Talk:Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently

So, What are They Doing Now?

Raqqa is no longer under Daesh administration, so what exactly are they doing now as a group? According to the page they are still active. I think it would be appropriate to include some information about what they're doing now that Raqqa has been lifted from Daesh control, considering that they're most well-known for reporting on activities and atrocities during the occupation. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it describes a recognized group of citizen journalists that provides some of the only info out of Raqqa. They have both been cited and had full length feature pieces written about them by major english language media outlets (CNN, Guardian, Telegraph, and so on) . Did the nominator even read the article as they tagged it for deletion so quick after creation? --Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stories specifically about the group (not just mentioning their reporting):

• Inside an Isil town: 'Raqqa is being slaughtered silently ... www.telegraph.co.uk Aug 23, 2014 [1]
• Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, And These Guys Are Risking Their Lives To Document It [2] Vice News September 25, 2014
• Inside the Islamic State’s capital: Red Bull-drinking jihadists, hungry civilians, crucifixions and air strikes
• Activists tell of the Isis elite living in relative luxury as civilians face poverty, hunger, inflation and power shortages [3] The Guardian 30 November 2014
• “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently” [4] Counterpunch May 9, 2014
• Syria's Raqqa silently slaughtered under ISIL radical rule - [5] alalam.ir April 27, 2014
• ISIS Living High Life in Raqqa, Using Yazidi Females as Human Shields [6] Jewish Press Sept 22, 2014
• Syrian civilians in Raqqa cheer U.S. bombing [7] USA Today Sept 27, 2014

Lots of info to expand this article with. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it makes a case for notability, and cites (amongst other sources) The Guardian [8] It may turn out ultimately not to meet notability guidelines, but it certainly isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. --AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record the acct that nominated this article for speedy deletion has been indef blocked for disruptive editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes "indefinite" is quite a short time. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

White phosphorus

Volunteer Marek, what you need to do here is: 1) carefully read your own sources, 2) don't misrepresent them, and 3) stop cherrypicking other sources whenever the initial ones are ruled out. The Independent article says the exact following:

• It is thought to be the first reported use of white phosphorus in air strikes on Raqqa, which has been heavily bombed by the Russian and French air forces in the wake of the Paris attacks.
• Russian radio chatter between the pilots and their bases was intercepted by local activists, Ahmed claimed.

That is as close as it gets to the subject. Not sure how you've managed to translate any of this into: RBSS also relayed reports from the ground that the Russian military was using illegal White phosphorus munitions in its airstrikes. The activists quoted by the author only suggest that Russia may have been involved in the WP incident(s). For all I know, it could be French warplanes, or even Assad's air force. I don't see RBSS explicitly accusing Russia of being behind the WP (and neither do you).

The Times is inaccessible for non subscribers, but I've managed to do a few keyword searches on Google. First I tried "russia white phosphorus raqqa thetimes.co.uk", which shows the article you used, but with a struck raqqa. However, since Raqqa may have different spellings, I tried an even better "russia white phosphorus slaughtered silently thetimes.co.uk", and your article doesn't even appear in the results. Most likely WP:SYNTH at its finest.

Then comes Al-Bawaba, which actually cites The Independent's article. It also mentions the same thing about French airstrikes at the same place/time. As you were saying? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You can only get these sorts of conclusion from a very skewed reading of the sources. For example, the paragraph talking about Ahmed is clearly talking about Russia. This is made explicit in this source [9]:

"Russia is accused of dropping WP on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa and the city of Idlib, both full of civilians. One witness told The Times many were left "horrific injuries".

"“We knew it was phosphorus because the entire sky lit up and when it settled it set everything on fire,” one witness known only as Ahmed told the newspaper.

"Ahmed claimed activists in the area intercepted Russian military radio chatter that allegedly discussed targeting cities more than 50 kilometres from the nearest military targets."

That source is also pretty explicit about who is responsible and it ain't the French:

"Russia is accused of possible war crimes for using white phosphorus on targets in areas populated with civilians – a direct breach of the Geneva Conventions."

Here are a few more sources [10] [11] [12] [13]

Your contention that TheTimes doesn't say "Raqqa" is also strange. TheTimes says "northwestern Syria", which is basically Raqqa and surrounding area. Who's cherry picking? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Yahoo source makes no mention of RBSS. The Ahmed guy quoted in it is most likely the one from the first source. But per the Independent, both of them are a person based in Idlib, not Raqqa (read it again). Completely irrelevant here.

Huff Post and 9News don't mention RBSS either (you really need to stop doing that). Daily Mail and Metro are unreliable sources (and even they don't back you here). And Raqqa is not in "northwestern Syria"; please find a map. Though, assuming Raqqa is in that region, what exactly are you suggesting here? Sounds like more original research to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RBSS has proven very reliable and non-partisan. France is not using WP. Let's put in the accusations against Russia properly. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RBSS has proven very reliable and non-partisan. - Irrelevant. When did I ever say it was unreliable?

France is not using WP. - I'm not saying it is; kindly read again what I said above.

Let's put in the accusations against Russia properly. - I agree, but so far I have seen none related to RBSS directly accusing Russia of using white phosphorus in Raqqa. Have you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed, an activist based in Idlib is with Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently [14] and they are reporting Russia using WP. Not the most well written source but with photos [15] "In addition, a group of citizen journalists from the ‘Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently’ network reported on Sunday the use of the banned white phosphorus during Russian airstrikes on the de facto capital of ISIS, Raqqa." quoting Ahmed in Idlib [16] and so one.

1. Nowhere in the Independent article does it say Ahmed is with RBSS.
2. Metro, among other tabloid articles, was ruled out above. And it quotes a Twitter user accusing Russia, not RBSS.
3. Orient Net is one of the crappiest sources one could ever came across on the internet. It should be avoided at all costs, especially when it comes to controversial issues like this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

front for western intelligence

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.

---

for what its worth, RBSS isn't a citizen journalism group, its a front for western intelligence they are paid and equipped by MI6/CIA and their spies help spot for drones and airstrikes under the pretext of journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the MI6/CIA claim, but they are certainly not neutral "journalists" in the accepted meaning of that profession, raising questions about the unqualified "citizen journalists" label in the lead. They are assorted activists who act without editorial control, with biased and extremist viewpoints on many issues, and willing to lie for their cause if they think it advances it. For example, their website has a lot of quite blatant propaganda articles and claims against Kurdish militia forces. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Check citizen journalism - this type of effort does not usually have editorial control. Opposing ISIL atrocities is hardly extremist. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've again removed the unreferenced conspiracy theory posted. Check citizen journalism - this type of effort does not usually have editorial control. Opposing ISIL atrocities is hardly extremist. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored it. This is the second time you have deleted it (with on the first time deleting the entire section). Please do not delete it again. My post contains legitimate content discussion and was made in response to the initial post, so requires that initial post to remain. I also think the first post has at its core a legitimate point, though badly expressed. Why should these supposed "citizen journalists" in Raqqa be given credibility in certain media outlets while other "citizen journalists", such as those based in western countries who report on issues neglected by mainstream media, are studiously ignored by those same media outlets. It will be because RIBSS is seen to be serving the same interests as that promoted by those media outlets. The anti-Kurdish nature of many of their articles also suggests an agenda influenced by Turkey. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Original post is mine. In fact in my view their Kurdish stance is not 'anti Kurd' rather it is a reasonable position based on YPG atrocities and they are of the same position as the entirety of the 'moderate democratic' Arab opposition with respect to Kurds but the issue of them being a front for western intelligence is a fact just look at the videos the Islamic state has released of them being executed (if you can understand/read arabic, unfortunately most western journalists cannot which is why, combined with an unreasonable attitude of dismissal as propaganda, this is not more widely known), and there are long interviews with them explaining exactly what they did and how they spied, and they mention every time how they crossed into Turkey and were handed money and spying equipment by British or American intelligence officers

The discussion above 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.

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NOT

== @legacypac ==

the 'specific proposal for improving the article' is to add a section with relevant information about them being a front for western intelligence!

If you want to add terrorist propaganda you need to provide some high quality Reliable Sources. Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

typical attitude of the Wikipedia editor, if someone says something you don't like and are ignorant of, it immediately becomes 'terrorist propaganda' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12079470/Show-trial-confessions-then-the-five-orange-suited-men-are-lined-up-and-shot-in-the-back-of-the-head.html This describes the video and the confessions (the western journalist is of course exactly like you and criticizes the video) but an unbiased objective person watching that video can see that the confessions they make are true. (unsigned IP edit)

OK then, let's go with the IP's assessment of a "confession" to being a reporter obtained at gunpoint. Being a reporter is not a crime in most of the world. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

they confessed to spying and receiving money and equipment from MI6/CIA, not to being reporters/ whether the confession is obtained at gunpoint is immaterial, what is important is whether it is credible and likely to be true, which based on the information they gave, it is/ they are not legitimate reporters in any sense, they are intelligence operatives, spies/ being a spy is a crime in every country and merits execution in some

"The five men "admit" providing information to men who take it to Turkey where it is released to the western media, including the BBC." they were accused of spying. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"He says that he was then asked to provide information on a series of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) headquarter buildings and on individuals, including one Australian jihadi and two Britons. " - Did you bother to read this bit as well?

the WHOLE POINT is that they are both reporters (as a cover for spying) AND spies at the same time

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NOT

== so they are anti-kurdish and anti-russian? ==

because russians support assad?

non-biased journalists, my ass

i also wouldn't be surprised if these "journalists" actually were spies to direct american and british airstrikes 77.34.165.226 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed Criticism section

Extraordinary allegations that the most vocal group against ISIL from within Raqqa have turned to supporting ISIL need extraordinary sourcing. Only reporting the allegation half of what a Kurdish news agency reported is not sufficient for these claims. This material was correctly cleared out by an IP and I've removed it again. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the sources and commented here about my revert. I've been reverted again, telling me to discuss but at this point I'm talking to myself. Legacypac (talk)

The source clearly mentions that they are part of Syrian opposition. Despite that, I will leave it but restore the criticism section.Ferakp (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Syrian Opposition are armed groups fighting the government. These are citizen journalists. That is critical and longstanding context since the start of the article. You are editwarring and have crossed 1RR which applies to this page as it is related to ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And an IP has again removed the POV insertions of garbage. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

@Legacypac: You are deleting the entire criticism section without giving any reasons. Can you explain here why did you delete the section? Ferakp (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

See above. The inserted material is from a non-RS, undue weight even if it was a WP:RS and you even removed my update that Raqqa is not the defacto ISIL capital anymore. They might hold 10% of the city now. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you prove that the inserted material is from a non-RS? Also, you need a source for your claim that Raqqa is not the defacto ISIS capital. Just because you saw some news that they have only 10% of the city doesn't give you right to make such conclusion, that's simply mentioned in WP:ORIGINAL. The criticism section was written using NPOV. I am waiting you to prove the source is not a reliable. Ferakp (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The source is a propoganda outlet. You have the obligation to provide high quality sourcing to support something as strange as the assertion the guys being killed by ISIL are supporting ISIL. As for the capital, my change is consistent with the ISIL page and scores of news reports. [17] the fact you can't be bothered to check such basic facts is not encouraging. Legacypac (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think the source is a propaganda outlet? Do you have any proofs? I've read their news for nearly two years and it's one of the most neutral sources you can find in Syria. I've read the history of RRBSS very well and what Aranews has written is a pure fact. I've followed BRSS news more than a year. If you visit their Twitter profile, it'll take a few days to realize it's a group of non-professional teenagers who are making racist accusations against the Coalition and Kurdish troops. Seems like you are deleting sources without cooperation and using the talk page. I'm calling other users to give their opinions. Ferakp (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting you to prove the source is not a reliable. There is absolutely no sense in your comments, "ISIL is pretty much out of Raqqa." is one of the poorest way to defend edits.Ferakp (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Extraordinary claim that RBSS supports ISIL - the terrorists they exist to oppose - requires extraordinary evidence. One report from a minor web based news agency is not sufficent support.

There are many reliable sources that say Raqqa is no longer the ISIL defacto capital and that they have shifted to another small city. A recent one [18] Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Aranews does not appear to be conforming with what is required of a reliable source on Wikipedia. The changes by Ferakp constantly slow-burn edit-warred into the article here does not contain any substantial evidence at all. Such drastic claims, including the one that RBSS works with ISIS, would require extraordinary evidence as Legacypac rightly argued before. Furthermore, Aranews seems to only exist on the Internet, and demonstrably only pushes POV articles with narratives benefiting various Kurdish factions. There is also no publicly information as to who pens Aranews articles, or the editorial board and the ownership of Aranews. As such, it also looks like they are paddling original work (going against WP:ORIGINAL), which is consistent with activism (violating WP:ACTIVISM) instead of journalism. Ferakp claims to uphold NPOV, but also appears to constantly push edits into this article with unsubstantiated allegations with no evidence, solely based on Aranews as a source. Wikipedia is not an outlet for activism, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia that upholds NPOV. In my humble opinion, Ferakp would do well to make himself familiar with WP:ACTIVISM and NPOV in light of his past efforts and contributions on Wikipedia. Editors acting as online activists shatters the core tenets of the Wikipedia project. Ferakp should stop pushing such edits into this article without a consensus, which is clearly lacking in this case. --Harpoon6 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all I'm not pushing WP:ACTIVISM and the second thing is that both of you are not willing to use the talk page, and explain how is it not a reliable source? Can you tell me which sections of reliable source requirement it is not meeting? Instead of attacking me, explain it, as it would be much more helpful. Ferakp (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've explained exactly the problems right here on the talk page, and now Harpoon6 has explained as well. You have a single source, making a crazy claim, and it appears to be little more than some blogger. User:Ferakp you falsely say I don't use the talk page, and you unfairly put the burden on me to show your source is not reliable. You have presented no good evidence the fantastical claims you keep inserting are backed up by reliable sources. Insert this material again and I will ensure you are banned from editing the page again. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So If I'm understanding it right, the allegation is that RIBSS is pro-ISIS, despite risking their lives to publish articles showing how awful ISIS is, because one guy affiliated with the group once tweeted a statement that used the same name for a town that ISIS also used? Regardless of the quality of the source (which in this case is not great), that's an awfully weak basis for an extraordinary claim. Tdslk (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have done some open source research in addition to reviewing his past contributions to the Wikipedia project, and it looks like Ferakp is quite invested and involved in Internet activism in relation with and in a manner which benefits KCK and various affiliates such as PYD, YPG, PJAK and PKK. Therefore, I would like to advise him again to refrain from using this project as an outlet for his activism. Wikipedia rules (WP:ACTIVISM) are explicit in stating that this project is not an outlet for political activism. With that said, even a cursory review of this talk page indicates to me that Legacypac has explained to you why Aranews cannot be regarded as a reliable source, and I have also attempted to do the same in my previous comment. Assuming that it was not made sufficiently clear to you, Ferakp, I will spell it out for you in a crystal clear summary why Aranews is not to be regarded as a reliable source according to WP:NEWSORG:

• Aranews is not an established news organisation at all, which casts severe doubts on it's reliability. It's not accredited or syndicated anywhere, and it looks shoddily prepared web-only operation built on a news web site template and script that I have managed to identify. It looks more like a blog than a reliable news organisation and an outlet.
• You are relying on a singular news organisation to posit forward a very serious, and dubious allegation. Standards of this project would call for for multiple, credible sources for such an assertation you are trying to dictate here without an editors' consensus.
• There is no information available as to the ownership of Aranews, or it's editorial board. Aranews also seems to have failed to publish an actual editorial policy. However, judging by it's general tone, it is most likely a Kurdish owned and operated outlet which pushes dubious allegations for retorting against RBSS' previous criticism of Kurdish KCK/YPG's record on human rights and liberties. This makes the already unreliable and questionable source you are trying to introduce to this article even more dubious.

I see that Legacypac has given you due diligence and respect and have assumed good faith on your part, Ferakp. But your past slow edit-warring and apparent insistence on operating like an activist is eroding my ability to further assume your good faith. Please refrain from further reverting this article with to your previous edit with dubious information and sources and make yourself acquainted with WP:ACTIVISM, WP:NEWSORG and NPOV. Otherwise, I will also feel compelled to seek protection of this article and sanctions against your accounts for apparent violation of various Wikipedia rules, including, but not limited to those I have referred to above.

--Harpoon6 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and as I mentioned before, I asked users to explain why it's not an independent source. I disagree with you. Here is my explanation:

• It's an established news organization, it's registered to the North Syrian government which is officially not recognized.
• It's absolutely not just a website. It's used by a numerous of research articles and books as an independent source. Also, it's backed by a numerous of international organizations.
  
• I clearly used neutral language and said everywhere "According to Aranews, SDF and etc".
• It's available, open the latest sources above.
  

It's not about respect or WP:ACTIVISM. If you revert rules then it would be nice if you can use the talk page and explain your changes. Legacypac didn't explain and kept deleting sources and content.

Thanks for your time. Ferakp (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the threat, Legacypac. I appreciate it. Ferakp (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've explained, multiple times, on this talkpage, your talkpage and in edit summaries. I did not threaten you - I warned what would happen if you persisted. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Source

One man's story of how ISIS took his hometown http://mashable.com/2015/08/04/the-taking-of-raqqa-isis/#zXUAoIom2gOr via @mashable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.3.71 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)