Talk:Foreign policy of the Bashar al-Assad administration

September 2023
Skornezy Instead of disrupting the article through unconstructive edits, attempt to raise your issue in the talk page. "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page." Despite numerous attempts at engaging, you havent responded and have simply continued with removing large amounts of sourced content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The issue is not so much with the sources used, the issue is the WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH that's spammed all over this article. I don't have time to go through every single example with you, but I will give you one example that's probably the worst offender:
 * In your lead it states:
 * Now, you cite two sources for this: The first being an opinion piece (although written by a relevant expert, it should not be used over academic research) The relevant quote is this:
 * Not only is the 600k figure inaccurate, the assertion that Russia and Iran are responsible for these hardships is not found anywhere in the opinion piece, it's purely your editorializing.
 * The second source (which I have no issue with), also makes no mention.
 * Skornezy (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had no problem with the source, why do you keep removing it and other reliable, academic sources? Not only did you remove that content, but infact, you repeatedly removed multiple reliable references and its associated contents. So dont pretend as if you came to rectify alleged Original research, when your newly inserted content was also full of what you accuse others of.
 * You wrote (which no credible source will backup ofcourse):
 * When did Russian occupation of Syria become "legal"? Does Russia have a UN mandate or do you consider Syria as some parking lot of Russian imperialism? So, demonstrably false, propagandistic statements are the hallmarks of your "re-write".
 * Another example: - Actually, the Assad government has been condemned internationally with multiple UN resolutions against him. Moreover, you described the Syrian revolution protests, a globally-recognised peaceful, grassroots, mass-movement which was part of the wider Arab Spring trend, as "protests and riots in 2011", thereby dehumanising it as some legitimate security threat to be violently crushed by the Syrian military.
 * As for concerns you raised here, that article was written in 2019. 600,000 is the updated figure (the relevant source shall be inserted soon into the page). Moreover, presence of alleged mistakes or original research in some parts of the content is not reasonable grounds for mass content deletion. The alleged mistakes are to be rectified in line with the relevant sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8, Jan Lundius' OPINION piece and World Politics Review are NOT academic sources as they are not associated with any university institution. Lundius may be an academic himself, but his Inter Press Service article is an OPINION piece. If you're going to put forward WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, then you are going to need extraordinary sources. Opinion pieces and random websites are not going to cut it.
 * You wrote (which no credible source will backup ofcourse): "Russia, the only foreign power that has its military assets openly and "legally stationed in Syria" (??), has waged an intensive air campaign against anti-government forces in Syria, on the side of and at the request of the Syrian government." When did Russian occupation of Syria become "legal"? Does Russia have a UN mandate or do you consider Syria as some parking lot of Russian imperialism? So, demonstrably false, propagandistic statements are the hallmarks of your "re-write".)
 * Are you sure about that?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "rectif[ying]" your mistakes "in line with the relevant sources." Removing content that is irrelevant and original research (which is what I did) is perfectly valid, per WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:INAPPROPRIATE.
 * Skornezy (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skornezy Stop shifting goal posts. You acknowledged the reliability of World Politics Review in your previous comment. As for Jan Lunduis, you acknowledge him as an expert academic, but then proceed to claim that all his academic statements are unreliable. General consensus in Wikipedia is that Inter Press Service as a reliable source.
 * WP:RS "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." As for WP:EXTRAORDINARY accusations, point out exactly what is the fringe conspiracy in the content rather than making general allegations.
 * From what is apparent, it was you who promoted Fringe theories when you described the Russia as a " foreign power that has its military assets openly and legally stationed in Syria". The source you cited is only analysing different legalist theories and arguing that US-led coalition doesnt have the "theory of military intervention by invitation" in their favour. Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal by a consensus . Infact the exact opposite: (Karine, 2016)
 * A very striking example of original Research from you, right there.
 * Infact, several academic sources, journals and legal experts have contested the validity of Russian intervention in Syria, similar to how the 2003 Iraq war was opposed.
 * And none of the contents you repeatedly deleted met any remote criteria of WP:IRRELEVANT or WP:INAPPROPRIATE as all of them were discussing the topic of Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad and highly relevent. Nor did you attempt to seek any form of Consensus, until after being reported. Infact, just because you dont like it or have personal views that differs from the encyclopaedic contents, it doesnt give an editor carte blanche to remove contents enmasse; which is simply academic censorship and may result in potential Vandalism. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I should remind Shadowwarrior8 that WP:Competence is required. I never said World Politics Review was not a reliable source, it is, but it's not an academic source as you continuously attempt to characterize it. Shadowwarrior8: "As for Jan Lunduis, you acknowledge him as an expert academic, but then proceed to claim that all his academic statements are unreliable. General consensus in Wikipedia is that Inter Press Service as a reliable source." I never said this. Find some of Lundis' academic work on the Syrian war and I would not be opposed to inclusion. Why is it so hard to understand that news-media opinion pieces are not the same as academic publications? Yes, given the sectarian nature of the Syrian war, Lundis—who holds a PhD in Religion—is a relevant expert, however opinion pieces do not go through the same level of scrutiny as academic works and should not be considered the same.
 * Leiden Journal of International Law published by Cambridge University Press is hardly a WP:FRINGE source, and your little quote mine does not reference Syria, Russia, or Iran, but is actually referring to in intervening in civil wars in general (anyone reading this can check for themselves). In fact, Section 4 of the paper directly challenges the legal arguments for the Russian intervention being illegal.
 * Shadowwarrior8: "Infact, several academic sources, journals and legal experts have contested the validity of Russian intervention in Syria, similar to how the 2003 Iraq war was opposed." The first article is a "student-run law journal published by the University of Michigan Law School" and includes the disclaimer that "[t]his website contains views and opinions published by members of the Journal’s editorial team on issues germane to the Journal’s area of focus. The views expressed on this website and in individual posts represent the views of the post’s author(s) only." The second article is unequivocal with its disclaimer that "this content was originally written for an undergraduate or Master's program. It is published as part of our mission to showcase peer-leading papers written by students during their studies. This work can be used for background reading and research, but should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books." Did Shadowwarrior8 not see this disclaimer or is he clutching at straws to push his own POV? The third article is a blog associated with the London School of Economics and Political Science, and was written by a random law student pursuant of an undergraduate degree. Thus, not one of Shadowwarrior's low-quality sources in his latest attempted WP:CITEBOMB can be considered reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and certainly cannot be used to contradict gold-standard sources such as Cambridge University Press.
 * And just to demonstrate, I can very easily cobble up a bunch of sources, using much better sources, mind you, to create my own citebomb and present it as a consensus:
 * Be that as it may, what I find most baffling is complaining about content removal, and then inexplicably blanking the Iran section that I had revamped. This level of hypocrisy makes it very difficult to assume that Shadowwarrior8 is acting in good faith. Can Shadowwarrior8 explain why he blanked the Iran section? Skornezy (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So the user Skornezy:
 * > removes numerous reliable sources
 * > engages in repetitive deletion of massive amounts of sourced contents
 * > inserts unsourced POV into the Lede
 * > also copy pastes content from another article, continues removal of sourced material
 * > ignores mutliple attempts at engagement and continues Disruptive editing
 * > hurls adhominem attacks at other editors when reverted, publicly admits to not giving other editors the benefit of good faith (here)
 * > finally comes to the talk page after getting reported
 * > continues bad faith allegations against the other editor.
 * That diff was the reversion of your Disruptive editing and massive amounts of sourced content removal. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by reliable sources and even if I did, I have no abilities of Censorship. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other reliably sourced contents ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8: So the user Skornezy: removes numerous reliable sources, engages in repetitive deletion of massive amounts of sourced contents. Much of the content was WP:IRRELEVANT, WP:UNDUE, and blatant WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and it will continue to be removed per Wikipedia policies. Shadowwarrior8: "inserts unsourced POV into the Lede" Which was a wiki-transfer from Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war, per my edit summary, that I have since backed up with numerous academic publications (despite your selective quoting of them). Shadowwarrior8:"also copy pastes content from another article." Which is not an issue: WP:COPYWITHIN. Shadowwarrior8: "hurls adhominem attacks at other editors when reverted" Pointing out your anti-Assad POV isn't an ad hominem (which has been pointed out by other editors), but I find this very ironic considering you accused me of making "pro-dictatorship talking points." Shadowwarrior8: "publicly admits to not giving other editors the benefit of good faith (here)." Very ironic considering you label any critique I give you as "bad faith allegations."
 * That diff was the reversion of your Disruptive editing and massive amounts of sourced content removal. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by reliable sources and even if I did, I have no abilities of Censorship. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other reliably sourced contents ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me.
 * You complain about content removal and then blank content through manual revert. This either a WP:COMPETENCE issue (coupled with your failure to grasp basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, among others) OR you are unfortunately not acting in good faith. Skornezy (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skornezy Firstly, if you have doubts regarding my POV or good intent, my position have always been that I dont intend to gate-keep content and that I am always ready to improve content with reliable, academic sources. Instead of making worthless allegations, you still havent proposed exactly what constructive changes you would prefer in the page. Maybe then a Common ground could be found.
 * Otherwise, there is no point in continuing the conversation without a neutral Third Party. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @@Shadowwarrior8 In an attempt to achieve consensus, I have pinged TheTimesAreAChanging (who is the only informed editor on Middle Eastern politics that I'm familiar with) on his talk page to get his thoughts. Skornezy (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skornezy Curious that you pinged a specific editor, particularly after you used that user's remarks (which could probably have been a mis-understanding) against me in your previous comments as justification of your consistent ad-hoc attacks.
 * So I have pinged editors focused on the Arab World for third opinion, to provide broad perspective. @Bobfrombrockley @Iskandar323. And an administrator @Diannaa as well.
 * Interesting that despite asking for the relevant constructive changes you sought to bring in the article, you suddenly became silent in that regard. You didnt simply remove my edits, you removed a lot of other edits. (1, 2, 3, etc.) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Skornezy did describe Lundius as an "academic" and a "relevant expert" here and here. As usual, the user keeps self-contradicting after every succeeding comment. Furthermore, Lunduis source is used to cite the following content in the lede:  (which really doesnt need a source, it is a well-known fact and a reality of the civil war)* (it also provides information regarding Assad's alliance with Russia & Iran)**
 * Now Skornezy says:Why is it so hard to understand that news-media opinion pieces are not the same as academic publications?
 * Okay, provide an academic publication which contradicts that above content, it shall be removed. (But I doubt one would ever find such claims from an academic work, because academic works rarely contradict well-known reality)
 * Stop putting words against other editors. I never described Karine (2016), published by Cambridge University Press, as an unreliable source. I disputed your presentation of that source as Original research and as usual you havent addressed that. Throughout that journal, the author is clear that she is presenting her opinion while acknowledging that other scholars disputed them. Even the citation you provided says" "will argue". So nowhere does she suggest a consensus in this issue, infact the opposite, she is arguing against dissenting views.
 * Some relevent passages from the work:
 * As for your claims on the sources I cited, they are reliable. (Karine, 2016) was published by Cambridge University Press, which makes it more prominent, but that does not affect the status of the former. But then Skornezy argues that they are opinion pieces. The response is that they are opinion pieces as much as (Karine, 2016). No difference.
 * As for Skornezy's sources:
 * i) Karine (2016) has already been addressed above
 * ii) Nguyen (2016) is only citing the view of an opinion piece of "Blog of the European Journal of International Law" which was the Laura (2015) source cited in the end
 * Infact Nguyen (2016) is actually CRITICAL of Russian intervention and is a source in favour of its ILLEGALITY:
 * So another instance of Original Research from the user
 * iii) Citation from Kotova, Tzouvala (2022) does nothing to support the user's claims. Infact, the immediately succeding sentence was also conveniently omitted: "Even though aspects of these arguments were controversial.."
 * iv) Erika (2016) is describing the Russian funding and arming of Assad regime, not the actual Russian military intervention. Original research again.
 * Before citing all these, Skornzey stated "I can very easily cobble up a bunch of sources, using much better sources, mind you, to create my own citebomb and present it as a consensus". I dont know what is being referred to here, but if the implication here is that I Citebombed somewhere, then there has been no diffs for it. Its simply another repetitive bad faith allegation without any evidence. If anyone claimed "consensus" here, it was Skornzey who did that by writing Russian military forces are "legally stationed in Syria" in the lede, except that no sources were even brought to back up those claims anywhere in the article.
 * As demonstrated, there is absolutely no consensus with regards to the so-called "legality" of Russian occupation of Syrian territories, just as there was no consensus regarding the "legality" of Soviet invasion and occupations of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc. which were orchestrated through similar trumped up claims by supporting pro-Soviet political factions in countries undergoing civil strife.
 * Additionally, the UNSC resolution 2249 issued in 2015 (which was supported by Russia) also urged the implementation of "a nationwide ceasefire in Syria" and demanded member-states to "support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire". It also urged all
 * As is well-known, Russia and pro-Assad forces violated this resolution by conducting offensives supported by Russian aerial bombing campaign against opposition-held regions during 2016-20, thereby increasing its territorial control from less than 20% to nearly two-thirds of the country. Thus, Russia contravened UN resolution 2249 (which it had backed earlier) and also opposed the self-determination of another independent state by meddling in its internal affairs. Therefore, there is no doubt regarding the illegality of Russian presence. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8: "Furthermore, Lunduis source is used to cite the following content in the lede: Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed.
 * Since Shadowwarrior8 would like to convolute the timeline, the previous version of the lead (before I started editing it) read like this:
 * Lundius 2019 & Ker-Lindsay 2023 were his only two citations for that entire paragraph. When he was called out that his two sources (neither of which were pieces of academic work) did not support his lead paragraph, instead of substituting the citations, he creates a misleading WP:CITEBOMB. Credit where credit is due however, at least he has slightly blunted his blatant POV-editing and is no longer claiming that the Russian and Iranian interventions "resulted in around 600,000 deaths [and] millions of forced displacements," which was one of my main contentions. Now, he's finally providing some actual sources that deserve inclusion, but these sources should not be stated in wikivoice and need attribution in both the lead and body, so the lead still needs re-writing.
 * Shadowwarrior8: "Okay, provide an academic publication which contradicts that above content, it shall be removed. (But I doubt one would ever find such claims from an academic work, because academic works rarely contradict well-known reality)"
 * I'm not repeating myself again, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion. I'm not really sure why you're still arguing about this, given that you've finally started to abandon pushing that opinion piece and are now using better sources.
 * Shadowwarrior8: "Stop putting words against other editors. I never described Karine (2016), published by Cambridge University Press, as an unreliable source. I disputed your presentation of that source as Original research and as usual you havent addressed that. Throughout that journal, the author is clear that she is presenting her opinion while acknowledging that other scholars disputed them. Even the citation you provided says" "will argue". So nowhere does she suggest a consensus in this issue, infact the opposite, she is arguing against dissenting views."
 * So, you've shifted from your previous tactic of deceptively quoting Karine (2016) so you can claim that she supports your POV, to your new tactic of arguing that Karine (2016) somehow holds a minority viewpoint because semantics. Sorry, but this type of stuff will not fly on Wikipedia. And of course, Shadowwarrior8 conveniently omits Karine's rebuttal to Weller:
 * Shadowwarrior8: "As for your claims on the sources I cited, they are reliable. (Karine, 2016) was published by Cambridge University Press, which makes it more prominent, but that does not affect the status of the former. But then Skornezy argues that they are opinion pieces. The response is that they are opinion pieces as much as (Karine, 2016). No difference."
 * Again, I need to remind Shadowwarrior8 that WP:Competence is required to edit on Wikipedia. Student-run journals and an undergraduate thesis with a crystal clear disclaimer that it "should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books" are NOT reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And certainly cannot be used to contradict Karine (2016), or anything else for that matter. And are you serious? Karine (2016) is not an opinion piece, Cambridge University Press is not a news organization and does not publish op-eds. What is Shadowwarrior8 doing here if he doesn't understand such basic things?
 * Shaddowwarrior8: "Nguyen (2016) is only citing the view of an opinion piece of "Blog of the European Journal of International Law" which was the Laura (2015) source cited in the end"
 * So? It's unequivocal, nonetheless.
 * Shaddowwarrior8: Infact Nguyen (2016) is actually CRITICAL of Russian intervention and is a source in favour of its ILLEGALITY:
 * Deceptively quoting sources seems to be common motif with Shadowwarrior8. Nguyen (2016) does not argue that the Russian intervention was a "biased intervention" (and thus not illegal), it actually states the contrary:
 * While Nguyen (2016) does state that the "active presence of the Russian army has not been helpful in Syria" on p. 11 because "there is no sign that they can end the Syrian crisis," it stops short of questioning its legality. Again, whether Shadowwarrior8 likes it or not, Nguyen (2016) is unequivocal: Recently, the invitation extended by Assad’s government on behalf of the Syrian state to the Russians was unequivocally deemed to be lawful.
 * Skornezy (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skornezy I'm going to ignore the intense rants hurled around which obfuscates scrutiny away from content, but I shall respond to the made-up allegations that apparently do focus on content.
 * Skornezy: "he's finally providing some actual sources that deserve inclusion".
 * So the user finally admits that reliable sources have been provided, by implication, the user should stop the disruptive spamming of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc.
 * Skornezy: "I'm not repeating myself again, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion"
 * Sure, but thats a reminder for the one demanding the same as well. I did provide the reliable source (as you yourself admitted), and thats ENOUGH for inclusion for the wording "Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed." (although it is debatable whether it needs to be included in the lede, but you still havent made any proposal for constructive changes despite multiple invitations here and here)
 * Skornezy: "you've shifted from your previous tactic of deceptively quoting Karine (2016) so you can claim that she supports your POV"
 * You are right that my wording in that diff stated "Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal" --> I have corrected it to "Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal by a consensus" (which was what I meant as demonstrated by the next citation in the diff- which I shall repost again - but I accidentally omitted a word): (Karine, 2016)
 * So it was clear what Skornzey's responsibility was, i.e, to establish a clear consensus to his eccentric and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim here that Russia was "the only foreign power that has its military assets openly and legally stationed in Syria"). The WP:ONUS here was upon Skornezy and the user clearly failed. Infact the acknowledgment of a profound division in the very introduction of Karin (2016) invalidates the mandatory requirements needed to establish such a claim. As for "disclaimer", this journal does not have any such disclaimer and therefore can be used as a reliable, academic source.
 * Skornzey: "Student-run journals and an undergraduate thesis with a crystal clear disclaimer that it "should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books"are NOT reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP."
 * This one doesnt have that disclaimer. Its disclaimer is "This website contains views and opinions published by members of the Journal’s editorial team on issues germane to the Journal’s area of focus. The views expressed on this website and in individual posts represent the views of the post’s author(s) only." Infact Seema Kassab is part of the editorial team and therefore can be considered as an academic source.
 * Only one source has that disclaimer. Even though it does, you havent cited the exact guideline from WP:SCHOLARSHIP that makes the source "unreliable".
 * Skornezy "So? It's unequivocal, nonetheless"
 * If one doesnt have any problem with citing an opinion piece from an EJIL: Talk! blog, that person definitely wouldnt have an issue with the sources I cited here as well. Second, the user appears to be confusing "unequivocal" with something comparable to "unanimous consensus". What the term really means "expressing your opinion or intention very clearly and strongly" (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary). Yet again another obfuscation. The fact is that (Ngyen, 2016) simply referring to strong views advocated by an opinion piece in EJIL: Talk! blog; has no correlation to views advocated by Ngyen in the article. Rather it is you simply making WP:OR and a classic case of WP:SYNTH.
 * None of the quotes Skornezy cited make any evidence to back up the user's claims.
 * Nguyen strongly critcizes the Russian intervention:
 * Nguyen's position of Assad govt's invitation of Russia to be a party in the civil war:
 * Author's position on the legality of a state requesting a foreign power during civil conflicts:
 * Nguyen's position on the illegality of Russian intervention is crystal clear in these lines:
 * (Nguyen, 2016)Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, now that Shadowwarrior8 admits that he completely misquoted (in my view, deliberately) Karine (2016), he has shifted his efforts in misrepresenting Nguyen (2019). Since, he admits to completely misrepresenting Karine (2016) (which of course he'll chalk up as an innocent mistake), his credibility on Nguyen (2019) is severely diminished. While, Nguyen (2019) is critical of the Russian intervention in Syria (p. 11), criticism is not the same as arguing against its legality. After all, the entire Western world has criticized the conduct of the Russian military in Syria, and yet seemingly none have challenged Russia's legal basis.
 * Shadowwarrior8 cites a portion of Nguyen (2019) in which the critiques on p. 11 are reiterated, and is followed by: "A biased intervention should itself be considered unlawful. Intervening troops are supposed to be mediators, peace-keeping forces deployed to stabilize the country and prevent possible humanitarian crises." So, based on a dubious (and likely unintentional) juxtaposition and because Nguyen (2019) is already critical of the Russian intervention (not because of its military conduct, but because "there is no sign that [Russia] can end the Syrian crisis."), Shadowwarrior8 assumes that Nguyen (2019) affirms the Russian intervention as a "biased intervention," and thus illegal by criteria. In fact, as quoted above, Nguyen (2019) on pp. 28-29 affirms quite the opposite actually: "Yet surprisingly, Russia had a history of unfailingly respecting the principle of self-determination and neutrality toward internal actors in the Syrian conflict."
 * Of course, Nguyen (2019) on p. 7 poses a huge problem for Shadowwarrior8's narrative: "Recently, the invitation extended by Assad’s government on behalf of the Syrian state to the Russians was unequivocally deemed to be lawful." His contention is that Nguyen (2019) is "simply referring to strong views advocated by an opinion piece ... has no correlation to views advocated by Ngyen [sic]," but there is no textual evidence of this. On the contrary: the tone of voice is definitive, treated as a statement of fact, and there is zero attribution to Visser. In reality, Shadowwarrior8 is basing his assumption solely because Nguyen (2019) includes a citation to Visser's article in the European Journal of International Law Blog, which is clutching at straws at best.
 * I'm also not really sure what Shadowwarrior8 is trying to achieve by citing the dictionary. The word "unequivocal" means "leaving no doubt," i.e. there is no doubt to the legality of the Russian intervention.
 * Be that as it may, in the interest of compromise and in an attempt to create a consensus, I boldly edited the lead. As for the reporting on "scorch-earth" tactics, I do think they're better suited for the article body with proper attribution (and you have my full permission). Nonetheless I did include the line "The military activity of Syria, Iran, and Russia during the war has been criticized by the US and its allies, as well as several journalists and human rights organizations," the reader can then explore the nuances and substance of what's being reported inside the article body. Skornezy (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Skornezy Pretty sure that Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is a more prominent standard than Merriam-Webster. Even then, it still doesnt mean anywhere near "unanimous consensus". But I'm okay with the compromise solution in which the legality claim has been removed.
 * I'd say that this conversation could have been conducted in a more productive way had it not been for the ad-hoc remark in the beginning (probably a one-off which should have been retracted) and some of the subsequent comments which focused away from content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I need to remind Shadowwarrior8 that WP:Competence is required to edit on Wikipedia. Student-run journals and an undergraduate thesis with a crystal clear disclaimer that it "should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books" are NOT reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And certainly cannot be used to contradict Karine (2016), or anything else for that matter. And are you serious? Karine (2016) is not an opinion piece, Cambridge University Press is not a news organization and does not publish op-eds. What is Shadowwarrior8 doing here if he doesn't understand such basic things?
 * Shaddowwarrior8: "Nguyen (2016) is only citing the view of an opinion piece of "Blog of the European Journal of International Law" which was the Laura (2015) source cited in the end"
 * So? It's unequivocal, nonetheless.
 * Shaddowwarrior8: Infact Nguyen (2016) is actually CRITICAL of Russian intervention and is a source in favour of its ILLEGALITY:
 * Deceptively quoting sources seems to be common motif with Shadowwarrior8. Nguyen (2016) does not argue that the Russian intervention was a "biased intervention" (and thus not illegal), it actually states the contrary:
 * While Nguyen (2016) does state that the "active presence of the Russian army has not been helpful in Syria" on p. 11 because "there is no sign that they can end the Syrian crisis," it stops short of questioning its legality. Again, whether Shadowwarrior8 likes it or not, Nguyen (2016) is unequivocal: Recently, the invitation extended by Assad’s government on behalf of the Syrian state to the Russians was unequivocally deemed to be lawful.
 * Skornezy (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skornezy I'm going to ignore the intense rants hurled around which obfuscates scrutiny away from content, but I shall respond to the made-up allegations that apparently do focus on content.
 * Skornezy: "he's finally providing some actual sources that deserve inclusion".
 * So the user finally admits that reliable sources have been provided, by implication, the user should stop the disruptive spamming of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc.
 * Skornezy: "I'm not repeating myself again, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion"
 * Sure, but thats a reminder for the one demanding the same as well. I did provide the reliable source (as you yourself admitted), and thats ENOUGH for inclusion for the wording "Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed." (although it is debatable whether it needs to be included in the lede, but you still havent made any proposal for constructive changes despite multiple invitations here and here)
 * Skornezy: "you've shifted from your previous tactic of deceptively quoting Karine (2016) so you can claim that she supports your POV"
 * You are right that my wording in that diff stated "Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal" --> I have corrected it to "Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal by a consensus" (which was what I meant as demonstrated by the next citation in the diff- which I shall repost again - but I accidentally omitted a word): (Karine, 2016)
 * So it was clear what Skornzey's responsibility was, i.e, to establish a clear consensus to his eccentric and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim here that Russia was "the only foreign power that has its military assets openly and legally stationed in Syria"). The WP:ONUS here was upon Skornezy and the user clearly failed. Infact the acknowledgment of a profound division in the very introduction of Karin (2016) invalidates the mandatory requirements needed to establish such a claim. As for "disclaimer", this journal does not have any such disclaimer and therefore can be used as a reliable, academic source.
 * Skornzey: "Student-run journals and an undergraduate thesis with a crystal clear disclaimer that it "should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books"are NOT reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP."
 * This one doesnt have that disclaimer. Its disclaimer is "This website contains views and opinions published by members of the Journal’s editorial team on issues germane to the Journal’s area of focus. The views expressed on this website and in individual posts represent the views of the post’s author(s) only." Infact Seema Kassab is part of the editorial team and therefore can be considered as an academic source.
 * Only one source has that disclaimer. Even though it does, you havent cited the exact guideline from WP:SCHOLARSHIP that makes the source "unreliable".
 * Skornezy "So? It's unequivocal, nonetheless"
 * If one doesnt have any problem with citing an opinion piece from an EJIL: Talk! blog, that person definitely wouldnt have an issue with the sources I cited here as well. Second, the user appears to be confusing "unequivocal" with something comparable to "unanimous consensus". What the term really means "expressing your opinion or intention very clearly and strongly" (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary). Yet again another obfuscation. The fact is that (Ngyen, 2016) simply referring to strong views advocated by an opinion piece in EJIL: Talk! blog; has no correlation to views advocated by Ngyen in the article. Rather it is you simply making WP:OR and a classic case of WP:SYNTH.
 * None of the quotes Skornezy cited make any evidence to back up the user's claims.
 * Nguyen strongly critcizes the Russian intervention:
 * Nguyen's position of Assad govt's invitation of Russia to be a party in the civil war:
 * Author's position on the legality of a state requesting a foreign power during civil conflicts:
 * Nguyen's position on the illegality of Russian intervention is crystal clear in these lines:
 * (Nguyen, 2016)Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, now that Shadowwarrior8 admits that he completely misquoted (in my view, deliberately) Karine (2016), he has shifted his efforts in misrepresenting Nguyen (2019). Since, he admits to completely misrepresenting Karine (2016) (which of course he'll chalk up as an innocent mistake), his credibility on Nguyen (2019) is severely diminished. While, Nguyen (2019) is critical of the Russian intervention in Syria (p. 11), criticism is not the same as arguing against its legality. After all, the entire Western world has criticized the conduct of the Russian military in Syria, and yet seemingly none have challenged Russia's legal basis.
 * Shadowwarrior8 cites a portion of Nguyen (2019) in which the critiques on p. 11 are reiterated, and is followed by: "A biased intervention should itself be considered unlawful. Intervening troops are supposed to be mediators, peace-keeping forces deployed to stabilize the country and prevent possible humanitarian crises." So, based on a dubious (and likely unintentional) juxtaposition and because Nguyen (2019) is already critical of the Russian intervention (not because of its military conduct, but because "there is no sign that [Russia] can end the Syrian crisis."), Shadowwarrior8 assumes that Nguyen (2019) affirms the Russian intervention as a "biased intervention," and thus illegal by criteria. In fact, as quoted above, Nguyen (2019) on pp. 28-29 affirms quite the opposite actually: "Yet surprisingly, Russia had a history of unfailingly respecting the principle of self-determination and neutrality toward internal actors in the Syrian conflict."
 * Of course, Nguyen (2019) on p. 7 poses a huge problem for Shadowwarrior8's narrative: "Recently, the invitation extended by Assad’s government on behalf of the Syrian state to the Russians was unequivocally deemed to be lawful." His contention is that Nguyen (2019) is "simply referring to strong views advocated by an opinion piece ... has no correlation to views advocated by Ngyen [sic]," but there is no textual evidence of this. On the contrary: the tone of voice is definitive, treated as a statement of fact, and there is zero attribution to Visser. In reality, Shadowwarrior8 is basing his assumption solely because Nguyen (2019) includes a citation to Visser's article in the European Journal of International Law Blog, which is clutching at straws at best.
 * I'm also not really sure what Shadowwarrior8 is trying to achieve by citing the dictionary. The word "unequivocal" means "leaving no doubt," i.e. there is no doubt to the legality of the Russian intervention.
 * Be that as it may, in the interest of compromise and in an attempt to create a consensus, I boldly edited the lead. As for the reporting on "scorch-earth" tactics, I do think they're better suited for the article body with proper attribution (and you have my full permission). Nonetheless I did include the line "The military activity of Syria, Iran, and Russia during the war has been criticized by the US and its allies, as well as several journalists and human rights organizations," the reader can then explore the nuances and substance of what's being reported inside the article body. Skornezy (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Skornezy Pretty sure that Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is a more prominent standard than Merriam-Webster. Even then, it still doesnt mean anywhere near "unanimous consensus". But I'm okay with the compromise solution in which the legality claim has been removed.
 * I'd say that this conversation could have been conducted in a more productive way had it not been for the ad-hoc remark in the beginning (probably a one-off which should have been retracted) and some of the subsequent comments which focused away from content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nguyen's position on the illegality of Russian intervention is crystal clear in these lines:
 * (Nguyen, 2016)Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, now that Shadowwarrior8 admits that he completely misquoted (in my view, deliberately) Karine (2016), he has shifted his efforts in misrepresenting Nguyen (2019). Since, he admits to completely misrepresenting Karine (2016) (which of course he'll chalk up as an innocent mistake), his credibility on Nguyen (2019) is severely diminished. While, Nguyen (2019) is critical of the Russian intervention in Syria (p. 11), criticism is not the same as arguing against its legality. After all, the entire Western world has criticized the conduct of the Russian military in Syria, and yet seemingly none have challenged Russia's legal basis.
 * Shadowwarrior8 cites a portion of Nguyen (2019) in which the critiques on p. 11 are reiterated, and is followed by: "A biased intervention should itself be considered unlawful. Intervening troops are supposed to be mediators, peace-keeping forces deployed to stabilize the country and prevent possible humanitarian crises." So, based on a dubious (and likely unintentional) juxtaposition and because Nguyen (2019) is already critical of the Russian intervention (not because of its military conduct, but because "there is no sign that [Russia] can end the Syrian crisis."), Shadowwarrior8 assumes that Nguyen (2019) affirms the Russian intervention as a "biased intervention," and thus illegal by criteria. In fact, as quoted above, Nguyen (2019) on pp. 28-29 affirms quite the opposite actually: "Yet surprisingly, Russia had a history of unfailingly respecting the principle of self-determination and neutrality toward internal actors in the Syrian conflict."
 * Of course, Nguyen (2019) on p. 7 poses a huge problem for Shadowwarrior8's narrative: "Recently, the invitation extended by Assad’s government on behalf of the Syrian state to the Russians was unequivocally deemed to be lawful." His contention is that Nguyen (2019) is "simply referring to strong views advocated by an opinion piece ... has no correlation to views advocated by Ngyen [sic]," but there is no textual evidence of this. On the contrary: the tone of voice is definitive, treated as a statement of fact, and there is zero attribution to Visser. In reality, Shadowwarrior8 is basing his assumption solely because Nguyen (2019) includes a citation to Visser's article in the European Journal of International Law Blog, which is clutching at straws at best.
 * I'm also not really sure what Shadowwarrior8 is trying to achieve by citing the dictionary. The word "unequivocal" means "leaving no doubt," i.e. there is no doubt to the legality of the Russian intervention.
 * Be that as it may, in the interest of compromise and in an attempt to create a consensus, I boldly edited the lead. As for the reporting on "scorch-earth" tactics, I do think they're better suited for the article body with proper attribution (and you have my full permission). Nonetheless I did include the line "The military activity of Syria, Iran, and Russia during the war has been criticized by the US and its allies, as well as several journalists and human rights organizations," the reader can then explore the nuances and substance of what's being reported inside the article body. Skornezy (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Skornezy Pretty sure that Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is a more prominent standard than Merriam-Webster. Even then, it still doesnt mean anywhere near "unanimous consensus". But I'm okay with the compromise solution in which the legality claim has been removed.
 * I'd say that this conversation could have been conducted in a more productive way had it not been for the ad-hoc remark in the beginning (probably a one-off which should have been retracted) and some of the subsequent comments which focused away from content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's quite hard to understand the substance of the disagreement here because of the volume of personalised invective. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, the lead should not include heavy citation but summarise the body and use the body for citations. The thing to do would be check if the content in the lead is taken from the body and if there's sourcing in the body; if the answer is positive in both cases then the footnote in the lead can go, unless the claim is controversial.
 * It is clearly the case that some scholars have argued that Russia's intervention is legal but it is also clearly the case that this is disputed by other scholars and there is no settled consensus, so using "legal" or "illegal" as a statement of fact in our voice would be POV. The better place to detail that would not be this article but the one on Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war. Making a claim that Russia is the only legal intervener is not based in any of the sources cited on this talk page and would definitely be SYNTH/OR/POV.
 * I see repeatedly invoking WP:competence is required (an essay and not a policy) in a totally inappropriate way. I suggest they read the essay before repeating that claim, as it doesn't mean what they seem to think it means.
 * Re scholars' in blogs, we should avoid opinions for statements of fact, but also bear in mind the relevant policy in WP:EXPERTSPS.
 * Where I think has a point is on using opinion pieces for claims of fact. This  should be avoided. I also think Inter Press Service is at best a very weak RS, although I know some editors see it as solid.


 * Thanks for taking time to respond, Bobfrombrockley.
 * A few points to further note here:
 * Skornezy also removed large amounts of sourced content of other editors from the body (attribution can be viewed in edit history of Bashar al-Assad) .Some examples: (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) The user's edit summaries for content removal was full of Idontlikeit-style arguments and clearly was Disruptive. This, combined with the lack of response after multiple attempts to initiate discussion also appeared to be Disrupting to illustrate a point, so I had no choice but to revert them.
 * The lede was written by me so as to provide a summary and introduction to the body. I am ready to remove citations from the lede (ofcourse that is the optimal objective) and shall be doing that shortly.
 * Regarding Inter Press Service, what I could read from Reliable sources noticeboard was that "The consensus here on a prior discussion seemed to be that IPS is a reliable source" (see here and here). I dont think that it is an academic source or should be used to make Extraordinary claims, ofcourse.
 * Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what the contention is. Each diff you've demonstrated has an extensively written edit summary, citing specific Wikipedia policies. Skornezy (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made improvements to the lede and body based on some of your suggestions. @Bobfrombrockley.
 * Citations have been mostly removed from lede and I have backed up content in the body. Plus, some relevant info. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim "that Russia is the only legal intervener" was originally added, without explanation, in a self-described "style" edit to Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war by the now-banned user / in 2017. Based on the discussion above and the status of the user in question, I have removed that material from the article where it originated, as I believe that Shadowwarrior8 and Bobfrombrockley have convincingly demonstrated the speciousness of making such an assertion in wikivoice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation overkill
In an attempt to salvage a completely made-up line of text, Shadowwarrior8's latest edit is a totally misleading WP:CITEBOMB. Again, none of the sources he cites makes any mention of "scorched earth tactics," nor are they adequate enough to state in Wikivoice the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim of Syria, Iran, and Russia being solely responsible for the crisis. It's also a very low-quality cite bomb as well: An opinion piece, geopolitical analysis from a subscription-based website, carpet-bombing accusations from Western governments. However, what's most interesting is the citation of Borshchevskaya 2021; this is because for one specific line of text, Shadowwarrior8 cites an entire chapter from her book which makes it very difficult to verify his citation. For a very specific point, surely Shadowwarrior8 can be more precise. Skornezy (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So until now Skornezy was asking for citations, but when citations are provided the complaint is suddenly "Citation overkill" (?!) However, WP:CITEKILL is alleged typically for more than 4 sources, and clearly references here have been restricted to four. But the irony is Skornezy was the one demanding for sources.
 * Also, "verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" according to MOS:LEADCITE. You were the one challenging the contents, but is critical when citations are provided. The editor labels all content as original research but still want others to research the references for him. This shows that the user is simply making these accusations without attempting to verify the sources.
 * Additionally, nowhere in the content suggests that Iran and Russia are "solely responsible for the crisis". Thats just another baseless claim in the user's long list of Bad faith allegations.
 * Russia's scorched earth tactics in Syria have also been well-documented. For example, read the Russian–Syrian hospital bombing campaign article. As for the specific in-line citation requested in the relevant reference:
 * No matter what you feel about its contents, all the sources brought up here are reliable. I could back up the material with even more academic citations and am all in favour of improving articles with reliable, academic sources; but you have been deleting these very same references without contributing anything of academic value. It seems the user's priorities are something else. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Shadowwarrior8 seems to have forgotten that the WP:ONUS & WP:BURDEN is on him to justify inclusion and verifiablity.
 * Anyways, yes, it is a misleading citebomb. Only one of the sources in your inline citation actually support what is written (Borshchevskaya 2021), the rest is just fluff, and I've already called you out on this. Borshchevskay, a former US military contractor and current researcher for the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office, is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank:
 * Even though Mearsheimer and Walt's critiques were made in 2007, there is no reason that they don't still apply today. So, while Borshchevskaya is an expert, she is an extremely biased source. I'm not opposed to citing Borshchevskaya 2021, however I disagree with citing her in wikivoice. It needs attribution, and thus belongs in the article body, not the lead, so the lead still needs changing.
 * Skornezy (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Skornezy should first realize that one shouldnt accuse other editors of original research without verifying the references. Requesting inline citations is one thing, spamming WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:EXTRAORDINARY allegations against another editor is something else.
 * The other sources are there to support the rest of the sentence, while (Borshchevskaya 2021) is to specifically cite the well-known scorched earth tactics of Russian military intervention. It is not a citebomb either. Go check its definition.
 * Once again, Skornezy has attempted to shift the goal posts. The user never raised concerns of Borshchevskaya's academic reliability at first. Now that the relevent citations got provided, the user has moved on to the next allegation. Firstly, the source doesnt describe her as a "US military contractor" as you claimed, she was a "A former analyst for a U.S. military contractor"; big difference. And she isnt a "current researcher" at US army's foreign military studies office, she used to conduct "translation and analysis" in that office "Until recently". So not as biased as you present. Even if one were to be an US army officer, many generals have also been critical of US army policies, such as Smedley Butler.
 * Also, the book is not published by WINEP. It is published by Bloomsbury Publishing and its I.B. Tauris imprint. So that's an invalid guilt by association argument. Your personal opinion of "Borshchevskaya" is irrelevant since the book is clearly academically reliable. This argument might have made sense if the book, infact, was published by WINEP.
 * Its interesting that you bought up John Mearsheimer, an author known for pro-Russian views on geo-politics. The book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is also a highly controversial work and is not used in wikipedia without proper attribution. According to Robert C. Lieberman:
 * Thus in anyways, Mearsheimer and his book are explicitly biased sources in this context. Furthermore, Israel is an ally of Russia and officially co-ordinates with the Russian military in Syria.
 * "Russia sees military coordination with Israel on Syria continuing" (Reuters, Feb 2022)
 * So not sure why Israel sympathy accusations even fit into this. (i.e, even assuming WINEP continues to be part of a pro-Israel lobby 15 years after Mearsheimer's 2007 allegations) Your arguments seem to be only for the sake of arguments, it seems.
 * Russian hospital bombing campaigns are well-documented and the author's works were also well-cited.
 * The UN Made a List of Hospitals in Syria. Now They're Being Bombed (Aron Lund, 2019)
 * Syrian and Russian forces targeting hospitals as a strategy of war (Amnesty International, 2016)
 * Additionally there are other academic works, discussing the scorched earth tactics of Russian invaders in detail: (just like in Afghanistan).
 * So it is explicitly clear from multiple reliable references, reports and academic works, that Russia and pro-Assad forces implemented scorched earth tactics to gain control over the country, resulting in the displacement of around 13 million civilians. WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim is made by Skornezy who disputes this fact, and the user should bring extraordinary sources to support such fringe theories. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from failing to understand that the WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN is on him, I'm not exactly sure what Shadowwarrior8's qualms are given that I've already told him that I'm not against inclusion of those sources provided appropriate attribution is followed and WP:DUE is applied. Skornezy (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Same applies to you as well, Skornezy. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally there are other academic works, discussing the scorched earth tactics of Russian invaders in detail: (just like in Afghanistan).
 * So it is explicitly clear from multiple reliable references, reports and academic works, that Russia and pro-Assad forces implemented scorched earth tactics to gain control over the country, resulting in the displacement of around 13 million civilians. WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim is made by Skornezy who disputes this fact, and the user should bring extraordinary sources to support such fringe theories. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from failing to understand that the WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN is on him, I'm not exactly sure what Shadowwarrior8's qualms are given that I've already told him that I'm not against inclusion of those sources provided appropriate attribution is followed and WP:DUE is applied. Skornezy (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Same applies to you as well, Skornezy. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from failing to understand that the WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN is on him, I'm not exactly sure what Shadowwarrior8's qualms are given that I've already told him that I'm not against inclusion of those sources provided appropriate attribution is followed and WP:DUE is applied. Skornezy (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Same applies to you as well, Skornezy. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Administration
The article title's spelling is "Foreign policy of the Bashar al-Assad adminstration"; It's actually administration, not adminstration. Please correct the spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.123.21.36 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)