Talk:Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2022)
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2022), 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:
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.
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 2022 Raqqa attack was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 7 June 2003 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2022) on 7 June 2003. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
"SOHR reported/according to the SOHR"
editI think if we point out every time we take something from the SOHR, the reading will get rather repetitive. This isn't done for any of the articles related to battles or offensives, (look at the recent Battle of al-Hasakah for example) I don't understand why it should be pointed out here. If the reader is curious about the source, they can hover of the ref number at the end of each event. There's nothing wrong with pointing out sources, I just don't think there's a need to constantly address them in each even and I think it'll be boring to read after a while of 'SOHR reported, SOHR reported, SOHR reported' etc.ThePaganUK (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- This has been discussed many times and the consensus always emerges that SOHR is a borderline reliable source: it is better to triangulate with other sources and attribute if it is the only source. If it is the only source, I'd strongly question if the fact it is used for is noteworthy. We are not a newspaper and do not need to include every single event in this article, and using WP:BREAKING news sources make us un-encyclopedic. If something is worth including, we should easily be able to find other sources for it, or secondary sources citing it.
- I'd say Battle of al-Hasakah is an article with some very poor sourcing in need of a lot of work needed to make it encyclopedic. For example it cites tweets. This is a common picture with breaking news stories, which either end up as bad Wikipedia articles or get fixed over time. The solution in both cases is better sourcing, waiting to see what RSs say before writing up here, and adding attribution when we see weak sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also yria.liveuamap.com is not a reliable source either. It's equivalent to Wikipedia as a source and is reliant on (also unreliable) Twitter. For example, the 9 February entry here is from @NotWoofers on Twitter - NOT a reliable source! BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
SOHR
editA plea to ThePaganUK and other editors: please can we not use SOHR so heavily. It is a borderline reliable source to which any even slightly controversial claims should be clearly attributed and triangulated with other sources. If something is ONLY reported by SOHR, then it is simply not noteworthy and should not be listed here. This page has literally hundreds of facts that are sourced only to SOHR, which makes it an unreliable encyclopedia page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't need to be comprehensive. We should select significant, verifiable facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Bobfrombrockley Fine I just won't do anything with the timeline. Monthly death tolls only.ThePaganUK (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- No need to do nothing! Just be a little more selective. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Bobfrombrockley, that sounds reasonable. Sm8900 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: International Relations
editThis article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jama1canSun202, SM1919, J7Morse (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jama1canSun202 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)