This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article has a notability template on it ("The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline....") Seems to me obviously notable, as plenty of mainstream news items about it (although article doesn't yet reflect that fully). Can the template go now? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned about sourcing on this page. As well as the very heavy general reliance on Al-Masdar, which is of disputed reliability, there are three issues: 1) Use of social media, e.g. the Twitter account of "Ivan Sidorenko" or "Desert61Fox", or the Syrian War Daily blog. These reports might be true, but as policy we should require additional sources for verification. Even when they appear to post official infographics e.g. from rebel groups[1] we should still seek additional verification, as we have no way of verifying the authenticity of what they're posting. 2) Use of pro-government sources for information about rebels, e.g. about which rebel faction or commander is involved or reports on rebel casualties - e.g. Al-Masdar may be generally accurate about territorial gains, but has no way of sourcing information about rebels accurately. 3) Insufficiently careful attribution in text. It is important to clearly attribute where reported claims are coming from, e.g. government sources, rebel sources, SOHR, even when they reach us via reliable sources. For example, if Reuters say "believed to be", just because Reuters is reliable we shouldn't turn this into the status of a fact - they attribute clearly and so should we. 4) Use of breaking news sources. Wikipedia has clear policy on this: WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper - and WP:BNS - avoid breaking news. Breaking news sources are by definition primary sources, and should always be replaced by reliable secondary sources as soon as possible, as well as treated with care. Better to edit slow than introduce inaccuracies. This is true not just of daily reports from Al-Masdar but also those from SOHR. These daily reports should be used sparingly, verified via reliable sources, and replaced when possible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added NPOV tag, because It seems like a single person took the ownership of the article, turning essentially half of the text written here into " pure evil axis army kills XX children todaya", instead of actually detailing fighting and development of the battle. I agree that there should be mention of humanitarian events during it, as wimorh many articles about conflicts, but it shouldn't take up entire paragraphs and overshadow the point of the article itself, which is to detail the ongoing battle. Therefore I believe most of this info should either be moved to dedicated articles for humanitarian situation in the area and the country or if they do not carry enough weight to be moved there, then removed altogether. What's even more important is that in the background section there is an obvious 180 degree spin, making it sound like rebels who have launched this battle in the first place are the ones actually being attacked and just acting in self-defence. This article is a textbook example of WP:POV, WP:Undue Weight and WP:Cherrypicking. Please do not remove the tag until either the issues are fixed or a consensus is reached amongst multiple editors. BlindNight (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that I am that "single person" as I've done a bunch of edits since 9 Jan, partly because of the issues I noted in my comment above here on the talk page, to which no other editor responded. Maybe you could give examples here of passages that should be done differently, e.g. how you think the background should be framed or which humanitarian issues are given undue weight, and we can reach a consensus? I don't understand the assertion that the point of the article is "to detail the ongoing battle" at the expense of detailing humanitarian events? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so I'm not sure why we need day by day detail on troop movements, but no detail on civilian casualties or the food crisis, which, I would have thought, is part of what makes the topic notable, as indicated for example by the mentions of it in mainstream news sources.
Your suggestion that much of this info "should be moved to dedicated articles for humanitarian situation in the area" sounds pretty reasonable - but I don't think there is such an article. I personally think there should be an article on the siege on eastern Ghouta, but there isn't one. If there was a more general article on the situation in eastern Ghouta, then this article could be trimmed more easily. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BobFromBrockley Interesting that you found the time to respond. Anyway I do not suggest that there should be no detail on humanitarian events, just that they're being given undue weight with every single alleged instance of alleged civilian death from some arguable reliability blog sharing the same weight with actually important points such as advances and fighting. Let me provide you with a few examples: "On 30 December, a paramedic working for a hospital in Harasta was killed as a result of artillery shelling", "That day, a primary health care center in Haratsa was impacted by an airstrike, resulting in minor structural damage" - oh wow, a highly pro-rebel blog alleging a death of some "last paramedic" and some horrificly outrageous minor structural damage. If every such supposed thing from every place would've been put on wikipedia on say the Battle of Aleppo, the article would be a terabyte long! There's also undue sensualization of everything (see: Think about the children!), almost every sentence says "including XX children killed with children-homing missiles" that is written with sources being either completely obscure (see: Appeal to Anonymous Authority) or not being duly objective due to themselves having a conflict of interest, because of being a party to the conflict (see: ""Syrian" Civil Defense""), I do not say that their information shouldn't be here, just that there should be less of this inherently politically-dependent material and it should be explictly stated where is it coming from, instead of presenting it as an official statement of undeniable and unquestionable truth. As for the background, it's the most appaling part which needs the most structural of changes in order to come even anywhere near objectivity and neutrality, it completely twists the nature of the article. First of all, claims occurences during the battle itself, shouldn't be present there, that's why it's called "background", entire second paragraph of the background is a one-sided 180 degree spin trying to portray security forces as senseless murderers who are hellbent on breaking any de-escalation agreement in order to destroy every last school, last hospital and kill every children they can possibly find. This is not the case, I understand you may not want to admit it to yourself, but this battle was started by the rebel forces on 14 November, 2017 and should be presented as such, that is why they are belligerent 1 (the side that began the fighting) in the infobox. BlindNight (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @BlindNight:. 1. The humanitarian stuff. Actually quite a small fraction of the instances of alleged civilian death with sources are mentioned in the current version. SOHR, for example, has reported civilian deaths every single day of this battle. I added in ones that seemed to me more notable, because: (a) there were higher than normal casualties reported or infrastructure such as a school or hospital was struck, and (b) it was reported in a more reliable mainstream news source rather than simply in a SOHR daily update or similar. Thus for instance the 30 December and 31 December examples you mention is not sourced to a highly pro-rebel blog but to the BBC and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations via ReliefWeb. I think that's notable - it was considered notable enough by the BBC to report. What do other editors think? I can't see examples of sensationalist language - is it sensationalist in itself to simply mention children? Do other editors agree we shouldn't mention children being killed in case it is read as sensationalist? If that's the consensus, OK.
I generally agree with you that fact claims here "should be explictly stated where is it coming from", and so I usually include attributions, e.g. to Syria Civil Defense, the Syrian army, SOHR etc. I would support more of that sort of thing (see my comments in section of talk on "Sourcing" above, written in response to my attributions and "reportedly"s being edited out). I'm not sure what you mean about "sources being either completely obscure" - all of my additions come with citations, so do you mean that the cited source is not clear on its own source? If so, how is this different from Al-Masdar and SOHR, who rarely give their sources, except in the vaguest of ways. And I don't see Civil Defense as party to the conflict, but even if it is, so is the SAA, which is Al-Masdar's main source - apart from the UN and a tiny number of foreign journalists who occasionally visit, there are simply no sources reporting from the conflict zones who are not party to the conflict in some way, so there'd be no content here if we didn't use any sources that rely on parties to the conflict in some way.
More generally, I don't think it is true that an encyclopedia article should exclusively focus on what you call "actually important points such as advances and fighting". A lot of the advances and details of fighting are of very ephemeral interest: an advance of a few meters one day, retaken the next, etc, are the stuff of newspapers not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper - see WP:NOTNEWS. I believe the humanitarian impact and the larger context should not be obscured by these kind of details.
2. The background. I don't really understand your point. I don't see how we can discuss the rebel offensive without situating it in the context of the phase of the war it is part of. I see there are two mentions at the end of things that happen chronologically after 14 November, so maybe they should be moved into the next section. Maybe you could propose some wording here for an alternative background section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BobFromBrockley Hm, seems like you challenged every single point I have made and have presented your view of how article should look like. I am orginal creator of it, however I envisioned it to be a relatively short article, due to lack of progress of moving the frontline, with the only one predominantly notable story here being the rebel encirclement of the vehicle base and army's eventual lifting of the siege imposed on it. It's size has been exponentially bloated with 2nd class information and outright PR stunts and propaganda. I guess only way to resolve this (eventually) is when more editors come up to edit this article, unfortunately that is unlikely to happen in the short term, if ever at all. You have taken the total ownership of the article and would likely fiercely oppose removal or major changes to large pieces of the text. That produces a chilling effect and decreases people's willingness to even attempt to edit it. I am fairly confident in such a prospect, so much so, that I have not even attempted to make any changes, as I am guaranteed they would be reverted at a moments notice. Unless a compromise is achieved between us, which seems to be a very distant prospect indeed, I'm afraid the article will remain as it is with the NPOV tag, this situation does seem very unfortunate, but it's the only way forward I can see. BlindNight (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@[[User:BlindNight]: I'm sorry if you feel I've tried to take ownership of this article. That wasn't my intention at all. When I came across it, it struck me - as with many other small articles on offensives in Syria - it was heavily over-reliant on breaking news reports and on Al-Masdar, SOHR, SouthFront and Twitter, and lacking in mainstream sources, so I just looked to see what mainstream reliable sources like BBC, Reuters, WaPo, AFP said about Harasta, and then put that information into the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BobFromBrockley I understand there were some significant flaws in the article when you came across it and its great that you've been willing to make an input, I am okay with most sources you've introduced (save for twitter and reliefweb), however the info presented in them should not be selectively used to present a single viewpoint as the sole and undisputable truth, often opting out notable parts of the stories for a single cherrypicked statement which suits the viewpoint you're trying to present. There has been so many of these cases that I haven't even bothered to read through most of the stash of articles there and edit based on them or even look for additional sources, due to the chilling effect I've mentioned before. Please be mindful that this is first and foremost a wikipedia article and not some opinion essay. BlindNight (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @[[User:BlindNight]. Again, it wasn't my intention to cherrypick or chill, so apologies. I haven't introduced Twitter as a source. I added "better source" tags to material sourced from Twitter, but these were reverted. Why is ReliefWeb not RS though? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
