Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:08, 31 March 2016 editVolunteer Marek (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,168 edits →POVing of a section title ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:58, 31 March 2016 edit undoEtienneDolet (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers27,553 edits →Rfc regarding sentence in the lede: excludeNext edit →
Line 396:		Line 396:

	:Here are secondary sources which report on this as well, which will be added to the article: , and others.] (]) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)		:Here are secondary sources which report on this as well, which will be added to the article: , and others.] (]) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

			:*'''Exclude''' The SOHR was rejected at the RSN by non-involved users {{u\|TheLogician112}} and {{u\|FunkMonk}} as "a highly partisan outlet". So that concerns me. I'd much rather refrain from using any source that sides with a belligerent of such a tense and complex conflict. ] (]) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:58, 31 March 2016

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

A news item involving Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2015.

Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Syria High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / Russian & Soviet

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Rusian violations of Turkish airspace

Does this rate a mention:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-russia-idUSKCN0RZ0FT20151006

I imagine it might, but I wanted to ask first.TH1980 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Turkey isn't part of Syria, but the airspace violation is part of the current event. I think it would be appropriate to mention as long as it is fairly short and remains neutral, Not sure that this will remain a long term topic of interest in the historical context of an encyclopedia, but this could also lead to an escalation of the situation which is certainly news worthy. I would say it is in good faith to add it and see where things go in the spirit of full disclosure of known information. If it becomes a non-event, it can be deleted later. More neutral editors is always a good thing and I hope you add to the article Lipsquid (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

what about "those who harbor terrorists" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.65.242 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is extremely important. Violations (real or alleged ones) of Turkish air-space resulted in the first Russian (Soviet) war plane shot down by NATO country air-forces since the Korean war. It is something exceptional and very dangerous. It could lead to full scale war between Russia and Turkey and as a result between Russia and NATO with nuclear WW3 as an outcome. Thus special attention should be applied to any claims in this context. Unsourced claims that expose one of sides in the negative light are unacceptable. Alas the current version of the article contains an unsourced claim that after downing of Russian Su-24 - quote: "The incident followed over month-long tensions over alleged repeated violations of Turkish airspace by Russian military jets — over nine times in October" There were two claims made by Turkey about violations of its airspace 3 and 4 October. Russia recognized the first one and denied the second. There was no even one claim by Turkey that Russian manned aircraft violated Turkish airspace after 4 October until 24 November when Russian Su-24 was shot down. So I propose to change mentioned phrase for "The incident followed over month-long tensions over alleged violations of Turkish airspace by Russian military jets — at least two times in October" Those who insist on 9 violations are welcomed to come with primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey poleshchuk (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Referencing to RT (TV network)

Many references to RT TV have now been included. I think such sources should be generally avoided on this page, and especially to claim something as fact (e.g. these edits) because the network is widely known as a " propaganda outlet for the Russian government". My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is also a highly dubious source, as just a cursory reading of their recent "news" articles will tell you. It seems to function as a mouthpiece for the Syrian government and its allies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However, given that the page is under sanctions, I am not going to really contribute. All the POV and poorly sourced claims are going to stay. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that the RT is the propaganda of the Russian government, but if avoid them, then we should also be avoided US, Qatari and other propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Like what? The U.S. government has no editorial control over American media outlets with the possible exception of Voice of America, which I agree shouldn't be leaned on as a source for contentious subjects like this one. There simply isn't a real apples-to-apples comparison between the tightly controlled Russian media and the laissez-faire Western press. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? US government has no control over their 'Newspapers'?? Ideally perhaps. but don't be so naive to think that any "western" media outlets are unbiased or favoring their point of view. If you want to take crwedit away, do so for both sides equally. for example: Why should I believe what an american reporter says about how a russian reporter twists a fact around, for example where bomb A hit the ground? The russian will try and make it sound like the hit target (regardless of the target was) and the american will say it missed, or hit the wrong thing. Why.... because their in a political dispute over this.

Read the point below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any fundamental difference between the US and the Russian media, the same imperial approaches to presenting information: manipulation of the facts, double standards and political cliches, the absence of the opposite view - what clearly noticeable for european viewe. Perhaps a little different methods of influence, in one case a state corporation, another - big business, but the essence is the same - to promote the interests of their own political clans. Though of course there're really independent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion, while interesting, isn't particularly material to Misplaced Pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As well as yours. Although in the articles of censorship in the United States (Russian Federation) You can find reliable sources. Or recently Kunduz hospital airstrike - Media reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For further discussion, I have started a thread at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syrian_Arab_News_Agency about this apparent censorship attack on Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi news agencies as reliable sources such as on this page against RT and Sputnik. Guru Noel (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RT seems to be a reliable source from the discussion Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syrian_Arab_News_Agency Lipsquid (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a grotesque distortion of the discussion going on there. As the editors there observe, these media outlets are not editorially independent and have a well-documented pattern of use by totalitarian governments to spread disinformation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a distortion at all and most media outlets are biased towards their home countries, I am not sure why anyone would think they would act differently. Editors choosing which state-supported media outlets are reliable would be dangerous and very non-neutral situation. Maybe we need more clarification if people are going to continue to delete RT sourced material. I thought we provide sources with all available credible views and let the reader decide... Lipsquid (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not when certain outlets have demonstrated a pattern of providing false or misleading information on behalf of the government that controls them. Please don't claim other people are saying what you want them to say when they're clearly not. It's disrespectful to them and it's dishonest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Again you are introducing opinions as to who is a reliable source and who is not, which is dangerous. The conversation on the RS board speaks for itself. "A state-run news agency will generally be treated by Misplaced Pages the same as the government's official spokesperson, regardless of the topic being covered." Lipsquid (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not the same as a state-run news agency being considered a reliable source. It can be a source for reporting a government's viewpoint, where notable, but the context must make it clear where the claims are coming from and due weight must be considered. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we are saying the same thing. People should attribute SANA or RT statements to their organization, but the associated statements should not be reverted or deleted by other editors as long as the attributions are clear. WP:NEWSORG Lipsquid (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How is Al-Masdar "highly dubious"? It seems that any Syrian government leaning news is immediately shut down just because it doesn't follow the common "Assad must go" bias. Al-Masdar doesn't call the rebels "terrorists", and neither is Al-Masdar tightly controlled by the Syrian government. In the so called "laissez-faire Western press", we hardly see a distinction in the "moderate non-ISIS groups", whereas in Al-Masdar they tell you directly that (besides ISIS) Russia is bombing the Islamist Ahrar ash-Sham, Al-Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front, and their partners in the FSA. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Read any of Al-Masdar's coverage of Israel/Palestine or the conflict in Yemen and it is immediately clear that the agency is strongly biased. Additionally, I have doubts as to its notability; it has no Misplaced Pages article and doesn't even provide so much as the country where it is based in the information on its website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The website is the English version of Al-Masdar.net, which is a part of the non-partisan American organization "The Israel Project". Give me a good example of how strong their bias is instead of just saying that they are strongly biased. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RT is a Russian state-funded propaganda organ of the Kremlin.. Watch this video at Al Jazeera. — Ríco 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a a Qatari government-run company and has a member of the royal house as its Chairman, and Misplaced Pages accepts that, too. Nuke (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it widely known as a propaganda outlet for the British government/state, when is Misplaced Pages going to ban the BBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.103.25 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not prohibit propaganda organizations such as Al Jazeera, RT, Voice of America, Voice of Russia, Sputnik News, etc. In fact, here's the policy:

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." RT is a fine source. Nuke (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion ?

Please read the article and express your opinion, is there any grounds to consider these facts as supporting IS? Thank. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html

in addition http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-has-spent-years-allowing-jihadist-groups-to-flourish-so-beware-its-real-reasons-for-shooting-a6747161.html

http://www.infowars.com/former-nato-commander-turkey-is-supporting-isis/

There is a separate article about the relations of Turkey and ISIS where this material might be more appropriate to discuss.84.30.185.238 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This article read more participants, I am not an expert in the English-speaking media, so I'm curious to know how much they are authoritative (that are on my links). 87.252.229.3 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fist two links are RS. Huffington post can be opinion or news, so be careful there. Info wars is not a RS as they publish a lot of conspiracy theories and bias reporting. Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition

If there is really a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition (as opposed to just some cooperation) it is best presented within the context of Russian's military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

* Oppose - As per the reasons stated in the numerous previous AfDs and merge proposals made by OP. LavaBaron (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Then if it is best "presented within the context of Russian's military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" it has to be named "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition". Mhhossein (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT - As I have noted prior, I fail to see any valid raison d'être for "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition" as a separate article: all the salient information therein is covered in "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War". The topic is contrived, at least obviously far-fetched. And the way its lede reads now makes its validity yet more tenuous: "a joint military, security and intelligence-sharing cooperation". What is that claim based on? All we know, is 2 official reports that an "iformation centre" was set up in Baghdad. A kind of cooperation between Russia, Syria and Iran obviously does exist, but we have no hard info on this: no formal treaties, agreements, or communiques made public thus far.Axxxion (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Support: This article and its title have WP:POVFORK and WP:OR written all over them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The two articles are about different topics. DylanLacey (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Support per nom and Kudzu1. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Support merge - doesn't seem like a coalition of equals. More like Russian-led effort.GreyShark (dibra) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The articles discuss two different topics. While related, they are too different to be merged. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Scopes of two articles are different from each other. One is more about Russian involvement in the War; other is more about coalition of four nation-states. Merger would complicate things more and more. The coalition article might need some expansion or something. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The new alliance means a major shift in international relations with influences for Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Greater Middle East. It also means a major turnaround in Russian-Iranian relations - they have never been an ally since one hundred years. This alliance deserves a stand-alone article. Every NATO-Coalition of the Willing has one, too. Derim Hunt (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - RSII (or plus Hezbollah or Lebanon or whatever) is essentially a belligerent faction in the civil wars in Syria and Iraq. Do not merge it into an article on the Russian intervention; link to the article in the lead and merge the section on Iranian collaboration in this article into the RSII article, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is simply not a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition. The collaboration between these countries indeed exists, but it should be simply described on the page with current title. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian army

If Russia has deployed tanks to Syria, army units must have been deployed. Unless these are more "little green men"! I suggest that Russian Ground Forces and T-90 etc be added to the ORBAT.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

use of white phosphorous

is not mentioned anywhere in the article, even though it's received significant coverage (for example here, here or here.Volunteer Marek 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked these articles and these are just accusations and speculations by so called unspecified "opposition" and "activists" to Syrian government. Highly unreliable as most of these groups(with minor exceptions such as Kurds and SDF) are ALQ related and jihadis. In fact one of the sources clearly states "Activists on the ground in the Isis stronghold in Syria have reported the use of the banned substance white phosphorus." I am still waiting if China will join in against these threats--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the rain of fire videos shot in Idlib and claimed as being white phosphorus are in fact magnesium incendiary flares from 9M22S rockets fired by SAA from Multiple Rocket Launchers on an open sky ammunition depot. The issue has been discussed by experts the very week it showed up. 9M22S Rocket and The actual video showing the attack and the secondary explosions on the ground of ammo cooking off. Moreover I'd like to point that all the articles you cited are from media whose editorial line tradition has always been anti-Russian, anti-non western aligned political entities.

You guys' personal opinions are noted. Nonetheless this claim is being reported on in reliable sources. The Times headline is "Russia hits Syria with banned white phosphorus" which is pretty unequivocal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

One (the main?) source for the claim - these "activists" - is Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Is this the one that is supposedly "ALQ related and jihadis"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The YouTube link provided isn't sufficient to discredit reporting by the Times or Independent that White Phosphorus may have been used, possibly by the French and more likely by the Russians (or maybe both). Phrase the allegations in terms of reports from opposition activists, witnesses or whatever, but there's no justification for excluding this material. -Darouet (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Darouet and Marek are correct. Youtube is not a reliable source and the Times and Independent are, so the information ought to be included. Hollth (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

8th Damascus Offensive

Meanwhile Marj Al Sultan Airbase is secured and a buffer zone is established. Al Bilaliyah is liberated by the Syrian Army. They divided Daraya in the south and cut off supply lines. There were truces in Yarmouk Camp. Zahran Alloush the leader of Jaish al Islam was killed. These are important developments.

Mi-35M attack helicopters

There is video proof of several Mi-35M attack helicopters at the Shayrat airbase in eastern Homs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r1pbBASwgg

2620:101:F000:700:C5F6:8B9A:66A0:8B68 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Msta-B howitzers

There is video proof of Msta-B howitzers in Latakia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6ZITE2-lIY

2620:101:F000:700:C5F6:8B9A:66A0:8B68 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Very long?

The

This page may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page.

template was added by Lihaas (talk) at 00:03, on 23 February 2016 (i. e., today). The question of whether this article is or isn´t too long and how to make it shorter (if possible) is to be dealt here on the talk page. Regards,--89.173.227.64 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian Air supply allied military caught up in a blockade

to Axion, with all due respect, I suggest you learn a little logic (ignoratio elenchi * 1), as well as to get acquainted with the concept of syncretic thinking. The section where the contested text called "Operations by Russian military forses", but it is definitely not "military intervention" * 1, respectively will rightly tell you about all aspects of the Russian armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaque123 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. 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: 5 June 2024).

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

removal of sourced info

I'm sorry but why is this being removed? It's well sourced material and I can't make heads or tails of the edit summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It does seem kind of biased. Saying people who fight against ISIS/Daesh/ISIL, who don't seem to have even the most minimal interest in the Geneva Conventions, is guilty of war crimes is pretty rich. The whole thing is a quagmire and it is similar to accusing Bush or Cheney war crimes in Iraq or saying the Medicine sans Frontiers hospital strike in Afghanistan is a war crime. It is more hyperbole than substance even if it is from Bloomberg. I am not really taking a side, but I can certainly see why someone would remove it. Lipsquid (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not just Bloomberg: , , , .Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How to determine the number of images in the article and avoid tautologies.

Mr. Axxxion, one of the editors of this article, believes that one of his personal opinion may be sufficient grounds, that would remove the result of work of another person. The position of ignoring the opinion of another person called solipsism, which is especially peculiar adherents of the Islamic State, which destroy all do not agree with their dogmatic thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaque123 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208182514/https://www.syriahr.com/2015/11/ to https://www.syriahr.com/2015/11/
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208182514/https://www.syriahr.com/2015/11/ to https://www.syriahr.com/2015/11/

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

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"criticism" section

Re: this edit. First, the sources talk about BOTH "war crimes" and "attacks on civilians" - hence, the section's title should reflect that. Second, the new section heading "Reports related casualties among civilians." (sic) is ungrammatical. Third this is pure original research and editorializing ("when one considers...". It's also unreadable (just like the two edit summaries).

So I'm restoring previous version of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can't even understand these edit summaries . I mean I get the gist, "your edits suck, my edits are of critical thinking" but there's no actual argument in there. So let me explain it again. First, the sources talk about not just attacks on civilians but also possible war crimes. Amnesty International is explicit about this. Then the section heading "Reports related of casualties among civilians" is just bad grammar. I also see no reason try and hide this section at the end of the article. Del Ponte's statement has nothing to do with the subject of the section (and it's being taken out of context too). And in regard to this edit , those are not reliable sources and the translation is pretty bad. Additionally, it's some pretty obvious POV pushing by insinuation.

Also the user is not using talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here are changes made by this contributor, and they are terrible. Factual materials about the war became hidden and misrepresented as some kind of a political debate. "Some media and activists have reported that ...". This is poor writing. "Russian Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov said in response to criticism". No, that was not "criticism". "I think the Russian intervention is a good thing". That is a debate which should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Same thing, inserted by a presumably different user. I fixed it again . However, I made a partly different version and kept RT (TV network) as a source. I think it is OK to source claims by Russian officials, as long as text merely presents them as claims, rather than the "truth". My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that phrasing is fine although I do think a different source should be found. I also missed that first paragraph which you removed which is pretty much straight up original research and POV editorializing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to replace sources, or rephrase. Obviously, this is not a reputable news source, although you should probably look at this. People used RT TV a lot, possibly for less contentious subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

withdrawal section

Almost none of the material in this section's last paragraph is actually in the sources. The two sources are this and this.

The first source does NOT actually say anything about any "Western analysts"
It does NOT credit the capture of Damascus suburbs to Russian intervention but rather "Iranian senior officers and skilled Hezbollah fighters"
It does NOT say that the Russian intervention "forced the rebels to seek the cessation of hostilities". This appears to be pulled out of thin air, with a citation tacked on at the end to make it look legitimate. It's not.
It does NOT say that the Russian intervention "enabled Assad to demand a settlement on his own terms". What it does say is that "Assad's strategic goal" is "to either secure a military solution or force the opposition to accept a settlement on his own terms." That's "goal" as in "aim" as in "has not happened yet" (and source does not connect it to the Russian intervention)
The second source says NOTHING about this intervention "restor(ing) Russia as a major international player capable of exerting its influence far from its borders". This is pure original research by a Misplaced Pages user with a citation tacked on the end to make it look legitimate. It's not. It's a straight up misrepresentation of a source.
The second sources says NOTHING about this intervention "forc(ing) the United States to reckon with Moscow's interests". Again, this is some OR crap somebody made up - it's not in the source at all - and tried to make it look legitimate by tacking an irrelevant inline citation at the end.

Please stop misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked The cited source, which is an article from BBC World Service, describes the author of this statement as a "Middle East analyst". If you follow the authorlink, which is provided in the citation, you will also find that he is is a Lebanese-American academic as well as the Professor of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, etc. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked Read the previous paragraph: "After six months of intensive and concentrated Russian air strikes on pro-US rebels...". "Iranian senior officers and skilled Hezbollah fighters" were able to capture the Damascus suburbs (and other territories) only because of the Russian previous Russian air strikes. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

N NOT checked. First, you can't really "check" your own text and sources since you're the one who misrepresented them in the first place. Second, the thing is that the source DOES NOT talk about any "Western analysts". It's just one guy whom YOU've decided to call a "Western analyst".

N NOT checked. Yeah but that's the PREVIOUS paragraph. The paragraph which is relevant to the sentence you're adding is talking about Iranians and Hezbollah not Russians, as I've already pointed out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked I'm afraid you forgot about assume good faith (WP:GF). Here is an exact quotation from this article, when it was added: "Through its intervention in Syria, Putin has restored Russia's status as a major international player capable of exerting its influence far from its borders, and forced the United States to reckon with Moscow's interests." Since I added this quotation to Misplaced Pages, the original text in the Reuters article has changed, but you still can find it on the other link from Reuters site: link. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not the source you used in the article. And if they changed their text, then it behooves you to change text in the article to reflect that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment.Truly speaking, I'm very disappointed by your blatant accusations that I "made up" "crap" "and tried to make it look legitimate by tacking an irrelevant inline citation at the end." After this, I find it very difficult to try to communicate with you. Sorry. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, my apologies - but then the text should've been updated to reflect the source. However, we now have another problem which is that you copy/pasted material from a copyrighted source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And it gets worse - it appears that in response to my edits which pointed out that none of this info was actually in the sources, another editor yet a third source . The problem though is that, in addition to the source being a conspiracy-theory laden opinion piece, it DOES NOT say that "Russia's intervention has achieved its main goals: it consolidated President Assad's position, enabled his forces to re-take key pieces of strategic territory and ensured that Assad remains a factor in any future Syrian settlement"

Will you guys please stop misrepresenting sources, or at least not be so blatant about it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

POVing of a section title

Additionally, will you please stop changing the section title from "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilian" to "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law"? It's obviously done with an intent to push a POV. The fact that you're trying to hide this information in the most obscure corner of the article and removing the summary of this info from lede evidences that as well.

The sources describe "reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". They DO NOT talk about some "alleged violations". There's nothing "alleged" here. It is. Likewise it's not about "international humanitarian law" (wtf that is) but about - literally - "war crimes" and "attacks on civilians". By changing the section title you are conducting original research and misrepresenting sources (some more). Also, as you well know (at least as Tobby well knows), we also have WP:ALLEGED which says to avoid this word in exactly these circumstances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is rather unreliable. See 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. And also irrelevant (I have no idea how another Misplaced Pages article is suppose to establish reliability of a source). Furthermore, as you're well aware, SOHR is NOT the only, or even the major, organization that that section covers. We have Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders. And these are the sources which talk about 'war crimes' not some "alleged violations of international humanitarian law" that you guys pulled out of your thin air. So whatever your beliefs about SOHR are, they are also irrelevant for that reason. Can you please self-revert your disruptive edit or at the very least actually address the issue meaningfully on talk? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And I just looked at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. What in hell does that article have to do with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights? Syria is over here. Gaza is over there. ??? . Unsurprisingly the words "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" does not appear at all in that article. Nor does the acronym "SOHR". I checked the talk page, including the extensive archives. Nope, not there either. ???

So why are you even mentioning this obviously irrelevant article? Are you just trying to waste my time or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict_Alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

Your POV is irrelevant. Amnesty, HRW are using "reliable sources" like SOHR. — "Amnesty International has maintained a long relationship with Rami Abdulrahman. Al-Akhbar understands they have been meeting with him in person for years." - — "Analyisis of the Amnesty International report on ‘war crimes’ allegations against Russia in Syria", Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My "POV" is just reliable sources. If you think Amnesty International or HRW are not reliable take it up at WP:RSN. Which you know is not going to work, right? And we still have that the article - or the section - you just pointed out doesn't say ANYTHING about SOHR. (Also SWEDHR is not exactly an unbiased source itself as hyperbolic rhetoric like "we deconstruct the biased pro-NATO stance " and "spin by the Russophobic media" and "anti-Russia propaganda war administrated in the NATO Strategic disinformation centre STRATCOM" and other WP:FRINGE material).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your POV is: "There's nothing "alleged" here. It is." -- Tobby72 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources say alleged? No. Then observe Misplaced Pages policy and drop it. Now, I know from our previous interactions that you're JUSTNOTGOINGTOLISTEN to anything I say, so please, take it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek What they are trying to point out with the article 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, is that the title of a similar section in the article is called 'Alleged_violations_of_international_humanitarian_law'. From what I can see here is that its 'Grey' for Gaza conflict and 'Black' for Syria conflict. Yes these conflicts are different, but civilian casulties (intended or not) are a result from military actions in both conflicts, regardless if its air dropped bombs, artillery or even small arms fire. On the other hand you are correct that the sources you are talking about do not state 'alleged', but one could say that sources have their own POV and a lot of the time are biased and not objective. The following is my POV on sources: for example with Amnesty International, in their cases they use testimonies of people that are at a high risk of influence from either side of the conflict. Fair enough this would be reports of the poeople they speak to, but their titles and general wording in reports have assumptions and some bias from the very start. And adding to this, many sources change their content slightly after a few minutes or hours of posting. You may say that this is standard editorial work, but the few words that are changed, added or removed can dramatically affect the article and thus affecting the objectiveness, as seen with the Reuters article mentioned in the discussion earlier. But of course you can disagree. Hammer5000 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This "POVing" section continue discussion started in "criticism" section above . Here is edit that I think is clearly problematic and basically the same as discussed in "criticism" section above. All the arguments stated above still remain valid. In particular, the factual materials about the war became hidden and (mis)represented as some kind of a political debate after these changes, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course anything that we write here must be supported by 'Reliable' sources (no one can prove that they are fully objective), in some cases like this one about section title, words like 'Alleged' can help to stay objective. Otherwise we do not allow room for human factor in reporting either. Who says that the reporting is not selective, everyone has a POV even if many try to minimise it? Just to remind the situation in Madaya, even when humanitarian aid was getting there, people were still starving. Assad got the blame again and 'most' of our western media did not bother to acknowledge the fact that armed rebels had a lot of control of the aid once it was there. So if talking about POV here, then a lot of the media dont even want to report what does not meet their criteria, they just show the starving people but not the cause/source of it. Rebels did not allow a lot of the journalists to even enter, why do you think this is? And what is it that we call a fact or allegation? If a journalist shows a picture that does not provide proof of the cause, but only the result, is it automatically a fact what the journalist says is the cause? Hammer5000 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This page is about Russian military intervention. Therefore, all reliably sourced claims about abuses by Russian forces belong here. Yes, sure, there are numerous reports of abuses by many other sides that could be even much worse, but they belong to other pages.My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I used an example not relating to Russian actions, but that was an example to show how reports can be very much POV too. Actually returning to the title itself ('swallowing my pride of trying to be right'), it is suitable since it says 'Reports' in the beginning. I am standing by my other arguments in this section about the reliability and POV of sources however. Hammer5000 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of the word "alleged" is anything but objective. It is a way to WP:WEASEL and POV the text. We actually have this in guidelines: WP:ALLEGED.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You only have to watch CNN yesterday to see Russia bomb a civilian fruit market. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can suggest an alternative: "Civilian losses", "Casualties", or "Criticism"? See Gulf War_Casualties ... Iraq War_Criticism and cost ... 2011 military intervention in Libya_Civilian losses ... Sri Lankan Civil War_Alleged war crimes ... 2006 Lebanon War_Allegations, accusations and reports of war crimes ... Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources explicitly say "attacks on civilians" (they even say "deliberate attacks on civilians") and "war crimes". That's what we use. And they don't say "alleged" so we don't either. As far as these other articles go, it's just WP:OTHERSTUFF and in fact at least a few of them should have their sections renamed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

One more time, because of continued attempts to edit war . The sources provided talk about "attacks on civilians" and "war crimes". They are not talking about just "civilian casualties" and "criticism". "Civilian casualties" could be accidental. That is NOT what the sources are describing - they are talking about deliberate and negligent attacks on civilians and civilian structures such as hospitals. By changing the section title in this way you are misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:TITLE – Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".). -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no really any dispute or denial that Russian military conducted carpet bombings not using precision-guided munitions (see this ref, for example). This inevitably leads to significant casualties among civilians. Were these bombings done intentionally? Yes, sure, according to official statements by the Russian government. Did it matter who controlled these territories, as emphasized in your last edit? No, it did not. Did they also intentionally bombed some entirely civilian targets, as Amnesty International tells? There is no any dispute that the bombings actually took place, but the Russian ministry of defense denied it was them. Well, according to vast majority of RS, that were actually them. Given that, I must agree with comment by VM above. This has been described in sources as bombings by Russian forces. So we are telling "reports" rather than "alleged" in the title. There is nothing "alleged" about civilians being killed. My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. If you have any questions regarding these edits , , ... WP:TITLE says: "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)". -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Those are reports. So, telling "reports of ..." is an adequate description. Telling "allegations" about something reported by all mainstream sources is POV. We simply tell what sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:TITLE – (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".). -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) WP:TITLE is about titles of pages, not about titles of subsections. (2) WP:TITLE tells about accusations of crime as defined in common law. War crimes are different. In practice, they are frequently not prosecuted and not decided in courts as common crimes. We simply tell what sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

MOS:SECTIONS – The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well. — A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles.

"WP:TITLE tells about accusations of crime as defined in common law." — That's just your interpretation. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To the extent that one could argue that WP:TITLE applies to section titles, the title you're reverting is the NPOV one that actually reflects sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

This edit request to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the beginning of the paragraph, "month" is repeated twice, please fix!! Thank you 83.85.109.54 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

'Part of the military intervention against ISIL'

Looks like Undue labelled like that right at the start. RS constantly emphasise that IS has been left alone by Russia as it goes after other targets on behalf of itself and the regime. And ... - russias bombing syria has killed hundreds of civilians december 2015 report Amnesty

Trolls: Start: - Russia isn't deploying to Syria Then for 6 months: - Russia will defeat ISIS Now: - Russia never said it would defeat ISIS

'Russia’s goal in Syria is not to support Assad against opposition but stop advance of ISIL and help defeat it ' - That is a statement from the Russian Embassy in London - is Misplaced Pages controlled by the pushers of this absurd propaganda? All RS emphasise rather the opposite. But then, after all, Misplaced Pages is not a well thought of source for this kind of subject matter, too easily hijacked by Kremlin trolls.

92.3.30.196 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Even Putin stated quite directly that they were going into to support Assad, ISIL is only targeted when they are in the way of expanding govt held area. Legacypac (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Global research is an awful source though, not a RS I shouldn't think. What about for example, cnn article cnn Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

why the regimes recapture of palmyra was a political move 92.3.24.108 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

jumping the gun on "status"

The "status" field in the infobox should still be "ongoing" or something like that. Yes, Russia has announced withdrawal but it still hasn't actually withdrawn. And putting in whether or not Putin feels he's achieved his objectives or not is POV. *Of course* someone will say they've "achieved their objectives" before withdrawing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP policy on neutrality, we are obligated to present all sides points of view. And this is the official point of view of Russia. Plus, you removed the sourced content that presented the view of the BBC correspondent, a view that seemed to present a favorable result for Russia. Please do not remove sourced content. However, I have now changed some of the wording in the status field to represent other elements of the story, like that its only a partial withdrawal and that air-strikes will continue. I also (for the time being) removed Putin's remarks. EkoGraf (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We are actually NOT obligated to present all sides points of view. We are obligated to present the sides that get coverage in reliable sources. However, that is not the issue here. Putin said something about Russian intervention in Syria. Fine. We can put that in somewhere in the article. But we should NOT put that in the "Status" field of the infobox as then we are effectively using Misplaced Pages voice to agree with Putin's assessment of "status" of this intervention, even if we attribute it. A simpler way to deal with it is to have "status" be "ongoing" until a plethora of reliable sources say something else. But for sake of compromise I'm fine with your wording here.

As to the "junk source" comment - yes, breitbart.com, which you restored here is indeed a "junk source". The "opinion of a single person" refers to a single opinion piece in BBC which may not be representative of the wider sources out there. Again, this may be fine in text, but it doesn't belong in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Russian forces have not been completely withdrawn. This is just a fact, not disputed by anyone. Hence, this is obviously not the end of the operation - agree. Second, this edit tells that "according to a BBC diplomatic correspondent, Russia's intervention achieved its main goals...". Well, this is something hotly debated by many analysts and highly controversial: what were the "goals" exactly and if they have been achieved. Stating something like that based on the opinion of a "BBC correspondent" is against WP:NPOV. Finally, the re-included text about Hezbollah support is out of place and breaks logic. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - wikipedia shouldn't substitute Putins voice for its own. The Russians make outrageous claims all the time about what they achieve - according to this article in Janes the Russian military claim they had 100% acuracy in their bombing, russian air force claims It looks witless to present as fact, Russian pretensions, and propaganda. The article in Janes also makes it clear that the Russian withdrawal is nothing like a complete withdrawal, as has been pointed out , above , 'Russian forces will remain at the airbase in Latakia and the naval base in Tartus, and that airstrikes may well continue.' 92.3.8.233 (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a slightly different matter. According to the source, Russian forces did not use precision-guided munitions. This is one of the reasons of very high civilian casualties (see discussions above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We are obligated to present both sides points of view, neglecting one over the other is not neutral. Anyway, doesn't matter, I'm glad you are comfortable with the current wording in the infobox. PS The BBC report is a reliable source, so please do not remove it, thank you. We attributed the assessment from the report accordingly. EkoGraf (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Telling that all goals have been accomplished according to the official statement by Russian government (as it was in the version prior to your edit) is fine, however telling that they have been accomplished according to a BBC correspondent/report (as in your edit) is not. This is because there are many other publications which tell something entirely different. This should be fixed, for example by removing the undue statement by a cherry-picked report. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not happy about 'part of the military intervention against ISIL' -that is undue as the first thing one sees, it is twisted, -it presents the Putin regime POV only, it was 'a 6 month intervention to support Assad' - channel 4 news 'Moscow has been more interested in bolstering the Assad regime, - than taking on IS.' It should be removed from the infobox as Undue emphasis that is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.8.233 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We are obligated to present what reliable sources say with DUE weight. That is NOT the same thing as "both sides points of view". And I agree with 92.3 above about the "part of..." part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@"part of part" comment... According to the official declarations by Russia, the goal of the intervention was to support Assad and to fight ISIS. That should be said, and I think it was already said on the page. However, according to the actual actions on the ground (as reflected in numerous publications), the major real goal was to support Assad. Hence they bombed the "opposition" and civilian population rather than ISIS. That also should be very clearly stated. There were other probable goals, such as to influence the international standing of Russia, oil prices, etc., and this should also be noted per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

'From the moment the first bombs fell five months ago, it was clear that Russia’s intervention in Syria had very little to do with defeating the terrorists of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).' This sentence happens to be from journalist Roland Oliphant, but whoever, it represents the OVERWHELMING RS opinion and analysis - yet the wikipedia infobox continues to misrepresent the weight of RS. I wonder why, eh 'ekograf' and your ilk? Any ideas why mission accomplished , sort of putin 92.3.4.109 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are very much welcome to create named account and edit this and other pages yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I know. But so do those who are arguing for the Putinist misrepresentation being preserved, so it would just be an edit war. I want them to defend it, with RS, saying the Russian intervention was significantly about countering IS. It's the first thing one reads in the infobox. Its not right - (Atlantic Council have proven Russians lied consistently, proved they were not targeting IS as they claimed from September 30, they put out false videos, - videos said to be Raqqa, were proved to be Hama, - the Russians lied about not hitting a hospital in Sarmin, and denied it using old imagery - when Amnesty and HRW accused them of using cluster bombs they said they hadn't got any but unfortunately for them their own media (Sputnik etc) had shown they were lying. So , please , can the infobox stop pushing Sputnik-style propaganda about how they were about targeting IS when they were actually hitting elsewhere. per UNDUE ( and encyclopedic decency))92.3.4.109 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I fixed this accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Mi-28N and Ka-52 deployed at the Latakia base

http://www.janes.com/article/58863/russian-mi-28n-ka-52-attack-helicopters-spotted-in-syria

45.58.94.53 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

removing text from the lede...

...which summarizes article text - please don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And the operation never stopped. During last 24 hours 55 civilians were killed (Russian source and original). According to SOHR, "about 1800 civilians are among the nearly 4650 killed by Russian air and missile strikes in Syria" altogether . My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

German and Japanese civilians also had to pay a heavy price for the crimes their governments committed. --Dorpater (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they did pay a very heavy price in WWII. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Arabic quote

The Arabic quote in the last section is a bit rare, for two reasons: (1.) It should be quoted in transcription rather than Arabic script. This would be: Al-muhājidīn al-turkistānīyīn yataṣaddā bi-qūwa lil-jaysh an-nuṣayrī wa-min qabl ar-rūs. (2.) This is completely wrong Arabic. Did they really issue it like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.142.152 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR

Regarding the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights

Dorpater removes it with the edit summary "removed partisan unreliable source from the intro.".

This is straight up POV pushing and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The edit summary is false. The source is reliable. It is often quoted by major media outlets and other established sources. New York Times calls them a "monitoring group". NPR says they "monitor the conflict". Yahoo News mentions them. Reuters says that they've been "cited by virtually every major news outlet since an uprising ... began". Also that they have "been a key source of news on the events in Syria"\. And of course they also use them as a source . We can keep going: The Economist. Associated Press. BBC ("a watchdog group"). The Guardian. DW. Etc. etc. etc. The fact that the source may disagree with your own personal opinions or prejudices does not make it unreliable.

After I restored the text and source Dorpater removed it again with the edit summary "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argumentation".

I'm sorry but this edit summary does not make sense. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay about "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". But even if we apply the same reasoning to article content, what does that have to do with anything? Pointing out that major news organizations and media regard a particular source as reliable is "other crap exists"? What other crap? What are you talking about? Or is this just a random excuse to engage in WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edit warring and POV pushing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's not "according to Sky News" - it's according to Amnesty International and rescue workers on the ground. Sky News is just reporting what those sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tobby72, I'd appreciate it if you tried to utilize the talk page rather than just making your one revert per day in your attempts to make the article suit your POV. Observing 1RR on the article is a necessary not a sufficient condition - you need to justify your changes as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Status : ongoing

russia despite draw down shipping more syria - information for use maybe as another reference in infobox. 92.3.24.108 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Rfc regarding sentence in the lede

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the statement The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that between the initiation of the intervention in September 2015 and February 2016, Russian air strikes have killed 1,000 civilians, including 200 children, though this claim has been disputed by the Russian government. from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights be in the lede? Athenean (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning: The sentence preceding this one is sufficient, and the SOHR is a highly partisan outlet as described in this RSN thread . The same info is also included in the article body and the infobox, so to repeat it in the lede is overkill. Athenean (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Include, clearly. The lede is supposed to summarize the article. So the fact that "same info" is in the article and the infobox is PRECISELY why it should be included in the lede. As to whether it's "a highly partisan outlet", please note that in that RSN thread when Athenean says "as described in this RSN thread" what they really mean is "I, Athenean, made the same accusation in another forum". Nobody there in that thread agrees with him; it's pretty disingenuous to link to a thread where nobody agreed with you and say "see this thread for support". As User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris states in that very thread Athenean links to "The report has been picked up by numerous high-end reliable sources such as The Guardian and Al Jazeera.". As another user says "it was quoted by numerous mainstream sources on many languages and therefore can be used". If this needs to be backed up by secondary sources, that's not a problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are secondary sources which report on this as well, which will be added to the article: , and others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Exclude The SOHR was rejected at the RSN by non-involved users TheLogician112 and FunkMonk as "a highly partisan outlet". So that concerns me. I'd much rather refrain from using any source that sides with a belligerent of such a tense and complex conflict. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories: