Talk:Timeline of the Syrian civil war (May–August 2017)

Al-Masdar (re July 14 and August 28 items in timeline)
Repeated RfCs (e.g. have concluded that Al-Masdar cannot be used without attribution in the text as a sole source for controversial claims, but only used as a source for Syrian government and allied claims, such as non-controversial territorial report, or with clear attribution when a claim might be disputed. There are two claims in the text sourced to Al-Masdar, for which I can find no other source online. I added attribution in the text (as I also did for claims single sourced only to anti-government SOHR) but these have been reverted without explanation (I think by Mr User). To avoid reverting again, I have tagged as dubious. Can anyone else comment? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Re the 28 Aug SDF defection, a second source has been added, http://iuvmonline.com. Is that a reliable source? I've no idea. But this second source says "According to pro-government activists", so I have included that wording in the text to make sure we are not recording something un-verified as a fact. To be honest, I am not sure this defection is notable enough for inclusion here - just deleting it may be the least controversial option? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * has changed the wording "According to pro-government activists" to "Report suggest", giving as a reason "See second source". However, as the deleted wording is the exact wording of the second source, and "Report suggest" does not make sense in English, I have reverted. Maybe we can discuss here before reverting again?BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As nobody on this talk page has disagreed with the above proposal 3 weeks ago, I am going ahead and deleting this reported defection. Two commanders is not notable, and sources are dubious - better if this timeline sticks to notable incidents and robustly sourced stories.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Re the 14 July ceasefire, I am not claiming that our account here is wrong, but we need a second source for this. Al-Masdar cannot under any circumstances be used as a single source for rebel views. There is a graphic in the article that appears to be from a rebel coalition, but this graphic appears nowhere else on the internet and includes a Twitter handle for the rebel coalition that has never tweeted. We cannot accept this graphic as reliable without verification from a second source. To avoid edit warring, I have re-worded rather than re-added a dubious tag.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the better source tags to these claims as, even though it is 6 weeks since I posted these comments, there has been no justification here on the talk page for the way they have been edited. please don't revert again without giving justification here and gaining consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted me instantly without coming to the talk page. Wikipedia doesn't work if you proceed like this. Please engage with what I am saying and try to make a case for your version rather than simply revert all of my edits. Let me spell out the problem again. (1) The Al-Masdar report literally does not give any sources at all, so it is a weak report. (2) Al-Masdar may be reliable enough for reporting claims made by the Syrian military but it is not a reliable source for something like a claimed defection from rebels or SDF to the SAA. (3) The Al-Masdar story is billed as "Breaking". Wikipedia policy is strongly against using "breaking" sources: "Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time... Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS." (See also discussion at WP:BNS (4) The second source is IUVMonline.com Is that a reliable source? It has no Wikipedia page. It is not listed on Google News. It doesn't have any information about its address, editors, editorial policy, ownership, etc. It looks like an Iraqi-based pro-Iranian propaganda outlet. As far as I can see from Google and Alexa it has never been linked to or used as a source by any vaguely reliable media outlet or commentator (the only sites linking to it I can find are http://www.rpfront.com/ and http://www.libertyfrontpress.com/ and this weird story http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/235314 ). (5) The IUVM article gives its sources as "Photos are surfacing online" and "According to pro-government activists" - note activists, not even official spokespeople. There is no way of verifying the accuracy of the "surfacing" photos. (6) The story has not been picked up by any more reliable news outlets. (7) A little bit of digging suggests to me the story (& pics) was sourced by Al-Masdar and IUVM from this pro-government activist on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/902112316199546880 That is why they don't cite an actual government source. (8) The two sources contradict each other. IUVM says Ibrahim al-Banawi was the head of Manbij military council but Al-Masdar only says he was a Liwa Jund al-Haramayn commander. The first claim seems not to be true, as Wikipedia's article on Syrian Democratic Forces military councils says (with sources) that the head of the MMC was Adnan Abu Amjad until he was killed on 29 August and he was succeeded by Muhammad Mustafa Ali in September. (9) Even if the story was true, is it even notable enough to go in a timeline? Should every single thing Al-Masdar reports go in this timeline, or just more significant events? (10) To conclude, can you at least revert your last edit or, preferably, bring this to an end by deleting the bullet point in question? Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

British withdrawal
The following item was removed without explanation by : ''British troops leave Syria and halt their FSA training program. '' I don't see why this is not noteworthy. I don't want to simply revert, as per Wikipedia etiquette, but think a reason could be given for the removal. I note the same editor has not replied to my queries in the previous section here, but has instead preferred unilateral editing. Can we edit by consensus here please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was moved to the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (September - present) since in 2 September the Ministry of Defense of the UK confirmed to the Telegraph the move. The fact is that the MOD confirmed that at that date (2 September). If it took place in June or other date there no way to corroborate, since its secret information and there is only one source (The Telegraph). Mr.User200 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I don't really understand though. My assumption would be the thing happening is notable, not it being reported. The cited source says "The Ministry of Defence confirmed to the Telegraph that in late June". The Telegraph is a very reliable source for this kind of thing, and they are quoting a UK government ministry, so it is not secret. It was reported also by Jane's (a good source for UK military affairs) back in August BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

3 August
Can you explain why you undid my edit and deleted this: The Syrian government shells rebel towns in Eastern Ghouta: Ein Tarma town targeted with 10 ground-to-ground local FIL missiles, killing a woman and child and wounding others; and four people are wounded when the city of Harasta is shelled with mortars. This is notable and adequately sourced. You have given no explanation in your edit summary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing.
Please refrain from reverting content in the article. Any un explained revert of information regarding events on this article without any criteria according a previous concesus is considered vandalism. Please avoid Dont like it reverts. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Mr.User200 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, unexplained reverts are not acceptable and consensus is how Wikipedia works. Maybe then you can explain why you have not used edit summaries for your un-doing of all my edits, or where we reached consensus on the talk page that "pro-government activists" claiming that TWO rebel commanders defected, as reported only in a single non-reliable source, is somehow notable and real enough to be included in this timeline, which presumably should be a timeline of notable events in the war that actually happened? You need to give some justification for un-doing my edits. Please, please, please, can you engage in discussion on this talk page and not simply revert me? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)