This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
When was the SOHR established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.98.210 ( talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Sorry if posting this in wrong place I read guidelines but still confused. Regarding the use of Amnesty International as a reference for legitimacy please consider that this organization is consistently inaccurate regarding U.S. wars - from Iraq to Syria. It was Amnesty Int'l that was used to verify U.S. claims about baby's being thrown out of incubators in Iraq and also stories about the Saydnaya prison in Syria. Also former executive director Suzanne Nossel came directly from the U.S. State Dept - not conclusive proof of compliance with U.S. war strategies but it should at least indicate enough evidence to say they are not unbiased, legitimate sources. So, their recommendations should also be suspect. https://www.workers.org/2017/02/26/war-lies-and-ngos-amnesty-internationals-report-on-syria/ Johnthompsonparker ( talk) 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
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 (TALK) 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)
Extended content
|
---|
However, astoundingly, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is none of these things. Instead, it is merely a single man, sitting behind a computer in a British apartment, who alleges he receives “phone calls” with information always incriminating the Syrian government, and ever glorifying the “Free Syrian Army.” In fact, Reuters even admitted this in their article, “Coventry – an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist,” and even concedes that this man, “Rami Abdulrahman,” is openly part of the Syrian opposition who seeks the end of the Syrian government. Abdulrahman admits that he had left Syria over 10 years ago, has lived in Britain ever since, and will not return until “al-Assad goes.” http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208 Fair use... ////yes!!, of cose!. 188.162.80.156 ( talk) 03:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/3790706 analog Coventry - an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist By Mohammed Abbas COVENTRY, England |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Contrary. On all points. RT generally castigated by the above who are notorious. And it's not just RT, people.
I fixed it [4]. 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)
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)
Seems the criticism section has again disappeared and contains useful information. Green beret1972 ( talk) 12:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
It is on other websites as well [8], [9], of questionable RS though, and is mentioned here [10] and content on it has been on this article in the past [11]. 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 [12] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Why you keep censoring this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.219 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
This material was not in the article. Etienne dolet inserted it claiming "per RfC on talk page". Clearly the above rfc did not say that the material had consensus and indeed wasn't even concerned with it. So the excuse for inserting this material is bogus. Hence I removed it. And yes, it's shitty sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
And oh yeah, nice job of WP:CANVASSing there James. You pinged every single user you could think of that would come and agree with you here. You sure you didn't miss anyone? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In particular, EtienneDolet reinserted text which had no consensus in this edit claiming "per RfC consensus on TP" - obviously the RfC above doesn't even address this text! So it was just trying to use the RfC about something else to re-add some POV text into the article when nobody was watching. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thks for the ping. SOHR is biased or selective if you like. Hes certainly busy I'll give him that. But a neutral truth seeking investigative outfit SOHR is not. SaintAviator lets talk 21:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, the AsiaNews source does not appear to be the quality of source we need to sustain a major criticism in a controversial article. First, the article doesn't really fall under standard journalism, describing several incidents as having occurred without describing how the (unnamed) author discovered their occurrence -- no quotes, no sources, etc. In other cases, weasel words are the only reference ("sources interviewed" or just "sources"). Second, the article makes extreme claims that are demonstrably exaggerated, such as "For nearly two years, SOHR has reported only acts of violence by the regime against the rebels. Mainstream international media like the BBC, al-Jazeera and al-Arabya, have relied on it as their sole source of news." A cursory examination of those agencies show that they have reporters and sources in the region and have not relied on SOHR as their only source. Such sloppiness (bald assertion: "most fighters do not even speak Arabic" -- no source) is not what we rely on here to uphold important parts of controversial articles. Third, reading the wiki article on this agency, it is not clear that they are even considered a news source for Syria -- they should be considered not just a WP:RS, but a notable one to garner "according to AsiaNews" in the encyclopedic voice.
If the statements in the encyclopedia article are true, we can find better sources for them than this. So let's do the work. Chris vLS ( talk) 07:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm also wondering how in the hades Etienne Dolet got, quote:
" It can provide a bit of context to the whole bit about the "anti-Assad" and "pro-opposition" bias of the SOHR that's widely characterized by numerous (western) news agencies. "
(note especially the "widely characterized by numerous news agencies" part which asserts that these news agencies accuse SOHR of bias)
from, quote,:
"yet, not surprisingly, given the polarization of the conflict, virtually all sides accused SOHR of bias".
Being accused of bias is not the same thing as being biased.
And "virtually all sides" is not "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad".
Btw, best I can tell this is the only mention of SOHR in this 203 page book. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Asia news is more credible than SOHR. SaintAviator lets talk 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No, RT is not a reliable source. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What is going on with the content added from the Washington Post article? It has focused only on the criticisms, and ignored the VDC saying that its estimates seem realistic and that the UN had based its estimates on their figures. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Should the following critique be added in the Accuracy section of this article?
A
commoncriticism of SOHR has been that it is "difficult, if not impossible" to fact check SOHR's data since its director, Rami Abdulrahman, "does not share his data or methodology". Syria conflict expert James Miller has criticised the SOHR suggesting that it knew "field reporters who have never encountered a SOHR source in Syria." When presented with a chart showing the number of war dead in April 2014, Miller made several remarked: "There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples why [SOHR] is a terrible source" and "Everything about that chart screams BS!"
The source is Washington Post: 200,000 dead? Why Syria’s rising death toll is so divisive
Also, the entire quote doesn't have to be placed in the article. If you would like a modified rendition of the critique, feel free to propose it. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
La Force ( talk) 08:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Criticisms of SOHR include difficulties fact checking SOHR's data (despite being little to check against) and that it doesn't share data or methodology. Syria conflict expert James Miller has criticised the SOHR in a letter to the Washington Post suggesting that it was less objective than other groups with an unclear bias. Miller also criticized SOHR for listing moderate rebels as civilians in it's data.
I am happy for the content to be added to the article (apart from the last sentence, which I think is UNDUE and doesn't really add anything). However, I objected to the addition of this content without the addition of balancing content from the article, for example the VDC saying that SOHR's number seem realistic, or that most critics think that SOHR's numbers are too low, not too high. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The common criticism line is this persons view. If thats made clear it not a problem. Thats minor. I dont know why some editors are so entrenched in not allowing a fair appraisal of things like SOHR. Its very uncool. It makes Wikipedia less. SOHR is what it is, a little outfit with certain flaws and biases. Just record this reality using the Refs availiable and stop trying to hide things. Its dishonest. Whats written here in a Wikipedia article cant change a thing in the Mid East by trying to make SOHR look better than it is. That sort of motive is grounded in Paranoia. This is a side show in a side show in a side show. The real decisions are not made by people who say look I saw this in Wikipedia about SOHR, lets bomb something. Its better to have some integrity in wikipedia rather than let wikipedia become a place where an article becomes a joke. I am a health professional BTW and Im starting to reappraise the editing on some articles with Obsessive–compulsive disorder in mind. Bear in mind what Im saying is significantly common, 1 in 4. [43] I would like to see a different, fairer more transparent admin approach to the problems exemplified here which are being openly talked about in several forums. SaintAviator lets talk 21:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of being paranoid and having OCD is not really on topic. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 07:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It is on topic as there is continual edit war on many pages in wikipedia. Its not just the normal friction of moving forward from debate you find at meetings or at clubs, gatherings etc. Its nasty protracted divisive bickering. So whats your answer? Its reasonable to provide stats which exist in wikipedia pages themselves citing possible issues which then may help the situation. There should be no issue citing critiscisms of SOHR. Its RS and should be included. The blocking tactics are just edit waring at a permanent status. I think perhps we need a group of super admins, maybe the founder even, to define this sort of thing so people know where they stand and either grow wikipedia as a true NPOV Encyclopedia or abandon it as a biased flawed enterprise and go social media with the outcome. SaintAviator lets talk 06:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
SaintAviator, seriously, stop hijacking talk page discussions. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a gaping hole in this article: not a word about who is funding them.
Why are people so keen on keeping a lid on this? This was just removed:
The organisation says on its website that "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is not associated or linked to any political body." [1] Peter Hitchens commented: Is Boris Johnson's Foreign Office not a political body? Because the FO just confirmed to me that "the UK funded a project worth £194,769.60 to provide the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights with communications equipment and cameras." That's quite a lot, isn't it? I love the precision of that 60p. Your taxes, impartially, at work.'" [2]
The number was later confirmed by email to Medialens. [3]
––
Huldra (
talk)
23:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A 'Funding' section could be useful, I agree, but it needs reliable sourcing , and equally, needs to be phrased in an encyclopedic manner- mot a lengthy polemical quote from a blog. If there are reliable sources that describe its funding, we can and should add them.
Firkin Flying Fox (
talk)
15:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Daniele Ganser writes in his 2016 book that the real name would be Osama Ali Suleiman. He also characterized the SOHR as undurchsichtig (opaque, intransparent). Wakari07 ( talk) 14:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Hakeem Abdullah Williams: Dostal, Barrett, and Mullerson are all based off of WP:PRIMARY sources, and it isn't a stretch for me to think that they're cherry-picked. There isn't a shortage of people who have expressed this opinions on the Syrian Civil War, and I could just as easily find pro-opposition professors to include in the article. This simple fact makes it contentious, and therefore secondary, published sources are preferred, none of which are present except for the NYT article. Also, Wikipedia is aimed at the general public, and therefore it is undue for the musings of some professors to take up half the article. Stikkyy t/ c 05:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The text added looks like a smear, and is not neutral. The use of quoting single words shows emphasis on an opinion to undermine which is a not neutral way of expressing it. Why was the New York Times supported text moved down? New York Times isn't some ragtag news organization. There's no way that primary sources of questionable quality get precedence over New York Times, which is both reputable and a secondary source. To me, the inclusiveness of that text is less about being primary sources, than the opinions are in an open access repository. The repository itself may be credible, but what's the reliability of what goes in? Pinetree116 ( talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi dear 4 months ago the government of Turkey handed 9 Iranian Kurdish migrants to the so call free Syrian militants or jaish al hor and the families were not have any information about them and Iran and Turkey were not take a responsibility for their freedom please could you help us with this I can send the full details and photos and videos thank you 🙏🙏🙏 2A04:4A43:41CF:BAE6:9598:763B:A4D7:B860 ( talk) 17:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
When was the SOHR established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.98.210 ( talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Sorry if posting this in wrong place I read guidelines but still confused. Regarding the use of Amnesty International as a reference for legitimacy please consider that this organization is consistently inaccurate regarding U.S. wars - from Iraq to Syria. It was Amnesty Int'l that was used to verify U.S. claims about baby's being thrown out of incubators in Iraq and also stories about the Saydnaya prison in Syria. Also former executive director Suzanne Nossel came directly from the U.S. State Dept - not conclusive proof of compliance with U.S. war strategies but it should at least indicate enough evidence to say they are not unbiased, legitimate sources. So, their recommendations should also be suspect. https://www.workers.org/2017/02/26/war-lies-and-ngos-amnesty-internationals-report-on-syria/ Johnthompsonparker ( talk) 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
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 (TALK) 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)
Extended content
|
---|
However, astoundingly, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is none of these things. Instead, it is merely a single man, sitting behind a computer in a British apartment, who alleges he receives “phone calls” with information always incriminating the Syrian government, and ever glorifying the “Free Syrian Army.” In fact, Reuters even admitted this in their article, “Coventry – an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist,” and even concedes that this man, “Rami Abdulrahman,” is openly part of the Syrian opposition who seeks the end of the Syrian government. Abdulrahman admits that he had left Syria over 10 years ago, has lived in Britain ever since, and will not return until “al-Assad goes.” http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208 Fair use... ////yes!!, of cose!. 188.162.80.156 ( talk) 03:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/3790706 analog Coventry - an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist By Mohammed Abbas COVENTRY, England |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Contrary. On all points. RT generally castigated by the above who are notorious. And it's not just RT, people.
I fixed it [4]. 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)
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)
Seems the criticism section has again disappeared and contains useful information. Green beret1972 ( talk) 12:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
It is on other websites as well [8], [9], of questionable RS though, and is mentioned here [10] and content on it has been on this article in the past [11]. 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 [12] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Why you keep censoring this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.219 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
This material was not in the article. Etienne dolet inserted it claiming "per RfC on talk page". Clearly the above rfc did not say that the material had consensus and indeed wasn't even concerned with it. So the excuse for inserting this material is bogus. Hence I removed it. And yes, it's shitty sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
And oh yeah, nice job of WP:CANVASSing there James. You pinged every single user you could think of that would come and agree with you here. You sure you didn't miss anyone? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In particular, EtienneDolet reinserted text which had no consensus in this edit claiming "per RfC consensus on TP" - obviously the RfC above doesn't even address this text! So it was just trying to use the RfC about something else to re-add some POV text into the article when nobody was watching. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thks for the ping. SOHR is biased or selective if you like. Hes certainly busy I'll give him that. But a neutral truth seeking investigative outfit SOHR is not. SaintAviator lets talk 21:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, the AsiaNews source does not appear to be the quality of source we need to sustain a major criticism in a controversial article. First, the article doesn't really fall under standard journalism, describing several incidents as having occurred without describing how the (unnamed) author discovered their occurrence -- no quotes, no sources, etc. In other cases, weasel words are the only reference ("sources interviewed" or just "sources"). Second, the article makes extreme claims that are demonstrably exaggerated, such as "For nearly two years, SOHR has reported only acts of violence by the regime against the rebels. Mainstream international media like the BBC, al-Jazeera and al-Arabya, have relied on it as their sole source of news." A cursory examination of those agencies show that they have reporters and sources in the region and have not relied on SOHR as their only source. Such sloppiness (bald assertion: "most fighters do not even speak Arabic" -- no source) is not what we rely on here to uphold important parts of controversial articles. Third, reading the wiki article on this agency, it is not clear that they are even considered a news source for Syria -- they should be considered not just a WP:RS, but a notable one to garner "according to AsiaNews" in the encyclopedic voice.
If the statements in the encyclopedia article are true, we can find better sources for them than this. So let's do the work. Chris vLS ( talk) 07:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm also wondering how in the hades Etienne Dolet got, quote:
" It can provide a bit of context to the whole bit about the "anti-Assad" and "pro-opposition" bias of the SOHR that's widely characterized by numerous (western) news agencies. "
(note especially the "widely characterized by numerous news agencies" part which asserts that these news agencies accuse SOHR of bias)
from, quote,:
"yet, not surprisingly, given the polarization of the conflict, virtually all sides accused SOHR of bias".
Being accused of bias is not the same thing as being biased.
And "virtually all sides" is not "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad".
Btw, best I can tell this is the only mention of SOHR in this 203 page book. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Asia news is more credible than SOHR. SaintAviator lets talk 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No, RT is not a reliable source. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What is going on with the content added from the Washington Post article? It has focused only on the criticisms, and ignored the VDC saying that its estimates seem realistic and that the UN had based its estimates on their figures. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Should the following critique be added in the Accuracy section of this article?
A
commoncriticism of SOHR has been that it is "difficult, if not impossible" to fact check SOHR's data since its director, Rami Abdulrahman, "does not share his data or methodology". Syria conflict expert James Miller has criticised the SOHR suggesting that it knew "field reporters who have never encountered a SOHR source in Syria." When presented with a chart showing the number of war dead in April 2014, Miller made several remarked: "There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples why [SOHR] is a terrible source" and "Everything about that chart screams BS!"
The source is Washington Post: 200,000 dead? Why Syria’s rising death toll is so divisive
Also, the entire quote doesn't have to be placed in the article. If you would like a modified rendition of the critique, feel free to propose it. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
La Force ( talk) 08:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Criticisms of SOHR include difficulties fact checking SOHR's data (despite being little to check against) and that it doesn't share data or methodology. Syria conflict expert James Miller has criticised the SOHR in a letter to the Washington Post suggesting that it was less objective than other groups with an unclear bias. Miller also criticized SOHR for listing moderate rebels as civilians in it's data.
I am happy for the content to be added to the article (apart from the last sentence, which I think is UNDUE and doesn't really add anything). However, I objected to the addition of this content without the addition of balancing content from the article, for example the VDC saying that SOHR's number seem realistic, or that most critics think that SOHR's numbers are too low, not too high. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The common criticism line is this persons view. If thats made clear it not a problem. Thats minor. I dont know why some editors are so entrenched in not allowing a fair appraisal of things like SOHR. Its very uncool. It makes Wikipedia less. SOHR is what it is, a little outfit with certain flaws and biases. Just record this reality using the Refs availiable and stop trying to hide things. Its dishonest. Whats written here in a Wikipedia article cant change a thing in the Mid East by trying to make SOHR look better than it is. That sort of motive is grounded in Paranoia. This is a side show in a side show in a side show. The real decisions are not made by people who say look I saw this in Wikipedia about SOHR, lets bomb something. Its better to have some integrity in wikipedia rather than let wikipedia become a place where an article becomes a joke. I am a health professional BTW and Im starting to reappraise the editing on some articles with Obsessive–compulsive disorder in mind. Bear in mind what Im saying is significantly common, 1 in 4. [43] I would like to see a different, fairer more transparent admin approach to the problems exemplified here which are being openly talked about in several forums. SaintAviator lets talk 21:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of being paranoid and having OCD is not really on topic. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 07:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It is on topic as there is continual edit war on many pages in wikipedia. Its not just the normal friction of moving forward from debate you find at meetings or at clubs, gatherings etc. Its nasty protracted divisive bickering. So whats your answer? Its reasonable to provide stats which exist in wikipedia pages themselves citing possible issues which then may help the situation. There should be no issue citing critiscisms of SOHR. Its RS and should be included. The blocking tactics are just edit waring at a permanent status. I think perhps we need a group of super admins, maybe the founder even, to define this sort of thing so people know where they stand and either grow wikipedia as a true NPOV Encyclopedia or abandon it as a biased flawed enterprise and go social media with the outcome. SaintAviator lets talk 06:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
SaintAviator, seriously, stop hijacking talk page discussions. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a gaping hole in this article: not a word about who is funding them.
Why are people so keen on keeping a lid on this? This was just removed:
The organisation says on its website that "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is not associated or linked to any political body." [1] Peter Hitchens commented: Is Boris Johnson's Foreign Office not a political body? Because the FO just confirmed to me that "the UK funded a project worth £194,769.60 to provide the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights with communications equipment and cameras." That's quite a lot, isn't it? I love the precision of that 60p. Your taxes, impartially, at work.'" [2]
The number was later confirmed by email to Medialens. [3]
––
Huldra (
talk)
23:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A 'Funding' section could be useful, I agree, but it needs reliable sourcing , and equally, needs to be phrased in an encyclopedic manner- mot a lengthy polemical quote from a blog. If there are reliable sources that describe its funding, we can and should add them.
Firkin Flying Fox (
talk)
15:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Daniele Ganser writes in his 2016 book that the real name would be Osama Ali Suleiman. He also characterized the SOHR as undurchsichtig (opaque, intransparent). Wakari07 ( talk) 14:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Hakeem Abdullah Williams: Dostal, Barrett, and Mullerson are all based off of WP:PRIMARY sources, and it isn't a stretch for me to think that they're cherry-picked. There isn't a shortage of people who have expressed this opinions on the Syrian Civil War, and I could just as easily find pro-opposition professors to include in the article. This simple fact makes it contentious, and therefore secondary, published sources are preferred, none of which are present except for the NYT article. Also, Wikipedia is aimed at the general public, and therefore it is undue for the musings of some professors to take up half the article. Stikkyy t/ c 05:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The text added looks like a smear, and is not neutral. The use of quoting single words shows emphasis on an opinion to undermine which is a not neutral way of expressing it. Why was the New York Times supported text moved down? New York Times isn't some ragtag news organization. There's no way that primary sources of questionable quality get precedence over New York Times, which is both reputable and a secondary source. To me, the inclusiveness of that text is less about being primary sources, than the opinions are in an open access repository. The repository itself may be credible, but what's the reliability of what goes in? Pinetree116 ( talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi dear 4 months ago the government of Turkey handed 9 Iranian Kurdish migrants to the so call free Syrian militants or jaish al hor and the families were not have any information about them and Iran and Turkey were not take a responsibility for their freedom please could you help us with this I can send the full details and photos and videos thank you 🙏🙏🙏 2A04:4A43:41CF:BAE6:9598:763B:A4D7:B860 ( talk) 17:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)