 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2017. The result of the discussion was merge to Siege of Wadi Barada. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wadi Barada offensive redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Merge. edit
A Merge was proposed go ahead with it.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
POV tag added edit
Leith Fadel's "Al-Masdar News" and the conspiracy theory website SouthFront are not reliable sources in the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jushyosaha604 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Article also grossly misrepresents opposition groups active in the area (search YouTube for " وادي بردى" for a better idea of who is active), and fails to mention any evidence of government bombing water facilities, only its accused poisoning. Please do not remove the POV tag until these issues are discussed or rectified Nrg800 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Al-Masdar is reliable source same like SOHR is. Nobody cares about neutrality of these sources, Masdar is ultra pro-gov while SOHR is ultra pro-rebel. Almost every Masdar articles are confirmed in some way or another by SOHR. For example this article is confirmed also: http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=58247 Vorman (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Almost every Masdar articles are confirmed in some way or another by SOHR." That's an extremely dubious claim, with all due respect. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
So, you need to start reading more carefully, or just begin with reading Al-Masdar and SOHR.
Vorman (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not even reddit accepts al-Masdar as a reliable source. If we want Wikipedia's standards to be below Reddit's then go ahead, but I absolutely consider al-Masdar to be neither neutral nor reliable. Nrg800 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- For your information reddit was also debating about SOHR relability, besides they like Twitter sources the most.Frankly I don't see many major differences between Masdar and SOHR.
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3tkdzj/how_credible_is_sohr/ Vorman (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion has been had countless times on Syria-related pages and it's generally been decided that Al-Masdar is a reliable source. That they're pro-government is immaterial; on the basic facts they're one of the best and most reliable sources on the Syrian war. In any case, most other sources are blatantly hostile to the Syrian government (or "Assad regime" as they love to put it) and completely on the side of the "rebels", so Al-Masdar should be used for the sake of balance if nothing else. This hatred for Al-Masdar is just based on a popular bias against the Syrian government rather than anything intrinsically wrong with Al-Masdar itself. Kawada Kira (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah Kawada Kira (talk) You are absulutely right. It's hard to expect anything from people who can not look at the other side of the conflict other than through the prism of the regime, the murderers, rapers, hospital burners, gas users and so on. Vorman (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of this discussion of al-Masdar's reliability, someone somewhere keeps removing information on the non-jihadist rebels present. It's seriously getting ridiculous. I've gone through and referenced all the disputed groups please don't remove them without reason. Nrg800 (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)