Talk:Sultan Murad Division

Navbox
Can anyone fix the navbox? Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article about one of the most important Syrian Turkmen groups has been compromised by the extensive use of biased sources. More than half of the used sources heavily back (making propaganda) for the sides in the Syrian civil war, such as Al Masdar news (Assad regime), ANHA (YPG/PKK) or even RT (Russians). Therefore I have added a neutrality warning, so people understand that this article is not made from a neutral point of view. --Bradley258 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Half of the sources are also pro-rebel sources, including many Turkish ones. Because of them, pro-government and SDF sources are needed to balance the article. Due to the inclusion of sources on both sides this article is as neutral as it can be. There has been several discussions on al-Masdar News, and a consensus was reached which concluded that it is a reliable source. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

War crime allegations
The section about war crime allegations seems well sourced (compared to the rest of the article and other articles about similar topics) with references to news from outlets of different political orientation. Thus it should not be deleted. 217.83.240.220 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in that comparison. I see YouTube videos and blogs. I do not think many people will accept RT. I personally accept Amnesty International's testimony, but not necessarily this. ARA News may be reliable--but we need to see some confirmation of that claim. Perhaps Syrian Network for Human Rights is reliable and thus this source acceptable; a conversation at WP:RSN might prove that--but if that's the case that verifies only one single sentence, and that sentence has no content. Did they shell it on purpose? How many shells? Was anyone killed? Etc. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , we await your comments. An edit summary won't do. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your point. They shelled a monastry and civilian areas, and 1000 civilians died as result. Was it on purpose - probably, but as you say, that is unconfirmed - note however that the current wording does not judge whether or not the division shelled these areas on pupose. They did it, and Amnesty International said that the shelling constitute "war crimes". There is no going around this, several sources, many of which you yourself said were reliable, support these reports. So why should that be deleted. And in regard of the torture videos - they filmed themselves torturing prisoners - it is literally impossible to get more evidence, they themselves admitted doing it. And that is a war crime. Currently your argument sounds like: "These are mostly reliable, and some unreliable sources, which show generally proven stuff, but I don't agree with that, so lets delete it." Applodion (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand my point, go read WP:CIR. The shelling of the monastery gets one single sentence in one single report. With no context. That's UNDUE in any other article, any other article than one that gets frequented by editors whose interest in Wikipedia seems not to be encyclopedic. If it's accidental, you simply don't bring it into an article without an explanation--unless you have an agenda. So now I have to waste more time on this. Alright. Your shelling of the civilian area. Your first source cites "Hiddo, who is close to the Kurdish leadership of the People’s Protection Units (YPG)", who claims that he is close to something which claims that this group was one of nine groups who participated in a chemical attack. There are so many links in this chain that this never stands up anywhere. Your second source doesn't cite the subject of the article. Your third is a news aggregator (so, it has no editorial control) and the article doesn't mention our subject. The fourth is RT, and also doesn't mention our subject. I mean, by now this is getting ridiculous--did you even look at this shit? The fourth is dead. Finally, the "article" that indicates AI's opinion on the events, wait for it, doesn't mention the subject of the article. By now I've tackled notes 19 through 26. 27 is an unreliable source, 28 is a YouTube video (a primary document). Not acceptable. 29 is ARA News, which may well be reliable, but it only mentions that two fighters belonging to this group were captured. In other words--there is nothing, nothing here that's properly verified. I'm going to call in the cavalry. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh... no need. I give up; fine by me, do what you want. Applodion (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Applodion, I wish you had looked carefully before you reverted and made me spend a half an hour laying all this out. I suppose I appreciate the revert--but you have damaged your reputation and ours by not doing this beforehand. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note this: I did not withdraw because I think you are right, far from it, but because I simply do not desire to discuss this matter with such an aggressive editor like you any longer. I currently have a lot stress in real life, and I have not the patience for this. Anyway, my reputation is fine, thank you very much. Applodion (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So at a stressful time in your life you choose to make an instant knee-jerk revert in an encyclopedic article without bothering to check the sources--or to argue, afterward, that they are indeed of encyclopedic quality. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a huge double standard here, . Now that you have removed an entire verified section, 14 out of 16 references cited in the article are either blogs, tweets, or the group's own website in Turkish. All but one are supportive of the group. Your attempts to resolve the neutrality issues in the article have turned it even more controversial and partial. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pff. There is no double standard: there is WP:RS. And there was no "entire verified section", unless you are willing to take on the arguments above. Until you do, zip it, with your unwarranted allegations. I'm not one of your partisan editors here and I wasn't trying to resolve "neutrality issues"; when I'm editing Wikipedia I don't care who is on which side. I'm not sure you can say the same thing. Put your money where your mouth is: edit out the information that is unverified. Don't blame me for a bad article that you have failed to improve. And I see now that you put the shelling of the monastery back in, though you have failed to address the problems with that statement. Are you so dead-set on painting this group as war criminals that you have to insert a fact without any context whatsoever? Drmies (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What problem is there? No one is trying to "paint" anyone as war criminals. Obviously, if a group was indicted by a neutral documentation organization (i.e. SNHR and Amnesty International) as having committed war crimes, then it should be briefly mentioned in the article, as I did. Almost every article about armed groups in civil wars have info on their war crimes. The People's Protection Units, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, the Syrian Resistance, the Shabiha, and the Greek Volunteer Guard are only a few examples. You can't just emit information which were cited with reliable sources because you dislike criticism. You basically said you don't care about unreliable sources unless they have critical views on the organization. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we discuss this edit, implementing what I think is the conclusion in the discussion above, and this revert? Are we confident the issues above have been addressed? ARA News is down at the moment, so I can't check that source, but I'll check the others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rudaw?
Is Rudaw a trusted/reliable source I have seen several claim it is a Kurdish Propaganda site and obviously very biased. Takinginterest01 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rudaw Media Network article says it is a "propaganda machine" of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, but I don't know how reliable it is considered. Seems to be quite widely used in Syria/Kurdish articles.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While Rudaw is biased for Kurds, the Kurdistan Democratic Party is opposed to the PYD and PKK because it supports the Kurdish National Council. Thus Rudaw as KDP outlet is not neutral, but also not generally pro-PYD or anti-FSA. Applodion (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideology
The editor made the claim that the Sultan Murad division's reason for putting the Shahada on the flag was due to its commitment to "Political Islam." This claim is unsourced and unsubstantiated; furthermore, the logic doesn't follow, religious symbolism on the flag doesn't automatically equal commitment to religious governance or ""Political Islam"" (e.g. Ba'ath Iraq, England (and other Scandinavian countries), and Georgia).
 * I have removed the unsourced ideology and replaced it with content referenced to the Erasmus-Monitor, a respected German-language source on political extremism. Applodion (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)