Talk:Siege of Nubl and al-Zahraa

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Nubl and al-Zahraa article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Siege of Nubl and al-Zahraa, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Syria Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East C‑class

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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Al-Masdar

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Re this revert by EkoGraf As stated in previous discussions, in regards to territorial changes, Masdar has been found to be mostly reliable. Also, no reason to remove the sources. "reportedly" the wording to which we agreed to when we could only confirm it via Masdar. When both SOHR and Masdar confirm, we use both sources and present it as fact The reliable sources noticeboard has confirmed that Al-Masdar should not be used for controversial claims, only uncontroversial claims about territory or pro-government deployments. This particular siege is one of the most controversial in the conflict so we need to be bery careful with sources. I won't revert or fight over these edits as it's not that big a deal in the case of the edits reverted, but for example I'm not sure why we need to include an Al-Masdar reference when we already have a [[Daily Star (Lebanon}|]] reference. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bobfrombrockley The Daily Star source only confirmed that government forces "seized territory" near the towns that day, while the Masdar source goes into more detail what territory it actually was (the industrial area that we mention in the sentence). That's why we need both (one to confirm they seized territory, and the other which territory it was). EkoGraf (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks EkoGraf. I accept that justification. (Although sometimes I think we are too detailed in our accounts of minute territorial changes, but that's another issue!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic