Talk:Timber Sycamore

A debate article is not an acceptable source
The article currently states that "there are approximately 50 vetted rebel groups fighting in Syria that have received weapons or training through the program since late 2012", which may or may not be true but cites a debate article by the highly partisan Charles Lister as the source for that claim and that opinion piece does not in turn cite any further sources for the claim it establishes.

An unsubstantiated opinion piece, thus a mere opinion, can not be considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia, not even if its holder held a good reputation contrary to the case with "Jihadi Charles".

The statement must thus be removed unless a proper source can be cited for the claim that the group(s) are "vetted", preferably of course including by what definition that word is used... or how many groups.

83.233.47.137 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. I will remove it. Attack Ramon (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The information was used with attribution to The Daily Beast, which is appropriate when we don't know if it's true, but we're relating that somebody has said as much. Also, there's nothing about the statement which is inflammatory or highly dubious. I'm going to restore but will further attribute the statement to Charles Lister. I think that's fine: Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, was a fellow at the Brookings Institute, and has written for Foreign Policy and many other outlets. Also, there's no indication Lister is "highly partisan." -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is actually not appropriate to link to unreliable sources, especially when we don't know if it is true or not, and when we have a reliable source saying the number of such groups is unknown, If we can find Lister saying the same thing in a more reliable outlet, we can link to it. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with including the information with proper attribution. The RSN has discussed the Daily Beast in the past and there is no consensus on if it is an RS. The general agreement seems to be use with caution (especially for BLP articles, which this isn't) and look at it case by case. In this case, the author is an analyst widely regarded as pretty authoritative on things like numbers in rebel factions, so I think this is safe to use with proper attribution to him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks BobFromBrockley. above, an IP address called Lister a "highly partisan source." Do you have a reference for that? Do you have any sources stating that the number of groups funded was larger, or smaller? Also per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, if Lister were indeed a biased source, wouldn't this Wikipedia content guideline be relevant?




 * Ramon, would you mind please expanding on your argument? For instance, explain why Lister is an inappropriate source, even for use with attribution? And can you explain, with sources, why you believe Lister is factually incorrect here? -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You can ask the IP why he thinks Lister is partisan, that is not my argument. Where I agreed with the IP is that The Daily Beast is not a reliable source for material used in an encyclopedia. Identifying reliable sources does not say we can use unreliable sources with attribution.Attack Ramon (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, no offense, but a source isn't unreliable because somebody on the internet said so. All I'm asking is for you to actually make a case, using links to experts, sources, etc. What led you to your agreement about The Daily Beast? Above, BobFromBrockley says that there's agreement at WP:RSN that the site should be used with caution, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Here, Lister is a known expert on the issue, and their statement is neither slanderous nor contradicted by other sources. That would suggest it's fine to use the article here, with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Lister's opinion is cited here in the New York Times :




 * Articles that I'm seeing at least don't seem to specify the number of groups, e.g., , . -Darouet (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I just don't think we should be using a source whose editorial mission is to "seek out scoops, scandals, and stories about secret worlds" in an encyclopedia. We can certainly use the Lister material from the NYT - as you note, that piece does not mention the part I objected to (50+ groups), and that the number has been question by other, more reputable, sources. Attack Ramon (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Attack Ramon, can you explain what you mean by this: that piece does not mention the part I objected to (50+ groups), and that the number has been question by other, more reputable, sources.? Are you saying that other, more reputable, sources have questioned the 50+? Can you link to those? Sounds useful. Without that, hard to see a problem with this source, written by a recognised expert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nor is it clear, if we did find a source contesting Lister's estimate, why we wouldn't simply cite both, on behalf of our readers. It's hard to find material on classified programs, and when we do find experts commenting, readers don't benefit by excluding their commentary. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason we shouldn't cite both is that The Daly Beast is not reliable. We shouldn't be putting up one figure from a reliable source, and contrasting it with "but this unreliable source said otherwise". Attack Ramon (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think the Daily Beast is unreliable enough never to be cited on WP, you need to take it to the RSN and get a consensus on that. In the meantime, consensus is use it with caution on a case by case basis, especially for BLP articles. There is no BLP element here, and the claim is not contentious, and the article is an analysis piece by a recognised expert so fits here perfectly well with attribution. If the claim is contested we can revisit. It's a non-issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I read here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion- it seems that the onus is on you to take it to RSN and get approval, as you are the one seeking to include contested material. Attack Ramon (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ramon, it seems like you you might be approaching this issue in an overly formulaic way. I also don't like The Daily Beast as a source, but it's not a fringe / neo-Nazi outfit, and it's clearly capable of posting high quality content. As a demonstration, the WP:RSN discussion, and the Lister article we're discussing, are both good examples. Even personal blogs of recognized experts can be sufficient for mention on Wikipedia with attribution, and the reason is clear: Wikipedia guidelines are not part of some game where you break or follow rules, but an effort to present reliable information to readers. There is no doubt, right now, that Lister has said, in the Daily Beast, that Timber Sycamore had supported some 50 vetted groups, nor is there any argument being made that readers should not be given this information. I'm not sure what your background is but I'd encourage you to think of these issues in general a little more practically. -Darouet (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * what does my background have to do with anything? Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion Attack Ramon (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Our argument is the inclusion of this information is merited, as it improves the article. It is useful to know, surely, how many groups were vetted? Without that fact, the article could be talking about 1 group or a million, so knowing it is 50 is very helpful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, that's your argument, and I disagree with it. I think putting in material from unreliable sources, which is contradicted by reliable sources, degrades the article. Your statement above is a clear example of why that is so - we don't know that there were 50 such groups, and we have a source that says the number is actually not known. People reading  this article which uses an unreliable source for the figure of '50' end up thinking that's the right number- as you apparently do, when we have better sources saying the number is not known. Attack Ramon (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see where there's any contradiction between Lister saying the number of groups supported and vetted from 2012-2016 is approximately 50, and another source saying that the exact number is unknown. That just sounds like life. A reader shouldn't know this because... ? -Darouet (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's the reliable source that refutes Lister? Or even explicitly says something like "it's unknown how many groups were vetted"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The other source doesn't say 'the exact number is unknown", while giving an estimate or a range. It says 'the number is unknown'. If you don't see how this contradicts 'the number 50' we have a bigger problem here than just reliable sources. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lister writes "There are currently at least 50 such vetted opposition factions... who have received assistance... since late-2012." So Lister also leaves the number of groups unknown, but sets a minimum quantity to that unknown number. -Darouet (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the number is unknown, it can't have a known minimum. Attack Ramon (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ... you should think about that for a bit. -Darouet (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should as well. Attack Ramon (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Suppose we have a known minimum of 50 groups. Do you know the number of groups now? Can you tell me what that number is? Or do you not know the number of groups Timber Sycamore supported? Maybe you don't know the number, but the number is not... unknown ? -Darouet (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The requires having a known minimum. We don't have such knowledge - that claim comes from an unreliable source. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can't find the statement in the source that says the number is unknown; can you point me to it? This piece is written six months before Lister's, by the way, and is also a debate piece rather than a report, written someone who has the same sort of job as Lister's (an expert employed by a semi-academic thinktank), but who doesn't have Lister's specific expertise on Syrian rebels. I'm not sure why it should supercede Lister's piece, rather than complement it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Unreliable sources don't suddenly become reliable when published 6 month after a reliable source, and no, it is not a "debate piece", but rather analysis, by a well known expert who holds an endowed chair at a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to providing strategic insights. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources don't suddenly become reliable when published 6 month after a reliable source, and no, it is not a "debate piece", but rather analysis, by a well known expert who holds an endowed chair at a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to providing strategic insights. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Darouet on this per "Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, was a fellow at the Brookings Institute, and has written for Foreign Policy and many other outlets". Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox sourced from fringe conspiracy sites
There is no way that the text or the sources restored in this revert by can be considered encyclopedic. The infobox text should neutrally and concisely reflect the article. The article is well sourced already so it is not legitimate to go beyond it by drawing on fringe sites such as GlobalResearch and The American Conservative. I guess Fox is considered RS for some international news, but the Fox source (which is mostly about Train and Supply not Timber Sycamore does not make the claim in the bullet that the latter programme strengthened ISIS; it talks about arms deflected to al-Nusra. Less importantly, "flooding" is non-encyclopedic language imho: although one source does use that term - but I don't think we should use it in our voice in the infobox (I don't really like it in the lede, but at least there is is qualified as an unintended consequence and is clear that it is small arms like assault rifles). Please can that revert be undone. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BobfromBrockley, and I would like to add the following. US limited support for rebels was never intended to enable them to topple Assad, but to weaken him, hoping for a coup from within the Alawite Baathist regime. A US military document states: "training opposition forces’ to ‘try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within" (https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/syria-democracy-documents). Obama also referred to Syrian rebels as 'farmers, teachers, pharmacists & dentists', whom he considered unfit to topple Assad (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/26/are-syrian-opposition-fighters-former-farmers-or-teachers-or-pharmacists/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b9e3d077cb8e). Although the US provided a limited 'train & equip' program to rebels, it did not protect them from regime's & Russian air raids. Obama also ruled out MANPADS. In effect, vetted, moderate rebels were abandoned, weakened & left to face attacks from regime, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, ISIS & Kurdish YPG/PKK. When rebels battled terrorist groups like ISIS & Nusra, the US & allies never backed them up. This weakened moderate rebels & resulted in Nusra overrunning rebel strongholds & confiscating some arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarotchi (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Bobfrombrockley Happy to work on improving the infobox, but I request we don't use as a starting platform the edits made by the notorious banned editor Sayerslle. -Darouet (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

More (partisan) background
http://maximechaix.info/?p=3821 Maxime Chaix: Timber Sycamore is the codename of a covert operation officially authorized by Obama in June 2013 to train and equip the anti-Assad rebellion, but which actually started in October 2011, when the CIA was operating via Britain’s MI6 to avoid having to notify Congress that it was arming the rebels in Syria. Originally, the CIA and MI6 (the British foreign intelligence service) set up a rebel arms supply network in Syria from Libya — a plan that involved the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish intelligence services. In 2012, probably in spring, Obama reluctantly signed a top-secret executive order, of which little is known other than that it authorized the CIA to provide “non-lethal support” to the rebels in Syria...

etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Undue commentary"
Undue tags have been placed on commentaries from the Baltimore Sun and the Sydney Morning Herald. The first is a major paper in the US and the second is the newspaper of record in Australia. Both commentaries echo those of others that we cite in this article. No explanation was given for the tags here at talk. I'm removing the tags. -Darouet (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly, k.e.coffman removed one commentary which was critical of the cancellation of Timber Sycamore. I don't feel strongly about this particular ref, but I feel now all our commentary is hostile, making it POV. It's true CIA are an "involved party" but not sure that invalidates him as noteworthy. Might be worth seeing if there are other analysts who take a similar position. Here's one I stumbled on: BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would work. Although the assessment is nuanced, such as: "Thus, by the time of Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. covert program, which was never particularly bold to start with, was already a shadow of its former self." --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)