Talk:Western al-Bab offensive (October–November 2016)

Twitter sources

Alot of what has been written in this article relies on twitter as a source, which is against wikipedia rules. So should it be removed?

Needbrains (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And not only that but these 2 twitter sources are not neutral accounts they are pro ypg. Lol these Syria articles are a joke... Needbrains (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkish casualties and sources

Turkey has not reported any Turkish loss of a soldier or any other thing like a Tank (they did report on earlier losses as mentiont on the main page of the Turkish intervention). The reason why I put that on the list is to show that Turkey denies any kind of loss of a soldier as it has not reported any. Removing it doesn't make much sense as you removed more information that comes from a side (wheter biased or not).

I removed 24 rebels killed and 20+ rebels wounded. In the source, there is no mention of 24 rebel dead, so you inserted information that is contrary to the cited source. This kind of info can be removed at any time per WP policy. That the Turks didn't report any casualties on that one specific day doesn't mean much in the overall sense since they did report casualties (wounded in the previous days). The source also does not contain any info about a denial by the Turks of the alleged soldier deaths. However, as compromise, I have added an asterisk beside the soldier death claims and a sentence in the notes section to which the asteriks links that says no soldier deaths were confirmed by the Turks. EkoGraf (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Article is not based on reliable sources

This article is not based on reliable sources and it is claiming that the SDF is backed by SAA and Russia while there is no single reliable source to prove this. Also, sources that are used are unreliable and against other sources. Unreliable tag will be added as long as reliable source confirms that the SDF is backed by SAA. Ferakp (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

al-Masdar News, judged reliable by Wikipedia, claims this. Furthermore, several pro-opposition sources also have reported about it. Applodion (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Applodion. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Add the al-Masdar source, I can't see on article. Ferakp (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the first cited source for "Syrian Arab Republic" Applodion (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't support your claim at all. The source says The attack was supported by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who attacked ISIS' northern flank, causing Islamic State militants to retreat from the area entirely.. That means that the SDF supported SAA attack by clashing with ISIS, which is a far way from the fact that SAA supported SDF and backed it. Read carefully the end section, it says The US-backed SDF and Russian-backed SAA are still on relatively good terms and have avoided clashing with one another,. I am not even mentioning that SDF denies such allegations. When you have a reliable source which says the SAA backed SDF in Western Al-Bab offensive, you are free to reverse my changes.Ferakp (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, you appear to be mistaking the infobox. As long as a "divider line" is used, this signals that two factions, while not allied, together fought against the same enemy (as you yourself cited, that is the case here). If the government is given its own section, that suggests that they also opposed the SDF, which is wrong. Moreover, you undid the status quo, even though this discussion is not over. Applodion (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, if the SDF and the SAA are both in separate columns it implies they are also in a conflict with eachother, which they are not. We have already used the separation line in one column several times in the past in various Syria war articles to indicate two groups that are not allied to eachother but are fighting the same enemy. EkoGraf (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)