it doesn't matter because some editors dig in, make prima facie ridiculous assertions ("oh gee, this content about mass murder is non-controversial so I can put it in with some lame, weak, sketchy, whatever euphemism etc. sources and you can't remove it!") and then obstruct with classic WP:CPUSH and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you're dealing with a WP:ADVOCACY account who's here to fight WP:BATTLEGROUNDs and push a POV then it doesn't matter how much you discuss with them!. They know what they want and they are not interested in discussion. They only participate in it for show (and you know how you can tell'em apart? Because they NEVER change their minds. Ever. I mean, I have some strong views, but you show me evidence and sources, I'll be happy to change my mind. These guys don't. Because it's not about doing it right. It's about pushing a POV). They do a little dance, they play a little game, and at the end of the day, no matter what is said, what sources are presented they will put their POV in the article. The only thing that holds them back is threat of sanctions and blocks (and the fact that they get so wrapped up in their POV pushing that once in awhile they slip and say or do something really dumb which sort of reveals their hand)
 * So you can add this if you want. But it's not going to work. All it will do is just lede to more spurious complaints, more drama board reports, more battleground tactics and more bad faith. Putting this sanction on this article is like exporting a new type of weapon to a conflict ridden area, hoping that that will solve the problem. Why and how? I have no idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How did this consensus sanction get imposed? It is way to easy to game the page and impossible to get consensus on this topic because too many people feel very strongly about it and are willing to insert extreme POV here. We already have the SCW/ISIL sanctions which seem to work pretty well to control edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac of course it is impossible to get a consensus(a total agreement between all of editors), I prefer to stay out of the main article of the Syrian War, there is nothing but edit warring here and considering I personally don't have strong political views, only trying to maintain neutrality, which is rejected in... virtually every 20th/21st century article about conflicts. There is extreme POV on articles not only about Syrian War but also 1979-present war in afghanistan 2001-2014 war in afghanistan, 2015-present war in afghanistan, 2003- war in iraq,balkan wars, war in donbass, war in mali, war in libya a lot of WWII events etc and unfortunately a small minority with exceptionally biased views tends to remain on top, therefore neutral people like me are forced to pick a side which is often directly opposite to that of those extreme POV people like volunteer marek. Which only results in more edit warring and actually leads nowhere. I salute Rob13's decision to add this requirement to quell the endless edit warring. Let there be peace if not on Earth, then atleast on Wikipedia! GroundlessAir (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just have to reiterate, before you knock the consensus process (which is how our encyclopedia works) try it. That sometimes involves asking a neutral closer to look at a discussion at close it. I'm happy to field such requests, since I have very little knowledge of the topic area at all and don't care about it aside form the behavioral issues I've seen. You may be very surprised how a good closer can cut through the bullshit from both sides, which I think everyone can agree is often there in spades. Consensus doesn't involve getting numbers; it involves making good arguments that are persuasive given the policies we have. When there's an issue, make your argument, wait a bit for others to make theirs, and then get a closer. If you'd rather not ping an individual closer, WP:ANRFC works for that too. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources don't back claim being made
I have removed this edit by LylaSand. None of the sources used back the claim.

IB Times : the regime’s barrel bombs kill more civilians than the two groups combined. Almost, but not quite. Also, it's from 2015, when ISIS had only been in Syria for only one year.

CNN : Best I could find is '''Barrel bombs that kill and maim indiscriminately. ''' Not nearly good enough.

Newsweek : he use of barrel bombs in Syria, including those against health care facilities and ambulances, is “becoming one of the prime causes of death in Syria,” Again, not nearly good enough.

I am always willing to assume good faith, but this looks like a clear case of deliberate misuse of sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This can be very easily fixed. Just replace "The majority" by "A significant number", and the statement will be directly and undeniably supported by the quoted sources. Why blame another contributor of bad faith? My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "A significant number" downplays the significance of the content, The sources themselves use the terms "most" and "majority". Please put it back to majority.
 * "What is certain, however, is that the Syrian air force, with the help of Russia and Iran, has killed most of these people" This article is from this very month.
 * http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21721783-all-planes-are-be-barred-these-areas-agreement-halt-fighting-four LylaSand (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed it to reflect more closely this source. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks LylaSand (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Still not nearly good enough. But now, in addition to misusing sources, you are lying about consensus. Khirurg (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Its both a reliable and quality source from this very month. Explain how it isn't good enough? LylaSand (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks good to me after including the additional source to Economist. Nevertheless, I self-reverted because editing restrictions ("consensus") on this page are not clear. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Economist article is an opinion piece and does not back the claim being made. And stop stalking me. Khirurg (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, do you now admit it was not "introducing deliberately false information", but something that was actually claimed in the source? My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, actually, none of the sources back the claim being made. Can you quote the passage from the IB Times and CNN piece that back the claim being made?  Thanks in advance. Khirurg (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All these sources tell about civilians dying from air bombings. Was it the main reason of their deaths? I do not really know, but a typical person will have such impression after reading these sources. This is a more or less reasonable summary, not falsification. My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again I will ask you, can you quote the exact passage in those articles that backs the claim that "most civilian casualties are caused by barrel bombs". Please answer and don't evade. Khirurg (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Did not you read these sources? One of them tells:
 * What about the CNN and IB Times sources? As for the sentence above, it's kinda weird because the (sourced) figures in the infobox show about 100,000 civilian casualties, so it's impossible for the "vast majority" of the 470,000 casualties to be civilian.  This is a good example of why opinion pieces should not be used. Khirurg (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no, this is a perfect example why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Whatever infobox tells is irrelevant. Now, speaking about other RS, such as CNN, one must read the entire publication, rather than be looking for selective quotations. Read section "What are some of the ways civilians are killed?". It has three different subheadings for the ways to be killed, and all of them are about bombing from the air. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, can you please provide the exact quote from the CNN source that backs the claim? Thanks again. Khirurg (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a two page quotation. I gave you the link and the section ("What are some of the ways civilians are killed?") already. My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article did back the claim, it wouldn't be hard to come up with an exact quote. The reason you can't provide one, and are resorting to things like "I gave you a link to the section", is because the article doesn't back the claim.  Thank you for helping resolve this issue. Khirurg (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Khirurg has a valid point here: the exact numbers of civilian casualties from various reasons are unknown. Hence, I return to "significant number". Nothing else follow from these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually no, the sourcing is so weak it doesn't even back that claim. Not to mention that it's not lede material if it's just a "significant number".  There are all kinds of things that cause "significant number of casualties" (e.g. rebel "hell cannons"), shall we cram those in the lede as well? Khirurg (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually no, the sourcing is so weak it doesn't even back that claim. Not to mention that it's not lede material if it's just a "significant number".  There are all kinds of things that cause "significant number of casualties" (e.g. rebel "hell cannons"), shall we cram those in the lede as well? Khirurg (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll just chip in here and state my opinion on this matter. If the claim on the civilian barrel bomb deaths ratio is properly sourced then no reason not to include it in the article. BUT, its more appropriate for the main body of the article, ether in the section on deaths or human rights violations, not in the lead. EkoGraf (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I only wanted to tell that personal accusations by Khirurg about LylaSand ("deliberate misuse of sources") were wrong. I hope this is obvious from direct quotation of a source, links and discussion above. Of course one should generally avoid responding to such claims on article talk pages, however Khirurg promised to arrange her "topic ban" . Hence the lack of response here could be used by Khirurg or someone else as an argument against her. Therefore I respond here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Review needed of newly added claims and citations
Hello all:

I'm not familiar with editing on wikipedia and so I apologize to you all in advance if I'm posting incorrectly.

I noticed that some of the newer information on this page is suspect, and some citations don't substantiate the claims.

For example, the claim attached to citation # 595: "Since February 2017, the affiliated group Tahrir al-Sham has turned away from straight battlefield-war to suicide bomb attacks on (Shiite) civilians, in Homs and Damascus.595"

This sentence gave me pause because it's already worded in a suspicious way. I became stuck on it as I wondered to myself, what happened in February 2017? Why would they choose to "turn away" from battlefield-war? And how is battlefield-war defined in this context? Are we contending that each civilian casualty inflicted by this group since February has been a Shiite? No Alawite?

Anyway, I clicked the citation and the hyperlink led me to a wikipedia article about a magazine. There was literally no information about war.

Whether the above-quoted sentence is factual is automatically made irrelevant when the citation fails to point to a credible source. This is disappointing because, if it the statement is true, it's information worth including.

In summation, I highly recommend that each of the citations added since 2017 be reviewed to ensure they include proper links.

Thank you kindly,

T.A.

IbnNabl97205 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I deleted that particular claim, as it is clearly not true, and as the previous comment says poorly sourced. Can you point to any other dubious claims? There have been a lot of edits in 2017!BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Al-Sukhnah offensive
This article has a much wider connotation and I ask the other members, administrators and moderators to modify, not to delete. What in Eastern Aleppo and what character is the Maskanah Plains offensive? What is Battle of Raqqa (2017) as part of Raqqa campaign (2016-present)? This represents the Al-Sukhnah offensive as the most striking part of the Syrian Desert campaign (May 2017-present). The Al-Sukhnah offensive must be a special article such as the Maskanah Plains Offensive and Southern Raqqa Offensive (June 2017). Al-Sukhnah offensive represents one of the main sub-battles and offensives as part of the Syrian Desert campaign (May 2017-present).--Baba Mica (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, no reliable/notable sources that present an Al-Sukhnah offensive as a notable subject so it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Second, no reliable/notable sources that actually state there is an Al-Sukhnah offensive, so it fails WP:VERIFIABILITY. (In contrast, Syrian Army operations south of Raqqah and near Maskanah have been a notable subject in international media outlets) Third, sources that do exist state that this axis of the SAA's advance is part of the Syrian Desert campaign (May 2017-present) so its not separate. Fourth, the Al-Sukhnah subsection that does exist in the campaign article actually focuses more on the fighting in and around Arak and its gas fields, not Al-Sukhnah itself. Al-Sukhnah is only mentioned as a possible endgoal of this axis of advance. Fifth, considering a potential Al-Sukhnah offensive of having a much wider connotation and being the most striking part is considered unsourced Original Research unless its backed-up by sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)