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:
A fact from Battle of Idlib (2015) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
I want to query this edit which says that "Peto Lucem" on Twitter and Hassan Ridha on Twitter are reliable sources, as well as the general issue of using Twitter as a source. I don't think Lucem is particularly reliable; he's obviously extremely partisan. Ridha might be better. But both of them are essentially random people who tweet, just like I am. They don't work for a news organisation or research institution of any sort. They may be accurate, but as encyclopedia we can't rely on them. If what they mention is noteworthy, then it should be picked up and reported by reliable sources. A tweet by, say, Elijah J. Magnier, is more robust, because he is accountable as a non-anonymous individual who works for a news organisation. But even this is questionable, as if what he mentions on Twitter is reliable he would write it up in an article, following his publication's editorial guidelines around his sources. The tweet has the status of a primary source. I'm not saying what these tweets report is false, just that we can't accept it as true in our own voice. We need to seek corroboration from secondary sources. I think it is appropriate, therefore, to include this material in the article, but with a better source tag so we know it needs additional sources to be confident. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
