Shadowwarrior8 (talk | contribs) →September 2023: Reply Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::::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]]. |
:::::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) |
:::[[User:Skornezy|Skornezy]] ([[User talk:Skornezy|talk]]) 02:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::@[[User:Skornezy|Skornezy]] Stop shifting goal posts. You acknowledged the reliability of World Politics Review in your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175930354 previous comment]. As for Jan Lunduis, you acknowledge him as an expert academic, but then proceed to claim that all his academic statements are [[WP:RS|unreliable]]. General consensus in Wikipedia is that [[Inter Press Service]] as a reliable source. |
|||
::::[[WP:RS]] "''When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability.''" As for [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] accusations, point out exactly what is the fringe conspiracy in the content rather than making general allegations. |
|||
::::From what is apparent, it was you who promoted [[WP:FRINGE|Fringe theories]] when you described the Russia as a " foreign power that has its military assets openly and legally stationed in Syria". The source you cited is only analysing different legalist theories and arguing that US-led coalition doesnt have the "theory of military intervention by invitation" in their favour. Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal. Infact the exact opposite:{{talkquote|The limited space of this article does not permit detailed reproduction of the complex theoretical issues and legal arguments concerning the problem of intervention by invitation. I will thus just very briefly present some basic elements of the legal debate.<br> '''International legal scholarship is profoundly divided on the legality of intervention by invitation in a case of a civil war.'''}} (Karine, 2016) |
|||
::::A very striking example of [[WP:OR|original Research]] from you, right there. |
|||
::::Infact, several academic sources, journals and legal experts have contested the validity of Russian intervention in Syria, similar to how the 2003 Iraq war was opposed. |
|||
::::{{talkquote|Putin has legitimized this action as compliant with international law under UNSCR 2249, as well as the legal principle of “intervention by invitation.” This principle is not explicitly stated in the UN Charter Article 2(4), the provision that guides the use of force in international law; however, there are exceptions that have arisen due to state practice. Some of those exceptions include self-defense, authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and intervention by invitation[4]. Two legal conditions must be met in order to invoke the principle of intervention by invitation: the consent by the inviting state must be valid and the inviting authority must be legitimate... the second condition of legitimate inviting authority is not as clear. Can the Assad government, in the midst of civil war, be seen as a legitimate inviting authority?.. All the factions in Syria are fighting for control of the country on a daily basis, and consequently, the political geography of Syria is constantly fluctuating. '''This dynamic conflict makes it difficult to say that the Assad regime is the legitimate authority of Syria. In order for a government to display the minimum threshold of effectiveness to have the international legal authority to invite foreign troops, the government being challenged by rebellion must not have lost control of a sufficiently representative part of the State territory. The Assad regime no longer meets this threshold. As of August 2015, the Syrian government had lost control of 83% of the country’s territory.''' <ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.mjilonline.org/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/#_ftn9|title=Russian Airstrikes in Syria: a Violation of International Law?|publisher=The Michigan Journal of International Law|first1=Seema | last1= Kassab|date=October 2016|volume=38}}</ref>}} |
|||
::::{{talkquote|Based on the vast amount of reported civilian deaths as a result of Russian airstrikes, the assessment that Russia has indeed violated international humanitarian law, and '''in accordance with article 26 of the International Law Commission, the claim that Russia is acting on the basis of intervention by invitation becomes nullified and is thereby no longer valid (ILC, Art 26). As a result of Russia’s failure to comply with peremptory norms of international law, the Russian airstrikes therefore consists of illegal acts of aggression against the civilian population of Syria.'''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.e-ir.info/2016/04/29/the-legality-of-russian-airstrikes-in-syria-and-intervention-by-invitation/|title=The Legality of Russian Airstrikes in Syria and ‘Intervention by Invitation’|first1=Samuel|last1=P. Mercier|date=29 April 2016|publisher= E-International Relations}}</ref>}} |
|||
::::{{talkquote|Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter sets out the general rule concerning the use of force. It prohibits the threat or use of force 'against the territorial integrity or political independence' of a state. There are two orthodox exceptions to this prohibition, namely the use of force in self-defence and use of force authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. However, neither of these exceptions can be relevant to Russia's intervention. '''More relevant to this intervention is the principle of non-intervention in purely domestic matters, including civil wars... Russian airstrikes in Syria which have turned the tide of the Syrian Civil War unequivocally interfere with a purely domestic matter, as well as violating the territorial integrity of the Syrian state. On the face of it, this intervention is therefore illegal.'''<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://blog.lselawreview.com/2019/02/illegality-russian-intervention-syria|title=The illegality of Russian intervention in Syria|publisher=LSE Law review|first1=Mahmoud| last1= Serewel|date=4 February 2019}}</ref>}} |
|||
::::And none of the contents you repeatedly deleted met any remote criteria of [[WP:IRRELEVANT]] or [[WP:INAPPROPRIATE]] as all was discussing the topic of [[Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad]]. Nor did you attempt to seek any form of [[WP:CRV#Consensus on removal|Consensus]], until after being reported. Infact, just because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|you dont like it]] or have [[WP:POV|personal views]] that differs from the encyclopaedic contents, doesnt give an editor carte blanche to remove contents enmasse; which is simply [[WP:CENSOR|academic censorship]] and may result in potential [[WP:VANDAL|Vandalism]]. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 10:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Citation overkill == |
== Citation overkill == |
Revision as of 10:22, 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)
- @Skornezy Stop shifting goal posts. You acknowledged the reliability of World Politics Review in your previous comment. As for Jan Lunduis, you acknowledge him as an expert academic, but then proceed to claim that all his academic statements are unreliable. General consensus in Wikipedia is that Inter Press Service as a reliable source.
- WP:RS "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." As for WP:EXTRAORDINARY accusations, point out exactly what is the fringe conspiracy in the content rather than making general allegations.
- From what is apparent, it was you who promoted Fringe theories when you described the Russia as a " foreign power that has its military assets openly and legally stationed in Syria". The source you cited is only analysing different legalist theories and arguing that US-led coalition doesnt have the "theory of military intervention by invitation" in their favour. Nowhere does it suggest that Russian intervention was legal. Infact the exact opposite:
(Karine, 2016)The limited space of this article does not permit detailed reproduction of the complex theoretical issues and legal arguments concerning the problem of intervention by invitation. I will thus just very briefly present some basic elements of the legal debate.
International legal scholarship is profoundly divided on the legality of intervention by invitation in a case of a civil war. - A very striking example of original Research from you, right there.
- Infact, several academic sources, journals and legal experts have contested the validity of Russian intervention in Syria, similar to how the 2003 Iraq war was opposed.
Putin has legitimized this action as compliant with international law under UNSCR 2249, as well as the legal principle of “intervention by invitation.” This principle is not explicitly stated in the UN Charter Article 2(4), the provision that guides the use of force in international law; however, there are exceptions that have arisen due to state practice. Some of those exceptions include self-defense, authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and intervention by invitation[4]. Two legal conditions must be met in order to invoke the principle of intervention by invitation: the consent by the inviting state must be valid and the inviting authority must be legitimate... the second condition of legitimate inviting authority is not as clear. Can the Assad government, in the midst of civil war, be seen as a legitimate inviting authority?.. All the factions in Syria are fighting for control of the country on a daily basis, and consequently, the political geography of Syria is constantly fluctuating. This dynamic conflict makes it difficult to say that the Assad regime is the legitimate authority of Syria. In order for a government to display the minimum threshold of effectiveness to have the international legal authority to invite foreign troops, the government being challenged by rebellion must not have lost control of a sufficiently representative part of the State territory. The Assad regime no longer meets this threshold. As of August 2015, the Syrian government had lost control of 83% of the country’s territory. [1]
Based on the vast amount of reported civilian deaths as a result of Russian airstrikes, the assessment that Russia has indeed violated international humanitarian law, and in accordance with article 26 of the International Law Commission, the claim that Russia is acting on the basis of intervention by invitation becomes nullified and is thereby no longer valid (ILC, Art 26). As a result of Russia’s failure to comply with peremptory norms of international law, the Russian airstrikes therefore consists of illegal acts of aggression against the civilian population of Syria.[2]
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter sets out the general rule concerning the use of force. It prohibits the threat or use of force 'against the territorial integrity or political independence' of a state. There are two orthodox exceptions to this prohibition, namely the use of force in self-defence and use of force authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. However, neither of these exceptions can be relevant to Russia's intervention. More relevant to this intervention is the principle of non-intervention in purely domestic matters, including civil wars... Russian airstrikes in Syria which have turned the tide of the Syrian Civil War unequivocally interfere with a purely domestic matter, as well as violating the territorial integrity of the Syrian state. On the face of it, this intervention is therefore illegal.[3]
- And none of the contents you repeatedly deleted met any remote criteria of WP:IRRELEVANT or WP:INAPPROPRIATE as all was discussing the topic of Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad. Nor did you attempt to seek any form of Consensus, until after being reported. Infact, just because you dont like it or have personal views that differs from the encyclopaedic contents, doesnt give an editor carte blanche to remove contents enmasse; which is simply academic censorship and may result in potential Vandalism. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Citation overkill
In an attempt to salvage a completely made-up line of text, Shadowwarrior8's latest edit is a totally misleading WP:CITEBOMB. Again, none of the sources he cites makes any mention of "scorched earth tactics," nor are they adequate enough to state in Wikivoice the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim of Syria, Iran, and Russia being solely responsible for the crisis. It's also a very low-quality cite bomb as well: An opinion piece, geopolitical analysis from a subscription-based website, carpet-bombing accusations from Western governments. However, what's most interesting is the citation of Borshchevskaya 2021; this is because for one specific line of text, Shadowwarrior8 cites an entire chapter from her book which makes it very difficult to verify his citation. For a very specific point, surely Shadowwarrior8 can be more precise. Skornezy (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- ^ Kassab, Seema (October 2016). "Russian Airstrikes in Syria: a Violation of International Law?". 38. The Michigan Journal of International Law.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ P. Mercier, Samuel (29 April 2016). "The Legality of Russian Airstrikes in Syria and 'Intervention by Invitation'". E-International Relations.
- ^ Serewel, Mahmoud (4 February 2019). "The illegality of Russian intervention in Syria". LSE Law review.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)