Talk:Timeline of the Syrian civil war (January–April 2018)

Avoid breaking news, use reliable sources

This comment is a version of one I posted on the talk page of the last timeline, but so far seems even more true with this new article. I have serious concerns about the content and sourcing of this article. has fairly straightforward policy on what makes events notable. Crudely, a notable event will have multiple reports in mainstream sources. If it has one or two reports in marginal sources, it is by definition not notable. So, anything listed in this timeline should be easy to source; there should be multiple obvious citations. Secondly, the best sources, according to Wikipedia policy, are rarely the sources published closest in time to the event. Wikipedia cautious against using "breaking" news sources, and urges replacement of these sources with later, more informed reports: "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." The speed with which we add events to this timeline to keep it up to date is therefore a problem: it's better to wait and see what is consequential rather than adding the latest news from our chosen news source. So far, all of the items added to the timeline are from one single source, Al-Masdar, a source that has regularly been discussed at the RSN and considered to be borderline at best. If an event can not be verified apart from this source, it should be excluded from this timeline. I think the same would be true of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is also a biased source and whose daily reports count as breaking news and as primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)|

• I have deleted the following item: A ISIL suicide bombing in eastern Syria leaves almost 100 United States-backed fighters killed or wounded. This (a) happened on 31 Dec not 1 Jan, and (b) is only an ISIS claim so should not be reported as fact. If edited into the Dec timeline (if considered notable enough), should make it clear who targets were, which A-M article doesn't - presumably SDF fighters? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Can you explain this edit? Why are these sources OK without verification? If you disagree with me, can't you justify your case on this talk page instead of just reverting me? A reminder of WP policy (WP:REVEXP): Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion... If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Ensure notability

As I noted above, items in this timeline need to be notable to be worth including here. E.g. 1 Jan "Rebel fighters renewed their offensive" - this is an on-going tussle going on for weeks, so why is a renewal of offensive notable enough to be included here? Or 3 Jan "HTS fighters tried to break a Syrian Army line" - trying to do something is kind of by definition not notable. Surely we should stick to major incidents, like victorious offensives? Can editors who added these please justify their notability here, or they should be removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian airstrikes

@BobNesh: Wondering about this edit, and why the 4 Jan airstrike (the only thing in the article sourced to a decent reliable source) was removed? Russian airstrikes killed 25 civilians in Eastern Ghouta. Arguably, it is not that notable, given how many other airstrikes there are, but no edit explanation was given, and hard to argue it is less notable than other things in the timeline.

References

Edit summaries/talk

Please when people delete material from the article, can they at the very least add an edit summary and, if reverting edits that have edit summaries ideally discuss on talk page if they're likely controversial? The following edits have no explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January%E2%80%93April_2018)&diff=next&oldid=825626707 (deletion of several pieces of information, including two with solid sources); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January%E2%80%93April_2018)&diff=next&oldid=825633663 (deletion of single source inline tag for material sourced to a single borderline source); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January%E2%80%93April_2018)&diff=next&oldid=825633814 (deletion of several source-related tags for material with questionable sourcing); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January%E2%80%93April_2018)&diff=next&oldid=825633876 (deletion of another source-related tag for material with questionable sourcing). I think another editor has already restored one of the deleted items, but I don't want to just restore the others and be accused of edit warring; however, I will if no reasons are given hereBobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is another example of unexplained removal of a sourced item. Not added by me, and I have no particular opinion on whether it should be there, but it is poor WP etiquette to just undo others' edits with no edit summary. Please explain your edits MrUser! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And another. PLEASE Mr.User200 can you start explaining your reverts? (Again, it wasn't my edit you reverted; it was Thelovelyconch's, and I have no opinion on who is right, but without explaining reverts you undermine the collaborative, consensual way that WP works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr.User200 - you've just deleted another big bunch of material from the article without any explanation. You don't own this page. Please give some explanations for your edits - we work by consensus and it is so frustrating editing and then just seeing unexplained reverts. Maybe you're right, but we don't know unless you explain. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The same i can say about you. The attitude i dont like it place a note. Its a clear IDONTLIKEIT edit. The Ghouta edit regarding UN is clearly POV. Russia vetoed. It doesnt mean that Syria break something prohibited. Regarding the Afrin entries, the Turkish operation is not the only event hapening in the War. Dont drive the atention of this page towards a single operation. It important but not the only current event. Turkish oriented edits and Socks are destroying ME Wikipedia articles, dont be accomplice.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the difference is I give edit summaries to explain my edits. Wikipedia policy WP:FIES is "always provide an edit summary": "especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was." The other difference is instead of reverting again when someone reverts my edits, I bring it to the talk page - see above, four requests for explanations for your reverts, none forthcoming. Am pinging admins Coffee and NeilN as the admins who have most recently acted on Syria page disputes to ask for advice on how to proceed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Replying to your actual points, Mr.User200, which I presume are to justify this sweeping revert: "The Ghouta edit regarding UN is clearly POV". Are you really arguing that it is POV to mention that a ceasefire voted on by the UN has been broken? Surely that's notable? On Afrin, I agree with you it is important not to give it undue weight - but surely it's easy to just question the notability of something, either on this talk page or at least in an edit summary, to give the editor who included it a chance to justify it? And you have not justified your removal of source-related tags which make up the bulk of your edit, which I have already mentioned above on this talk page without any response from you. Why should this page not abide by general Wikipedia policy about breaking news, reliable sources and single sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley and Mr.User200: Reverts or undos without edit summaries are assumed to be reverting vandalism or a sockpuppet. If this is not the case, you are expected to provide an edit summary. Constantly refusing to do so may result in editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:: Once again, multiple edits with no edit summaries. As per @Coffee and NeilN: above, please provide edit summaries. I gave reasons for my edits; if you have reasons to revert please bring to talk or at least explain your reverts as you make them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability/sourcing again

@Mr.User200:: Re this edit. Adding attribution does not solve the issue I flagged (in my edit summary and much earlier on this talk page). This is a timeline, and so events in it should be notable as well as properly sourced. So the issue with 2 Jan is not that this is disputed (and therefore in need of attribution), but that if it is notable enough to be in a timeline it should be notable to have a decent source, i.e a fully reliable one and preferably secondary not "breaking" primary. Similar with 3 Jan: if the guy is indeed "important", it'd be easy to source from actual reliable sources. If we can only find this one borderline source for these news items, they need to be removed. I'm restoring the tags. If we can't find proper sources, we should delete.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:: Adding another ref (and indeed another breaking story and therefore primary source) from the same source does not solve the problem. In fact, this is worse, as it's al-Masdar reblogging a Sputnik article (Sputnik isn't RS is it?) which summarises a Sana article (Sana definitely isn't RS). Please find a reliable source for this if it is to be included. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on breaking news

Can I remind fellow editors of our policy on primary sources - see WP:PRIMARY - but specifically on breaking news - see Wikipedia:Breaking news sources: Remember that all breaking news stories are primary sources. They are, by definition, being published very close to the events that the document. Most breaking news stories from reputable news media are independent primary sources. "Independent" does not mean "secondary". Plan to replace all breaking news sources in the future with solid secondary sources. So, any news article with "breaking" in its title is by definition something we should replace when we can with a solid secondary source. There are currently six citations of this sort, all from the partisan website Al-Masdar. A blog entitled "Syrian War Daily" is both a self-published source (see WP:SPS) as well as a breaking news source. I think there are three citations of this sort. The article discusses events over two years ago, so there should be solid secondary sources now published. If there are not, this material should be deleted, as a lack of secondary sources means we cannot inclulde in an encyclopedic article, as well as suggesting the event is not actually noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)