Talk:List of Syrian civil war barrel bomb attacks

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

On reliable sources[edit]

Please review WP:RS. We don't seek objective truth or exclude otherwise reliable sources because they got information from a source we happen to disagree with. We report on multiple POVs even if its one that we disagree with or think the person giving the POV is unreliable. So long as the POV is reported in a reliable source that is sufficient. -- GreenC 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, "Syrian opposition says military jets drop barrel bombs on Aleppo" reported by a Turkish website... is there any other page on Wikipedia that would allow such weak sourcing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.81 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in this article need to be improved, single-source references are not sufficient for what is being claimed by each. Refer WP:1R and WP:BARE Aeonx (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is abundantly sourced with over 300 sources. WP:1R and WP:BARE do not apply here, and they are essays anyway - if there is a policy issue then please do link the relevant policy and demonstrate how it applies to the specifics of this article (with examples). There is no question the Assad regime has used barrel bombs by top sources (government and non-government, including video footage), this is not an extraordinary claim requiring out of the ordinary sourcing. That there might be some unreliable sources in the list is always an issue with any article, but there is not a need for multiple sources for every incident, and any unreliables should be noted individually (with explanation) not tagging the entire article. -- GreenC 18:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I do feel that the notion of a "barrel bomb" being dropped from a jet is unlikely. But when you read the text of the specified article, the author puts the term in quotes, hinting that while they may doubt the mechanism they have confidence that *something* was dropped - and I have no reason to doubt that. Would a footnote touching on this ("In the chaos of war, it may be difficult to determine the exact weapon dropped from an aircraft...") help?
Also concur that the references to the dozens of mainstream sources (CBS News, Japan Times, The Lancet...) should be left as is.
--KNHaw (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Jet story sources to the Associated Press which is reliable, though a little ambiguous who or what dropped the barrel bombs. Like an auxiliary fuel tank they sometimes use and let go when empty, it could have been made into a bomb. Everything about both sides of the conflict has been improvised, a mix of ancient and modern. -- GreenC 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I want to be clear, I have no opinions about the civil war in Syria, and I'm not questioning the use of barrel bombs whatsoever. My concern is purely the use of some of the sources in generating the list which is essentially a collection of WP:Original research. GreenC, by your own admission, there might be some unreliable sources in the list. That is precisely the purpose of putting the unreliable sources template tag on the article and why I did it. It certainly does not mean all the sources are unreliable, in fact, a significant portion of them look perfectly fine, references from journals with medium-high impact factor are particularly good and ok especially where the news article is verifiable by other 3rd parties, but some of the may be unreliable. I think it's important to highlight that news reporting on current international warfare is not necessarily reliable, and that applies to this article. A fact history has shown is the case many times; especially where it is a lone source for a supposed incident or attack. My concern is purely about some of the sources, I came across this as I was reviewing the article and checking some of the referenced sources. There are a couple of ways I think to improve the overall reliability of this article. One option is to cite secondary sources so it's not a single reference from a single source. Another option is to individually review each source for it's completeness of information and detail. Some of the references for example are linked to Getty images with a caption; completely unverifiable. Additionally, The Daily Star references are concerning, it's a Tabloid newspaper which is known to publish unverifiable information that is often not supported by evidence. -- Aeonx (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make this list, and I'll leave it up to the list creator what to do about your suggestions on specific sources, however we don't need sources that are true, only sources that are reliable. As you say, truth is the first casualty in war, but that doesn't stop us from reporting what reliable sources say. There are many barrel bomb attacks that go unreported, a single source is sufficient given the rarity of reports and how common the attacks are, the only question is source quality. If you want to discuss the general unreliability of reports in warfare, that itself would need a source, but if available it could be briefly included at the top of the article. -- GreenC 04:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

orange = chemical attack[edit]

I was trying to find which ones were chemical attacks and it wasn't easy so tried making them in orange so they stand out. If it's not liked please revert. It may not be MOS compliant but with only 1 color and a few entries shouldn't be a problem but many different colors could be a problem. -- GreenC 02:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold medal?[edit]

Might there be some alternative to the "Gold medal" for denoting chemical attacks? This seems insensitive, given the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.158.47 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, yes the intention to display a visual icon was good but the use of a Golden medal its macabre and unsensible to the victims.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced it with a something that is almost impossible to see in the text. The whole purpose is to easily scan the list and pick out the chemical attacks. They are now fairly hidden .. indeed disrespectful. What the image is called is meaningless, that's just the name of icon not what it signifies in the text, obviously. -- GreenC 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Syrian_civil_war_barrel_bomb_attacks&oldid=1208303731"