![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Sultan Murad Division, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone fix the navbox? Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This article about one of the most important Syrian Turkmen groups has been compromised by the extensive use of biased sources. More than half of the used sources heavily back (making propaganda) for the sides in the Syrian civil war, such as Al Masdar news (Assad regime), ANHA (YPG/PKK) or even RT (Russians). Therefore I have added a neutrality warning, so people understand that this article is not made from a neutral point of view. -- Bradley258 ( talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The section about war crime allegations seems well sourced (compared to the rest of the article and other articles about similar topics) with references to news from outlets of different political orientation. Thus it should not be deleted. 217.83.240.220 ( talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So now I have to waste more time on this. Alright. Your shelling of the civilian area. Your first source cites "Hiddo, who is close to the Kurdish leadership of the People’s Protection Units (YPG)", who claims that he is close to something which claims that this group was one of nine groups who participated in a chemical attack. There are so many links in this chain that this never stands up anywhere. Your second source doesn't cite the subject of the article. Your third is a news aggregator (so, it has no editorial control) and the article doesn't mention our subject. The fourth is RT, and also doesn't mention our subject. I mean, by now this is getting ridiculous--did you even look at this shit? The fourth is dead. Finally, the "article" that indicates AI's opinion on the events, wait for it, doesn't mention the subject of the article. By now I've tackled notes 19 through 26. 27 is an unreliable source, 28 is a YouTube video (a primary document). Not acceptable. 29 is ARA News, which may well be reliable, but it only mentions that two fighters belonging to this group were captured. In other words--there is nothing, nothing here that's properly verified. I'm going to call in the cavalry. Drmies ( talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And I see now that you put the shelling of the monastery back in, though you have failed to address the problems with that statement. Are you so dead-set on painting this group as war criminals that you have to insert a fact without any context whatsoever? Drmies ( talk) 02:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we discuss this edit, implementing what I think is the conclusion in the discussion above, and this revert? Are we confident the issues above have been addressed? ARA News is down at the moment, so I can't check that source, but I'll check the others. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Is Rudaw a trusted/reliable source I have seen several claim it is a Kurdish Propaganda site and obviously very biased. Takinginterest01 ( talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The editor made the claim that the Sultan Murad division's reason for putting the Shahada on the flag was due to its commitment to "Political Islam." This claim is unsourced and unsubstantiated; furthermore, the logic doesn't follow, religious symbolism on the flag doesn't automatically equal commitment to religious governance or ""Political Islam"" (e.g. Ba'ath Iraq, England (and other Scandinavian countries), and Georgia).
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Sultan Murad Division, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone fix the navbox? Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This article about one of the most important Syrian Turkmen groups has been compromised by the extensive use of biased sources. More than half of the used sources heavily back (making propaganda) for the sides in the Syrian civil war, such as Al Masdar news (Assad regime), ANHA (YPG/PKK) or even RT (Russians). Therefore I have added a neutrality warning, so people understand that this article is not made from a neutral point of view. -- Bradley258 ( talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The section about war crime allegations seems well sourced (compared to the rest of the article and other articles about similar topics) with references to news from outlets of different political orientation. Thus it should not be deleted. 217.83.240.220 ( talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So now I have to waste more time on this. Alright. Your shelling of the civilian area. Your first source cites "Hiddo, who is close to the Kurdish leadership of the People’s Protection Units (YPG)", who claims that he is close to something which claims that this group was one of nine groups who participated in a chemical attack. There are so many links in this chain that this never stands up anywhere. Your second source doesn't cite the subject of the article. Your third is a news aggregator (so, it has no editorial control) and the article doesn't mention our subject. The fourth is RT, and also doesn't mention our subject. I mean, by now this is getting ridiculous--did you even look at this shit? The fourth is dead. Finally, the "article" that indicates AI's opinion on the events, wait for it, doesn't mention the subject of the article. By now I've tackled notes 19 through 26. 27 is an unreliable source, 28 is a YouTube video (a primary document). Not acceptable. 29 is ARA News, which may well be reliable, but it only mentions that two fighters belonging to this group were captured. In other words--there is nothing, nothing here that's properly verified. I'm going to call in the cavalry. Drmies ( talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And I see now that you put the shelling of the monastery back in, though you have failed to address the problems with that statement. Are you so dead-set on painting this group as war criminals that you have to insert a fact without any context whatsoever? Drmies ( talk) 02:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we discuss this edit, implementing what I think is the conclusion in the discussion above, and this revert? Are we confident the issues above have been addressed? ARA News is down at the moment, so I can't check that source, but I'll check the others. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Is Rudaw a trusted/reliable source I have seen several claim it is a Kurdish Propaganda site and obviously very biased. Takinginterest01 ( talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The editor made the claim that the Sultan Murad division's reason for putting the Shahada on the flag was due to its commitment to "Political Islam." This claim is unsourced and unsubstantiated; furthermore, the logic doesn't follow, religious symbolism on the flag doesn't automatically equal commitment to religious governance or ""Political Islam"" (e.g. Ba'ath Iraq, England (and other Scandinavian countries), and Georgia).