Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196) (bot |
|||
Line 431: | Line 431: | ||
====First statements by editors==== |
====First statements by editors==== |
||
;Buidhe |
|||
I propose that the third paragraph of the lead be replaced by: |
|||
{{quote|The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differed in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic was that inmates were held outside the [[rule of law]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stone |first1=Dan|authorlink=Dan Stone (historian) |title=Concentration Camps: A Very Short Introduction |date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0198790709 |language=en|pp=122–123|quote=Concentration camps throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are by no means all the same, with respect either to the degree of violence that characterizes them or the extent to which their inmates are abandoned by the authorities... The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto ‘enemies’, in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended.}}</ref> <!-- He also refers to "internment camps" on page 123. --> [[Extermination camps]] or death camps, whose primary purpose was killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".<ref>{{cite web |title=Nazi Camps |url=https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camps?series=10 |publisher=[[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum]] |accessdate=3 October 2020 |language=en}}</ref>}} <!-- The USHMM uses "killing center" as a synonym to "extermination camp", see https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/killing-centers-an-overview --> |
|||
Unlike any of the versions that Pinchme has supported, it is a) factually accurate and b) verifiable to reliable sources. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 07:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{talk ref}} |
|||
====Back-and-forth discussion==== |
====Back-and-forth discussion==== |
Revision as of 07:09, 6 October 2020
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4 | Closed | Gabriellemcnell (t) | 1 days, 22 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 6 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 6 hours |
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article | In Progress | Instantwatym (t) | 1 days, 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours |
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV | New | Avi8tor (t) | 2 hours | None | n/a | Avi8tor (t) | 2 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Matt Fraser (psychic)
Closed discussion |
---|
CSQ Research
Closed discussion |
---|
Cliff Thorburn
Closed discussion |
---|
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Dvtch (talk · contribs)
- Beshogur (talk · contribs)
- Solavirum (talk · contribs)
- Super Dromaeosaurus (talk · contribs)
- Ahmetlii (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is currently a debate over how to display the combatant section of this conflict. Currently it is displayed that Syrian mercenaries fighting for Azerbaijan are in the "Alleged Category". Most users agree this in disingenuous and that the international media and academic consensus is that they are fighting as combatants, therefore the term alleged should be dropped. This issue is further complicated by the fact Azerbaijan and Turkey claimed that the Kurdish terrorist group, the PKK is fighting for Armenia, a claim not substantiated outside of Turkish and Azerbaijani media and dismissed by academics also in the alleged sections. The issue being that it shows these two claims as being qualitatively equal despite many seeing that as completely factually inaccurate. When I asked the users (who I believe to be moderators who keep the content this way and happen to be biased towards one side in the war) to change this, they continuously stonewall any effort towards consensus. They are understandably biased towards one side in the war and through off and ignore any discussion of changing it. With users even claiming those who want it changed are sock puppets (that claim was ignored and turns out the user who filed it themselves was a sock puppet). When asked for a third-party opinion my claim is ignored. When I continue to bring up the topic they ignore, they defer me to some Wikipedia rules deferring away from discussion.
The reason why I am reaching out as a last resort is that there are discussions on the talk page where everyone agrees it should be changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Status_of_'Syrian_mercenaries'_in_infobox However when the edit it made, it is changed by a biased editor who is listed as a party here. He ignores the international and talk-page consensus and pushes' his view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[2]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I believe issuing an opinion whether you believe that BBC, the Guardian, the Syrian Rebel Groups themselves, The US Pentagon, is sufficient to say that they are actually combatants as opposed to just allegedly combatants would help resolve this dispute. Thank you.
Summary of dispute by Beshogur
I could agree that it should be on infobox, I never removed it. Although it should stay on the "alleged" section not "support" because support actually means something else. If Azerbaijan has denied it, it is still alleged, no matter what. As you can see here, they should be called Syrian National Army per WP:COMMONNAME, not "Syrian militia" or "Syrian mercenaries", even if the group itself denied it. Because SOHR mentions these alleged fighters belong to the subgroups of SNA. Beshogur (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not really involved with this, but Beshogur you seem to be spewing Turkish POV. Please all sources say the SNA is part of the fighting, there is video evidence and confirmed by the SOHR, HRW, and every other organization.
Summary of dispute by Solavirum
Summary of dispute by Super Dromaeosaurus
I don't want to be a major part of this conflict, but clearly Dvtch is the right one here. I only have one proposal, maybe we could say "members of the Syrian National Army" or something like that instead of the whole SNA as a whole. It would seem strange to me if the entire organization declared allegiance to Azerbaijan. And we already call the Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Brigade as "Syrian-Armenian militia". Super Ψ Dro 14:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Dvtch
This debate essentially boils down if the international consensus should be followed or if two users should have the power to stonewall consensus. In this case, Syrian mercenaries have been noted by the BBC[1], Syrian Observatory for Human Rights[2], the Guardian[3], and many more sources to be fighting in Azerbaijan. The users stonewalling deflect and say that we should take Azerbaijan's word seriously. This doesn't make sense in this context. Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia are all combatants. Therefore, I think relying on their medias (most of them state ran) for the opinion as opposed to reputable international journals, the rebel groups themselves, and human rights organizations with extensive connections all across Syria is wrong. It is disengeous to only say they are alleged when virtually everybody in the talk-group, in the international press, in academia outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan agree that they are fighting. It is similar to the case of the War in Donbass article. Virtually every media org, country, agrees Russia is fighting. So they are listed as a combatant, not an alleged combatant, with a note of their denial. These users also deflect and refer to Azerbaijan and Turkey's claims of the Kurdish terror group, the PKK fighting for Armenia. This claim is not repeated seriously in any neutral press. It is only reported in a serious capacity by Turkish and Azerbaijani state media orgs. Therefore to lump this claim and the internationally recognized claim that Syrian groups are fighting for Azerbaijan is beyond disengeous and as many are saying is making Wikipedia look like another front of this war.
I would like to ask the users who stonewall the consensus, what short of Azerbaijan admitting they have Syrian mercenaries would be grounds to take them out of alleged? We have already far passed that threshold.
Thank you for reading this. I appreciate all the work you do and hope this can be dealt with civilly and quickly. Dvtch (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54366616
- ^ https://www.syriahr.com/en/186431/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=3e446858bd3bcbc279546336cadac6dfc6885c9c-1601589124-0-AaCCMGWa2XqJ4QmbJrnlzBCvjUTe9kFqHtXA2aw99HvXmq2V-ZeYolfEz88Dqz93uvyx-6YHLSh5D8wP4l7fAilmOuZMQ3k1cnhEbvtZWHJhl9BRWqQ_AiEKJ7GkbvgrsB57tFZhUcQm9wGGQO0Epl9aulmeQqLJJ1uQd1WoWgzategRyf6rvLkz74Jo7hUdoA4S7PQ3cj2vev9eS9Rx5tQhHmdGen4gkJc96Z7T9WKg8gecwRXyR2584WnVzbgKq8YWGEPgSP-_0ehFFvvpf6DhSPuh6fG2K1tuhkAWkmTO
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/syrian-rebel-fighters-prepare-to-deploy-to-azerbaijan-in-sign-of-turkeys-ambition
- Comment - I made this comment on the article's talk page, so going to make it here as well. Based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets, plus countries like France and the US, are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I would agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. Thus I support Dvtch's opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ahmetlii
- I don't see any violation on original research or NPOV violation. On the contrary, the sources of Armenia or Karabakh and Azerbaijan or Turkey are less than other sources as far as I see and all of the allegations are on the page with separating from the fully verified combatants. Also, the war is still ongoing; even they are coming from the most reliable sources, anything cannot confirmed fully based on reliability and all of the sources doesn't include a material evidence. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict discussion
- Volunteer Notes - I have a few comments at this point. First, this article is currently under Extended-Confirmed Protection, which is stronger than Pending Changes, so I am not sure that Pending Changes protection would be useful. Second, if one or two editors are stonewalling a consensus, a Request for Comments is more likely to be useful than moderated discussion. Third, complaints about bias by an administrator should be taken to WP:AN or Requests for Arbitration, although most complaints about administrator abuse are just complaints, reflecting administrators doing a difficult job. Fourth, one reason for the Extended-Confirmed Protection is sockpuppetry. Fifth, see WP:ARBAA2, which has authorized ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. I do not plan to moderate this case, but am leaving it to see if another volunteer is willing to try to moderate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer note I would be willing to moderate, but looking at the article it appears that the at-issue content has already been changed to reflect the filing editor's perspective, and it's not clear that any other editors intend to dispute this matter further. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ahmetlii, as you seem to be effectively re-opening this dispute with this edit, please refrain from commenting in this section. That having been said, you can add yourself as an editor involved in this dispute, following the format used above for Beshogur, Solavirium etc. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
First moderator statement
The fact that this subject is a recently created article makes trying to determine the stable status quo ante a pointless exercise, so in an effort to put together a temporary compromise, I've moved the SNA icon back to the full belligerent section and added a {{disputed inline}} tag. Please refrain from making any changes to the belligerents section of the infobox until discussion has concluded. Do not reply to editors in this discussion unless I specifically instruct you to. The fact that this is an ongoing and evolving conflict gives this issue a bit of urgency, so I'm going to skip past the usual first step of dispute resolution of having you state your positions and get right to the point. Editors appear to be split over whether to list a Turkish-aligned, pro-Azeri Syrian faction as full belligerents or alleged belligerents, and also over how to refer to said faction. We'll address the issue of whether to list them as alleged first, and will deal with how to refer to them later.
In the relevant section below, please identify 1-2 sources and a brief argument (no more than 3 sentences) for your preferred version of the article. I'm also adding a third section if you have any comments or objections to my statement. Please only use that section to reply to me, do not engage in back and forth discussion with other participants there. Pinging participants Beshogur, Dvtch, Solavirum Super Dromaeosaurus Ahmetlii. If any of you are not interested in participating in this discussion, please say so in the "Other responses" section. If you want to participate in this discussion, but find that another editor that you agree with has already made an effective argument for your position for this round of arguments, please just leave a message indicating your agreement so that we know not to wait for an additional response from you and so that you don't make redundant arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Added note: I've encouraged other editors working on the article to also join in this discussion here if they so desire. In order to accommodate possible additional positions in addition to the current two, I will add a relevant section below. signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
First arguments for listing as alleged
- My statement is per Beshogur. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
First arguments for listing as full belligerents
RosguillThe Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which is used as the standard on countless Wikipedia articles and has thousands of connections throughout Syria documents this quite clearly [1] and the BBC has conducted an interview with a fighter [2]. Turkey's own NATO allies, including France have confirmed the reports.[3] Lastly they should be listed as just a belligerent just as Russia is the War in Donbass article, even if Russia denies it, the rest of the world agrees and a note is made noting their denial, so this should follow established Wikipedia standard and they just be listed as a full combatant.Dvtch (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I support the position of Dvtch. F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dvtch position is the most adecuate. We cant deny that most thrid parties consider them a belligrent.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I support the position of Dvtch based on 3rd party neutral and reliable sources which verify the information. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to participate but my statement is per Dvtch. Super Ψ Dro 09:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fully support Dvtch's position Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Dvtch completely. They should be listed as full combatants. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
First arguments for any other position not listed above
- I believe that, pending information that the SNA or a faction of it organized and sent these men to Azerbaijan, the Syrian National Army should not be listed as a belligerent. From what has so far been coming out, it looks like SNA members were approached by Turkish recruiters and signed on of their own violition, and were taken to Azerbaijan on Turkish planes. The SNA does not seem to have sent them and they do not appear to be operating under any form of SNA command. The simple reason is that although they were members of the SNA, they fought as individuals fighting for the Azerbaijani military. To repeat an example I have already used, this is like going to the page of a battle involving the French Foreign Legion and putting every single country that the Foreign Legion soldiers who fought in said battle came from as belligerents. It's for the same reason I'd support removing Syrian Armenians from the belligerent list as those fighting alongside Armenia and Artsakh, unless specific Syrian-Armenian organizations are involved. It seems like they're just private citizens of Armenian ethnicity originally from Syria who are now fighting with the Armenian Army or Artsakh Defense Army. Now, if it turns out that the SNA or some faction of it has been deliberately sending them to Azerbaijan my opinion would change.--RM (Be my friend) 15:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- While I see a lot of sources picking up on this, I do have something important to point out: There is heavy cross-contamination of sources, i.e sites repeating other sites who may have been fed misinformation, misinterpreted, or flat-out invented said source. Some of these sources like the SOHR are arguably very close to the subject matter and have been established as reliable sources, and while that leaves them in a unique position for first scoops, but it also leaves them vulnerable to being co-opted for propaganda by either side. Here is a very damning example: The SOHR cites "Hawar News" as its source for dead Syrian militiamen fighting for the Azeri side in its article above. Hawar News itself is a Kurdish news outlet that is apparently known for being unreliable and pushing propaganda and rumors, and this could very well be where the BBC is getting its numbers from in reality -- BBC gets the numbers of allegedly dead Syrian militamen from the SOHR which is otherwise known as reliable, but they're actually getting them from Hawar News. But notice something: The two articles are completely identical in content, right down to picture chosen and formatting. The SOHR seems to be simply copy-pasting from the Hawar News article. This is a bit disturbing as the SOHR is usually acknowledged as a reliable source. In the end, all of this could be true, whether we're talking about the SNA guys or the Armenian volunteers, but a lot of the sources used could be based on FUD, like the example I showed. In addition, as Reenem alludes to above, the actual dynamics here could be more complicated than just the group being a belligerent. Until reports are verified and the fog of misinformation lifts somewhat, I would maybe keep them out of the infobox, with the possibility of keeping mentions of them in the article proper. Eik Corell (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted those are not the only sources on the Syrian fighter's presence. France, based on intelligence information, as well as the US DoD, stated the Syrians are involved. Also, the Guardian is citing their participation to interviews it conducted with the Syrian fighters themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Other responses to the first moderator statement
There is now enough evidence corroborated by independent (uninvolved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan war) sources that there are Turkish-recruited Syrian mercenaries fighting for Azerbaijan. I believe "Syrian mercenaries" is more appropriate than 'Syrian National Army'. ----Երևանցի talk 15:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Second moderator statement
Having reviewed the sources provided by the the "full belligerents" camp, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights article claims that Syrian mercenaries affiliated with Turkey
are present in the fighting in Syria.[1] The BBC source appears to be attributing the information to individuals they interviewed in the fighting.[2] The Al Jazeera article purely reports allegations and counter-allegations from various world leaders.[3] None of these sources appear to to mention the Syrian National Army directly, instead calling the involved groups Syrian mercenaries
or Syrian fighters
, and sometimes mentioning affiliated with Turkey
or with jihadist affiliations
. Could editors from the "full belligerents" camp please indicate whether you continue to believe that this is sufficient for the inclusion of some mention of Syrian fighters in the infobox as full belligerents, and if so what your preferred way of referring to the Syrian faction would be. You may provide one or two additional sources if they include stronger claims than the sources already presented. Please keep your responses to about 3 sentences. Pinging editors F.Alexsandr, Dvtch, Mr.User200, EkoGraf, Գարիկ Ավագյան. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
There's still room for some editors in the "full belligerents" camp to respond to the second statement, but the responses so far are enough for me to pose the next question to both the "alleged" and "removal" camps. At this point, between coverage from SOHR, The Guardian , AFP and BBC, it is verifiable in RS that there are Syrian mercenaries aiding the Azerbaijani forces and that have connections to Turkey. To argue against this would be a very uphill battle, and would more or less require top quality RS articles directly reporting that there are no such mercenaries or otherwise directly disputing the accounts we've seen thus far. Eik Corell's argument against SOHR doesn't account that Hawar also credits SOHR with the reporting, which is more suggestive of collaboration between the sources than it does SOHR uncritically re-reporting another scoop, a relationship that doesn't necessarily imply unreliability. What remains unclear, however, is whether it is due to include mention of the Syrian forces in the infobox, and if so how to refer to them. Beshogur, Solavirum, Ahmetlii, Reenem and Eik Corell please give your positions on whether you think pro-Azerbaijan Syrian factions should be mentioned in the infobox and a brief argument (< 3 sentences) for why. If you either prefer to include a mention, or are willing to accept a compromise that includes a mention, please specify how you think that they should be referred to along with a brief argument. signed, Rosguill talk 03:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC) fix ping Eik Corell signed, Rosguill talk 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
To guide discussion on whether or not Syrian mercenaries should be mentioned as belligerents, there is no consistent precedent as to whether or not mercenaries should generally be mentioned as belligerents. To give some concrete examples, Nagorno-Karabakh War and American Revolutionary War both list mercenaries as belligerents; Congo Crisis and Angolan Civil War do not, despite mercenaries having played a significant role in those conflicts. Effective arguments will consider the extent to which RS describe Syrian mercenaries on the Azerbaijani side as playing a significant role in the conflict as a whole, and the degree to which mercenaries are presented as either autonomous agents or as part of the Azerbaijani military hierarchy. signed, Rosguill talk 06:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Second response from "full belligerents" camp
In response to @Rosguill and Rosguill:, the only organization that suits "affiliated with Turkey" or "with jihadist affiliations" description is Syrian National Army. However I will not object to changing "SNA" to "Turkish affiliated Syrian rebels" or something like that. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted those are not the only sources on the Syrian fighter's presence. France, based on intelligence information [3], as well as a US DoD official [4], stated the Syrians are involved. Also, the Guardian is citing their participation to interviews it conducted with the Syrian fighters themselves [5] (there have been several other outlets as well). So yes their presence is most definitely confirmed by 3rd party sources. As for if they are there as officially fighters of the SNA or in their own capacity as mercenaries, I think a compromise solution could be found by rewording them potentially from "Syrian National Army" to just "Syrian mercenaries", "Syrian fighters" or "Turkish-affiliated Syrian rebels" (similar to what F.Alexsandr proposed). EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill I must ask you, is there sufficient consensus that Syrian fighters are in Azerbaijan fighting alongside the Azeri Army? If there is not a coneseus regarding that I would like to address that first as there are geolocated videos and pictures I have here [4] of Syrians from the groups Sultan Murad, geolocated to the front.[5] This is in addition to a new interview done by AFP[6]. If the outstanding issue is regarding the naming of the group, this is a vastly more complex issue which requires extensive knowledge as to what the SNA is and isn't. In short, the SNA is not a functioning organization, but rather a collection of groups that operate solely in Northern Syria in Turkish occupied territories. All groups within it are essentially independent of one another. If we must, we can list the individual groups, but I recommend we follow the common name policy and follow what other article regarding these groups have done, where if more than one of these groups (e.g. if both Sultan Murad and Hamza Division are fighting) they are just collectively refered to as the Syrian National Army. Dvtch (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dvtch, I think that the statement that I just added should address the concerns raised here. signed, Rosguill talk 03:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill Alright. In that case, to follow Wikipedia standard (WP:COMMONNAME), they should be referred to as the Syrian National Army. While I concede, this is not the perfect approach, there is a reason it is the standard across all Syrian Wikipedia articles that include Turkish-backed Syrian groups. The Syrian National Army is NOT a coherent organization, but rather a collection of groups that went to fight alongside Turkey and operate solely in Northern Syria and these groups are fairly independent of each other[7]. Two of such groups have gone to fight in Azerbaijan (as far as we know now): The Sultan Murad Division [8] and the Hamza Division [9], however it is likely that in the coming days and weeks, just as in Libya more groups will send fighters over, therefore to prevent the info box from being cluttered, we just collectively refer to all these groups as the Syrian National Army (an organization they are all a part of).Dvtch (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill I see you have made a new paragraph this time regarding the role of mercenaries and whether it is sufficient to include them. As mentioned as in the previous Nagorno Karabakh War, they were included, setting precedent for this one. However, you claim not every wiki article follows this standard, citing the Angolan and Congo Crisis. However, upon further inspection, it appears the PMC company Executive Solutions IS listed as a combatant on the Angolan page. [10] (see 5th combatant on the side of the MLPA). In this case of the Congo Crisis, the role of mercenaries was so minor, that they were not listed in the belligerent section. It appears their role rarely exceeded that of special missions and that their casulaties never rose into the hundreds despite over 100,000 people dying in that war. In the case of this war, this is much different. Dozens are already reported killed or wounded with the number already near 100 [11]. This is contrast to the current casualty count of this page has a much higher ratio (mercenaries to total combatant casualties) than any of the conflicts listed. Also through OSINT investigation, it has been noted they are fighting alongside the position of the Azerbaijani Army. From the telegram page of Azaz News, a prominent SNA outlet, (I cannot link the telegram page due to issues) of an Armenian ammo post[12]. and also that same ammo store in a still taken from an Azerbaijan MOD video[13]. Also by request I can post more videos and pictures of SNA fighters from the front. It is clear that the overwhelming articles on Wikipedia (including the previous iteration of this war itself) lists mercenaries in the belligerent page if their role is significant enough, this is further compounded by the fact it is clear they are taking an infantry role and are active on the front with many casualties in a role I would say greater most of the examples listed. Therefore, to exclude them as a combatant would be to hide one of the important components and key players of this war and give a completely inaccurate impression to any reader viewing this article. Dvtch (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
|
Second response from "alleged" and "no mention" camp
- @Rosguill: I think that FSA should not stay at Belligerents section directly rather than alleged section. First, there's not a confirmation from Azerbaijan. Second, why FSA want to fight at there(that was some editors' opinions on PKK/YPG section)? Third, all of the sources above go to same person as a source rather than mentioning a community/army. Fourth, some of the sources that inside the FSA are denying this. Also, I think that PKK/YPG should stay at Alleged section because of there's a lot of sources about it (like FSA), but not enough to confirm or confute because of the sources generally comes from Turkey or Azerbaijan. (Except a few sources, I mentioned them before on the article's talk page.) Ahmetlii (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to ping @Greyshark09:, who has involved about "no mention". Ahmetlii (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: I note you stated that there is no consistent precedent on whether to include mercenaries with some articles having them and some not. I'm of the opinion that in all articles on military conflicts we should not include them in the belligerent section but should include them in the strength and units involved sections, listing them alongside other units fighting for said side. Because they are not an independent actor at all, but rather fighting as part of a particular side. RM (Be my friend) 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rosguill:Hope I'm doing this right by responding here to your second moderator statement. With all the other sources available I guess those sources are not that important in the grand scheme of things. About my position on the matter, I honestly don't know: Listing them as full belligerants is true in the sense that there are large numbers of them that have been brought there, but as mentioned: Does this reflect an actual commitment by the Syrian National Army, or are they just having their members enticed to fight as mercenaries? It feels like intent matters here - If they are committed to doing this and are actively involved in sending their troops there, then they're a full belligerant. If instead they're being used as a source of mercenaries, then either they belong in the "units" section where they're mentioned, or, another possibility: List them in the way that Israel is listed in the infobox on the Quneitra June 2017 offensive article: As an entity listed on one side, but separated off from said belligerants. Obviously in that situation they were not mercenaries, but it feels like it touches on some of the same stuff regarding where an entity belongs in an order of battle if it is separate from the main belligerants but fighting a specific side. There is a lot of content on said article's talk page in relation to this issue and perhaps that could be of some value as well? I'm sorry if this is all very wishy-washy with no real position taken, but I'm kind of stumped by this whole issue. Eik Corell (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
References
References
- ^ a b https://www.syriahr.com/en/186578/
- ^ a b https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54356334
- ^ a b https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/1/macron-says-syrian-fighters-operating-in-karabakh
- ^ https://twitter.com/i/status/1312377279767629824
- ^ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjaBjaTX0AE9Ovs?format=jpg&name=small
- ^ https://www.france24.com/en/20201003-syria-rebels-sign-up-to-fight-for-azeris-to-feed-families
- ^ https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1274671/download
- ^ https://www.syriahr.com/en/185877/
- ^ https://investigativejournal.org/turkeys-syrian-mercenaries-in-azerbaijan-feel-tricked-as-bodies-pile-up/
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War
- ^ https://www.syriahr.com/en/186578/
- ^ https://twitter.com/i/status/1312472711650709504
- ^ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjbXUUjXsAAA9Bi?format=jpg&name=small
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Closed discussion |
---|
Internment
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Internment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Pinchme123 (talk · contribs)
- buidhe (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
buidhe has removed long-established content from the lede section. After I reinstated, there was a quick back-and-forth of reverts, but because I reverted to the original first, the final revert by buidhe has left the page without longstanding content while this dispute was being discussed.
The content in question is about the labeling of extermination camps as concentration camps by many scholarly sources, and the paragraph in question explains why these types of camps are excluded from the discussion in this article. They feels this should not be explained, feels that the description of the label and its application is wrong, and has therefore removed the paragraph.
In the discussion on the talk page, buidhe linked to five ostensible sources to support their opinion, mostly without quotations; one is in German, two are inaccessible books. Of the two accessible ones, one (a peer-reviewed journal article) argues the opposite of buidhe's claim. The other (a U.S.Holocaust Memorial Museum-maintained page) supports their claim about the incorrect description, but supports my claim that many scholars nonetheless use the label anyway.
I have provided two additional sources. One (another USHMM page) indirectly supports the point that extermination camps are considered a concentration camp subtype. The other is from Encyclopedia Britannica and written by a prominent Holocaust Scholar and college professor, that explicitly states, extermination camps are a type of concentration camp.
buidhe has repeatedly misquoted/summarized the EB source, reversing what it states, to claim the source says the opposite. They have also refused to reinstate the longstanding content in dispute while it is being discussed, instead claiming it is "[my] preferred version" multiple times.
I have suggested alterations. They have suggested alternative language for the paragraph, which does not explain why extermination camps are excluded from this page, which is a crucial part of the paragraph.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Internment#Extermination_vs_internment
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
We need a mediator to evaluate the sources and decide whether or not the longstanding content should be retained and altered, or remain deleted.
Summary of dispute by buidhe
Although it is the longstanding version, the content in dispute fails WP:V; the sources that Pinchme cited do not support the content in its entirety. (We have some disagreement over how certain sources should be interpreted—but apart from that, part of the content is definitely not supported by any source). In my opinion, "extermination camps are a subset of concentration camps" is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which needs strong and explicit sourcing that would override the fact that scholarly encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Der Ort des Terrors classify extermination camps separately. (Sources: [6] [7])
I proposed an alternative version that is fully supported by reliable sources. It would help readers understand various controversies over the labeling of certain facilities as "concentration camps". In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Scope_of_article, it explains why extermination camps are not covered in the article: scholars do not classify them as a subset of concentration camps. Finally, I wonder, if Pinchme is correct, why aren't extermination camps covered in this article?
PS: It would also be nice if Pinchme would not accuse me of being "dishonest" (see WP:NPA) or "moving the goalposts" when I mention additional reasons why their theory is not correct.
Internment discussion
First statement by moderator
I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please read and follow the rules. I will restate a few rules. Be civil and concise. Some editors think that means be civil. It does, but it also means that if you are asked for a one-paragraph summary, a short summary is less likely to be misunderstood than a rant. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective is to improve the article. All other issues are secondary. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress.
I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion so that statements in response to my request for statements will just be statements, without back-and-forth discussion. I will probably ignore any back-and-forth discussion unless it is uncivil. Write your answers to my questions to me and to the community, not to each other.
It is my understanding that the issue has to do with types of camps, such as internment camps, concentration camps, et cetera. If there are any other issues, please identify them. Each editor should state, in one paragraph, what they wish to change (or leave the same) in the article. Keep it to one paragraph, because we can expand on reasons in a little while if necessary.
First statements by editors
- Buidhe
I propose that the third paragraph of the lead be replaced by:
The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differed in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic was that inmates were held outside the rule of law.[1] Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose was killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".[2]
Unlike any of the versions that Pinchme has supported, it is a) factually accurate and b) verifiable to reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Stone, Dan (2015). Concentration Camps: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 122–123. ISBN 978-0198790709.
Concentration camps throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are by no means all the same, with respect either to the degree of violence that characterizes them or the extent to which their inmates are abandoned by the authorities... The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto 'enemies', in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended.
- ^ "Nazi Camps". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
Back-and-forth discussion
.
David Duke
Closed discussion |
---|