Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war/Archive 2

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 Yes, Russia has announced withdrawal but it still hasn't actually withdrawn.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 Wikipedia 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 * First of all, Russian forces have not been completely withdrawn.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)

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)

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)

'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 Wikipedia controlled by the pushers of this absurd propaganda? All RS emphasise rather the opposite. But then, after all, Wikipedia 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 move92.3.24.108 (talk) 00:42, 31 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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  (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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151005173807/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/khamenei-calls-for-stronger-iranian-military-to-deter-enemies/article26610890/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/khamenei-calls-for-stronger-iranian-military-to-deter-enemies/article26610890/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222080141/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/britain-send-troops-baltic-states-deter-russian-moves-070606744.html to https://uk.news.yahoo.com/britain-send-troops-baltic-states-deter-russian-moves-070606744.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything is OK.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything is OK.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:17, 1 April 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)
 * Yes, we have many pages that describe fate of German and Japanese civilians. So should we describe what is happening in Syria. It does not matter if they were German, Japanese or Syrian. It does not matter if the "perpetrators" were German, Russian or American. It only matters what our policies tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Section title
To solve this issue I suggest, Tobby72, that you open up an RfC asking whether the section title should be "Reports of war crimes" or "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". This should be straight forward. And since you're the one who wants to change it, you should be the one to file the RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that arguing that WP:TITLE prevents us from writing "attacks on civilians" for the section title is somewhat... absurd. The whole section is about attacks on civilians ! If you're claiming that WP:TITLE says that we cannot title a section with a description of what it's actually about, then you're probably reading WP:TITLE wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus is against you. – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff (6 different editors). How much more slow edit warring are you intending to persevere with, Marek? Time to drop it. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those three of those diffs are actually not disagreeing with me in substance and I don't really see those editors on the talk page. And then another of those diffs is by a short-term WP:SPA. Sorry, that's not consensus.
 * Now, if you want to see consensus go ahead and start an RfC on what the title of the section should be. Nothing is stopping you from doing that... except perhaps the fact that it's sort of ridiculous to argue that a section title cannot actually describe what the section text is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, did it myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on April 6 2016
Within the "Since 26 February 2016 (cessation of hostilities)"-section of the "Operations by Russian military forces"-section, the same source (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-pullout-idUSKCN0WG23C) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The move was announced on the day when peace talks on Syria resumed in Geneva"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.69.45 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vigilance, IP 2.111.69.45. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

 * I'm sorry but why is this being removed? Sources are provided -, this is nothing more than a POV push. Vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims don't count.


 * per 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.  -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You continue repeating the same, although this was explained above a number of times. First of all, you misrepresent sources. This is not according to Sky News. Source ("Independent") tells: "The leading human rights organisation said Moscow's air force has not only been targeting civilians and aid workers in Syria over the last week, but that warplanes have been deliberately attacking those attempting to treat the victims." This is not according to Sky News. Second, the sources indeed tell about attacks on civilians, but you removed it. Third, why the city of Al-Raqqah needs a qualifier like an "ISIS city". Is that to justify the bombings of civilians? You also use obscure partisan sources to discredit Amnesty International. I do not think this belongs to the page even about Amnesty International, and certainly undue on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "First of all, you misrepresent sources. This is not according to Sky News." – Sky News tells: "However, evidence obtained by Sky News suggests that this is not the case. Footage filmed in Aleppo five days ago shows the graphic aftermath of what's claimed to be a Russian airstrike."


 * "Second, the sources indeed tell about attacks on civilians, but you removed it." - – I've reworded the section title per 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".)" ... and per 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."


 * "Third, why the city of Al-Raqqah needs a qualifier like an "ISIS city"." – We report what reliable sources say. The International Business Times tells: "Kurdish militias are eyeing the Islamic State's (Isis) de facto Syrian capital of Raqqa after capturing a strategic town to its east ..."


 * "You also use obscure partisan sources ... ." – Swedish Doctors for Human Rights is a Sweden-based non-profit research Non-governmental organization composed by professors, physicians, researchers and academics within health-related disciplines. Many of their research findings have been published and/or commented in peer-reviewed international medical journals and in Läkartidningen (the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association). -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is simply ridiculous. Yes, Sky News were noted in the publication. But the claim in the publication was based on a variety of other sources (see quotation above). As about other things, well, your edit (diff above) speaks for itself. For example, providing POV-ish qualifiers about subjects already described on their own pages (such as propagandist Petrov or terrorist city) is something very familiar.My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This was already explained to you.

First, it's not "according to SkyNews". The title of that source is "Russia Guilty Of Syria War Crimes, Says Amnesty ". Yes part of the evidence is SkyNews footage. But there's also TWO other sources. So SkyNews is ONLY ONE OF the sources to say this. You are changing the test to make it seem like it is THE ONLY source which backs this up.

Second, you are NOT rewording the section title according to WP:TITLE (which, as already explained to you applies to article titles anyway). The sources state and the whole section is about attacks on civilians and war crimes. You CANNOT just remove from the title the description of what the section actually is about! You cannot quote WP:MOS to support that kind of edit because it's exactly the OPPOSITE of what MOS says.

Third, you are committing WP:SYNTH by calling "Raqqah" an "ISIS city" (etc) because the text you inserted is trying to suggest to the readers that it's justifiable to target civilians and commit war crimes, as long as it's done in an ISIS-controlled city (too bad for the civilians I guess).

Fourth, your SDHR source is clearly cherry picked and does NOT represent the majority of sources out there.

Please stop revert warring (even if you're careful to observe the 1RR limit, a slow motion edit war is still an edit war - and you are doing THE SAME THING on other articles, which makes this worse) until you get WP:CONSENSUS for these changes and additions. If you want to you can start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Funny, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights "does NOT represent the majority of sources out there" but Syrian Observatory for Human Rights does. Are we living on the same planet? Dorpater (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not only SOHR, but many other sources, such as Amnesty International . In addition, as was explained several times above, this is not just SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), but a large number of publications in other RS that use SOHR as a legitimate source of information on human rights in Syria. But I did not see publications that use Swedish Doctors for Human Rights as a source of information about human rights in Syria. So, yes this is view by the vast majority of sources, and the Swedish doctors are a less appropriate source than SOHR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the difference. SOHR reports are mentioned in a large plethora of SECONDARY reliable sources. If you can find a large number of reliable SECONDARY sources which mention the SD4HR view, then we can talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "WP:TITLE (which, as already explained to you applies to article titles anyway) ... ." No. – MOS:SECTIONS ( This was already explained to you) - diff. – "The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well. – "You cannot quote WP:MOS to support that kind of edit ... ." – Yes, I can. WP:MOS ( This was already explained to you ) – ''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." – See Gulf War_Casualties ... Iraq War_Criticism and cost ... 2011 military intervention in Libya_Civilian losses ... Sri Lankan Civil War_Alleged war crimes


 * "Third, you are committing WP:SYNTH by calling "Raqqah" an "ISIS city" ." – That's just your opinion. ISIS claims Raqqa as the capital of its so-called caliphate.


 * "Please stop revert warring (even if you're careful to observe the 1RR limit)." –


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 16:40, 3 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek ("except for the obviously POV original research and editorializing")


 * 16:45, 3 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 03:58, 4 March 2016 – My very best wishes


 * 05:34, 8 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 20:32, 8 March 2016 – My very best wishes


 * 20:35, 14 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 15:31, 15 March 2016 – My very best wishes


 * 03:09, 16 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 03:10, 16 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 03:31, 16 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 04:12, 19 March 2016 – My very best wishes


 * 20:23, 20 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 19:24, 23 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 16:16, 24 March 2016 – My very best wishes


 * 23:46, 25 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 15:27, 26 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 01:05, 28 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 03:48, 29 March 2016 – My very best wishes


 * 19:20, 29 March 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 10:54, 1 April 2016 – Volunteer Marek


 * 14:08, 2 April 2016 – My very best wishes


 * This is a clear violation of WP:1RR. – diff, diff. Volunteer Marek is obviously aware of 1RR.


 * Please also see Long-term pattern of tag-teaming between Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes. Initiated by Étienne Dolet at 18:56, 27 February 2016.


 * Volunteer Marek & My very best wishes have been edit-warring against 8 different editors: User:Hammer5000, User:EkoGraf, User:Axxxion, User:Dorpater, User:Athenean, User:Macaque123, User:MyMoloboaccount, me. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Tobby72, there is no 1RR violation there. What you got there is two users reverting you because you: 1) are engaged in a slow motion edit war (and this is not the only article you're doing this at) 2) you don't participate in talk page discussion until you're forced to, 3) you keep repeating the same erroneous reasons when you do, which don't really make sense.

Here is YOUR slow motion edit warring on THIS ARTICLE ALONE:

Jan 2 Tobby72

Feb 21 Tobby72

Feb 21 Tobby72

Mar 14 Tobby72

Mar 15 Tobby72

Then you really get going, basically coming here once per day to do your 1 revert per day, with hardly any talk page discussion...

Mar 17 Tobby72

Mar 20 Tobby72

Mar 22 Tobby72

Mar 24 Tobby72

Mar 25 Tobby72

Mar 27 Tobby72

Mar 28 Tobby72

Mar 29 Tobby72

Mar 31 Tobby72

April 2 Tobby72

So for almost three months you have been gaming the 1RR restriction and edit warring against multiple editors. On talk page you engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and just keep repeating the same thing over and over, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you that your interpretation/belief/application are just wrong (for example, WP:TITLE says the OPPOSITE of what you claim it says). Now towards the end there, several editors who have been edit warring at the Vladimir Putin page have followed myself here - which in itself is problematic. They also have not made an effort to discuss the issue.

Your behavior here is exactly the same as what you've been doing for more than a year (!!!!!!!) War in Donbass and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation where you've been trying to cram POV material into these articles against WP:CONSENSUS by also edit warring against multiple users, and also making sure to observe 3RR but making sure you get your reverts in.

As to your accusations of tag teaming, yes, another user filed a request for arbitration and.... it was overwhelmingly rejected for lack of evidence. Hence you bringing it up here and pretending that there was any substance to it is an obvious instance of bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "No, Tobby72, there is no 1RR violation there." – Yes, Volunteer Marek, this is a clear violation of WP:1RR. – 1st revert - 23:46, 25 March 2016. – 2nd revert - 15:27, 26 March 2016.


 * "So for almost three months you have been gaming the 1RR restriction and edit warring against multiple editors." –
 * Diffs of the user's reverts::


 * Jan 23 – Volunteer Marek


 * Feb 27 – Volunteer Marek


 * Feb 28 – Volunteer Marek


 * Feb 29 – Volunteer Marek


 * Feb 29 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 3 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 3 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 8 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 14 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 16 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 16 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 16 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 17 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 20 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 23 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 25 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 26 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 28 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 29 – Volunteer Marek


 * Mar 31 – Volunteer Marek


 * April 1 – Volunteer Marek


 * April 3 – Volunteer Marek


 * "... with hardly any talk page discussion...." – Talk:POVing of a section title. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * False. I've started every single discussion here. You have just been reverting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that you're DIFF-PADDING like crazy. A whole bunch of those aren't even reverts just edits I've made to the article. And of course by posting this to the talk page you are just amping up your disruption as this clearly isn't a place for it. WP:3RR is over that way -->, why not go there? WP:BOOMERANG perhaps? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "A whole bunch of those aren't even reverts just edits" – Be specific, please. I see just reverts. Perhaps you mean Feb 27 ?


 * I should also point out Volunteer Marek, that all that diffs above show is that you are constantly edit warring against multiple editors. You might want to stop that. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making completely false accusations. Adding a little [diff] to a claim, when that diff doesn't actually show what you claim it shows is not proof. It is dishonesty.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong casualties number
You have confused the number of casualties of the Islamic State and the rest of the opposition. Your own source says 1.626 dead for IS and 1.586 for the other guys, but the page says the opposite.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2016/03/31/russian-warplanes-kill-5081-civilians-40-of-them-were-civilians/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabarzanes (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Video footage contradicts denials
User:Volunteer Marek, regarding this revert: Firstly, the article's text  'Video footage and testimony by rescue workers contradict these denials'  is based on a Sky news claim, not an Amnesty claim. Secondly, while Amnesty claims 'serial attacks' on rescue workers, Sky says of the video'' 'evidence obtained by Sky News suggests that this is not the case. Footage filmed in Aleppo five days ago shows the graphic aftermath of what's claimed to be a Russian airstrike'.''

As I say in my edit reason, IF this material is used, it should be clearly attributed to Sky (not implied to be Amnesty) and, it should definitely not be phrased in Wiki-voice as at present, since even Sky is exercising caution by using the words I have enboldened.

Personally I think Sky's claim too weak to use and intend to remove it, though you are welcome to re-add it ATTRIBUTED and accurately relecting what Sky ACTUALLY says (that they say they have seen evidence that, if true, plausibly contradicts?). Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, partial apologies, if one follows a link within the Skynews cite, it leads to the Amnesty statement, that statement makes similar claims about video and other evidence. Amnesty says they have taken measures to verify the video (they detail what measures), however they are still using 'suggest this contradicts', rather than asserting factually that 'it does contradict'. I stand by my main points, that Wiki-voice should not be used and that they are saying 'suggests' rather than 'does' and that the original Amnesty should be cited as the source. If Amnesty are being cautious about the 'factuality' of this claim, we should doubly be so. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, I was summoned here for the RfC's, I don't pretend to know very much about the subject. HOWEVER you cannot turn very equivocal statements by Sky and Amnesty, that video footage 'suggests' Russia is not telling the truth, into factual statements in wiki-voice. The claim, that video evidence exists that flatly and unquestionably contradict Russia's denials, is an extraordinary claim. It needs something much stronger than Sky or Amnesty's use of 'suggest'. Personally I think it actually weakens Amnesty's measured account to include it at all. Pincrete (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "extraordinary" about this. To the contrary, this is something claimed by majority of RS on this subject. First of all, this is claimed by Amnesty International . Claims in the title and summary like Syrian and Russian forces targeting hospitals as a strategy of war and Russian and Syrian government forces appear to have deliberately and systematically targeted hospitals and other medical facilities over the last three months to pave the way for ground forces to advance on northern Aleppo, an examination of airstrikes by Amnesty International has found are very much unequivocal. Anoter source about the same. Yet another RS . Yest another . And so it goes. This is not Sky News at all.My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, please read my comments more carefully, what is 'extraordinary' is the single sentence (in wiki-voice) 'Video footage and testimony by rescue workers contradict these denials'  ie it is a fact that we (WP) know that Rus is lying! The original statements by both Sky and Amnesty are hedged in with 'suggests' and other equivocations, they believe the video to be authentic certainly, Amnesty has taken such steps as it could to authenticate the video, certainly, but they are still cautious about claiming 'proof'. Why is WP stating in direct speech that such proof exists? Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC) … … addendum, if used I suggest something like "Amnesty also claim that the testimony of rescue workers, and video footage which they obtained and which they believe to be of a Russian airstrike, both contradict these denials'. Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do not understand what this is all about because both versions tell the same: Kremlin denies what people on the ground have seen by their own eyes. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My very best wishes, from my point of view, it was about the single sentence in Wiki-voice  'Video footage and testimony by rescue workers contradict these denials', which 'Marek' re-inserted twice, possibly not knowing on one occasion as he was reverting several changes. Everything else claimed by Amnesty at present in the article is 100% RS and neutrally phrased IMO. That sentence turns an equivocal Sky and Amnesty claim 'we think this suggests .... if it is what it seems to be', into a statement of fact. The matter I believe is now resolved.Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that phrase could be easily excluded, although it does not really make any difference. However, version by VM also included another phrase: "Documents show attacks on schools, hospitals and civilian homes.''. That one I think should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, emphatic NO. 'Amnesty/Sky/whoever also say that they have/have seen.... video/documents showing attacks on schools, hospitals and civilian homes', could be used, if they do unequivocally say that. But when I looked at the Amnesty + Sky statements, they were very equivocal, that may be for many reasons, but whatever the reasons, you cannot turn a claim that evidence suggests into a statement of fact. Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But here are the sources ,, and they are very much unequivocal. Do you really have any doubt that Russian airplanes in fact attacked civilian facilities after reading these and other sources? I think this is all either "beyond the reasonable doubt" or merely a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether I personally am more inclined to believe Amnesty or Russian spokesmen is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that a) these are what Amnesty says/believes is happening, not what WP (or you or I) knows to be the truth, therefore it must be given their voice not ours. .... b) The Amnesty press release opens Rus + Syr forces appear to have deliberately and systematically targeted hospitals and other medical facilities over the last three months .... an examination of airstrikes by Amnesty International has found. If Amnesty is being cautious by saying 'appear', we should be even more cautious in our wording.


 * I do not object to any of these claims being used (concisely etc.), I object to attributable 'claims' being turned into objective 'facts' and omitting the 'cautions' that Amnesty etc. are using. IMHO, the caution that Amnesty shows strengthen's their credibility, not casts doubt on their claims, but regardless, we cannot 'beef-up' their claims nor present them as facts. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think this whole thread is a little ... unhelpful, especially since you already changed the wording as you wanted and no one objected. The actual question is not the bombings of civilian facilities, but why these bombings were undertaken.  According to some RS, they were undertaken to undermine any hopes for peaceful resolution in the country and send the wave of refugees to Europe, because that was that actual goal of the Russian military campaign (just a random example). Perhaps that should be included, but obviously only as an opinion, rather than as a statement of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I started the thread to explain why I had removed two short sentences (twice). I re-opened it in response to your remarks/suggestions. Since we are now in agreement that 'claims' must be clearly attributed and since we would probably agree that more RS claims could probably be inserted, matter closed! Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR characterized as pro-opposition
The SOHR is characterized as pro-opposition or anti-Assad by the following sources:
 * Reuters
 * BBC
 * LA Times
 * Haaretz
 * NY Daily
 * Guardian
 * UNHCR
 * Independent
 * Telegraph
 * VOA News
 * TIME Magazine
 * Al-Jazeera
 * CNN
 * New Europe
 * VOA News

This is not something SOHR appears to be ashamed of. Many of these sources, which characterize the organization as pro-opposition or anti-Assad, are uploaded and published on their official website. For example:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The POV tag seems justified in that regard. The SOHR's partiality towards the conflict is widely accepted. Pro-opposition is one of the most common characterizations of this organization. Until this article doesn't characterize the SOHR as such, a POV tag is necessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What matter is that it is a reliable sources, per WP:RS. Indeed, the sources in the article aren't just SOHR but other reliable sources. Whether it's "pro-opposition" or not is actually immaterial to its reliability. But in the interest of compromise I'm fine with the qualifier "pro-opposition" being added in text if that gets the POV tag removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with such a compromise. However, under such a compromise, there's going to be an issue of WP:UNDUE weight in the lead since the SOHR is characterized as a siding with a belligerent faction of the conflict. But I'm willing to have those concerns assessed for another time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
Under the section for civilian casualties it says, "as of March 2106 per SOHR" I suggest that the "2106" be changed to a 2016.

Bbirman (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)bbirman ✅ Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Stratfor and attacked Russian base(Since 26 February 2016)
Actually T4 Tiyas base is a Syrian one and Mig25 is also Syrian aircraft(as Stratfor itself said).Russian MoD commented this satellite images as a "wreckage of the Syrian helicopters which were left after the battle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.12.14 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Rfc regarding sentence in the lede
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 and  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)
 * As mentioned elsewhere, that source should not be used directly, only reliable sources that cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the SOHR is indeed a highly partisan outlet, I would still retain my concerns when citing it, whether that be through a secondary source or from the SOHR itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both users whom you invoke here stated that the source was fine if we had secondary sources which cited it. Which we do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I didn't even realize that the same user whom you invoke for support is showing up here to disagree with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * FunkMonk said that this source is highly partisan, and I agree with him on that. I do disagree, however, that the use of secondary sources would in some magical way make such a highly partisan source reliable. I don't believe in miracles, nor do I believe in fairy tales. There's plenty of academic sources out there that point to the fact that the SOHR is nothing but a mouthpiece of systemically biased western news media runned by one person out of his apartment who has a deep and overt sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army. Therefore, I don't believe that just because BBC or some other western news outlet cites him in some article would change that blatant fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the place of the Wikipedia editor to judge what secondary sources choose to do. That's classic original research and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Now, if you actually have these "academic sources" which show that "SOHR is nothing but a mouthpiece of systemically biased western news media ... ... ..." then let's see'em . Where? You can't just assert that such sources which supposedly prove you right exist but then refuse to show'em to us. And it has already been pointed out repeatedly that the characterization of SOHR as "runned (sic) by one person out of his apartment" is completely false. For example here (which incidentally begs the question of why you're here, since it very much looks like you followed me here from there just to disagree). There multiple sources have been provided which directly contradict your description of SOHR.


 * Just to practice what I preach, here they are again: 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.


 * Here is an extensive profile of the organization from a reliable source . Let's see what THEY have to say about them:
 * "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has emerged as a prominent campaign group amid the country's revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, releasing daily casualty figures for the international media"
 * "The group of mainly professionals, many of them lawyers, monitored changes to the law and the judicial system, and worked to highlight cases of human rights abuses"
 * "It now has more than 200 members and affiliates, covering every province in Syria, with some volunteers aggregating and publicising information from the UK"
 * "The group says it is impartial in its reporting, recording the deaths of soldiers as well as civilians and protesters. The names of all those killed are carefully documented, along with the circumstances surrounding their death, including videos if they are available."


 * I'd appreciate it if you dropped the hyperbolic rhetoric about "partisan sources", "mouthpiece of Western media", or "run by one guy out of his apartment" since reliable sources tell us that none of these are true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - this also appears to be a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. User:Athenean went to WP:RSN with the exact same question, didn't get the answer they wanted, so they came here and opened up this RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Citing a bunch of sources isn't going to make the SOHR anymore of a joke than it already is. In fact, you've proved my point. Just because someone quotes unreliable sources, doesn't make that source magically reliable. In this case, it doesn't change the fact of how openly partisan the person who started the SOHR actually is. That's bias in itself, and we have the sources to prove it. As for those sources, here a some:
 * ""Many of the allegations in the Western press that accuse the Russian government of killing civilians are solely based on this one unprofessional and biased source.""
 * ""Many of the allegations in the Western press that accuse the Russian government of killing civilians are solely based on this one unprofessional and biased source.""


 * ""That said, however, the political bias that lurks in the data supplied by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights revitalizes an extremely simplified, stereo-typed “Arab Spring” and is hampering correct understanding of the Syrian situations.""


 * And please, don't cherry pick your favorite western sources from the others that may not fit your POV. NY Times, for example, and many other western news media outlets, do call the SOHR a "one-man band". 02:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) Citing a bunch of sources isn't going to make the SOHR anymore of a joke than it already is. - actually, your confusing grammar aside, citing a bunch of reliable sources is EXACTLY how Wikipedia works (or at least how it's suppose to work) and yes, it does establish the credibility of the source. Your comment sounds like you're actually rejecting the idea that Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. I'm sorry but in that case there is a unreconcilable dissonance between your editing approach and the fundamental principles of an encyclopedia. Your idiosyncratic opinions should be discounted accordingly.

You are also misrepresenting the situation. It's not JUST that reliable sources quote SOHR, it's that they EVALUATE it positively.

Now, onto your "sources".

First, this one. Is this suppose to be the "academic" source? Actually, it's an article from a well known conspiracy-theory-website, globalresearch.ca, popular with all kinds of right wing extremist cranks. Are you sure you wish to present us with such a "source" to support your point?

Second, this one. It's title is "The SOHR is a tool of western propaganda". Ooooookkkkkkaayyyyy, that already raises like a couple dozen red flags right there. What is this source? Is it an academic journal? No, it's a non-peer reviewed publication of a Kremlin backed "research institute". Among other things, it has accused Benjamin Netanyahu of... being a Holocaust denier (!) And other crap like that. Here's a typical sentence from the publication: "Always the world’s professional victims, Israelis had no shame ...". Please don't post links to this anti-semitic rag on Wikipedia anymore (anyone who wants to find the exact citation for my claim can google it themselves). Needless to say, it's nowhere need reliable.

I have no idea where you found this sourc.

And then we have the New York Times which is the first actually reliable (nevermind your promise of "academic" sources) you have managed to quote. Problem is that you cherry picked one sentence out of it to misrepresent what it actually says. It also says, quote: "He does not work alone. Four men inside Syria help to report and collate information from more than 230 activists on the ground". The "one-man band" thing is just a journalist's way of saying that one guy is in charge. That's all.

So. You said there was "plenty of academic sources" which showed how evil and partisan SOHR was. I asked you to provide them. You didn't. Instead you gave us links to a far-right conspiracy website and a link to a fake online "journal" which publishes anti-semitic texts.

I don't think I need to say anything more here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All the claims made in these articles can be easily verifiable with other primary or secondary sources (i.e. "flown the flag of the Muslim Brotherhood led ‘Free Syrian Army’ on his website" with the current SOHR official website). On that note alone, it's impossible to say he has no allegiance to any side of the conflict. As for the NY Times article, indeed he may have affiliates here and there, but the collection of information and the analysis of that information is done selectively by a single person who is in open support of one side of the conflict over the other. That's deeply concerning in itself. And to say that I "reject" all reliable sources is far from the truth. That wasn't the underlining point of my argument. It was the use of SOHR as a source in general, whether it be by BBC, Independent, Sputnik, and yes, even Wikipedia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You claimed there were "plenty of academic sources" which showed that SOHR was "Western propaganda mouthpiece" or something like that. I asked for the "plenty of academic sources". Instead you gave us a far right conspiracy website, and an online fake journal that publishes anti-semitic pieces. Okay.
 * Now you're saying "All the claims made in these articles" - the conspiracy website and the sketchy journal - "can be easily verifiable with other primary or secondary sources". In other words you are once again ASSERTING that these sources which would support your claims exist somewhere out there. What you are NOT doing is PROVIDING these sources. A single example of a trivial factoid doesn't cut it (added later: in fact, it's even wrong about this as well) - it does NOT, not by a long shot, show that "All the claims made in these articles" - the conspiracy website and the sketchy journal - "can be easily verifiable with other primary or secondary sources".
 * You really need to stop making stuff up and then claiming that sources out there exist to back up this stuff you just made up. Sources please or this is a pointless discussion.
 * (And yes, your statement above pretty much explicitly stated that you don't believe in Wikipedia's policy of WP:RS and WP:V because 'Western propaganda' or something. Which pretty much means you're WP:NOTHERE. Now, I'm sure in practice you're all to willing to use reliable sources on some occasions).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided the sources, and it just so happens that they can be easily be verifiable with the claims made. I don't think I have to repeat myself here. You call it extremist or whatever you want, but the real extremity here is stating that a source is neutral when it openly, almost boastfully, proclaims allegiance to one side (might I add, the losing side) of the conflict. That's not WP:RS as I've known it in my 10 years of editing Wikipedia. But we digress. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * NO, no you didn't. You said that there was "plenty of academic sources" to back up your claims. I asked for them. You gave links to a conspiracy website and a website which publishes anti-semitic texts.
 * I pointed out what your "sources" really were. You then claimed that "All the claims made" in the sources you provided - a conspiracy website and an anti-semitic webpage - could be verified with "other" primary and secondary sources. I asked you to show me these "other" sources which can back up "All the claims" made in the conspiracy website article or in the webpage. You haven't done that. At ALL. All you've done is fallen back on making exaggerated and unfounded claims about the original source under discussion. And repeating the completely unsupported, unfounded, unbacked and false claim that there exist out there, somewhere in the universe, other sources which back up your conspiracy website and anti-semitic "journal".
 * So one more time. Please show me these "plenty academic sources" which you promised. Show me these "other" sources which back up "All the claims" made in the two sketchy - non-academic, non-reliable, conspiracy and clearly fringe - sources you did provide.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, I would call a far-right website which is in the business of spreading conspiracies, and a website which pretends to be a journal and which publishes anti-semitic articles "extremist". Wouldn't you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, these are academic sources, and my point is that the claims can be easily verifiable. As in, much of what they say is true. So even if it fails to be a RS, the whole FSA flag on the SOHR website is still deeply concerning, let alone the fact that the sentence in its current state is undue and repetitive (i.e. the preceding sentence is similar) for the lead. Hence, that's why I stand by my exclude vote. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ''' These are NOT academic sources!!!!!!! It's a conspiracy website and a webpage that publishes anti-semitic articles! Will you please stop making that assertion? It's blatantly false. They are neither academic nor reliable nor anything close.
 * And now you're trying to change the argument to "undue and repetitive"? That makes about as much sense as claiming your sources are "academic".
 * And NO, you're wrong (and your "source" is wrong) about the flag thing too. 1) There is no such flag on the website, there's only a website logo which sort, maybe, kind of, resembles that flag. 2) The flag is NOT the flag of the Free Syrian Army, it's an older version of the Syrian flag, from 1930's or something, 3) regardless, so what, you're grasping at straws.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Include while SOHR clearly opposes the regime, that is not a reason to refuse to report the data they collect. SOHR has proven to be one of the best sources of facts about the war. Putin's press efforts... not so much. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - per arguments already provided on WP:RSNB and on this talk page, . My very best wishes (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Emphatic no to the inclusion. I've seen discussions here that conclude that Daily Mail does not qualify as a decent source, despite the fact that it is cited by plenty of quality newspapers. Then how on earth can a one-man-band like SOHR be reliable in the field in which it is absolutely openly partisan? Dorpater (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've struck through this !vote by a known sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion. Is this source known for "fact-checking and accuracy"? Based on the extensive usage of this source by multiple RS, it has significant positive international reputation. Have some specific data by this source been disproved according to publications in RS? If not, then your comment is groundless. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Include Summoned by bot. Those arguing against including the sentence seem to take issue with the SOHR's reliability, rather than whether it's appropriate for the introduction. As others have mentioned, the SOHR has been repeatedly quoted in hundreds of thousands of articles in reliable sources about Syria. If anyone has an issue with the SOHR, it's with those sources, not Wikipedia. It's also clearly relevant to the introduction section on the article. I cannot see any reason not to include it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Include Summoned by bot The wording proposed is unambiguously in SOHR's voice, not as fact. If there are other (lower?) claims they can also be included or a 'has been questioned' added. Casualty figures in an ongoing conflict are notoriously unreliable, and, to a degree, always susceptible to partisan calculation, even the most respected humanitarian orgs have a vested interest in drawing attention to the plight of victims and it is often only years later (or never) that an accurate assessment can occur. No convincing case has been made here that SOHR is SO unreliable that it should be discounted. If western media are largely relying on these figures, that itself makes them noteworthy. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional include - As long as the sentence in the lede is correctly sourced, it should remain. As said by others, multiple reliable sources support their data, so we should accept the reliable source. If you don't like it, get a reliable source to refute the claim and that can also be included. As for it not being necessary because it's in the article... well, you've missed the point of a lede. --Topperfalkon (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Emphatic exclude - this claim from a source that other sources have considered dubious or biased, a source which is not neutral (produced as it is by a flag waving supporter of Muslim Brotherhood), and one which is also certainly not official, is not suitable for lede content. There is editorializing for effect by placing this source and its extreme claim alongside sources and claims from proper international bodies that are generally considered to be neutral (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Doctors Without Borders). By all means mention the claim somewhere in the article content, along with any responses to the claim. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield, this is the source being mainly used by Western media, that of course does not make it reliable (in mid-conflict, is any source wholly reliable? Previous wars would suggest not), it does make it notable. I don't believe that demonstrably more reliable figures are actually available. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A lede is meant to summarize article content, not be a pov opinion piece. What content is being summarized by having this extreme claim by this pov source in the lede? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What content? In context, that these are the claimed casualty figures being used by most mainstream media. Because the figures are (rightly IMO) attributed to the SOHR, it is obvious that the degree of reliability is uncertain, which is always the case with ongoing conflicts anyway. None of us are going to know HOW un/reliable these figures are till it's all over, if then. Neither you nor I can say with any certainty that these figures are 'extreme/accurate/understated'. The 'antidote' to a possibly partisan or otherwise poss. unreliable statistic, is a counter-statistic. Your argument is effectively arguing for NO casualty estimate, since no clearly reliable source does or at present even could exist. Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong! Stop misrepresenting my position! I clearly stated that I think it is OK to have this figure (and any responses to it) in the article. What I oppose is its insertion into the lede, which is what this rfc is about. This content does not summarize anything, so is not required in the lede, and I think having it there turns the lede into a partisan, pov opinion piece. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, there was no intention to misrepresent. What I should have written is 'Your argument is effectively arguing for NO casualty estimate IN THE LEDE', since to the best of my knowledge, there are no RS figures available. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Lede content is meant to summarize article content. This claim (which is controversial, highly dubious, contested, and from a partisan source) is already in the article. There is no legitimate reason to have it also in the lede. As for your question, there are no other casualty estimates in the lede so the question is void. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "that other sources have considered dubious or biased" - one more time. WHERE are these "other sources". You're doing the exact same thing that EtienneDolet tried to pull above. Make a claim that there exist, somewhere in the world, these magical "other sources" which cast doubt on this source. Academic ones too, no less apparently! Then when someone actually asks you to provide these "other sources" then... either ignore that request and just keep on endlessly asserting that they exist, or provide some junk like a conspiracy website and an anti-semitic journal, like EtienneDolet did and claim with a straight face that these are "academic".
 * Where are these "other" sources?
 * And oh yeah, WP:BLP applies to the guy who organized SOHR. So unless you produce a reliable source to the effect that he is a "flag waving supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood", you will need to strike that accusation. I'll give you some time Otherwise, I'll remove that BLP vio myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That sources just don't know how reliable SOHR is, is I think established (but when in an ongoing war has there ever been a wholly RS?). That this source is irredeemably 'tainted', I agree with 'Marek', is NOT established by RS. They themselves are using SOHR's figures, though choosing to 'attribute' them. 'Tiptoe' is though of course perfectly free to think these should not be used in the lede. Pincrete (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151016232514/http://alqabas.com.kw/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=1095175&CatID=323 to http://www.alqabas.com.kw/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=1095175&CatID=323

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)