Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive (February–April 2018)

Reliable Sources

Hello,

A few hours ago I made an edit concerning the number of SAA soldiers killed today, according to a pro-opposition source (Syrian Press Center). I had specified that info was "per rebels", but the update was deleted because the source was "non reliable"

Syrian Press Center is a serious media, pro-opposition yes, but popular, followed by 2 millions people on facebook for example, and, in my own opinion, reliable.

So, if we accept almasdarnews, why not SPC, as long as we specify it's a pro-rebel source ?

Thanks,

Effrati

Masdar has already been discussed by Wikipedia's editors and it was found to be reliable when it comes to territorial changes and unit compositions, despite it being pro-government, based on overlapping of what they report with what pro-opp SOHR reports (which is also considered reliable). Syrian Press Center has not been discussed regarding its reliability and is automatically considered biased due to its pro-rebel stance. It would be more appropriate to mention their claim in the main body of the article then in the infobox (with which I wouldn't have a problem with). EkoGraf (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Added it to the main body. EkoGraf (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any neutral sources? This article is just a mix of pro assad and pro terrorist/rebel propaganda.DerElektriker (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to territorial changes, both Masdar and SOHR are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia following numerous discussions over the years. Fully neutral sources are almost non-existant in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As this phase of the war is far better covered by global media than some other phases, can't we try to use sources like Reuters etc where possible? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We use Reuters when we are able to yes, but the situation hasn't really changed in comparison to the previous periods of the war. The level of coverage by global media is still the same. Reuters (as a neutral source) generally isn't the one who is reporting on the events itself. Instead, like in the years before, its mostly citing pro-opposition or pro-government sources for most of its reporting. This is, like I said, due to a general lack of independent journalists/sources in Syria. The lack of independent reporting from the battlefield has been going on virtually from the start of the war. Also, global media usually just do a quick overview of the situation, while sources like Masdar and SOHR go into more detail (which would be needed for the article). EkoGraf (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Added the Guardian and AFP. :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I totally get your point, and understand using borderline sources is unavoidable in this conflict, but (a) many of the mainstream news producers have had people closer to the ground lately, so are getting information more directly; (b) even if the mainstream sources are reliant on non-neutral sources on the ground, they try to triangulate them, verify them, give attribution, strip out some of the the PR spin and so on, according to some level of journalistic standards, whereas SOHR and A-M are basically just repeating, with added editorial, what their contacts tell them (as they are not on the ground either), so mainstream sources are still preferable, although less detailed; and (c) WP policy calls for replacing primary sources/breaking stories (see WP:BNS, which urges against "rushing to publish") with reliable secondary sources as soon as possible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

the numbers are not credible

There aren't 400,000 civilians in East Ghouta, and there aren't 20,000 rebel soldiers in East Ghouta. It's not possible to sustain them with so few resources available.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the figures in the article have sources - if you have reliable sources refuting these, please provide. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you then tell us how many schools and hospitals are in East Ghouta? Because according to human rights activists, the regime's army destroys the last two or three hospitals there every week. --37.151.19.210 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Bob, no one is doing censuses in any parts of Syria. If people are stating that there are so-and-so many people in one place or another, or that there are x number of people killed in the war, they are frankly full of shit. There is no possible way for that kind of information to be known outside of wild guesses. 151.202.47.207 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

should be renamed East Ghouta offensive

because Qadam and Yarmouk are also in rif Dimashq and they are not part of this battle

208.72.125.2 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

I was wondering whether reference No. [28] used in the article to substantiate the number of Russian casualties, may be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards.

Thanks, --David162se (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, in my opinion, this source is the opposite of reliable as it only conveys rumours and speculations. Since no one cared to discuss, I will go ahead and remove that entry from the article. --David162se (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

CIT is regularly used as a source by Wikipedia since its often cited by other reliable/verifiable media outlets. EkoGraf (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Made a compromise edit. Referred the claim to its source and inserted additional sources as well. Let's let our readers decide for themselves whether they trust the claim or not. EkoGraf (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, I don't doubt that two Russians were killed in Syria. What I doubt is: (A) That they were regular troops, and especially (B) That they were killed in Eastern Ghouta.

Read the title from CIT's Twitter post. It says "Aleksandr Solopov from Srednyaya Akhtuba, likely a Russian soldier, has been killed in Syria, probably in Eastern Ghouta". Note the use of the terms "likely" and "probably". Even the author of the post himself makes it clear that he is only making assumptions. By the way, the assumption that Solopov was an army soldier (and not a PMC) is based on the observation that his body was quickly delivered. This is what I call pure speculation.

I am not questioning the reliability of CIT in general. But I can't see how this particular post can be considered as evidence for the above points (A) and (B). And I hope you agree that a claim lacking evidence can't be presented as a fact in the article.

None of your other sources even mention where the two men were killed. So, I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced. --David162se (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

CIT claimed two Russians were killed and in the Eastern Ghouta. Also, when CIT reports on the deaths of Russians they report about those who died very recently. We also haven't implied in any way in the infobox the two were regular soldiers, just that they were fighting for Russia. It's been confirmed that Wagner PMCs have also participated in the offensive. So, whether the two were regulars or PMC we haven't stated. In any case, like I said, we have attributed the claim to CIT and we let our readers decide if they trust the claim or not, regardless of what we think of it. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As I already explained, I am NOT saying that CIT, in general, is untrustworthy. I am only reacting to the contents of that particular Twitter post. It is absolutely clear from the wording ("probably", "possibly") that the author is only assuming that they were killed in Eastern Ghouta. I still don't think that assumptions are sufficient evidence.

But I am not going to challenge it. As you say, the readers can look at the source and this discussion and decide for themselves. Cheers, --David162se (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Amnesty

Re this edit: do we need to specify that AI is an NGO and London based? It's got its own article (and is pretty well known). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)