Talk:Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September–December 2012)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lccsyria etc.[edit]

As per the RS noticeboard these sources can not be used in the way they have been, they are not RS. And no, putting 'rebels claimed' in front of each sentence doesn't help. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we put in rebel and Syrian government claims. We would accept SANA on the timeline equally as the LCC, if anyone decided to put in Sana's claims. Sopher99 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its inaccurate to put those death tools of rebel sources.We must at least confirm them or are escorted by confirmed video footage. If the thing is to write history of course and just claims. As for Syrian TV as of holding areas they are quiet accurate and escort their claims video with confirmed video footage. On the contrary LCC just give as numbers....if we add these numbers the past months then the half of Damascus should be dead until now with no rebel deaths at all!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - Sana does not back up anything with video claims. Also if you add up these numbers the past month, 1,200 of the Damascus suburbs populace would be dead. Please do not removed the content until the discussion is over. Sopher99 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of balance, though I would obviously recommend that both sides (and even better, independant assesments) are mentioned if they're sourced...this is a matter of reliable sources. Neither the rebels nor SANA are reliable sources. lccsyria may just be a RS in some situations, but not for daily lists & attributions of killed civilians. Please do not add information without a reliable source, which lccsyria.org is not. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153, is likely to be an excelllent source for this article, for those interested. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat, lccsyria.org is not a usable source as per RS:N. If you disagree with this, go read the discussion on the RS noticeboard. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Sana, it is in fact usable for timelines such as these. Do not remove the content until the discussion is finished.Sopher99 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked. There is no discussion on the noticeboard. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_130#Syrian_rebel_press_statements_are_being_taken_as_RS_statements_of_fact.
Please do not characterise my edits as vandalism. I think it would not take much attention to realise they are not. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid an edit war (which people always assume the IP is in the wrong), I'll avoid editing the article for a bit, but I suggest others check and readd the content I submitted which they (assuming good faith, accidentally) deleted. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No conclusion was reached there. Second, this practice is long standing. The LCC have been used in this manner for over a year. We also include the SOHR, Supportkurds website, and SANA for this as well. No RS rule is being broken here. Sopher99 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would beg to differ, 4 RS hangabouts contributed to the discussion (the only other editor involved was me), all 4 agreed that the site should not be used in this manner. That's a pretty solid consensus. I'm kinda hoping Swat_Jester will come back here and see it, as an admin (I think) perhaps he can give a disinterested view of the consensus of that discussion. I really think it'd be better to use sources whose RSness is not in dispute, such as the AJ blog, for this article. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated before. the LCC and State tv are appropriate in reporting Daily deathtolls. Not events, but daily death tolls. I7laseral (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That directly contradicts the RSN consensus. If there was a previous RSN, or other discussion on the matter, could ya link it? I'll probably resume editing the article in a couple of hours, but I'll leave the lcc death tolls there until this discussion is reasonably concluded, please take a look at my edits before blindly reverting merely because I'm an IP. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, if this discussion doesn't progress in a helpful manner I'm going to remove the lcc sources again, as per the unanimous RS:N consensus that they should not be used. If you disagree, you need to discuss it & show some reason to overrule the RS:N discussion on this topic. 92.15.54.149 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - You do not remove it untilthe discussion is over. We can request third opinions if you would like. Sopher99 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, material that isn't reliably sourced should really be removed instantly, frankly I'm already being generous in leaving it up for even a second, also we already got a 3rd, and 4th, and 5th, and 6th, opinion on the RS noticeboard. I'm gonna go leave a message for SwatJester, as he reverted my edits I assume you'll accept him as a neutral 7th party, it'll be on his talk page if you want to check I'm not misrepresenting anything. 92.15.54.149 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a good look at this article. We use SANA rawly even though its an unreliable source - for timeline purposes. In the same way we can use the lCC. Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)

I can see your point, and perhaps SANA (and by extension lcc, though I'd say the case for lcc is weaker, as the rebels aren't exactly unified with an official mouthpiece in the same way the syrian government (or the libyan rebels were mostly under NTC) do have an official information ministry/whatever) could be used for the Syrian govt/rebels claims of an event, in amongst the main content being from 3rd party sources, but I'm not happy with that either. I'm currently going by the RSN, but assuming for the sake of argument that a review by others turns out SANA/LCC/SOHR can be used even as primary sources for this article there are more problems about how they're used....
1 the article doesn't give any indication of who/what the LCC is, or make it clear that it's rebel aligned.
2 the statements sourced frequently don't match the source, for example it's usually given as 'said X civilians killed by the Syrian Army'...but the cite rarely backs that up, there are a lot more combatants going round killing people than just the official Syrian armed forces....
3 the major problem of the lcc counting rebel fighters as civilians, this is a long way from the understanding of the word civilian in English. The lcc saying '140 matyrs' cannot be cited to support '140 civilians'.
4 SANA/Syrian govts view is never given, only the rebels. The obvious response to this one is that I'm welcome to add it, but that'll just encourage this to be a fight, the wikipedia ideal is not to balance out POV sources from one side with POV sources from the other, but to find NPOV 3rd party sources. While I accept that there aren't any truly neutral sources for this, as most of the world can be said to be split with the security council, we can do hell of a lot better than using primary sources from the combatants themselves.
5 Where are these friday titles coming from? What's the source? How is it neutral/appropriate?
92.15.54.149 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When citing about number of kills, please distinguish between "matyrs" vs. "people" vs. "civilians". The LCC almost reports in the number of whom they call "matyrs" (who might be almost military). I have not read any exact number of killed civilians in their reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.37.228 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When they fought against US marines in Iraq they were insurgents. Once they crossed over into Syria they became rebels. And when they died they transformed into civilians." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.37.228 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR, unlike the LCC, is an unbiased independent monitoring group. I request for Sopher99 to STOP trying to own these pages and allow people to get on with their business.Jafar Saeed (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Friday of..."[edit]

Please do NOT add "Friday of ..." titles to dates in section titles. This article must maintain WP:NPOV and adhere to Wikipedia:Timeline standards. They do not meet WP:V either. ShipFan (Talk) 04:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian opposition names their Fridays, it is NPOV to put in what they name it. Sopher99 (talk)

The only way to make this article NPOV is deleting it. Propaganda from the beginning till the end. If you say, why don't you do something, then I have to say I attempted to improve an article like this but about Libya, and all my edits were reversed because my sources were NPOV (Press TV, Telesur), while it is clearly notable that other sources like Al Arabiya or Al Jazeera are clearly NPOV, and other even worse like those that are managed directly by rebels supporters. What I mean with this? That the article won't mantain NPOV because you delete the name of the Fridays, it will if we could use the same number of sources pro and anti government (which are 99% here).--Andres arg (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, surely there is some way the Wiki-Users can vote to have this article removed, as it is clearly not NPOV and uses very dubious sources? I am not at all familiar with the site and editing rules, I have removed the "Friday of..." Headings, but I have no doubt they will be replaced by this Sopher99 character, as this is clearly his pet project and he is a hardcore FSA sympathiser.

Someone open a complaint or something with Wikipedia, b/c this can't continue. 

- Django  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.145.9 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear - I have already discussed the usage of the LCC with the reliable source noticeboard. Both the LCC SANA and SupportKurds are ok for reporting deathtolls Only. There is a death toll every day. Its a fact. I Simply update the death toll. CJblair seems to update the other stuff. Sopher99 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, even if it has been accepted that the sources for deathtoll figures are accurate, the primary issue here is with the "Friday of" dates, you have still not given a satisfactory reason for why they can be included in the headings. The slogans are clearly used by the rebels for political propaganda as I have already stated, and as such can in no way be considered NPOV. Now if your going to report that the rebels are making these proclamations, that needs to be properly referenced and placed in the description under the title. I have already explained clearly where the problem lies, and you have simply ignored my criticism and restored the article to your non-NPOV revision. And I cansee in the edit history that it was you who made the changes.

-Django

NPOV dispute - "Friday of..." dates[edit]

"Friday of..." dates do not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. Unless a reliable, third-party source can be found (not the LCC itself) then do not include it. 203.9.185.137 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not break NPOV as it is not adding any other view. It is just naming a date. I am in the process of adding references anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does clearly break NPOV, those names are opposition slogans and are used by the opposition as political propaganda purposes. It is obviously not the role of Wikipedia to report on the events using the political slogans of the belligerents, the role of this page should be to accurately record the events from an objective viewpoint. You must remove these slogans or at least place them below the headings, and in the appropriate context. (i.e. The twelth of October has been refered to as "Free People of the Coast" by the Syrian opposition forces, etc.) To do otherwise is a blatant breach of NPOV. -Django — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.145.9 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring: "Friday of..." dates[edit]

It seems a handful of editors have this page locked down and refuse to engage in discussion befor editing the article. In order to avoid a protracted "edit war" I will refer the issue to the relevent boards, including the general "Syrian Civil War" discussion. I maintain that the titles in question seriously break NPOV standards, and changes need to be made. I will continue to pursue this disagreement over the course of the Syrian Conflict as the quality of the reporting on this article and on others is seriously sub-standard and very biased/misleading. 

-Django  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


One of the issues is that they did reply, and mentioned that these names are reported in the media, as reliably as can be, and consensus was to include them. Just because you bring up a topic doesn't always mean it is going to end up going your way. Jeancey (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Friday names are not a breach of NPOV. They are not adding a single POV.

The Friday names are long-standing. 20 months to be exact.

The Friday names have notability - Three renown and reliable sources have made article JUST on the use of Syrian Friday names.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/how-syrian-activists-name-their-friday-protests/42586/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241314026709762.html

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-activists-name-friday-protests-183434860.html

Sopher99 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally replying DIRECTLY to my complaint. First of all I have seen very little evidence of concensus on this issue, in fact directly above this section are various Wikipedia users who seem VERY opposed to the entire layout and wording of this article.

Secondly: the links you provided were actually only two sources the yahoo article, is just a mirror of the first source.

Thirdly: I'm not disputing the fact that the Syrian opposition names the dates after these slogans, my argument is that that these slogans shouldn't be included in the heading as they are not OBJECTIVE. They are political propaganda and are irrelevent to the title. They provide no further information than simply putting the date on its own, or accompanied by important events and battles such as, Siege of Homs, Damascus Volcano, Battle of Aleppo, etc. These titles add relevant information and context, whereas the "Friday of..." titles add nothing except bias.

Finally: These titles are apparently only used by certain sections of the opposition, and definately not commonly refered to by either the mainstream media, major news corps, or most press releases by the FSA. I'm not saying they should be deleted outright, just that they should not be placed in the Headings, as this is non-NPOV and innapropriate, and IF I can be provided evidence that there is concensus among the overall majority of editors on this wiki, I will of course capitulate, and drop the issue. But not if I am just going to be ignored and overuled by the handful of editors currently engaging in editwarring.

20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Django — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase. There was no real consensus to change it. As I count, 3 keep and 3 oppose, including you, doesn't really scream consensus to me. Jeancey (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The count, now that you include me, is 3 keep and 4 oppose. I have removed all the daily headlines which do not usefully inform of actual developments in the war. That covers all of them. None of the title are useful or fair summaries and an obvious reason for that is that they are named in advance and not in retrospect. None of them are markers of battles or landmark events or strategic shifts. They are often boasts of winning and of righteous conduct from a group that is losing and which is the embodiment of evil responsible for initiating the entire theme of disorder across the country.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they mark battles or not. This is an uprising as well. They are longstanding and have notability, and they are sourced. Also the only "embodiment of evil" is the assad regime which has killed 30000 civilians, not including the 40000 civilians in the Hama massacre in 1982. Sopher99 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However long they've been around for doesn't disguise their status as WP:TRIVIA undeserving of a run in serious coverage. They don't even arise from informed historians but from knob jockeys on Facebook and so who therefore would rate their significance as greater than the death of one person? - and there's been plenty of that not given such prominence in these omnibus treatments. The only instructive matter they reveal beyond their trivia value is the manipulative and deep cynicism of the terror groups in their willingness to boast, to lie and to project. While the military are being quiet professionals in defending a country, the opposing elements who are coming out with trash like 'Friday of the only terrorism in Syria comes from Assad' for dignification in Wikipedia are otherwise unconstrained to act out their inherent subhuman character without the latter being spoken about.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only terrorists are the assads and their shabiha. In 1982 the Syrian army committed a scorched earth policy massacre of 40,000 people in Hama. Now 30 years later they are doing it again. They arrested 200,000 peaceful and random people, tortured to death 1000 of them, killed 2500 children, slain dozens of refugees, eliminated their 3rd largest city through artillery shelling, burned down and demolished tens of thousands of Homs, censored every independent press, sent thousands of jihadis into Iraq during the iraq war, used thermobaric bombs from Mig planes on the civilian populace, bombing oil pipelines to eliminate heat supply to the dissident populace, executed all soldiers who refused to fire on civilians, sniped children in the streets, bombing breadlines with tanks and warplanes, and killed over 700 Palestinians in the Yarmouk camp through random sniping and artillery shelling. Sopher99 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But thats beside the point. The Friday names are widely noted by media throughout the conflict. Additionally consensus shows we should keep them. On top of that they are long standing, as they been here since March 2011. Adding them was done for Egypt and Yemen, and Bahrain. Sopher99 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is just against you. Anything in particular -happen- on 21 September that burned into history as the 'Friday of the followers of God's messenger slaughtered in Syria' like it was D Day, Black Tuesday, Bloody Sunday, or 9/11? Thought not. Or perhaps think of it like this, is that how the particular day is remembered by ALL Syrians, or maybe by just the scumfuck propagandists whose message you've so easily swallowed. What's voted as the most deceptive propaganda slogan of the week by knob jockeys in an online poll may be verifiable as a piece of trivia, but that doesn't achieve it a place in history. We've made a policy decision NOT to lay out the telling of this story by the individual names of the many counterterrorist operations done in the name of the Syrian Government, and as obvious corollary to that is that we don't signpost it by the sloganning of the opposing terrorists themselves. If a disinterested third party coins a term for a particular phase we may employ that, otherwise we don't touch it; what's wrong with that?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not against me. I count Me, I7Laseral and Jeancey vs Django(the IP) and you. Once again there are no terrorist other than Assad and his shabiha, and no "propaganda" in the Friday names, just a notable and gentle occurrence. Most Syrians do not think of this as a civil war but a revolution, doesn't mean we call it that. Commonplace name in media is what comes out. Sopher99 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three anonymous accounts which have spoken out against the propagandising titles: 92.15.54.149, 109.158.145.9 (Django), and 203.9.185.137. There is also myself, Ship Fan, and Andres Arg. Half as many, ie Sopher + his two pals, are attempting to save them.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh are we still debating this? You could find 100s of sources which refer to the Friday names. The Egyptian revolutionaries named their Friday and ONLY the April 6th movement had a say in the names. In the Same way the LCC and Syrian revolution commission are the only guides of the protests, and they are the ones that produce these names. I7laseral (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Sopher's list http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/3743 (though Alakbar is not that much of a reliable source) I7laseral (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I still think the whole practice of naming the dates is pretty biased POV-wise, but it looks like I'm outvoted. Still, something tells me if the Syrian Government started naming all the Mondays after erroneous slogans - like "Monday of resistance to foreign conspiracy against Syria" etc. Would you record it in the same manner? Me thinks not. 21:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)-Django — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 (talk)
In that case we would move both down into the subsection, as there would be two competing names, such like we did for Yemen. I7laseral (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those against the propaganda titles: ShipFan, Andres arg, Django (109.158.51.64), two other IPs, MalesAlwaysBest
Those favoring: Sopher99, I7laseral, Jeancey
This matter was already decided by 5-3 margin consensus on a concluded discussion even before I ventured in.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, that discussion with Shipfan and Andres arg ENDED in, with no concensus. A new one was crated latter on, which also ended with no consensus, until you revived it 2 months later.

Those against Friday Titles: Django, MalesAlwaysBest
Those Favoring: Sopher99, I7laseral, Jeancey

2 oppose, 3 keep. It stays as no consensus was reached. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote Sopher99 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt to disenfranchise two editors. Not buyin' it.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the appropriateness of the 'Friday of ..' titles being questioned by User:92.15.54.149 in the discussion at the immediate top of this talkpageMalesAlwaysBest (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion ended. And consensus is not a vote, its a discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion where you might get to influence where the players may ultimately express their vote (in the case of two mutually exclusive alternatives). But you didn't. Two thirds of those who felt interested enough to have a say called for the taking out of the trash.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, 5 editors (including 2 ips) in the entire talk page oppose, 3 want to keep. Only 2 opposing editors persists in the discussion. No consensus, Wikipedia is not a vote. Sopher99 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? You have to keep repeating yourself here to be heard, and counted? Missed that memo.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headlining of the propaganda slogans is undesirable in the knowledge of the widespread opposition to it, appropriateness of not forking from List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans, and for the sake of not getting out of compliance the example of Timeline of the Syrian civil war (May–August 2012) and predecessors which did not have them or any trace of controversy about whether they should be there.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda is not a neutral term. The fork is not notable and original research. Sopher99 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda's not a neutral term, and 'Assad is the only terrorist in Syria' is. I see.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sopher99 has already been slapped down on this exact issue by the rest of us way back here yet appears still choosing not to listen .. or remember, acknowledge & abide with. Counting in those opposers of the propaganda titles (Users Nanobear and ChronicalUsual), it's just 3 who'd be persuaded to hang on to them and 8 who want them gone. & that's just for this year.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you just open a new debate on it? Why are you using the old debate (Which did not end in consensus) to justify removing them now? Open a new debate and we can come to consensus now. Also, indeff banned users are generally used to help push a point. (also, slapped down by the rest of us doesn't really make sense when one person asks if it is NPOV to use it... thats not being slapped down, that's a question). Jeancey (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite simple; the names need to be removed from the titles. The MOS clearly states that titles shouldn't contain references, and the article index is more consistent without. However, if the names are cited in reliable sources they can be added to the sections and mentioned there instead. Bjelleklang - talk 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The titles don't have references. The titles are dec 20 dec 21 dec 22 ect and if a Friday then its friday of "___" in quotation marks. Because the readers won't find it obviously clear as to the extension, we back it up with sources. Sopher99 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 timeline[edit]

Should we make a new article for 2013?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sopher99 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation about the language used[edit]

The "LCC reports" are firstly a prinamy and unreliable news. The news reported with their help should be take with a cautions.

But more important, their death tolls are about "martyrs" not about civilians. For oppositions supporters martyrs inclue rebel fighters as well. This would explain why their number of "martyr" killed is much higher that the real number of civilians killed.

In all cases, the use of "civilians" to replaced the term of martyr is a dishonest political choice. I am replacing civilians by civilians/rebels now. Martinski87 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better to replace them with "people", as the civilian to rebel death toll ratio is usually 5-1 Sopher99 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are banned from being used on this page?[edit]

Hi, following this edit, in which this source was removed and it was stated that Russia Today is not a reliable source because it is state-controlled and biased regarding Syria, I would like to know if this is a consensus position of all the editors here, and which other sources are considered to be banned? Was this a discussion that took place on some other Syria-related page, perhaps? Seems to me that those same arguments would also apply to al Jazeera (Qatari-controlled and biased in favour of the rebels - in terms of network reach, it is comparable to RT) as well as, naturally, SATA. Isn't it true that in wartime it is impossible to know what the truth is because both sides will be using lies and misdirection, so the only thing we can do is print what both sides are saying? Even if one of them turns out to be a lie later on. It seems like bias to make prejudgements about which side of the story is allowed to be included. The way we should be reporting is showing what both sides are saying rather than what is the actual truth. If one of the two sides is clearly lying it should be made clear by the way it's presented in the article for the reader to come to that conclusion, rather than being explicitly stated as such, or the other version of the story being entirely not mentioned. Esn (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is much less editorial oversight at RT. Al Jazeera ISN'T qatari controlled. It has investors that it must answer too, it has an editorial board to review things. RT doesn't. There are some situations where RT articles are perfectly fine to use. This isn't one of them. This decision did not come before the conflict. It came about half way through (about a year ago) when we had to remove quite a few RT sources because they were not reliable (the info claimed in them turned out to be completely false). When Al Jazeera gets something wrong, they update the article with the correct information, I have seen it happen with Syrian civil war articles. RT doesn't do that. I even emailed RT once, notifying them of the mistake. They replied that they were aware of the mistake, thanks for letting us know, but we aren't changing our article. That's when I stopped considering them a reliable source. Al Jazeera may not be perfect, but at least they are trying. And when they are wrong, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, it is because the sources that THEY used turned out to be wrong, not because they were purposely misleading. They then corrected the information, either in a new article, or an update to the old one. Kinda got off topic there, but that's why RT is not considered a reliable source (at least, in my opinion.) Jeancey (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (September–December 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (September–December 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (September–December 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(September–December_2012)&oldid=1205709171"