Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Axxxion (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 14 February 2018 (→Moving ″Battle of Khasham″). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Addition of POV tag.

this article relies solely on American sources and partisan wording to push a point of view, thus I had no choice but to add a POV tag. US military has claimed that forces aligned to them came under "unprovoked attack" and this is stated as undeniable relying solely on info coming from US forces who are a party of the conflict, though nobody else have put on information corraborating this theory. There is also lots of heavily biased wording such as "Assad regime" etc. This is a notable incident enough to be mentioned somewhere in SCW context, but not in this way, shape or form.BlindNight (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how "Assad regime" is partisan wording. Regime simply means a system of government, and Assad regime is simply a synonym for Assad government. If you go to Misplaced Pages's main article on Bashar al-Assad, the term "Assad regime" is used multiple times. Also, of course the article is going to rely largely on American sources. American sources are the only sources with thorough enough reporting of the attack with enough details that a person can make an article about. It's not really a biased decision to use the sources which provide the largest breadth of information about a subject. Not to mention, the BBC, a British media source, is used about as heavily as American sources are in the article. That's going to have to be the case until more "non-partisan" media outlets come out with more comprehensive reports about the battle. In what way do you recommend the article be worded? Ftxs (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Complaining about "non-neutrality" of wordings such as "Assad regime" is a typical point of Russian propagandists and officials. Because in Russian this wording actually has some negative connotation, and they forget that in English it may be different :) Considering sources: in Russia, it seems to me that it was Igor Strelkov who was the first to tell about the event and its death toll. -- A man without a country (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is greater than things such as use of "regime": First off, as I write this, there is virtually no credible and clear info on the basics of the incident, hence even the article′s title is dubious (both words in it, as it is not clear that it was really a battle, as well as where exactly the strike occurred). The lede as it reads now, is obviously unacceptable and should be altered completely. Hopefully, there will be more details forthcoming shortly, as it is already clear that multiple Russ lives were lost, and in modern Russia such things are impossible to suppress due to corporate solidarity of these folks (in that respect loss of lives in regular Russ army would be easier to camouflage), especially when they sense that they are being ″betrayed″.Axxxion (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the word "regime" it was found long ago, through editor discussions, that the word is non-neutral and will not be used in Syrian war-related articles. Instead, Syrian "government" is used. PS Its not just "some negative connotation" in Russian. Read regime in reference to modern usage. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Serious vandalism going on

Editors have removed background section and replaced it with what is overtly propaganda. I've edited what I can but this is ludicrous. Users coming on here and editing sections to include what are blatantly partisan talking points is unacceptable.Ftxs (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't change the lede and move the article on your volition without discussion.

Axxxion You said you changed the lede and moved the page "per the talk page". Nothing in the talk stipulated that movement. You simply said you had a problem with it and went it ahead and did it. You never even articulated any specific issues you had with the lede. Please don't do that. Several editors have been in the process of reworking the lede to make it as neutral as possible. Don't just remove everybody's work because it isn't "unbiased" enough for you.Ftxs (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• The article is two days old: there is no consensus on anything, thus far. Hence let us avoid presumptions and speculations that were contained/implied in the original version, as has been pointed up above.Axxxion (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede, as per Manual, must contain the outline of supported facts contained in the article. So far, all we know for sure is what the Pentagon stated. So let us stick to that in the lede.Axxxion (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, for one the article is four days old, not two. Nothing is implied in the original lede? It's a simple outline of what multiple sources (Pentagon, Syrian government, Russia) have said. All you're doing is transforming the lede into 50% quotations for absolutely no reason. What exactly do you think the old lede is implying? This is exactly why I requested the article to be protected. I was afraid of users transforming everything without any sort of discussion.Ftxs (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Did a little digging. Axxxion has a history of this. He tried to do the same thing in this article just recently and editors have to do serious leg work to undo his additions. He is trying to shape any Syrian Civil War article that has anything to do with Russia or the Syrian government in the lenses he views it in, even if that involves changing the entire premise of the article he's editing. I think it's pretty deplorable. Admins need to step in.UnteenthSense (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving ″Battle of Khasham″

• I fail to see anything in the well-established facts about this incident that would warrant such title, which by inference, validates unsubstantiated claims that there had been any ″assault/attack″ prior to the strike.Axxxion (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There does not need to have an "assault/attack" before the actual incident in order for it to have been a battle. Is this what is about? Your afraid that if the article is entitled Battle of Khasham that that is somehow an implication of Syrian/Russian wrongdoing. Nothing is being inferred by anybody. Here is the Washington Post, saying 1. the battle happened in/near the town of Khasham and 2. it is a battle to begin with (not an "incident")("U.S. troops may be at risk of 'mission creep' after a deadly battle in the Syrian desert". Washington Post. 2018-02-08. Retrieved 2018-02-13.)Ftxs (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Show me any RS that calls this incident "the battle of Khasham".Axxxion (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The source you have cited above (WP) describes this incident as follows: ″overnight confrontation in which U.S. warplanes bombed pro-Syrian-government forces as they approached an American-supported base.″; yes, the term "battle" is used further down the text simply to avoid repetition. "Battle" in the title is a blatant POV-pushing spin put on the whole article from start.Axxxion (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because the words are used in that particular order does not make it not the case. There are multiple reputable sources calling this a battle. There are multiple reputable sources that place the clash occurring in/near the town of Khasham. Put two and two together and you know what makes. Calling this a simple "incident" detracts from the scale of what occurred and is disingenuous and nondescript. What point of view exactly do you think it is I'm pushing? url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/world/europe/russia-syria-dead.html | access-date=2018-02-13}}</ref>Ftxs (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep The title Battle of Khasham is more accurate and I agree with the above, calling it a simple incident is just downgrading what happened, in my opinion. An incident would an airstrike or a bad shooting or something. This was an all-out confrontation complete with bombers, ground troops, drones, artillery, and hundreds of men. That's just about the textbook definition of a battle. As for the lead, the current one is better. It's way more cogent than the alternative, way better constructed (at least by encyclopedic standards), and I don't really see any lack of neutrality in it. It's pretty much writing down what three sides have said about the battle. Not much more than that. I can't help but wonder (going through your contributions), who has the real agenda, here? raises eyebrow Funny thing, judging by the edit history, literally everything you've added has been something to do with Russia. You even removed the reaction box from the U.S. under the Reaction section despite it containing more than what you claimed it had in it to justify its removal, before it was replaced. That's a little strange. UnteenthSense (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic standards" applied to an event of which we know with certainty next to nothing apart from what the Central Command′s posting said on the day when it occurred? Ftxs, please steer clear of inferring any personal motive/agenda behind my edits. Analyse the article and sources, not me, just like I am trying not to look into an intriguing phenomenon of a very recently registered editor displaying a thorough knowledge of WP′s tools and techniques. I amnot afraid of "any wrongdoing" by any side: I know one thing with certainty: that he who kills best wins and he is right, by definition, as he is the one who will be sitting in judgment of what is right and wrong. I disagree with the lede as it obviously violates the Manual′s guidelines for the lede, even on a technicality such as using refs, whereas inline citations should be in the main body of an article. Essentially, the lede the way it stands expounds the U.S. military′s press release on 7 February, which would be fine in an appropriate section, but this is not what the lede should be.Axxxion (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Ftxs. That's the user above, I believe. I don't know what you're reading, sir but we have more information than just CentCom's statements. It honestly sounds like your trying to find nefarious motive in multiple editors' writing of the lead to justify rewriting the entire article in your vision, and nobody else's. The lede also includes more information than CentCom's statements too. I believe that the lede shold be written based on the facts that we have. And it is. I saw your version of the lede, which basically deletes a well-written intro and replaces it with what is entirely quotations from a press release, which is not what I like to see on WP. I have analyzed the sources and I believe it's fine where it stands. Stop questioning everybody's grasp of the facts. It's your edits that are disruptive, misleading, and frankly sort of authoritarian. Still voting to keep the article where it is and maintain the lede.UnteenthSense (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

UnteenthSense, can you elaborate on this statement of yours that is apparently about me: ″I can't help but wonder (going through your contributions), who has the real agenda, here? raises eyebrow Funny thing, judging by the edit history, literally everything you've added has been something to do with Russia.″ I fail to make any sense of this unprovoked personal rambling, incoherent verbal assault, as well as the continuation thereof in your next posting. Are you having any personal trouble with me? All I was saying is that there no hard known facts about the incident and it is early days (as per WP:RECENTISM) to have any "encyclopedic" lede. The lede, I repeat, is supposed to be based not on facts as such, but on the text of the article, as it ought to be its summary.Axxxion (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

1. "US coalition 'killed scores of Russian mercenaries' in Syrian battle". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 2018-02-13.
2. Browne, Ryan (2018-02-08). "Deadly battle with Syrian regime forces complicates Trump's Syria strategy". CNN. Retrieved 2018-02-13.