Talk:Wadi Barada offensive (2016–2017)

About al-jazeera source of the death of syrian general
the al-jazeera source claims that it doesnt even know who killed the general claiming that "opposition and government trades blame".. this is terrible source knowing that al-jazeera is qatari funded and heavily supportitve of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and Ahrar al-Sham, previously featured even those rebel groups leaders on its channel talking to them. pretty much every other source claims it was assassination and not some random death, could anyone please add a different source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.129.232.242 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinarily POV description of the offensive
This is for anyone concerned, since user Applodion who reverted my tag requesting NPOV, requested my explanation why it should be here, since there isn't enough characters for explanation in revert comment section I shall explain this on the talk page.

I have not taken this decision lightly to put a NPOV tag over this article but the presentation of information is absurdly one-sided and not always factually backed-up, rather than that it relies on fallacies and empty rhetoric with only a single narrative presented instead of providing reader a chance to make his own opinion about the events. I would like to analyze a few particularly biased phrases which should be changed before we can talk about removal of the tag.

Example 1: "December 2016, following the strongly disputed[27] accusations of pollution of water spring in Ain al-Fijah with diesel fuel by the rebels, government forces conducted airstrikes and shelling on Wadi Barada, which had previously been under a truce." - This sentence immediately uses the words "strongly disputed accusations" and right near those words attaches pro-opposition link to render the viewpoint of the other side absolutely irrelevant, claiming it to be outright false. At the end of this statement phrase "which has previously been under a truce" comes up, which makes the reader think that security forces are some warmongers which never keep their word and unilaterally violates truces, despite many examples in other articles about Syrian War to the contrary.

Example 2:"On March 14, 2017, the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria said that the Syria's air force deliberately bombed water sources in December, a war crime that cut off water for 5.5 million people in and around the capital Damascus. The commission said it had found no evidence of deliberate contamination of the water supply or demolition by armed groups, as the Syrian government maintained at the time." - A single heavily pro-opposition source, which includes only 2 sentences and no analysis whatsoever and no alternative sources claiming this extremely severe allegation. This is an exceptional claim and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires exceptional sources (multiple), from different points of view and opinion, look back at example 1, even though it contains source from the same site as example 2, it is immediately debunked as absolutely false, without any room for any different opinion. If no multiple exceptional sources are found, couple sentences "article" is not heavy enough justification to throw around such accusations and these statements should be removed as a whole.

Example 3:"On 3 January, rebels stated that they would let teams enter and fix the spring as long as the government would honor the ceasefire and lift the siege.[32][33] Government forces launched another attack on the following day," - Again identical situation to second half of Example 1. The structure of the statement and words used are presented in such a manner that armed opposition is glorified as heroic saviors of human life and civilian access to water, while security forces are yet again demonized for allegedly ignoring any option for a ceasefire and just willing to kill as many people as possible.

Example 4:"On 28 January, however, the rebels finally retreated from Ain Al-Fijah as "goodwill gesture" for the implemention of the peace agreement of 26 January." - Similar situation to second half of Example 1 and as Example 3, armed opposition presented as very willing to reach an agreement, as generally exceptionally honest and kind people, however before this deal there were many failed reconciliation attempts and only after sustained periods of intense fighting and knowing that they are encircled from all sides and reaching other armed opposition held areas by fighting is not a viable option, did they agree to be transported to Idlib.

Example 5: The picture representing the offensive, instead of just writing an airstrike or something more neutral it says "The Syrian Air Force drops a barrel bomb on a village", clearly shows that this description was added there by hardline pro-opposition editor, intelligently also adding a redirect to Barrel Bomb (most popular object to include by pro-opposition editors and websites) which is hardly even representative of the whole offensive, rather than just implying that armed opposition are angels and security forces are demons.

These 5 examples I have presented clearly shows how shockingly one-sided this article is and should be edited as soon as possible to fit into NPOV standards, to be honest in my opinion, even Amaq News agency provides more neutral view on events in Syria than it was provided in this article. Neutrality rules in Wikipedia stand not without a reason, because if articles would be written in such manner as this one other examples would include something like this, well I'll try to express it in an example (note this is only example of extremely biased presentation of events showing only one side of them, this is example what to AVOID in articles, only example of how NOT to write) : Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - "On April 4 2017, brutal dictator Assad deliberately gassed scores of innocent babies with sarin, because this absolute monster enjoys seeing people suffer in unimaginable pain for no reason whatsoever when he is winning on all fronts against the beautiful moderate children, therefore the knight in shining air force one jet, Donald J. Trump has gloriously supported the moderate babies in their struggle for democracy by launching exceptionally effective tomahawk missiles towards airbase from where, absolutely undeniably and 100% definitively the heinous chemical attack ordered by bloodthirsty beast, Assad, was carried out, therefore destroying a quarter of his entire death jets armada"

I hope now everyone understand why neutrality in Wikipedia must be respected and upheld, thank you for your patience, whoever bothered to read my arguments, respectfully GroundlessAir (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @GroundlessAir Thank you for elaborating. I agree with point 1 & 2, and will change both accordingly. No. 3-5 however are entirely unbiased and are completely neutral descriptions of the events. The image is simply the only free image taken during the offensive that shows actual action, and is by itself unbiased. Note furthermore that the rebels are hardly described as "angels" in the article: Most of the article's sources are from al-Masdar News, a pro-gov news site, while breaches of peace agreements by the rebels are also described: "As result, some opposition fighters reportedly attacked the technical crews with rockets" (rebels attack civilians); "Later that day, however, a rebel sniper killed the Syrian Army general Ahmad Ghadban as he was returning to the government lines after the latest round of peace talks in the valley." (rebels murder a chief negotiator); "Later on, the first buses carrying rebels left for Idlib, while al-Masdar News reported that some Jabhat Fatah al-Sham fighters attacked other opposition groups in Kafr az Zayt due to disagreements over the ceasefire." (jhhadist rebels attack rebels willing to retreat). Applodion (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Applodion Thank you for taking your time to read my arguments and reply. I would argue that it doesn't matter where the sources are taken from, editor can easily spin any source to make it more suitable to their personal political views. Whatever is hidden somewhere near the end of the article is hardly relevant, first few statements are what matters most and I have added that POV tag in the first place due to these opening remarks tethering on the edge of disinformation and even absurdity. I beleive the most important and eye catching are examples 1, 2 and 5. My recommendations would be: For example 1 - Present the narrative in such a way that both claims are considered possible, instead of presentation of one as undeniable truth and other of complete lie, For example 2 - removal of it altogether if multiple high quality detailed analytical sources can't be found, couple sentences in pro-opposition news agency does not allow to make such exceptional and extremely damning allegations and present them as the only undeniable truth and fact. For example 5, preferably, another more descriptive of the offensive photo should be found, if it is not found, then this current one's description should be presented in a more neutral manner, the phrase "drops a barrel bomb" should be chanced into "launches airstrike" or "bombs".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundlessAir (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Applodion I have taken a look at edit history of this article and the extraordinarily POV edits apparently were made by 195.113.59.254 and Fares83, I would recommend removal of their edits on this article and reversion to earlier form in order to preserve the earlier neutrality of this article. Both of those accounts made just single non-draft edits of this same article with no prior experience to similar topics and are probably not familiar with neutrality guidelines of Wikipedia. GroundlessAir (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @GroundlessAir I don't think we should simply remove the info; rather, as you advised before, we should rewrite the claims so that they are presented in neutral form. I am quite busy today, so I am not sure if you find the time to fix the problems today, but I will do so as soon as possible. Applodion (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Applodion I understand you are busy, therefore I took it upon myself to rewrite the beginning of the article (decided to keep the rest as-is to make good on your suggestions). I have rewritten info, now for both sides sources words allegedly, claimed, ostensibly used in order to not prevent any discussion on the issue. Seems to be compatible with NPOV now. GroundlessAir (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)