Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war/Archive 3

One more time
Re this revert and ones like it.

First, this is a BLIND revert which seems to undo changes just because of who made them not because of their substance. As such, it combines what may be legitimate changes with completely unwarrented and POV ones. Specifically:

1. As mentioned above several times the section title needs to be "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" NOT "Reports of war crimes". The information in the section is about BOTH reports of war crimes AND deliberate attacks on civilians. Please stop changing this section title. It describes what the section is about and what the sources say. There's absolutely NO good reason to change it.

2. Second the change of "Video footage" to "According to SkyNews" misrepresents the source. The title of the source is "Russia Guilty Of Syria War Crimes, Says Amnesty ", as in Amnesty International. So it's not "according to SkyNews", it's according to SkyNews and Amnesty International. I also don't see a need for attribution here, since it's pretty clear from the paragraph that this is being reported by several sources, AI among them.

3. Adding "in the Islamic State capital of Al-Raqqah and the al-Qaeda ruled city of Idlib" to the sentence "used white phosphorus against targets in Al-Raqqah". This is POV WP:SYNTH. It is meant to suggest that it is okay to use white phosphorous because these are ISIS and al-Nusra controlled cities. Of course, that's not the case, since the whole problem with white phosphorous is that it has a tendency to kill lots of innocent (as in non-Isis, non-al-Nusra, civilians) which is why this is being criticized. Here is a simple way to determine whether this is a legitimate change or just POV pushing: ask "do the sources explicitly state "Islamic State capital of" or "al-Qaeda ruled city of"??? This source does NOT (in fact al-Nusra or al-Qaeda are not even mentioned). This source does mention that Raqqah is ISIS controlled but it also states explicitly "(white phosphorous) is banned for use in densely populated areas or when directly targeted at infantry because it is highly toxic and can burn through skin and bone". This source is not even about the subject matter!

4. As mentioned above, the mention of the "Swedish Doctors for Human Rights" is cherry picking and it is an organization which is not representative of general views. It's a WP:FRINGE organization which is only being quoted by other FRINGE organizations (and apparently, Wikipedia)

5. The problem with the paragraph about human shield is two fold. First, it repeats info found somewhere else in the article. Second, while potentially useful, the way it is worded it suggests that the civilian casualties discussed - the hospitals attacked and the rescue workers bombed - are those human shields. This is of course false. The sources are about different cities, different airstrikes, something altogether different. For example This source DOES NOT EVEN MENTION Russian airstrikes! This is about as clear cut case of WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation of sources as one can get.

Finally, since all of these changes are so problematic, they really do need to be discussed on talk first - something which hasn't really been done by the couple of editors who are insisting on them. That means addressing the points raised rather than just repeating the same irrelevant and erronous argument about WP:TITLE or saying "it's sourced!" (that's a necessary not a sufficient condition). So please stop it with the edit warring and try to get consensus here first. I'm open to including some of this info but it needs to be reworded and accorded due weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow I missed your point 5 in the previous discussion. Yes, I agree. This is elaborate propaganda. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP:POVTITLE is most concerning I think, so I'm going to focus my comment on that. I'll look into the other stuff later. "Attacks on civilians" is not a neutral way of describing it, especially when such reports from the Amnesty International use much softer words (i.e. "suspected Russian air strikes", "attack appeared to have been carried out", "evidence suggesting" and etc.). Also, "Attacks on civilians" is essentially a "war crime" so we don't need to be doubling down and repeating the wording by saying "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". So I agree with most users on this TP that it's POV and that it has to go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Attacks on civilians CAN BE a PARTICULAR kind of war crime. But the sources don't limit themselves to just that. They also discuss other potential war crimes. Hence the need to be clear.
 * And whether the section title is POV or not can be simply determined - how do the sources describe it? And no, sources don't use "softer words". Where you getting that from? Here's how they describe it:
 * "Tirana Hassan, director of Amnesty's crisis response programme, said the attacks are ongoing - with strikes documented on schools, hospitals and civilian homes."
 * "The military offensive that the Russian and Syrian government forces opened ... has included extensive use of cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate and internationally banned weapons."
 * "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."
 * "An airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital Monday in northern Syria was deliberate and carried out by either Syrian regime or Russian warplanes, the medical nongovernmental organization said. "
 * These quotes are STRAIGHT FROM THE sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Section about some other stuff
This is really ridiculous. Getting very sick of the blatant double standards. A) – diff. B) –  diff,  diff, diff.

We follow reliable sources not editors' own personal feelings or ideologies. Can you please point out where claims are made without sources? Where unreliable sources are used? Thanks.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not see any problem with including info on human shields, unless this is done in a highly misleading and WP:SYN fashion (previous version). However, this edit included also another text that was disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Tobby72, if you want to discuss stuff in infobox then 1) start a new section and 2) don't combine your reverts of relevant info with changing stuff in the infobox. It looks like you're trying to change the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please explain how the additions specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been asked to discuss any introduction of further content to the infobox, so please stop hopping back and forth from doing just that in the article while WP:BRD is in process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not again, please – Human shields

 * Tobby, once again, there is no consensus for these changes. See this talk page, RfC and this discussion. Actually, placing info about human shields on this page is wrong because this suggests they were the same people who were killed by Russian aviation. This page is about Russian military intervention, not about human rights violations in this war in general. In addition, text your inserted (Amnesty International's report "was aimed at causing a stir in the media space with loud groundless conclusions and anti-Russian rhetoric, which is in such great demand in some Western capitals) does sounds like an irrelevant propaganda. This is definitely undue. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, please. We report what reliable sources say. Section is called "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". The use of human shields in armed conflict is a war crime.


 * "This page is about Russian military intervention ..."


 * – "The [Islamic State] fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing anyone from fleeing, activists said. ... Activists from Raqqa say the northern Syrian city’s estimated 350,000 residents are gripped by fear, rattled by powerful Russian and French airstrikes that shake the city daily"


 * "ISIS extremists use Syrian civilians as human shields against Russian strikes". ARA News. 24 January 2016. – "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes," civil rights activist Issa al-Raei told ARA News in Manbij. "The ISIS terror group is using those civilians as human shields against the Russian airstrikes," al-Raei said.


 * – "The militants, one of the most powerful rebel factions operating in the Douma suburb of Damascus, have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes, according to the anti-government Shaam news agency. Air strikes have routinely targeted Douma and other neighbourhoods in the Eastern Ghouta region of the country while rebel groups have retaliated by sending rockets in government controlled areas of the city."


 * – "Hundreds of people believed to be from President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite community have been put in cages and paraded through besieged Damascus suburbs, apparently to deter Syrian and Russian aircraft from further bombing the city of Douma."
 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is text you included (diff above):

That is hardly relevant to the subject of this page. Sources you quoted tell also about something slightly different. ISIS militants paraded people on the streets in cages "apparently to deter Syrian and Russian aircraft from further bombing the city of Douma". Should that be included? I would say no because this belongs to crimes by ISIS militants, not by Russian army. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT again. ... Syrian rebels using human shields to halt Russian air strikes. ISIS militants hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing people from leaving their hometowns despite Russian air strikes. ... I'd say it is perfectly relevant. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to quoted sources, the ISIS militants prevented people from leaving their homes during strikes by Syrian and Russian aviation. This is not about Russian military intervention, but about crimes by ISIS. This belongs to Human rights in ISIL-controlled territory. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The ISIS terror group is using those civilians as human shields against the Russian airstrikes." — How is this not about Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War? And please let's not whitewash the crimes of ISIS. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is incorrect summary of sources. These sources tell about ISIS militants preventing movement by people during attacks by Syrian, French and Russian aviation, as has been already explained . My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By late February, the Russian airstrikes conducted around 60 airstrikes daily, while the American-led coalition averaged seven. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, the sources you provided tell about atrocities by ISIL militants and civilians being killed in attacks by Russian, French and Syrian aviation. Did not they? My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The ISIS terror group is using those civilians as human shields against the Russian airstrikes." It's quite clear and simple. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is clear and simple is that it's agonisingly bad WP:SYNTH. Stop POV-pushing falsehoods over and over again... and please stop using tags like ammunition to be thrown into articles every time you want to draw attention to yet another WP:POINT to keep flogging. Using tags in this manner is intentionally disruptive, and such use is essentially a WP:GAME strategy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Jaysh al-Islam and ISIL using human shields
Compromise version: diff per WP:NPOV/Noticeboard — Islamic State war crimes & POV tag — "Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page." Do you agree now? -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me :) --Dorpater (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't a "compromise version". It's just a slightly shorter version of the non-compromise version. It's still undue and off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it's WP:SYNTH. For it NOT to be SYNTHESIS you need a source that says that the reason Russia committed these war crimes, and the reason why it targeted these civilians IS because ISIS used civilians as human shields.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is out of place and belongs to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've struck through the support for the same old SYNTH by an identified sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "The militants, one of the most powerful rebel factions operating in the Douma suburb of Damascus, have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes" ... WP:SYNTH? Undue and off topic? I don't think so. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Section title
Should the title of this section (as of 20:56 April 3) be "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" or should it be "Reports of war crimes"

Here is the text of the section as it appears at the time of this RfC being filed:

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I support "Reports of war crimes" per WP:TITLE and WP:POVTITLE.

WP:TITLE clearly states:


 * Right, so it says that "allegation" is a non-neutral word, and says explicitly that "allegation" should be avoided in a descriptive title.
 * And as already pointed out, these are NOT "reports of allegations", they are "reports". It's not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, even more neutral would be Human rights concerns or Allegations of war crimes as is the case with many articles:
 * 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict
 * Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
 * Northern_Mali_conflict
 * Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)
 * 2006_Lebanon_War
 * Gaza_War_(2008–09)

As such, it is also much more concise that way. Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians sounds repetitive since war crimes can also mean "civilians attacked". So I see no other reason to repeat similar statements other than a mere desire to achieve repetition for effect. To alleviate such a concern, it's best to make it concise and straight to the point. I have also noticed the language in these sources is much lighter than what the section title portrays it to be (i.e. "suspected Russian air strikes", "attack appeared to have been carried out", "evidence suggesting"). Either that, or they are making claims that they themselves admit are hardly verifiable or not of their own independent observation (i.e. "it has not been able to verify whether it was pro-government Syrian forces or Russian forces", "either Syrian regime or Russian warplanes", or "Opposition activists and local witnesses have reported" and etc.). Therefore, I don't see why the title of that particular section should present these allegations as fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, in other words inapplicable logical fallacies. In fact at least some of those articles should have THEIR section titles changes. WP:TITLE does not apply here in the way you claim - we are using words straight from the sources (and anyway, WP:TITLE applies to article titles, as has been repeatedly pointed out).
 * Frankly, it is ABSURD to argue that WP:TITLE says that you cannot have a section title which actually describes the contents of a section. In what world does that make sense? If you're making an argument which is that ridiculous, chances are you're not reading WP:TITLE correctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (and no, as has already been pointed out to you - and you failed to respond - sources do NOT actually use "lighter language". See here. You're cherry picking short phrases out of the sources and quoting them out of context. It's trivial to find different phrases *in the same sources* which use quite strong language)Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument wasn't convincing for me though, and it still isn't. So I stand by my vote. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What, that a section title should actually describe what the section is about? Ok, your choice. Just keep in mind that RfC's are not voting, so only policy-backed arguments are taken into consideration, not WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" - because, per WP:TITLE or just plain common sense, the title of a section needs to describe what the section is about. And this section is precisely about war crimes AND attacks on civilians (and no, neither one is a proper subset of the other).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" because it is correctly descriptive. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" per WP:TITLE, WP:POVTITLE and WP:MOS — 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 . – The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the title should be sufficiently precise, as in it should describe what the section is actually about. So why do you want to remove that part from the title? The title is consistent with related articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLE states: Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words ... 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) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. What is neutral is determined by sources. If sources talk of "reports" rather than "reports of allegations" then we also use "reports". Sticking in the word "alleged" in front of any thing YOUJUSTDONTLIKE is a classic way of WP:WEASELing for POV purposes.
 * Also, just from the point of pure grammar it doesn't make sense:
 * "Reports about X" = there are reports which state X happened.
 * "Reports of alleged X" = there are reports which state there were allegations of X.
 * "Alleged reports of X" = there are claims that reports exist which state X happened.
 * See the difference? For the second one to be accurate the reports would have to say that there are allegations. But they don't. They say "X", where X=attacks on civilians. For the third to be accurate the existence of reports would have to be "alleged". But no one is doubting that these reports exist.
 * To put it simply "Reports of alleged attacks" IS INACCURATE description of what the sources say and as such it MISREPRESENTS sources. The reports don't say "there were alleged attacks". They say "attacks happened".
 * "Reports" is fine. We can trust Wikipedia readers to decide for themselves whether they believe these reports or not for themselves. There's no need to make these attempts - which misrepresent sources and are inaccurate grammatically - to try and predispose them one way or another.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLE clearly states: 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) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". Given that this is a section title, not the TITLE of an article, it meets with precision as a descriptor. Per TITLE, we are advised that balance should guide title conventions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I suggest to keep "attacks on civilians" because a number of sources (quoted above) tell literally about deliberate "attacks on civilians", and that is precisely what is going on in Syria. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I Support Neither Option For accuracy and npov it should be something like Reports alleging war crimes or Reports of alleged war crimes or the suggested Allegations of war crimes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In a way the word "Reports" is to some extent redundant with the word "alleged" except for that "alleged" is a WP:WEASEL. We also have WP:ALLEGED. By this logic *everything* is "alleged". Perhaps we should rename this article to Alleged Russian military intervention in Syria since we "only" have reports of Russia being there? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see my comment above. "Reports of alleged war crimes" is NOT accurate. That wording would mean that there are reports, which state there were "alleged war crimes". But the reports do not speak of "alleged war crimes", they speak of "war crimes", period. It's just that some Wikipedia editors choose not to believe these reports, and they wish to make sure that the readers of the article come away with the same... point of view.
 * Here's an example. If a source said "Amnesty International stated that there were allegations of war crimes" then "Reports of alleged war crimes" would be correct. But if a source says "Amnesty International stated that there were war crimes" then "Reports of war crimes" is correct. Subject, meet predicate, and both of you wave to adjective, which is standing off far away minding its own business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". Attacks on civilians are not, by default, war crimes. i.e. there are two separate, but related topics therefore the heading should reflect that Hollth (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was originally going to agree with you, but after some brief research it seems attacks on civilians are indeed by default war crimes, and so they are not separate topics. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WINARS and note, also, that the article is tagged for multiple problems. What we do have is multiple reliable sources calling these 'war crimes' ergo, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, these are being described as war crimes and 'attacks on civilians' separately. As editors, we don't cherry pick definitions according to our own personal point of view, nor by scholarly debates over what constitutes a 'war crime'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not citing Wikipedia, but rather the sources cited by Wikipedia. The war crime article includes statements such as:
 * In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, it should be noticed that at the time, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft, therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes. (by implication, there are now international treaties specifically protecting civilians from attack by aircraft)
 * War crimes also included deliberate attacks on citizens and property of neutral states as they fall under the category of non-combatants, as at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
 * There are four sources backing up these statements, all of which seem reliable to me. I don't understand the rest of what you write. If we do have multiple reliable sources calling attacks on civilians war crimes, then isn't "attacks on civilians" unnecessary? Banedon (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of white phosphorous against the opposing military, for example, is a war crime unto itself, so conflating 'war crimes' as if they automatically mean civilian casualties is misleading for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one here has ever conflated the two. I don't know where you came up with that. "War crimes" can mean both civilian and military targets. That's why "attacks on civilians" is repetitive and useless. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna, so are you suggesting attacking civilians is somehow not a war crime? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you've read into my observation, but of course attacks on civilians are a war crime! I am countering Banedon's assessment of 'war crime' being essentially one and the same as attacks on civilians as being war crimes. We have two distinct kinds of war crimes being reported: the use of chemical weapons against another military force, as well as attacks on civilians. I've already stated my case for "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". I would, however, be happy to change my preference to "Reports of war crimes: attacks on civilians and biological warfare". The majority of the supporting RS are not discussing the attacks on civilians as being 'war crimes', but are describing them as attacks on civilians, therefore I'm not conflating what sources say with the 'academic' definition of 'war crime' for the header in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But no one here is separating the two. To make myself clear: "War crimes" can also mean crimes conducted against both the military and the civilian population. Therefore, "Reports of war crimes" is succinct enough to encapsulate everything the section talks about. Should we also add stuff about "cluster munitions" in the section title as well? In fact, why don't we switch the section title with the section itself? Because at this rate, the title will get longer than the section itself. In my view, your proposal is worse. It's simply too long and repetitive for a simple section title. In fact, in my 10 years of editing Wikipedia, I never remember seeing a colon in a section title just to further describe what already has been described. This is just getting ludicrous. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll offer another suggestion which is even more succinct: "Reported war crimes". They're not simply 'reports of': they already been reported and are war crimes. In a couple of instances, the perpetrator may be unclear, but they are war crimes. As I've already commented below, however, my preference is now Attacks on civilians and other war crimes because 'reports' was a superfluous descriptor in the first instance. My suggested header was actually a bit of (probably misplaced) flippancy on my behalf, but I'm of the conviction that "Reports of war crimes" is borderline WP:EUPHEMISM. Reported is already on record, whereas reports implies hearsay. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already aforementioned what I believe the title of the section should be. Don't need to repeat myself over and over again here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - if we believe the war crime article, then attacks on civilians (who are by definition non-combatants) constitutes a war crime. In that sense "attacks on civilians" is unnecessary. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For attacks on civilians to be war crimes they have to be intentional. And indeed that accusation has been made. But it is possible that not all of the attacks on civilians by Russia were deliberate. So it's not redundant. I guess if you wanted to be precise the title could be something like Attacks on civilians and other war crimes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I've actually applied the use of biological warfare to the equation and suggested Reports of war crimes: attacks on civilians and biological warfare... but I'm amenable to Attacks on civilians and other war crimes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Include both terms (War crimes and Civilian attacks), for a number of reasons, the two are closely related, but are not synonomous nor is either a 'sub-set' of the other. Also the same incident may be characterised as having elements of one or the other or both by different sources. There are going to be difficulties in using all available sources in such a situation. I see no need to put 'reports of' or 'allegations of' in the section title, so long as the text is clear from the outset that these ARE 'reported' or 'alleged' to have taken place. Pedantic detail, but whilst 'Civilian attacks' is OK for the section title, text should be 'attacks on civilians'. Summoned by bot Pincrete (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My position remains unchanged – "Attacks on civilians and other war crimes" is violation of WP:TITLE, WP:POVTITLE, WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity.


 * Perhaps I can suggest an alternative: Accusations of war crimes. Do you agree now? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's just another way to try and WP:WEASEL it. The sources do not say "there are reports of accusations of war crimes". They say "there are reports of war crimes". We follow sources.
 * And it's NOTSURPRISING your position remains unchanged. Look, if you think Wikipedia "is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity" and if reliable sources say "there are reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" then the title "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" IS the neutral and objective title.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tobby72, it's possible that your remark/question above is directed at me. I am neutral as to whether accusations of/reports of is necessary so long as the text is clear that this is what they are. Omitting either/both does not imply that these ARE war crimes, merely that the subject of the section is 'war crimes', who has accused/reported, what they have said etc. I concur with 'Marek' that 'reports of accusations' of rumours, of hints, of the possibility of? is pure 'weasel'.


 * The necessity for both terms (war crimes & civilian attacks) is that source A discussing incident(s) X may claim that 'an attack on civilians took place, which is a war crime', source B may give a similar account of incident(s) X, claiming an (intentional?) attack on a civilian target, but omit the term 'war crime', or not state intentionality. Clearly these two accounts are making similar points about the same incident(s) and belong together, and it is academic to many people whether the attacks were intentional/careless/inadvertent, but the 'civilian attack=war crime' argument made above is WP:synth. Not all such attacks are war crimes (when accidental or careless or based on misinformation) and civilian attacks are not the only kind of war crime. So the short answer to your question is NO, I don't think that 'Accusations of war crimes' is an improvement. Though 'Reports/Accusations/Claims of attacks on civilians and war crimes', covers all the bases, the only objection I can see being length and clumsiness. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Including material on human shields
I'm bringing the discussion back here from the NPOV noticeboard, where I've been having a dialog with Tobby72 about the necessity to include this material for NPOV balance. As I understand it, Volunteer Marek and Iryna Harpy are objecting to the material because of an implied WP:SYNTH, while My very best wishes believes that the information does not belong in this article, but rather in an article about ISIL. As to the latter argument, the article mentions the Turks shooting down a Russian jet, and it includes an entire section on international diplomatic reactions, so I can't understand why ISIL's response would be off-topic in this article.

The article WP:NOTSYNTH mentions that "Synth is not mere juxtaposition" and that unintended implications can be resolved by clear writing. In this case, perhaps the problem could be overcome by putting the information in its own section? Or, I still believe my idea of explicitly stating that "war crimes by one party to a conflict, do not justify retaliatory war crimes by the other party" has merit, one source for this view is Amnesty International. JerryRussell (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSYNTH is just an essay someone wrote. WP:SYNTH is the actual policy and it prohibits combining info from different sources to draw or imply a conclusion which is not found in either. That's exactly what's going on here. In fact, this is sort of textbook example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What Volunteer Marek's said. We've been through this in spades on this talk page already. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "In this case, perhaps the problem could be overcome by putting the information in its own section?" — Thanks for your suggestion, JerryRussell. I agree. See diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They use people as human shields not only against Russian aviation, but during bombings by other countries, and not only bombings. Therefore, I do not think it belongs to this page.My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek and Iryna Harpy, WP:SYNTH is not a reason for excluding relevant information from reliable sources. It simply states that sources cannot be conjoined together to imply a conclusion which is not stated by the sources. Tobby72 and I have suggested several approaches now for presenting the material in a way that explicitly prevents the implied synthesis you are concerned about. Back on the noticeboard, I see that Iryna Harpy has also argued WP:DUE and that Tiptoethrutheminefield has argued that giving the material its own section would be UNDUE. I don't have a strong opinion about how the material should be presented, but I do believe it's relevant. WP:DUE says that all sources should be presented in proportion to their prevalence, and in this case, clearly the international press has seen this as an important aspect of the conflict.  My very best wishes is still arguing that the material is irrelevant, but I don't understand his reasoning. If the Turks shot down a Syrian helicopter in 2013, does that mean we can't mention that they shot down a Russian jet in 2015?


 * I agree with Iryna Harpy that this has already been discussed on the talk page. This is why Tobby72 brought the matter to the NPOV noticeboard. So now I've wandered into the discussion as well. Looking back at the history, I see a lot of controversy, many editors involved, and never anything resembling a consensus. So what happens next? Mediation? Arbitration? Another three months of slow edit warring? Or can we reach some sort of agreement that satisfies everyone, right here? JerryRussell (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I notice that the information about Russian war crimes are featured prominently in the lede. For NPOV balance, I believe that the information about ISIS war crimes in the same conflict, deserve to be mentioned in the lede as well. JerryRussell (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the information about ISIS war crimes in the same conflict should not be described on this page because this page is on a different subject. This is very simple. This info is about ISIS using people as human shields during this war. Hence it belongs to pages about ISIS or human rights violations during the war, not to this page. What should happen? User Tobby72 should drop this issue because there is no consensus for inclusion. This is nothing special and happens all the time on many pages. There is only one difference: Tobby72 did not drop this issue a few months ago when everything was already obvious, and continued this irrelevant dispute on a subject of no importance. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that so many editors are opposed to including this material, but so many different reasons are given. IMO, none of them stand up to scrutiny. As to the many editors who have weighed in on the other side, it's interesting that they don't seem to stick around. Better things to do? Perhaps. One was subsequently attacked (elsewhere, for other activities, I think?) and banned as a sock puppet -- but the thing is, sock puppets are human beings too. Yes, I do understand, Wikipedia couldn't function without the ability to enforce bans and blocks.

Anyhow, I've been continuing to do some reading on this topic. There's a logical problem: if Russian forces were trying to cause civilian casualties, then human shields tactics would be ineffective, wouldn't they? I mean, the brutal Russians would just bomb those hapless human shields, right? Yet there seems to be no evidence that any of the civilian hostages were then killed by the Russians.

Furthermore, there were ~9000 bombing sorties and, by the highest estimate, <2000 civilian casualties. A horrific total to be sure, but if the bombings were primarily intended to kill civilians, that would be a remarkably ineffective campaign, wouldn't it? I was curious about Russian claims that reports of casualties were Western propaganda, and found that when you drill down on it, that's only part of the story. Is Pravda considered a reliable source? Pravda says, here, that part of the problems is that Medecins Sans Frontiers operates hospitals in ISIS controlled areas that are camouflaged, so that Russian strikes occasionally hit such targets by accident. Maybe that should be in the article too? JerryRussell (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I have been reading the arbitration case in which the allegation was made that you and user:Volunteer Marek were tag team edit warring to suppress materials. Volunteer Marek claims the case was dropped for lack of evidence, but that isn't exactly what happened. Arbitrator Opabinia regalis encouraged everyone to revert less often, and the consensus of arbitrators was that this matter is already covered by discretionary sanctions. They said they will re-assess the matter if these sanctions aren't working. So what does this mean? Can Tobby72 and I ask for discretionary sanctions to be applied against MVBW and VM for tag team edit warring on this question? I must say I'm curious, why you and VM would put so much energy into a dispute if it is of "no importance". JerryRussell (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What? You pinged me to obtain my comment. However, when I came to answer your questions, you threaten to report this to Arbcom because I "tag team"?? Tobby72 also pinged me many times. BTW, I watch all old discussions that were not resolved and where I previously commented, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I just looked up your editing history and realized your account was created only recently, only in Feb 2016. And you almost immediately appeared on all the noticeboards. Born like Venus out of the ocean with a full knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, essays and drama boards. And now you're telling us you managed to find an obscure request for arbitration, from what? half a year ago? How exactly did you manage to find it? I don't see any links anywhere to it and since everyone involved here makes hundreds of edits per month you'd have to really really comb through their editing history and for some reason focus on just one or two particular edits. (and of course that arbitration request was overwhelmingly rejected by the ArbCom). So forgive me, perhaps, I'm missing something, but I don't really see a reason why I should take you and your account seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahem: "One was subsequently attacked (elsewhere, for other activities, I think?) and banned as a sock puppet -- but the thing is, sock puppets are human beings too." - JerryRussell. I'm sorry but that's another red flag right there. A disruptive sock puppet with a long history of harassment and abuse is being described as being "attacked"??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking on content, he is right that using human shields against Russian forces is completely ineffective because they do not care. In fact, they (Soviet forces) used hostages in Afghanistan, they did not care in Chechnya, etc. This only makes sense against forces of the Western coalition. This is just another reason do not include such materials here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello My very best wishes and Volunteer Marek, yes it's true I've only been here since February as an active editor. It didn't take long for me to get into my first edit war! I learned a little bit about Wiki from that, but I have a lot to learn yet, I'm sure. The thread about the arbcom case was easy to find, tobby72 linked it above on this page in the section 'Removal of sourced info'. Dorpater's comments here seemed perfectly reasonable, and I was curious so I looked into the history, and found that he was banned as allegedly a sockpuppet of some other user who had never admitted guilt, but was transitively linked to yet another banned user from years ago.


 * So here's how I see it from my 4-month newbie perspective. We can settle this right here, as a content dispute. We could try the NOR noticeboard, or the DNR noticeboard, or formal mediation, to resolve the content dispute. Or we could treat it as a conduct issue. What do you say? I have nothing to fear from a checkuser investigation: I am editing under my real name, I am a new user, and I am no one's puppet.JerryRussell (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just logged in for the first time today (it's early AM in my hemisphere) to cop an eyeful of what has been going on while I slept. It's remarkable how dramatically you've managed to escalate this from a polite discussion as to why editors deem the content to be SYNTH and UNDUE to your using an article talk page to bully your way into pushing the content in, JerryRussell. Now, if I am to continue to assume good faith as to your proficiency in the ways of Wikipedia given your limited actual experience (the majority of your edits having been dedicated to creating a couple of draft articles), I would suggest that you read WP:WITCHHUNT, WP:CRUSH and WP:DROPTHESTICK. This isn't your 'first edit war', this is your first genuine interaction with other editors and you've started your career as a passive-aggressive POV pusher who will evidently do anything to WP:WIN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Iryna Harpy, thank you for the links to those essays. I hadn't seen them before, and will take them into consideration. As to my first edit war, I wasn't referring to this, but rather to my edits to the article on R. Gordon Wasson which were challenged by several IP editors. I pursued that to a successful outcome on the DRN board. My other experiences on the dispute resolution circuit have been one unsuccessful participation in an AfD discussion; and I responded to another NPOV notice about Hitler's religious views, where I was successful in achieving my initial goal. All the editors there agreed that the article needed more work, and I've provided a draft of a re-organized article which I hope the other editors will like. That was a lot of work, and quite possibly the majority of my edit count. I've created two new articles here which have survived all initial reviews, and cleaned up a few issues in existing article. That's about the extent of my experience: since it's become an issue here, I wouldn't want anyone to either underestimate it or overestimate it.


 * I will consult with Tobby72 about whether it's time to drop the stick. However, I especially appreciated your link to WP:HA, which says that statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes such as dispute resolution, are not considered harassment. JerryRussell (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to bring another editor's history to a talk page in order to cast WP:Aspersions as to editing behaviour. Essentially, you're muckraking in order to gain leverage over editors (i.e., these can only be construed as a blatant intimidation tactics in order to get your way... and making a public spectacle of it). Yes, you will find some curt comments on multiple article talk pages where editors have been at loggerheads with each other for literally years. As a newbie, that does not give you the right to compile your own list of perceived behavioural problems and bring them to the table, then act as judge, jury and executioner. You have no idea as to how deep-seated these protracted disputes are and have plucked a few out of a hat. You've also done a sterling job of mixing accusations with superficially WP:CIVIL discussion. Suggested reading: WP:BAIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Look man, you're displaying wayyyyyy too much knowledge of Wikipedia policies and drama boards for a four month old account, not to mention battleground tactics ("We could try the NOR noticeboard, or the DNR noticeboard, or formal mediation, to resolve the content dispute. Or we could treat it as a conduct issue. " - which is an implied threat) for me to believe for a second that you're new to this or that you haven't been canvassed/coordinated off Wiki on this. And that's just for starters. Add on top of this the fact that you're more or less defending previously banned disruptive accounts. According to you a sockpuppet was "attacked" by the fact that it was pointed out (and confirmed) they were a sock puppet. They were "banned as allegedly a sockpuppet of some other user who had never admitted guilt, but was transitively linked to yet another banned user from years ago". That's a lot of "allegedly"s and "never admitted guilt" and "transitively linked" (and it wasn't from "years ago"). Also, do you run a conspiracy blog or something ? Not buying any of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, if I was such an experienced editor, I'd know better than to say a single word about conduct issues on an article talk page. See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Iryna Harpy, you are 100% correct that these issues are first brought up on user talk pages. If anybody has any issues about my conduct here, please contact me on my talk page.JerryRussell (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Iryna, please refrain from personal attacks ("you've started your career as a passive-aggressive POV pusher who will evidently do anything to WP:WIN." — Iryna Harpy).


 * I agree with JerryRussell, there is no reason for excluding relevant information from reliable sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One more time. It's not "relevant information from reliable sources", it's WP:SYNTH (and in fact, I haven't even checked the reliability of the sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * JerryRussell, Tobby72, I've had this on my watchlist for some time but have not contributed to the discussion. Beyond the acres of mud-slinging and thinly disguised accusations (not all from one side I agree) that make this page such an enjoyable daily read. I think the general agreement of editors here is that this material does not belong on this page. There are other avenues should you consider this important enough. Otherwise, subject closed. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Pincrete, maybe you want to comment here? -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
"During Russia's military operations, 13 Russian soldiers were officially confirmed as having died"

The number of confirmed Russian Servicemen to have died is now at 18 with the most recent helicopter crash in Aleppo.

Sources:

Rorymackin1 (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 09:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

ССО
To Units involved add please Russian special operations forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.187.59.18 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Covering up war crimes
RT_com has cut incendiary bomb footage from it's YouTube channel

Incriminating footage has been shown on RT, and then cut from its footage.

The Russian regime is slippery as hell.russia today covering up war crimes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.12.105 (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what that source is. You'd need reliable third party sources for this to be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@User:92.3.12.105

@User:92.3.22.140

@User:92.3.30.114: WP:NOTFORUM, see diff, diff, diff.

@User:Volunteer Marek: Please don't feed the trolls. See WP:ANI/ Personal attacks and WP:SOAP from User:92.3.12.105. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @92.3.12.105, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbIRD8Cq48&t=44 - I see the bombs with all the markings. What was cut by RT? Your link gives an article like they cut it, but I see it in linked original source on RT youtube channel. 89.0.109.242 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edits that Violate Policy
This section is meant to document and discuss the edits of some users, particularly those done by Axxxion, that violate Wikipedia's policies. In particular, Axxxion has repeatedly removed sourced relevant material. Examples (this list may be updated):

  

1) I have no problem with the material being moved during a reorganization of the article in a way guarantees that NPOV and other wiki principles are upheld, but the wholesale remove of sourced information goes against Wikipedia policy. Can Axxxion explain why he deleted this information?

2) Also please explain in more detail why you decided to keep mention of some of Russia's stated goals (i.e. "he defined Russia′s goal in Syria as "stabilizing the legitimate power in Syria and creating the conditions for political compromise"") but chose to remove another stated goals (i.e. "According to the U.S. State Department, the Russian government has also been concerned that "if the government fell, that there would be chaos and that would allow terrorist groups to consolidate", a claim which the Russian government has been using to justify their intervention.") especially considering that this has recently become one of their main talking points, both domestically and abroad. I'd like to remind you that regardless of whether or not you personally think this Russian talking point is true, which by the way the statements that you deleted where not saying (that's why there's the "According to the U.S. State Department"), these statements satisfy Wikipedia's conditions for inclusion. If you want to move ALL of Russia's stated goals into the body of the article then I'm fine with that, but you can not just delete what you don't like.

3) Your edits to the article's introduction also introduced an anti-Russian bias violating NPOV. E.g. you added to the intro.: "In September 2016, the U.S. government publicly accused Russia of ″flagrant violations of international law″ in Syria." which (a) is an accusation that Russia denies and a fact that you didn't include, thereby omitting a key viewpoint of a prominent adherent, and (b) paints one of the major actors in a negative light. So I'd like to remind you that regardless of whether or not you think that these accusations are true (BTW I personally do think that they're true), Wikipedia's policy requires that the article have a NPOV.

This shows a pattern of edits that goes against Wikipedia's principles, so before making any edits you even suspect might violate Wikipedia's policies, I ask that you discuss them here first.

Reminders of Wiki's policies: selfworm Talk ) 18:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN - "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
 * WP:NPOV - " neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * Importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
 * "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"

And BTW Axxxion, although I'm also not fond of Russia, having an article that neutrally and accurately expresses the Russian POV is what makes the difference between giving English-speaking readers propaganda, and giving them potentially useful insight into what the Russians claim motivates their actions (something that many people are unfamiliar with). I want to give people the latter. selfworm Talk ) 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Reports of aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and battlecruiser Peter the Great deploying to Syria


From Telegraph ''Sergei Shoigu, Russian defence minister, has said the carrier will be escorted by six warships and three or four support vessels. The Russian vessels are expected to include the battlecruiser Peter the Great and a Udaloy class destroyer.Once in the Mediterranean, the Kuznetsov is set to take up position off the coast of Syria for four to five months, where it could uses its complement of MiG-29K/KUB jets and helicopters to carry out airstrikes''

Interesting development.Probably needs to be added if it will be confirmed and they arrive to support operation against the islamist militias. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Cluster munitions part was misleading
There is a larger segment in the article that writes about use of cluster munitions by Russia in Syria. It is rather misleading as it suggests this is something illegal, but in fact neither Russia or Syria are bound to Cluster Munition Convention and the use of cluster munitions in itself is legal. I added info about it, but the section should be probably reduced. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See below. Didn't you make a big deal about supposed use of cluster munitions in Ukraine by pro-government forces, based on some sketchy youtube videos and such? I don't recall you making a big deal about "not illegal" back then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

POV, editorializing, weaseling, synthesis
Here.

The text being inserted is "At the same time Human Rights Watch admitted that neither Russia nor Syria are parties to the Cluster Munitions Convention and urged them to join the treaty"

Now, just looking at that sentence, it's pretty clear that it's an attempt at WP:WEASELing. Second, it cherry picks quotes from the source, in particular it focuses on the fact that they're not signatories to the CMC but strangely enough omits the fact that the sources says: "The use violates United Nations resolution 2139 of February 22, 2014, which demanded that all parties involved in Syria end “indiscriminate employment of weapons in populated areas,”". Further, "It also contradicts a statement issued by the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates on November 9, 2015, in which it insisted that the Syrian Arab Armed Forces do not and will not use indiscriminate weapons".

So why single out that one fact - the CMC - but not others? This is POV.

Third, the phrasing of the sentence itself is weird and sort of betrays the POV intent. "HRW admitted...". ADMITTED. As if they got caught doing something bad. As if they were wrong about something. As if they were lying about something. They didn't "admit" crap, there was nothing to admit. The article simply notes that HRW has urged Syria and Russia to join the convention.

Fourth, I seem to recall a conversation related to the War in Donbass, where some editor tried to insert unsubstantiated claims of use of cluster munitions by Ukrainian forces based on some sketchy youtube videos and Russian propaganda outlets. I don't recall that editor ever bringing the Cluster Munitions Convention (which Ukraine is also not a party to) and edit warring to put these kinds of attempts at excuses in the lede.

Removing as POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about Ukraine,but about Syria, neither Syria or Russia are part of Cluster Munitions Convention and leaving HRW accusations without this information included(which HRW itself included in its statement) is highly non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "This is not a discussion about Ukraine,but about Syria" - sure, but in Ukrainian related articles you made a big deal out of the fact that cluster bombs might have been used, even though, like Russia and Syria, Ukraine is not a signatory to the convention. Here you are making a big deal out of the fact that Russia and Syria are not signatories to the convention, and making excuse for these governments using these munitions to target civilians. I was wondering if there was a logical reason for this difference in approach which would explain what appears to be a glaring contradiction. Thought I might be missing something. But I guess not.
 * "leaving HRW accusations without this information included" - it depends. It depends on what the source says. Does the source says "HRC admitted...". No, it doesn't. That part is your own original research. What the source actually says is that use of such munitions has been banned by a UN resolution and goes against earlier promises made by the Syrian government. If that is the main point of what the source says, why are you putting in something completely different? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is not a discussion about Ukraine. I have added a legal view on the use of cluster ammunition and removed the statement where HRW admits neither Syria or Russia are bound by CMC, I believe it should still be there though, and the whole fragment reduced.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion are relevant however. What criteria - as in Wikipedia policy - led you to NOT include information about Ukraine not being part to the convention on War in Donbass, while leading you to insist on INCLUSION of the information about Syria and Russia also not being party to the convention on this article? Seems like a double standard. Without clarifying which policy allows you to make these... contradictory edits, your editing appears to violate NPOV and due WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian assistance to the Russian military intervention in individual states.
Contents of edit removed for navigability. See Special:Diff/747792931 for attribution

Greece, Canada, Italy, Singapore, European countries, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia participating in the humanitarian operation in Iraq. It is located in the template.

Also, Belarus, Armenia, Serbia, China, Azerbaijan, India and Kazakhstan participate in the Russian humanitarian operation. It is located in the most relevant Russian and Serbian media outlets. Yes sources:

Next: https://rs.sputniknews.com/rusija/201610111108432217-sirija-srbija-humanitarna-pomoc/

http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/srbija-alepo-rusija/28063420.html

Министерство обороны Сербии заявило о решении направить в Алеппо гуманитарную помощь, которую доставят российские самолёты.

По сообщению сербской газеты «Politika», в гуманитарную помощь войдут продовольственные товары, одежда, обувь, медикаменты и электрогенераторы.

Следует напомнить, что накануне заместитель министра обороны РФ Анатолий Антонов сообщил, что при содействии российских военных в Сирию будет направлена гуманитарная помощь из Китая, Сербии, Азербайджана, Индии, Пакистана, отметив, что уже доставлена помощь из Армении и Беларуси.

http://sana.sy/ru/?p=88388

This message will stick to the talk page "Russian military intervention in Syria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba Mica (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC) What is the purpose of the addition of the above infobox? --89.173.36.108 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference should be changed. S-300VM does not exist in real life. Only V4
Reference should be changed Russian military intervention in Syria Part of the Syrian Civil War and the military intervention against ISIL real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile_system)#S-300V4_NATO_reporting_name_it_was_has_not_done not real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.18 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016
3 Mi-8's are now destroyed

Rorymackin (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane 2007  talk 06:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian
please change ((Russian)) to ((Russia))n
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane 2007  talk 06:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The user 2601:541:4305:C70:4D62:F5E:C58C:6A8D probably wants the "Russian" wikilink to be changed to look like this: Russian...--89.173.36.108 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Statistics from Shoigu
This article has some very concrete statistics about the Russian intervention in Syria from Russian Defence Minister Shoigu. Perhaps some of those could be added in. Esn (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Killed soldiers in the Tupolev accident
Seriously how can you count soldiers killed in an accident which didn't even take in Syria to lost combatants? Shall we also count the soldiers who were killed in an car accident who were a year ago in Syria?

see "war in Afghanistan" Dead: 3,486 (all causes) 2,807 (hostile causes)

Further derailing stating about the air losses as only 3 airwings were lost to hostile fire the other two were destroyed after an emergency landing.


 * Changes undone until further clarification and discussion here--Wrant (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

== Just published a video carried out by the Syrian opposition (not excluding terrorists) killed more than 5,000 people (mid-2015) BUT Russian attacks have killed more civilians than either ISIS or Assad's army WTF!??! ==


 * The pro-opposition[106][107] Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has stated that between the initiation of the intervention in September 2015 and end of February 2016, Russian air strikes have killed at least 1,700 civilians, including more than 200 children. The Syrian Network for Human Rights puts the number even higher, and in its report stated that Russian attacks have killed more civilians than either ISIS or Assad's army.[108][109][110][111]


 * But actually that's a lie. Just published a video carried out by the Syrian opposition (not excluding terrorists) killed more than 5,000 people (mid-2015). A case is known penalty once 1,700 people in Iraq. In contrast to the SOHR, it's not a word, this video is posted in open access ourselves Syrian opposition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.105 (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please use standard language in the talk page. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Serbian-Russian cooperation on Syria
What's Serb leadership is the most loyal associate of Russian military cooperation. This is happening in Syria. There, with the logistics of the Russian armed forces, are present after de-miners Palmyra offensive (March 2016). Serbia has sent humanitarian aid to the Syrian government, but sent weapons to a lesser extent. This happens after Russia vetoed a [|British resolution on genocide in Srebrenica] and Syria voted against Kosovo's admission to UNESCO. Serbian military convoy was sent in October 2016 during the final fight for the city of Aleppo  .--Baba Mica (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Serbia as an ally of Russia in the Syrian civil war.
Correct me if I'm wrong. All the more it seems to me that the Serbian government openly with Russia in the Syrian civil war. Serbia has sided with the regime of Bashar Al Assad in humanitarian, but it seems to me, and in a military sense. If not officially aligned with the Syrian government, is with the Russian government and military. This is an extension of Serbian and Croatian confrontation that escalated in recent years. Croatian government officially supports the opposition and the rebels. But not military, but political support. Russia is encased Serbia indirectly in the Syrian war. Serbian army with the Russian army participated in demining operations Palmyra for the city. It has lots of information on the Internet about the participation of the Serbian army, together with the Russian army in Syria. Very interesting is the role of Serbia. It is under the table. Aggressive approach and gafovi Croatian Government with the neo-Nazi connotation Serbian leadership was pushed into a smooth alliance with Russia that is increasingly strengthened. --Baba Mica (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Humanitarian assistance is not accounted for "support".GreyShark (dibra) 11:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Article moved in opposite to consensus
Please attention from user:Anthony Appleyard who moved this article back in 2016, following a request by IP user at Requested moves/Technical requests. The "technical request" was clearly non-technical, but POV and bad faith - it bypassed community consensus from 2015, which clearly stated that ''No consensus despite good support initially, some excellent points were raised upon relisting. No consensus was found''. Thank you for your attention.GreyShark (dibra) 11:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to move this article back to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems the reason for the move was clearly flawed (not your fault, but this was clearly against community consensus) - returning to the original title Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War is evidently the solution, until a new RFC is done.GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * .GreyShark (dibra) 18:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128064913/http://www.el-balad.com/1244483 to http://www.el-balad.com/1244483
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015234644/http://www.irinn.ir/news/127362/%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA-%DA%86%D9%86%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%B9-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%A7%DA%A9-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AA%DA%A9%D8%B0%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF to http://www.irinn.ir/news/127362/%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA-%DA%86%D9%86%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%B9-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%A7%DA%A9-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AA%DA%A9%D8%B0%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF
 * Added tag to http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/11/30/uae-says-ready-commit-troops-fight-syria-jihadists/76572630/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017
there is a "northwester" that should be either "northwest" or "northwestern" 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170616170148/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/key-moments-russias-campaign-involvement-syrian-war-48083114 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/key-moments-russias-campaign-involvement-syrian-war-48083114
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151012021729/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Russian-air-force-hits-60-Islamic-State-targets-in-Syria-kills-300-jihadists/articleshow/49292491.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Russian-air-force-hits-60-Islamic-State-targets-in-Syria-kills-300-jihadists/articleshow/49292491.cms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018225755/http://www.janes.com/article/64669/russian-carrier-sails-for-the-mediterranean to http://www.janes.com/article/64669/russian-carrier-sails-for-the-mediterranean
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005044330/http://www.ikhwansyria.com/Portals/Copy/?info=YVdROU5EWTRPVEFtYzI5MWNtTmxQVk4xWWxCaFoyVW1kSGx3WlQweEpuaHRiR2xrUFRJek16UTJKZz09K3U=.Syr to http://www.ikhwansyria.com/Portals/Copy/?info=YVdROU5EWTRPVEFtYzI5MWNtTmxQVk4xWWxCaFoyVW1kSGx3WlQweEpuaHRiR2xrUFRJek16UTJKZz09K3U=.Syr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

ISIL
ITS ISIS NOT ISIL!!!!!! Robins21 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary in the lead
I agree with user Ryan1783 (his edit) that lead should also summarize content of last three sections, and it looks like a fair summary of the content. If you think this should be summarized differently, please post your version here, or even make directly an edit on the page. But something must be said about the relationship of Russian operations in the country (the subject of this page) and "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilian targets" and reactions by other countries on the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You still haven’t addressed the concerns I’ve raised. The entire section is POV and includes wording such as “intense” controversy or unsourced claims about how Russia has tarnished its reputation internationally. That’s kind of hard to prove anyways. And if anything, America consistently, year after year, tops the list as the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace. And that’s just not some unsourced assumption, it’s from a poll by Gallup . Russia is not even close. Also, the stuff on “deliberate” civilian targeting is out of the scope of the source itself. The HRW says indiscriminate bombardment, not deliberate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but the text you removed does not say anything of that kind. It does not tell that Russia, US or whoever "poses the greatest threat to world peace" (so your ref is irrelevant). It tells: Following the beginning of the Russian intervention, Russia's military actions in Syria have generated intense controversy internationally. Human rights groups have accused Russia of committing war crimes and deliberately attacking civilians,[136] the United States has enacted economic sanctions against Russia for supporting Assad, and officials at the United Nations have condemned Russia for using its United Nations Security Council veto power to block resolutions that would punish Syria for attacks against civilians.[138] Russia has rejected accusations of war crimes and has accused critics of anti-Russian sentiment and "barbarism,"[139][140] which has further alienated Russia on the international stage and harmed its foreign relations policy abroad.". This is something different. What content here was not supported by text currently in the body of page or by references? As about “deliberate civilian targeting", yes it was indeed accused exactly of that. However, I do not mind to remove it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the text you add does say unsourced bold claims such as ‘’Russia has tarnished its reputation’’ or whatever. It’s unsourced, hence OR. If anything, it’s America’s reputation we should consider since they top the list as the biggest threat to world peace over and over and over again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking more carefully, I think some other changes are needed. Will fix something when time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the lede needs to include something of this, summarising more fully detailed later sections. If similar statements should be added to ledes to articles about US interventions, those should be discussed in those articles and added if necessary. Here is a suggested version, removing what might seen as language straying towards POV: Following the beginning of the Russian intervention, Russia's military actions in Syria have generated controversy internationally. Human rights groups have alleged that Russia has committed war crimes, the United States has enacted economic sanctions against Russia for supporting Assad, and officials at the United Nations have condemned Russia for using its United Nations Security Council veto power to block resolutions that would punish Syria for attacks against civilians. Russia has rejected accusations of war crimes and has accused critics of anti-Russian sentiment and "barbarism." This controversy has affedcted the foreign relations of Russia. Is there anything contestable there? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks fine. Let's include it? My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, let's not. The proposed material is highly problematic. The stuff about "Affecting the foreign relations of Russia" is vague and highly POV. Ditto the stuff about "barbarism", which is overly colorful and unencyclopedic. Khirurg (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do not see anything contestable in version by BobFromBrockley, but since you guys are going to revert (is that the case?), I would rather fix something else when time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

8th Damascus Offensive
Meanwhile Marj Al Sultan Airbase is secured and a buffer zone is established. Al Bilaliyah is liberated by the Syrian Army. They divided Daraya in the south and cut off supply lines. There were truces in Yarmouk Camp. Zahran Alloush the leader of Jaish al Islam was killed. These are important developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramataklan (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Assad, its not a military intervention
Inteview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJkaUSk4ps at 20:27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.109.242 (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Russian suicide drones
Reference goes to Washington Post's Syria Mubasher source that do not connect suicide drones to Russia. Article just mentions Russian broadcasting drones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitashi01 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

SNHR
SNHR is small little-known organization runned by Muslims. Its statement on Russia killed more civilians than ISIS is pretty doubtful. Syrian war is the war of Muslims having different views and we can't be sure on SNHR's political neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitashi01 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Bomb .jpg
KAB-500S not -E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A314:813E:7980:9D81:3523:1FD0:AFAD (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you are right. Judging from ru:КАБ-500, the KAB-500S-E is the designation for the export version of the KAB-500S used by the Russian Air Force.  This suggests that we should move the article on the KAB-500S-E to KAB-500S and the article on the KAB-1500S-E to KAB-1500S.--  Toddy1 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)