Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 9 April 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Coventry (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry

Old stuff (section title added 8/19/16)

This article appears to be written at least in part from a highly partial point of view, yet without any citations to justify its more controversial assertions. Can someone please clean this up to meet the WP:NPOV policy? -- The Anome (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed all the unsourced material from the article, which is probably the best that can be done for the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Establishment

When was the SOHR established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.98.210 (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Legitimacy

This article is explicitly written in a style that grants it legitimacy in the eyes of the viewer.

An alternative start like "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (also known as SOHR; Arabic: المرصد السوري لحقوق الإنسان‎‎), is a one man operation based in the UK that covers human rights abuses in Syria." would give a conflicting or opposite impression, or would at least seem to be more neutral about the description of what it actually is.

Typically in the West we never see the opinions (or opinings) of the actual regimes expressed; they are not being talked with. Assad's position on the SOHR is that it is a front for broadcasting pro-western sentiments into the Western media, in which it is not important if the messages are actually factually correct, as long as they are being spread.

The original source for this is an interview with Russian TV from october 12th (2016) published at least on YouTube on October 14th at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSV80XGPDBE and published on Kurdistan-insider.com at http://eng.kurdistan-insider.com/syrian-president-interview-with-russian-reporter-october-12th-2016/.

Should I just at least add those remarks in the most neutral fashion I can? I think I will just go ahead. Dryden xx2 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SOHR is a small 2 man UK based propaganda cell. It has no legitimacy or credibility. The imaginary SOHR sources inside Syria can't be verified. I don't know why everyone uses them as sources, even MSM in Germany. I think SOHR is just a tool for the NATO propaganda war. DerElektriker (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Category

If they classify themselves as a human rights organization, the category is applicable. Don't remove the category just because it does not fit your personal definition of a human rights organization. Falcon8765 22:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Human rights organization don't have a pro Islamist agenda. This organization is a front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.87.113 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Would Reuters do?

BBC using SOHR ligitimate source

This article needs expanding if this organization is being used as a legitimate news source considering all the warmongering going on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18322412 4 June 2012... Syria rebels 'kill 80 soldiers' in weekend clashes

Can Syria avoid civil war? Slow-motion tragedy Satellite clues to massacre Houla massacre

At least 80 Syrian soldiers were killed by rebels over the weekend in clashes and attacks on security forces checkpoints, an activist group says. Rebels told the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that more than 100 soldiers had died in the suburbs of Damascus and Idlib province. The Observatory said it had confirmed the names of 80 dead with local medics.

Meanwhile, the European Council's president has said the EU and Russia must combine their efforts on Syria. After a summit in St Petersburg with President Vladimir Putin, Herman Van Rompuy admitted they had "divergent assessments" of the situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.176.221 (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ordinary lie - refused to provide any evidence

The head of the press service of the Department of State John Kirby refused to provide any evidence. In response to a question about that, At least clarify the place of attack. On the other hand representative Russian Defence Ministry, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, not long before, said that all the information SOHR quotation - ordinary lie. http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/3790706 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.156 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Direct translation into swedish erased

I tried to write a swedish equivalent of this article "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" consisted of a direct translation of the first sentense into "Syriska observatoriet för mänskliga rättigheter heter på engelska Syrian observatory for Human Rights och är ett i Storbritannien baserat observationskontor som står i opposition till Assad-ledda regeringen i Syrien." but it was erased by Yger. /37.250.143.92 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Founded in 2006 to document human rights abuses in the civil war... which started in 2011?

The Syrian civil war started in 2011 and the SOHR was established in 2006, so the purpose couldn't have been to document human rights abuses in the war. I guess it was founded to document the abuses of the Assad-regime? Shall we change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.145.52 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Is there any evidence that it was actually in operation before 2012? Its a home office above a clothing shop. I could say I have been reporting about the Kashmir conflict for 10 years, doesnt make it so. Any source of this? 24.215.83.204 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Name and pen name

The transliteration of Ossama Suleiman's pen name in the organization's About Us changed from Abdelrahman (Sep 5, 2015) to Abdurrahman (Oct 1, 2015). I didn't find any About Us with the Abdulrahman mentioned in this article. And his first name apparently has always been Ossama, not Osama. --Gerold Broser (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverted removal of criticism section

I suggest that removal of any significant portion of the article is discussed on beforehand. SOHR remain a very debated organization at its best. --Caygill (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC).11:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "criticism" is mostly stuff from RT TV which is not a reliable source and WP:FRINGE as far as opinion goes. It publishes/airs all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories including Holocaust denial . There's no way that should be in here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. It quotes articles from MSN and The Guardian, far from unreliable sources, and definitely not primary sources. --92slim (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Still wrong VM reverting as discussed by 92slim Caygill Ph1ll1phenry SaintAviator lets talk 02:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

One more time - you cannot have an entire article consisting of a "Criticism" section. That's about as red of a red flag that's it's a bunch of POV pushing as you can get. It's ridiculous and non-encyclopedic. Also - what are these "criticisms"? An op-ed. A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Anonymous "critics interviewed by AsiaNews". That's weak and it's POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That is false. It is possible having entire articles on criticism, examples: Criticism of Amnesty International or Criticism of Human Rights Watch. By the way, here is another source, now Le Figaro, a well-known pro-Russia anonymous Asian source: L'OSDH, source contestée de la guerre en Syrie. emijrp (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's because those articles are "Criticism of X" articles. This isn't a "Criticism of X" article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it . I removed 2nd phrase/paragraph because it was simply ridiculous ("that amounts to nothing more than a lone clothes seller, living in Coventry"). I removed 3rd paragraph because this is a personal opinion by Maria Zakharova an official propagandist by Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Her claims have no credibility whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition, using an "opinion piece" dated 2012 is questionable. This is outdated at best. Is anything better? As about 3rd source (by Zakharova), I could not verify it at all - this is dead link. Once again, do we have any better sources? My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this article is subject to 1RR if I'm not mistaken.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I forget about it. My apology to SaintAviator. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't revert the Guardian op-ed article. The Guardian is a very reliable source that stops shorts at taking sides and the contents ought to be on the main body of the article - Misplaced Pages is not a place for censorship. --92slim (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Censorship" has nothing to do with it. We have policies: WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. "No censorship" does not mean "I get to put in any POV I want"Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the criticism section was vandalism. Reaper7 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree its vandalism SaintAviator lets talk 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's generally considered incivil or a personal attack to refer to good faithed edits by others editors as "vandalism". See WP:VANDNOT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT SaintAviator lets talk 07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This tells: "Charlie Skeltom, in a 2012 opinion piece ...". This is an outdated opinion piece. I am sure there are better sources about it. If so, please use them here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Still, even if that was true which it's not, it doesn't make it ok for you to call other people's edits "vandalism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems the criticism section has again disappeared and contains useful information. Green beret1972 (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Because apparently, quoting opinions from The Guardian appears to be irrelevant and outdated. I'm sorry, this guy is a lonely old clothes seller, NOT a journalist, doing the work of 20 people - that ought to be mentioned somewhere. --92slim (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added all the information needed to prove that this guy is not who he seems to be. The Guardian oped was just the tip of the iceberg. --92slim (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, what you did is add a whole bunch of highly POV, BLP violating text, based on a misrepresentation of sources, with a huge amount of UNDUE weight. For example, yes, the NY Times does say "He has been called a tool of the Qatari government, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Central Intelligence Agency and Rifaat al-Assad, the exiled uncle of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, among others." But, crucially, the article does not say any of this is true, so you can't have the Misplaced Pages article say that in Misplaced Pages voice. Indeed, the very next sentence is "“Rami’s objectivity is killing us,” said Manhal Bareesh, an activist from Saraqib who knew him before the war". Then AsiaNews has already been discussed (if not here, on another article). I'm not sure if MEPC is a reliable source, but regardless you are misrepresenting it - it does not say that SOHR "includes anti-government militants in the death toll" but rather that some OTHER media outlets, which also quote SOHR, do. The Guardian opinion piece has been discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Then the section you added on "Connection to secretly backed Syrian opposition groups" (if that section title doesn't scream POV PUSHING! I don't know what does), which makes the article consist of nothing but TWO "criticism sections". First you got another editorial from the Independent. This source doesn't even mention SOHR. Then you got a bunch of stuff about ... something completely different, a TV station. The sources there ALSO don't mention SOHR. Then some completely irrelevant crap from Wikileaks about US funding of this TV station... why is that in here? Then you top it off with a blatant piece of POV original research where you say "SOHR is connected to this TV station" but without source.

Seriously, stop it, Misplaced Pages isn't a place for WP:ADVOCACY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here. Stop censoring Misplaced Pages. --92slim (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The article states clearly that Rami Abdulrahman was not an individual. Anas Al-Abdah was part of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights until it was taken over by Osama. --92slim (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with the two POV BLP violating sections which misrepresent sources that you added to the article? And honestly, I've never seen an instance on Misplaced Pages where the person crying "censorship!" isn't engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing of some sort. "Not censored" does not mean "I get to put any kind of nonsense I want into a BLP".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I will write it again, just in case you didn't read it: The article from the official website (archived as of today, since it has been removed) states clearly that Rami Abdulrahman was not an individual. Anas Al-Abdah was part of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights until it was taken over by Osama Ali Suleiman, the current owner. Anas Al-Abdah co-founded Barada TV, which was allegedly funded by the US government, according to WikiLeaks - therefore the two organizations are connected. Please admit you're completely ignoring the sources say and being consciously obtuse. --92slim (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

More on this here. --92slim (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How interesting SaintAviator lets talk 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is textbook original research where you're conducting your own investigations based on primary sources and a bunch of he-said-she-said-on-the-web. Find a reliable secondary source. Still no idea what Barada TV has to do with anything - probably why none of the secondary sources you added actually mention SOHR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Still no idea what Barada TV has to do with anything I must have missed something then, because for me it is pretty clear. It's not original research, it's in the archived webpage of SyriaHR (NOT a primary source). I'll explain it again: Anas Al-Abdah was part of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, that writes under the pseudonym Rami Abdulrahman. Anas Al-Abdah founded Barada TV, a corrupt TV channel. Osama Suleiman stole the online keys to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and became Rami Abdulrahman. No WP:OR here - those events are described and sourced separately. Should I write them again, and source them separately for you, again? Please let me know. It is sourced from the original website of SyriaHR. If that's not a reliable source, I don't know what is. 92slim (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The archived link is an internet garbage, a letter signed by "admin" and dated 2012. Your another source may or may not be an RS, but it tells nothing about "Barada TV" and describes claims above as unsubstantiated rumors. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

So the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights website is considered a garbage source? The archive doesn't invent sources. --92slim (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is interview with Rami Abdulrahman by New York Times, and the article shows photo of Rami Abdulrahman. Now, an internet posting signed "admin" tells that Rami Abdulrahman does not exist. ??? My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize that Rami Abdulrahman is a moniker and not an actual name? --92slim (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? SaintAviator lets talk 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.syriahr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=638&Itemid=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Rami Abdulrahman and alleged covert activities

This article from the official website (it's on WebArchive, it's been removed now) claims that the current owner (Osama Suleiman) was an unknown person who joined the website in 2010 (4 years after its founding) and then simply stole the keys to the website and made it his own. According to the saved link, he also took over the nickname "Rami Abdulrahman which used to represent many people.

The same website mentions Anas Al-Abdah as a member of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (before it was allegedly taken over by Osama Suleiman). Anas Al-Abdah, arguably the most important former member of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights according to the archived article, is a member of the Secretariat of the Syrian National Council (a group supported by Turkey) and the founder of Movement for Justice and Development in Syria, the Syrian-opposition group that is closely connected to Barada TV, a TV channel that was covertly funded by the US, according to WikiLeaks. Someone care to elaborate on this? It seems too relevant not to include in the article, since it comes from the official website of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. 92slim (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a primary source - that's a letter to the editor. Can't use it, can't do original research based on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

But it's on the official website. Which means, it's not a primary source; it's the official website, and there is no OR at all. --92slim (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the definition of a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Another thing, this article actually has Category:2011 in London in it. How come? I thought it was based in Coventry. --92slim (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Marek dont us OR and such to block what WP:youdontlike SaintAviator lets talk 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't make completely pointless comments whose only purpose appears to be causing annoyance for other editors. Not what the talk page is for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Its only completely pointless to you when youdontlikeit. The argument is sound SaintAviator lets talk 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I also cannot grasp the point of reverts like this . It reintroduced Category:2011 in London which was explicitly invalidated in the very source.Paul Keller (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That was obviously not the primary purpose of the revert, but incidental to it. If you cannot grasp that, well... (BTW, the category has been in the article since 2012 - perhaps it was correct back then, though it is misleading now and should be gone. I have deleted it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It is on other websites as well , , of questionable RS though, and is mentioned here and content on it has been on this article in the past . Needs some digging for more info, I think. Surely there should be something prior to the 2011/2012 period. The history of the various domain names syriahr.net, syriahr.com, syriahr.org seems interesting - the last commentary post here suggests they were once operated by different groups during the supposed split. That may be why the archived copy is no longer on the current site. And RS primary sources (which the www.syriahr.org archived page is) can be used, with care. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The way you worded it ("one man operation") does not accurately reflect the source. Also, since by restoring that info you effectively reverted, I believe you broke 1RR on this article. Wanna self-revert? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong - "one man operation" is how the original German ("ein Ein-Mann-Betrieb") is translated using Google Translate. It is also how my German-English dictionary translates it. And no. It is RS, it does not duplicate stuff originally there, my restoration is not an revert (the wording is different and it removed the editorializing) and the original inserter is now blocked for being a previously blocked account so an unconnected account is needed to take ownership of that content. If you want to present a legitimate reason why that content should not be there, then please do so. It is not as if "one man operation" is contentious - the NY times source describes the SOHR as "virtually a one-man band" . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This source also contains content relating to the split in the organization. And has links to other articles. I think we have enough here to justify content about it in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

As Tiptoe said, there is nowhere near enough information on this news organization, and those details need to be conveniently clarified. --92slim (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No legitimacy or credibility

SOHR is a small 2 man UK based propaganda cell. It has no legitimacy or credibility. The imaginary SOHR sources inside Syria can't be verified. This should be mentioned in the Article. DerElektriker (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Should the criticism section be reinstated?

• Support motion as per debate above Reaper7 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Per my notes above, the history of this organization is murky enough to warrant the reinstatement of the criticism section. --92slim (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unless I am wrong, nothing forces me to sign in to add my assent to this. Who exactly has decided that Misplaced Pages should obfuscate criticism of what may indeed be a propagandist outlet? 24.215.83.204 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• Qualified Support - content critical of the organization should certainly be in the article, but whether it should be in a separate section depends on the extent of that content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support In answer to above 'Who exactly has decided that Misplaced Pages should obfuscate criticism of what may indeed be a propagandist outlet?' Volunteer Marek. SaintAviator lets talk 20:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support motion to reinstate. --Caygill (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A reminder that this is not a vote. Consensus is based upon policy-based reasoning. There's already a discussion going up above, which is the best place to discuss this. Stickee (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The previous discussion stalled about three months ago. You are welcome to make policy-based arguments here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: Thanks for this clear explanation. Hiding or censoring a clear discussion is surely not the way to go about things in a Talk Page. If there are any objections to the almost unanimous voting (that is there for a reason) that took place it should be mentioned here. --92slim (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this has been completed, with this edit. A slight change in heading, since it covers both positive and negative reception. Stickee (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

SOHR have no credibility whatsoever!

Why you keep censoring this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.219 (talk • contribs)

Edits

92slim has reverted my edits, saying that they are POV. Could you explain why you think this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Because there is already a discussion to revert a Criticism section that was previously deleted, and you are removing anything that remotely resembles criticism, that was left in the article. 92slim (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

1RR applies to this article

A reminder to 92slim and Absolutelypuremilk that 1RR applies to this article, as per WP:GS/SCW. That is, you may only make 1 revert per 24 hour period. You have both made 2 reverts already. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, could we make this clear in the article, in the same way that Syrian Civil War does? When you edit it, then it comes up with a big notice saying that 1RR applies. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Only admins or template editors can add an edit notice, so I've requested it be added. Stickee (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done here. Stickee (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead

• There was inadequate attention to the "and/or" aspect to find a clear consensus. The soft summary is that those who did address this aspect favored including both. The others appear to passively endorse or accept this option.
• A majority supported placement in the lede, but I find it too close for a consensus as the first sentence. A more accurate rough consensus is to include it later in the lede. I recommend moving the current language "described as being pro-opposition and anti-Assad" up as the final sentence of the lede. Alsee (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the terms "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" be used to describe the SOHR in the lead sentence?

As in:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, founded in May 2006, is a UK-based pro-opposition (and/or) anti-Assad information office that has been documenting human rights abuses in Syria which has focused since 2011 on the Syrian Civil War.

• Sources that describe it as pro-opposition include: Time, Independent, Reuters, BBC, VOA, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Bloomberg, International Business Times, Deutsche Welle, Sky News, Express, Guardian, Jerusalem Post.

• Sources that describe it anti-Assad include: CNN, Al-Jazeera, Haaretz, Daily Mail, The Daily Star.

P.S. If you stumble on any more sources, let me know and I'll add it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhh, how about "neither"? Please formulate the RfC in a neutral manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhh, users are welcome to express their disapproval to the proposal altogether. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not how it works. From Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". If you then want to make your case later then you can do that, but the RfC should be phrased in a neutral way. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is how it works. It's phrased in a neutral way, to discuss how to render the article free of bias. If you don't want to contribute, feel free not to. --92slim (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Include both pro-opposition and anti-Assad. There's just so many reliable sources that describe it as such. I fear that not describing it the way reliable sources do would be POV. And I must say that if we were to stick to just one term, I suggest pro-opposition since, based off of the sources provided, it's more common. 92slim (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No - however including a sentence somewhere in the article would be useful. Making sure to attribute such a thing is critical, however. Stickee (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No but should be somewhere in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)'

Include because thats what SOHR is. SaintAviator lets talk 21:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Include’'’ both pro-opposition and anti-Assad The Happy Warrior (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither, in the form presented here, however more neutral phrasing could be used later in the lead or in the body. The SOHR tends to document government/Russian violations, however that does not make it inherently pro-anyone. The existence of these sources using the term does not invalidate the hundreds of mentions in RS that do not use this descriptor, or give a more nuanced one. This is putting an aspect of their identity, (which is certainly NOT pro-Assad) into 'pole position'. I agree that this is not a neutrally phrased RfC. Pincrete (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose both as WP:UNDUE. Summoned by bot. I reviewed the last 25 WP:RS sources on Google News. I found

• 0 source agencies in 0 articles using "anti-Assad" or similar terms,

• 1 source agency in 1 article using "pro-opposition," "supports the rebels" or similar terms (Tribune News Service)

• 1 source agency in 1 article using "independent" (AFP)

• 11 source agencies in 23 articles that applied no political label (Reuters, AFP, NYT, Newsweek, UPI, Al Jazeera, TRT World, AP, BBC, Hurriyet Daily News, Sky News)

I didn't include the World Socialist Website (anti-Assad), the Rudaw Media Network (neutral), the Daily Caller (neutral), and Presstv.ir ("so-called"). You could argue about removing the Turkish sources and/or inserting the Iranian one, but it would not change the analysis: The current discussion lower in the article is fine. Putting a political label in the encyclopedic voice and/or in the lead section is not consistent with the way this group is described in reliable sources; in fact, it's not even close. Chris vLS (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Include: This is relevant and due. While I thank Chrisvls for the survey above, this is not quite how WP:DUE works: I don't expect that most routine news reports mention that SOHR was founded in 2006 either, but we still have it in the lead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Include as per The Happy Warrior, based on breadth of RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Include Yes in the lede, though not necessarily in the very first sentence - but if not placed in the first sentence, then preferably it should be in the second or third. I don't see undue weight issues - the subject is just being classified according to what sources say and that classification is an important part, arguably a central part, of the subject's identity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Thanks for the thanks, User:Finnusertop. I agree that my survey is rough approximation, and wouldn't have included it if the results weren't so one-sided. That said, I don't really follow your entire analogy. Sure, these articles don't contain the founding date and the lead section should. But I see this as an NPOV/due weight question, not a relevance question. In the extreme case, we don't offer fringe theory rebuttals of scientific theories in the lead section, because that would be undue weight; we determine this by looking at the prevalence of the view. In this case, the majority, by a very lopsided margin, of reliable sources don't feel that the group is so partisan that it should be labelled (let alone introduced) as "anti-Assad" or "pro-opposition" -- both when the article is primarily based on information gathered by the group and when it is not. This reflects the journalists' (and others') editorial judgment that the information the group provides is sufficiently reliable to not require such a label. Elevating one of these labels into the first sentence of the encyclopedia article is substituting a different editorial judgment for theirs. I could see doing that if it were a close call -- if say, a third of them did. But it's not close, 12 to 1. It's rare to see these labels applied at all, let alone as the label when the group as first mentioned. I think the information should be included, but not in the first sentence and probably not in the lead section. Chris vLS (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"run by one man"

Flemingi added that the SOHR is "run by one man". I reverted this, but Dbdb has re-added it, with the NYT source. However, this is misleading as the source says "virtually a one-man band", not that it is run by one man, and later explicitly says "He does not work alone. Four men inside Syria help to report and collate information from more than 230 activists on the ground....." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal

It appears Volunteer Marek is using the above RfC about the lede to justify removing criticism from the body of the article. His vague edit summaries make it difficult to say conclusively:

• Special:Diff/774561032
• Special:Diff/774565439

Pinging those involved: @Étienne Dolet: @Absolutelypuremilk: @92slim: @SaintAviator: @The Happy Warrior: @Pincrete: @Chrisvls: @Finnusertop: @DarjeelingTea: @Tiptoethrutheminefield: @Alsee: James J. Lambden (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles