Shadowwarrior8 (talk | contribs) |
→September 2023: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
:::::> continues bad faith allegations against the other editor. |
:::::> continues bad faith allegations against the other editor. |
||
:::::That diff was the reversion of your [[WP:DISRUPT|Disruptive editing]] and massive amounts of [[WP:CRV|sourced content removal]]. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and even if I did, I have no abilities of [[WP:CENSOR|Censorship]]. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other [[WP:RS|reliably sourced contents]] ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
:::::That diff was the reversion of your [[WP:DISRUPT|Disruptive editing]] and massive amounts of [[WP:CRV|sourced content removal]]. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and even if I did, I have no abilities of [[WP:CENSOR|Censorship]]. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other [[WP:RS|reliably sourced contents]] ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{tq|@[[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]]: So the user Skornezy: removes numerous reliable sources, engages in repetitive deletion of massive amounts of sourced contents.}} Much of the content was [[WP:IRRELEVANT]], [[WP:UNDUE]], and blatant [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:SYNTH]], and it will continue to be removed per Wikipedia policies. {{tq|Shadowwarrior8: "inserts unsourced POV into the Lede"}} Which was a wiki-transfer from [[Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war]], per my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175443507 edit summary], that I have since backed up with numerous academic publications (despite your selective quoting of them). {{tq|Shadowwarrior8:"also copy pastes content from another article."}} Which is not an issue: [[WP:COPYWITHIN]]. {{tq|Shadowwarrior8: "hurls adhominem attacks at other editors when reverted"}} Pointing out your anti-Assad POV isn't an ad hominem (which has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athism&diff=prev&oldid=1136030617 pointed out by other editors]), but I find this very ironic considering [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1175926322 you accused me of making "pro-dictatorship talking points."] {{tq|Shadowwarrior8: "publicly admits to not giving other editors the benefit of good faith (here)."}} Very ironic considering you label any critique I give you as "bad faith allegations." |
|||
:::::::{{tq|That diff was the reversion of your Disruptive editing and massive amounts of sourced content removal. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by reliable sources and even if I did, I have no abilities of Censorship. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other reliably sourced contents ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me.}} |
|||
::::::You complain about content removal and then blank content through manual revert. This either a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issue (coupled with your failure to grasp basic Wikipedia policies such as [[WP:UNDUE]], [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:OR]], among others) ''OR'' you are unfortunately not acting in good faith. [[User:Skornezy|Skornezy]] ([[User talk:Skornezy|talk]]) 22:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{od}} |
:::::{{od}} |
||
:::::[[User:Skornezy|Skornezy]] did describe Lundius as an {{tq|"academic"}} and a "{{tq|relevant expert}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1176042819 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175930354 here]. As usual, the user keeps self-contradicting after every succeeding comment. Furthermore, Lunduis source is used to cite the following content in the lede: {{talkquote|Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed.}} (which really doesnt need a source, it is a well-known fact and a reality of the civil war)* (it also provides information regarding Assad's alliance with Russia & Iran)** |
:::::[[User:Skornezy|Skornezy]] did describe Lundius as an {{tq|"academic"}} and a "{{tq|relevant expert}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1176042819 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175930354 here]. As usual, the user keeps self-contradicting after every succeeding comment. Furthermore, Lunduis source is used to cite the following content in the lede: {{talkquote|Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed.}} (which really doesnt need a source, it is a well-known fact and a reality of the civil war)* (it also provides information regarding Assad's alliance with Russia & Iran)** |
Revision as of 22:37, 20 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 of them were discussing the topic of Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad and highly relevent. 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, it 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)
- I should remind Shadowwarrior8 that WP:Competence is required. I never said World Politics Review was not a reliable source, it is, but it's not an academic source as you continuously attempt to characterize it.
Shadowwarrior8: "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."
I never said this. Find some of Lundis' academic work on the Syrian war and I would not be opposed to inclusion. Why is it so hard to understand that news-media opinion pieces are not the same as academic publications? Yes, given the sectarian nature of the Syrian war, Lundis—who holds a PhD in Religion—is a relevant expert, however opinion pieces do not go through the same level of scrutiny as academic works and should not be considered the same. - Leiden Journal of International Law published by Cambridge University Press is hardly a WP:FRINGE source, and your little quote mine does not reference Syria, Russia, or Iran, but is actually referring to in intervening in civil wars in general (anyone reading this can check for themselves). In fact, Section 4 of the paper directly challenges the legal arguments for the Russian intervention being illegal.
Shadowwarrior8: "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."
The first article is a"student-run law journal published by the University of Michigan Law School"
and includes the disclaimer that"[t]his website contains views and opinions published by members of the Journal’s editorial team on issues germane to the Journal’s area of focus. The views expressed on this website and in individual posts represent the views of the post’s author(s) only."
The second article is unequivocal with its disclaimer that"this content was originally written for an undergraduate or Master's program. It is published as part of our mission to showcase peer-leading papers written by students during their studies. This work can be used for background reading and research, but should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books."
Did Shadowwarrior8 not see this disclaimer or is he clutching at straws to push his own POV? The third article is a blog associated with the London School of Economics and Political Science, and was written by a random law student pursuant of an undergraduate degree. Thus, not one of Shadowwarrior's low-quality sources in his latest attempted WP:CITEBOMB can be considered reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and certainly cannot be used to contradict gold-standard sources such as Cambridge University Press.- And just to demonstrate, I can very easily cobble up a bunch of sources, using much better sources, mind you, to create my own citebomb and present it as a consensus:
- 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.
- Nguyen, Quoc Tan Trung (2019-07-01). "Rethinking the Legality of Intervention by Invitation: Toward Neutrality". Journal of Conflict and Security Law. 24 (2): 201–238. doi:10.1093/jcsl/krz004. ISSN 1467-7954.
Recently, the invitation extended by Assad’s government on behalf of the Syrian state to the Russians was unequivocally deemed to be lawful.
- Kotova, Anastasiya; Tzouvala, Ntina (27 October 2022). "In Defense of Comparisons: Russia and the Transmutations of Imperialism in International Law". American Journal of International Law. 116 (4): 710–719. doi:10.1017/ajil.2022.48. ISSN 0002-9300.
Despite widespread rhetoric against Assad's government in Syria, actual uses of force were justified either through the language of self-defense, in the case of Western powers and Turkey, or under the banner of intervention by governmental invitation by Russia.
- de Wet, Erika (12 February 2016). "The Modern Practice of Intervention by Invitation in Africa and Its Implications for the Prohibition of the Use of Force". European Journal of International Law. 26 (4): 979–998. doi:10.1093/ejil/chv055. ISSN 0938-5428.
In the same vein, in the Syria conflict, no state has thus far suggested that indirect state support (notably Russian) in the form of arms to the Assad government is illegal.
- Visser, Laura (2015-11-25). "Russia's Intervention in Syria". EJIL: Talk!.
Russia’s intervention in Syria is in accordance with the concept of intervention by invitation and President Assad is still the legitimate authority to issue such an invitation on behalf of Syria. State practice and opinio juris are inconclusive and scholars are divided on whether there is a rule that prohibits an intervention in a civil war. On the basis of the reasoning of the Court and the responses of states to the recent interventions in Mali by France and in Syria by Russia, it is argued here that there is no such rule that prohibits an intervention in a civil war if the invitation comes from the government. It is thus submitted that the Russian intervention in Syria is in accordance with international law.
- Be that as it may, what I find most baffling is complaining about content removal, and then inexplicably blanking the Iran section that I had revamped. This level of hypocrisy makes it very difficult to assume that Shadowwarrior8 is acting in good faith. Can Shadowwarrior8 explain why he blanked the Iran section? Skornezy (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- So the user Skornezy:
- > removes numerous reliable sources
- > engages in repetitive deletion of massive amounts of sourced contents
- > inserts unsourced POV into the Lede
- > also copy pastes content from another article, continues removal of sourced material
- > ignores mutliple attempts at engagement and continues Disruptive editing
- > hurls adhominem attacks at other editors when reverted, publicly admits to not giving other editors the benefit of good faith (here)
- > finally comes to the talk page after getting reported
- > continues bad faith allegations against the other editor.
- That diff was the reversion of your Disruptive editing and massive amounts of sourced content removal. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by reliable sources and even if I did, I have no abilities of Censorship. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other reliably sourced contents ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
@Shadowwarrior8: So the user Skornezy: removes numerous reliable sources, engages in repetitive deletion of massive amounts of sourced contents.
Much of the content was WP:IRRELEVANT, WP:UNDUE, and blatant WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and it will continue to be removed per Wikipedia policies.Shadowwarrior8: "inserts unsourced POV into the Lede"
Which was a wiki-transfer from Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war, per my edit summary, that I have since backed up with numerous academic publications (despite your selective quoting of them).Shadowwarrior8:"also copy pastes content from another article."
Which is not an issue: WP:COPYWITHIN.Shadowwarrior8: "hurls adhominem attacks at other editors when reverted"
Pointing out your anti-Assad POV isn't an ad hominem (which has been pointed out by other editors), but I find this very ironic considering you accused me of making "pro-dictatorship talking points."Shadowwarrior8: "publicly admits to not giving other editors the benefit of good faith (here)."
Very ironic considering you label any critique I give you as "bad faith allegations."That diff was the reversion of your Disruptive editing and massive amounts of sourced content removal. You simply made a copy paste from another article into the page, which got blanked when the page was reverted. No where in my comments did I object to the insertion of content backed by reliable sources and even if I did, I have no abilities of Censorship. There is nothing preventing you from inserting those contents (without removing other reliably sourced contents ofcourse). This comment is nothing but another meaningless tirade as part of your bad faith accusations against me.
- You complain about content removal and then blank content through manual revert. This either a WP:COMPETENCE issue (coupled with your failure to grasp basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, among others) OR you are unfortunately not acting in good faith. Skornezy (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Skornezy did describe Lundius as an
"academic"
and a "relevant expert
" here and here. As usual, the user keeps self-contradicting after every succeeding comment. Furthermore, Lunduis source is used to cite the following content in the lede:
(which really doesnt need a source, it is a well-known fact and a reality of the civil war)* (it also provides information regarding Assad's alliance with Russia & Iran)**Much of the country's cities have been turned into rubbles, heritage sites and infrastructure have been destroyed.
- Now Skornezy says:
Why is it so hard to understand that news-media opinion pieces are not the same as academic publications?
- Okay, provide an academic publication which contradicts that above content, it shall be removed. (But I doubt one would ever find such claims from an academic work, because academic works rarely contradict well-known reality)
- Stop putting words against other editors. I never described Karine (2016), published by Cambridge University Press, as an unreliable source. I disputed your presentation of that source as Original research and as usual you havent addressed that. Throughout that journal, the author is clear that she is presenting her opinion while acknowledging that other scholars disputed them. Even the citation you provided says"
"will argue"
. So nowhere does she suggest a consensus in this issue, infact the opposite, she is arguing against dissenting views. - Some relevent passages from the work:
International legal scholarship is profoundly divided on the legality of intervention by invitation in a case of a civil war.
The first legal issue concerns the validity of the invitation, and more precisely, the legitimacy and ‘representativeness’ of the author of the invitation, the government of Bashar al-Assad. Some scholars took the position that the regime of Bashar al-Assad has lost its legitimacy and popular acquiescence, and thus also its standing to consent to external intervention. According to M. Weller, for example:
A very large number of States have determined that the Assad government can no longer fully claim to represent the people of Syria. Instead, the opposition is the true representative of Syria. . . . Having been disowned by such a large segment of its population, and over such a long period, [the Assad government] can no longer lawfully invite foreign military force to intervene and fight on its behalf.- As for your claims on the sources I cited, they are reliable. (Karine, 2016) was published by Cambridge University Press, which makes it more prominent, but that does not affect the status of the former. But then Skornezy argues that they are opinion pieces. The response is that they are opinion pieces as much as (Karine, 2016). No difference.
- As for Skornezy's sources:
- i) Karine (2016) has already been addressed above
- ii) Nguyen (2016) is only citing the view of an opinion piece of "Blog of the European Journal of International Law" which was the Laura (2015) source cited in the end
- Infact Nguyen (2016) is actually CRITICAL of Russian intervention and is a source in favour of its ILLEGALITY:
the notorious Russian intervention into the deadly conflict in Syria is another contemporary and interesting take on the neutrality of outsiders towards internal actors, exemplified by the language of the Security Council and the Russian government.
Foreign armies should not act as a new adversary, adding fuel to the fire, as in the case of the Russian forces in Syria. A biased intervention should itself be considered unlawful. Intervening troops are supposed to be mediators, peace-keeping forces deployed to stabilize the country and prevent possible humanitarian crises.
- So another instance of Original Research from the user
- iii) Citation from Kotova, Tzouvala (2022) does nothing to support the user's claims. Infact, the immediately succeding sentence was also conveniently omitted:
"Even though aspects of these arguments were controversial.."
- iv) Erika (2016) is describing the Russian funding and arming of Assad regime, not the actual Russian military intervention. Original research again.
- iii) Citation from Kotova, Tzouvala (2022) does nothing to support the user's claims. Infact, the immediately succeding sentence was also conveniently omitted:
- Before citing all these, Skornzey stated "
I can very easily cobble up a bunch of sources, using much better sources, mind you, to create my own citebomb and present it as a consensus
". I dont know what is being referred to here, but if the implication here is that I Citebombed somewhere, then there has been no diffs for it. Its simply another repetitive bad faith allegation without any evidence. If anyone claimed "consensus" here, it was Skornzey who did that by writing Russian military forces are "legally stationed in Syria
" in the lede, except that no sources were even brought to back up those claims anywhere in the article. - As demonstrated, there is absolutely no consensus with regards to the so-called "legality" of Russian occupation of Syrian territories, just as there was no consensus regarding the "legality" of Soviet invasion and occupations of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc. which were orchestrated through similar trumped up claims by supporting pro-Soviet political factions in countries undergoing civil strife.
- Additionally, the UNSC resolution 2249[4] issued in 2015 (which was supported by Russia) also urged the implementation of "a nationwide ceasefire in Syria" and demanded member-states to "support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire". It also urged all
"all states to use their influence with the government of Syria and the Syrian opposition to advance the peace process, confidence building measures and steps towards a ceasefire"
- As is well-known, Russia and pro-Assad forces violated this resolution by conducting offensives supported by Russian aerial bombing campaign against opposition-held regions during 2016-20, thereby increasing its territorial control from less than 20% to nearly two-thirds of the country. Thus, Russia contravened UN resolution 2249 (which it had backed earlier) and also opposed the self-determination of another independent state by meddling in its internal affairs. Therefore, there is no doubt regarding the illegality of Russian presence. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:06, 20 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)
- So until now Skornezy was asking for citations, but when citations are provided the complaint is suddenly "Citation overkill" (?!) However, WP:CITEKILL is alleged typically for more than 4 sources, and clearly references here have been restricted to four. But the irony is Skornezy was the one demanding for sources.
- Also, "verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" according to MOS:LEADCITE. You were the one challenging the contents, but is critical when citations are provided. The editor labels all content as original research but still want others to research the references for him. This shows that the user is simply making these accusations without attempting to verify the sources.
- Additionally, nowhere in the content suggests that Iran and Russia are "solely responsible for the crisis". Thats just another baseless claim in the user's long list of Bad faith allegations.
- Russia's scorched earth tactics in Syria have also been well-documented. For example, read the Russian–Syrian hospital bombing campaign article. As for the specific in-line citation requested in the relevant reference:
One might argue that Moscow simply had no ability to deliver precise strikes, and its historic indiscriminate campaigns that killed civilians were only a reflection of an inability to do things diff erently. But in Syria, evidence suggests that Moscow’s delivery was more precise, even though the majority of munitions Moscow delivered were unguided. It is with greater precision than in the past that Moscow hit civilian targets, such as hospitals, bakeries, and gas stations where people lined up for gas and this speaks volumes to Moscow’s fundamentally different approach to counterinsurgency to that taken by the West, regardless of technological improvements. After Russia entered the Syrian theater, attacks on health-care facilities only increased, as Moscow helped Assad double-down on eliminating opposition. While no party was innocent in Syria, the Assad regime bore by far the greatest responsibility... the Syrian and Russian regimes “weaponized healthcare” by deliberately targeting ambulances. Officials and activists also observed that after hospitals had voluntarily provided their GPS coordinates to the UN “no-strike” list, they became targets of strikes, raising questions about whether Moscow used the UN system to its own ends, while a UN-led investigation into bombings of civilian targets in Syria released in April 2020 had concluded that “Assad and his allies” committed most of the attacks...
Thus, Moscow’s air campaign ran in tandem with that of the Syrian regime in terms of terrorizing and demoralizing the general population and anti-Assad opposition.[5]- No matter what you feel about its contents, all the sources brought up here are reliable. I could back up the material with even more academic citations and am all in favour of improving articles with reliable, academic sources; but you have been deleting these very same references without contributing anything of academic value. It seems the user's priorities are something else. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Shadowwarrior8 seems to have forgotten that the WP:ONUS & WP:BURDEN is on him to justify inclusion and verifiablity.
- Anyways, yes, it is a misleading citebomb. Only one of the sources in your inline citation actually support what is written (Borshchevskaya 2021), the rest is just fluff, and I've already called you out on this. Borshchevskay, a former US military contractor and current researcher for the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office, is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank:
- Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M. (2007). The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Macmillan. pp. 175–6. ISBN 978-0-374-17772-0.
Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel's agenda ... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP's ranks.
- Even though Mearsheimer and Walt's critiques were made in 2007, there is no reason that they don't still apply today. So, while Borshchevskaya is an expert, she is an extremely biased source. I'm not opposed to citing Borshchevskaya 2021, however I disagree with citing her in wikivoice. It needs attribution, and thus belongs in the article body, not the lead, so the lead still needs changing.
- Skornezy (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Skornezy should first realize that one shouldnt accuse other editors of original research without verifying the references. Requesting inline citations is one thing, spamming WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:EXTRAORDINARY allegations against another editor is something else.
- The other sources are there to support the rest of the sentence, while (Borshchevskaya 2021) is to specifically cite the well-known scorched earth tactics of Russian military intervention. It is not a citebomb either. Go check its definition.
- Once again, Skornezy has attempted to shift the goal posts. The user never raised concerns of Borshchevskaya's academic reliability at first. Now that the relevent citations got provided, the user has moved on to the next allegation. Firstly, the source doesnt describe her as a "US military contractor" as you claimed, she was a "A former analyst for a U.S. military contractor"; big difference. And she isnt a "current researcher" at US army's foreign military studies office, she used to conduct "translation and analysis" in that office "Until recently". So not as biased as you present. Even if one were to be an US army officer, many generals have also been critical of US army policies, such as Smedley Butler.
- Also, the book is not published by WINEP. It is published by Bloomsbury Publishing and its I.B. Tauris imprint. So that's an invalid guilt by association argument. Your personal opinion of "Borshchevskaya" is irrelevant since the book is clearly academically reliable. This argument might have made sense if the book, infact, was published by WINEP.
- Its interesting that you bought up John Mearsheimer, an author known for pro-Russian views on geo-politics.[6] The book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is also a highly controversial work and is not used in wikipedia without proper attribution. According to Robert C. Lieberman:
"It is quite clear that the book’s argument does not support Mearsheimer and Walt’s central contention, that the existence and activities of an Israel lobby are the primary causes of American policy in the Middle East. The claim is supported neither by logic nor evidence nor even a rudimentary understanding of how the American policymaking system works"[7]
- Thus in anyways, Mearsheimer and his book are explicitly biased sources in this context. Furthermore, Israel is an ally of Russia and officially co-ordinates with the Russian military in Syria.
- "Russia sees military coordination with Israel on Syria continuing" (Reuters, Feb 2022)
On 21 September (2015), during a visit to Moscow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to coordinate military actions over Syria. Israeli jets had occasionally bombed suspected targets in Syria to prevent Iranian and Hizbullah potential security threats to Israel.[8]
- So not sure why Israel sympathy accusations even fit into this. (i.e, even assuming WINEP continues to be part of a pro-Israel lobby 15 years after Mearsheimer's 2007 allegations) Your arguments seem to be only for the sake of arguments, it seems.
- Russian hospital bombing campaigns are well-documented and the author's works were also well-cited.
- The UN Made a List of Hospitals in Syria. Now They're Being Bombed (Aron Lund, 2019)
- Syrian and Russian forces targeting hospitals as a strategy of war (Amnesty International, 2016)
- Additionally there are other academic works, discussing the scorched earth tactics of Russian invaders in detail: (just like in Afghanistan).
In the Syrian conflict, the Assad regime and its Russian ally used scorched-earth tactics of siege and bombardment to clear opposition-held cities and neighborhoods. New York Times reporters Anne Barnard and Somini Sengupta depict the Syrian and Russian policy this way: "Make life intolerable and death likely. Open an escape route, or offer a deal to those who leave and surrender. Let people trickle out. Kill whoever stays. Repeat until a deserted cityscape is yours." This "starve-or-submit" policy violates the Geneva Conventions. Syria and Russia took their violations further in September 2016 when they launched three hours of air strikes on a United Nations and Red Crescent aid convoy—a convoy they had previously agreed could enter opposition-held neighborhoods in Aleppo to render humanitarian assistance. The strikes did more than attack the convoy; they also targeted the headquarters of local aid workers, their vehicles, and the aid workers themselves in order to eliminate fast responders. All of these acts are violations of the Geneva Conventions.[9]
But the regime is pursuing a scorched-earth policy. These areas are subject to constant bombardment, shelling, and missile attacks... The civilian population and the economic infrastructure are directly targeted[10]
- So it is explicitly clear from multiple reliable references, reports and academic works, that Russia and pro-Assad forces implemented scorched earth tactics to gain control over the country, resulting in the displacement of around 13 million civilians. WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim is made by Skornezy who disputes this fact, and the user should bring extraordinary sources to support such fringe theories. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:38, 20 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) - ^ "Resolution 2254 (2015)" (PDF). Security Council Report. United Nations Security Council. 18 December 2015.
- ^ Borshchevskaya, Anna (2022). "6: The Military Campaign". Putin's War in Syria. 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK: I. B. Tauris. pp. 76, 77. ISBN 978-0-7556-3463-7.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ Rachman, Gideon. "It makes no sense to blame the west for the Ukraine war". Financial Times.
- ^ Lieberman, Robert C. (2009). "The "Israel Lobby" and American Politics". Perspectives on Politics. 7 (2): 235–257. doi:10.1017/S153759270909077X. ISSN 1537-5927. JSTOR 40406928. S2CID 146733012.
- ^ Geukjian, Ohannes. "4: The Objectives of Russia's Military Intervention, 2015–17". Russian military intervention in Syria. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-2280-0830-9.
- ^ Neack, Laura (2023). "8:Human Security". National, International, and Human Security: Protection Against Violence (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 172. ISBN 9781538168028.
- ^ Hashemi, Postel, Nader, Danny; Kaldor, Mary (2013). "A Humanitarian Strategy Focused on Syrian Civilians". The Syria Dilemma. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 1501, 151. ISBN 978-0-262-02683-3.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)