Shadowwarrior8 (talk | contribs) →September 2023: Reply Tag: Reply |
→September 2023: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::Another example: {{talk quote|"The military activity of the governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia during the war has been criticized by the US and its regional allies."}} - Actually, the Assad government has been condemned internationally with multiple UN resolutions against him. Moreover, you described the Syrian revolution protests, a globally-recognised peaceful, grassroots, mass-movement which was part of the wider Arab Spring trend, as "protests and riots in 2011", thereby dehumanising it as some legitimate security threat to be violently crushed by the Syrian military. |
::Another example: {{talk quote|"The military activity of the governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia during the war has been criticized by the US and its regional allies."}} - Actually, the Assad government has been condemned internationally with multiple UN resolutions against him. Moreover, you described the Syrian revolution protests, a globally-recognised peaceful, grassroots, mass-movement which was part of the wider Arab Spring trend, as "protests and riots in 2011", thereby dehumanising it as some legitimate security threat to be violently crushed by the Syrian military. |
||
::As for concerns you raised here, that article was written in 2019. 600,000 is the updated figure (the relevant source shall be inserted soon into the page). Moreover, presence of alleged mistakes or original research in some parts of the content is not reasonable grounds for [[WP:CRV|mass content deletion]]. The alleged mistakes are to be rectified in line with the relevant sources. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 11:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
::As for concerns you raised here, that article was written in 2019. 600,000 is the updated figure (the relevant source shall be inserted soon into the page). Moreover, presence of alleged mistakes or original research in some parts of the content is not reasonable grounds for [[WP:CRV|mass content deletion]]. The alleged mistakes are to be rectified in line with the relevant sources. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 11:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::@[[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]], Jan Lundius' OPINION piece and World Politics Review are NOT academic sources as they are not associated with any university institution. Lundius may be an academic himself, but his Inter Press Service article is an OPINION piece. If you're going to put forward [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claims, then you are going to need extraordinary sources. Opinion pieces and random websites are not going to cut it. |
|||
::::::{{tq|You wrote (which no credible source will backup ofcourse): "Russia, the only foreign power that has its military assets openly and "legally stationed in Syria" (??), has waged an intensive air campaign against anti-government forces in Syria, on the side of and at the request of the Syrian government." When did Russian occupation of Syria become "legal"? Does Russia have a UN mandate or do you consider Syria as some parking lot of Russian imperialism? So, demonstrably false, propagandistic statements are the hallmarks of your "re-write".)}} |
|||
:::::Are you sure about that? |
|||
::::::{{Cite journal |last=Bannelier-Christakis |first=Karine |date=2016 |title=Military Interventions against ISIL in Iraq, Syria and Libya, and the Legal Basis of Consent |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0922156516000303/type/journal_article |journal=Leiden Journal of International Law |language=en |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=743–775 |doi=10.1017/S0922156516000303 |issn=0922-1565}} |
|||
::::::{{talkquote|Section 4 will argue that Russia and Iran based their interventions in Syria on the legal basis of consent and, despite the problems, these interventions do not challenge the purpose-based approach of intervention. It is nonetheless impossible, for the time being, to use the doctrine of ‘intervention by invitation’ as a legal basis for the strikes of the US-led coalition in Syria, even if we try to rely on a controversial ‘passive consent’ theory.}} |
|||
::::::{{talkquote|Last but not least, no state challenged, to my knowledge, the validity of the invitation to intervene. While several Western and Arab states criticized Russia for also attacking the ‘moderate Syrian opposition’, no state called into question the legality of the Russian airstrikes against ISIL on the basis of intervention by invitation. |
|||
:::}} |
|||
:::::I'm not sure what you mean by "rectif[ying]" your mistakes "in line with the relevant sources." Removing content that is irrelevant and original research (which is what I did) is perfectly valid, per [[WP:IRRELEVANT]] and [[WP:INAPPROPRIATE]]. |
|||
:::[[User:Skornezy|Skornezy]] ([[User talk:Skornezy|talk]]) 02:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:50, 19 September 2023
Politics Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
International relations Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Syria Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
September 2023
Skornezy Instead of disrupting the article through unconstructive edits, attempt to raise your issue in the talk page. "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page." Despite numerous attempts at engaging, you havent responded and have simply continued with removing large amounts of sourced content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is not so much with the sources used, the issue is the WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH that's spammed all over this article. I don't have time to go through every single example with you, but I will give you one example that's probably the worst offender:
- In your lead it states:
Russia and Iran has launched extensive military interventions to prevent the downfall of the Assad regime through scorched earth tactics across Syria, which has resulted in around 600,000 deaths, millions of forced displacements; triggering the largest refugee crisis in the world. During this period, Bashar al-Assad closely aligned himself with Vladimir Putin, providing Russia with military bases in the country. Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed.
- Now, you cite two sources for this: The first being an opinion piece (although written by a relevant expert, it should not be used over academic research) The relevant quote is this:
After the entire nation on 15 March 2011 became embrolied in a ruthless civil war, the age-old cities of Aleppo, Homs, and Hama have been totally destroyed; their mosques, palaces, souqs and quasbas, several of them world heritage sites, are in ruins. Worst than the irreversible damage wrecked on homes, world heritage and a multi-faceted and generally indulgent society is the incomprehensible suffering of individuals; men, women, and children, caught up in precarious situations they cannot control while being used as pawns in cynical power games. In March 2018, the death toll of the Syrian war was estimated at 511,000. 7 On the 4th of August this year, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) had 5,626.914 Syrian refugees registered 8 and estimated that 6.2 million individuals were internally displaced. 9 These are statistics, figures, though it is important to realize that every number stands for a human being. We may read and talk about the hardship affecting those who have survived the carnage – refugees and internally displaced persons – but is it really possible to discern the suffering affecting each and every one of them? Can we really not do anything to understand and help them?
- Not only is the 600k figure inaccurate, the assertion that Russia and Iran are responsible for these hardships is not found anywhere in the opinion piece, it's purely your editorializing.
- The second source (which I have no issue with), also makes no mention.
- Skornezy (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you had no problem with the source, why do you keep removing it and other reliable, academic sources? Not only did you remove that content, but infact, you repeatedly removed multiple reliable references and its associated contents. So dont pretend as if you came to rectify alleged Original research, when your newly inserted content was also full of what you accuse others of.
- You wrote (which no credible source will backup ofcourse):
"Russia, the only foreign power that has its military assets openly and "legally stationed in Syria" (??), has waged an intensive air campaign against anti-government forces in Syria, on the side of and at the request of the Syrian government."
- When did Russian occupation of Syria become "legal"? Does Russia have a UN mandate or do you consider Syria as some parking lot of Russian imperialism? So, demonstrably false, propagandistic statements are the hallmarks of your "re-write".
- Another example:
- Actually, the Assad government has been condemned internationally with multiple UN resolutions against him. Moreover, you described the Syrian revolution protests, a globally-recognised peaceful, grassroots, mass-movement which was part of the wider Arab Spring trend, as "protests and riots in 2011", thereby dehumanising it as some legitimate security threat to be violently crushed by the Syrian military."The military activity of the governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia during the war has been criticized by the US and its regional allies."
- As for concerns you raised here, that article was written in 2019. 600,000 is the updated figure (the relevant source shall be inserted soon into the page). Moreover, presence of alleged mistakes or original research in some parts of the content is not reasonable grounds for mass content deletion. The alleged mistakes are to be rectified in line with the relevant sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Shadowwarrior8, Jan Lundius' OPINION piece and World Politics Review are NOT academic sources as they are not associated with any university institution. Lundius may be an academic himself, but his Inter Press Service article is an OPINION piece. If you're going to put forward WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, then you are going to need extraordinary sources. Opinion pieces and random websites are not going to cut it.
You wrote (which no credible source will backup ofcourse): "Russia, the only foreign power that has its military assets openly and "legally stationed in Syria" (??), has waged an intensive air campaign against anti-government forces in Syria, on the side of and at the request of the Syrian government." When did Russian occupation of Syria become "legal"? Does Russia have a UN mandate or do you consider Syria as some parking lot of Russian imperialism? So, demonstrably false, propagandistic statements are the hallmarks of your "re-write".)
- Are you sure about that?
- Bannelier-Christakis, Karine (2016). "Military Interventions against ISIL in Iraq, Syria and Libya, and the Legal Basis of Consent". Leiden Journal of International Law. 29 (3): 743–775. doi:10.1017/S0922156516000303. ISSN 0922-1565.
Section 4 will argue that Russia and Iran based their interventions in Syria on the legal basis of consent and, despite the problems, these interventions do not challenge the purpose-based approach of intervention. It is nonetheless impossible, for the time being, to use the doctrine of ‘intervention by invitation’ as a legal basis for the strikes of the US-led coalition in Syria, even if we try to rely on a controversial ‘passive consent’ theory.
Last but not least, no state challenged, to my knowledge, the validity of the invitation to intervene. While several Western and Arab states criticized Russia for also attacking the ‘moderate Syrian opposition’, no state called into question the legality of the Russian airstrikes against ISIL on the basis of intervention by invitation.
- @Shadowwarrior8, Jan Lundius' OPINION piece and World Politics Review are NOT academic sources as they are not associated with any university institution. Lundius may be an academic himself, but his Inter Press Service article is an OPINION piece. If you're going to put forward WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, then you are going to need extraordinary sources. Opinion pieces and random websites are not going to cut it.
-
- I'm not sure what you mean by "rectif[ying]" your mistakes "in line with the relevant sources." Removing content that is irrelevant and original research (which is what I did) is perfectly valid, per WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:INAPPROPRIATE.
- Skornezy (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)