Talk:Battle of Khasham

Article's POV seems to favor Russia?

The article seems to heavily favor the Russian point of view after 108.162.139.23's edits and some of the sources they cite seem to no longer exist. Quite critically, the source for the claim that "US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis [stated] that the Russian side informed the Americans that there were no Russian forces active in this area" no longer seems to exist. The editor attempts to claim that certain media outlets were incorrect to report that Russian mercenaries took casualties, but the source they view as credible, Der Spiegel, claims they did - "Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives." The fact that this user also refers to US-based media outlets as "the war-hungry US-based narrative purveyors" seriously puts their neutrality into question. I am going to edit this article to modify the sections that don't appear to be neutral. If there are any objections to this then please raise them here. Istoleyourcar (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Debunked? Complete Revision of Article Needed

It seems the narrative promoted by the war-hungry US-based narrative purveyors has been throughly debunked by Der Spiegel, who were in fact the only people to actually investigate the events with people on the ground in Syria. There were no US journalists present in Syria, either from the government side or from within the US zones of control east of the Euphrates. So why is this entire article based on US preliminary and unverified reporting? Seems like a fraudulent spin of the facts. I will be making SUBSTANTIAL changes to reflect the facts as they have emerged since the events, unless there are relevant objections. 108.162.139.23 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition of POV tag.

this article relies solely on American sources and partisan wording to push a point of view, thus I had no choice but to add a POV tag. US military has claimed that forces aligned to them came under "unprovoked attack" and this is stated as undeniable relying solely on info coming from US forces who are a party of the conflict, though nobody else have put on information corraborating this theory. There is also lots of heavily biased wording such as "Assad regime" etc. This is a notable incident enough to be mentioned somewhere in SCW context, but not in this way, shape or form.BlindNight (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how "Assad regime" is partisan wording. Regime simply means a system of government, and Assad regime is simply a synonym for Assad government. If you go to Wikipedia's main article on Bashar al-Assad, the term "Assad regime" is used multiple times. Also, of course the article is going to rely largely on American sources. American sources are the only sources with thorough enough reporting of the attack with enough details that a person can make an article about. It's not really a biased decision to use the sources which provide the largest breadth of information about a subject. Not to mention, the BBC, a British media source, is used about as heavily as American sources are in the article. That's going to have to be the case until more "non-partisan" media outlets come out with more comprehensive reports about the battle. In what way do you recommend the article be worded? Ftxs (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Complaining about "non-neutrality" of wordings such as "Assad regime" is a typical point of Russian propagandists and officials. Because in Russian this wording actually has some negative connotation, and they forget that in English it may be different :) Considering sources: in Russia, it seems to me that it was Igor Strelkov who was the first to tell about the event and its death toll. -- A man without a country (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is greater than things such as use of "regime": First off, as I write this, there is virtually no credible and clear info on the basics of the incident, hence even the article′s title is dubious (both words in it, as it is not clear that it was really a battle, as well as where exactly the strike occurred). The lede as it reads now, is obviously unacceptable and should be altered completely. Hopefully, there will be more details forthcoming shortly, as it is already clear that multiple Russ lives were lost, and in modern Russia such things are impossible to suppress due to corporate solidarity of these folks (in that respect loss of lives in regular Russ army would be easier to camouflage), especially when they sense that they are being ″betrayed″.Axxxion (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the word "regime" it was found long ago, through editor discussions, that the word is non-neutral and will not be used in Syrian war-related articles. Instead, Syrian "government" is used. PS Its not just "some negative connotation" in Russian. Read regime in reference to modern usage. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Serious vandalism going on

Editors have removed background section and replaced it with what is overtly propaganda. I've edited what I can but this is ludicrous. Users coming on here and editing sections to include what are blatantly partisan talking points is unacceptable.Ftxs (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't change the lede and move the article on your volition without discussion.

Axxxion You said you changed the lede and moved the page "per the talk page". Nothing in the talk stipulated that movement. You simply said you had a problem with it and went it ahead and did it. You never even articulated any specific issues you had with the lede. Please don't do that. Several editors have been in the process of reworking the lede to make it as neutral as possible. Don't just remove everybody's work because it isn't "unbiased" enough for you.Ftxs (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• The article is two days old: there is no consensus on anything, thus far. Hence let us avoid presumptions and speculations that were contained/implied in the original version, as has been pointed up above.Axxxion (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede, as per Manual, must contain the outline of supported facts contained in the article. So far, all we know for sure is what the Pentagon stated. So let us stick to that in the lede.Axxxion (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, for one the article is four days old, not two. Nothing is implied in the original lede? It's a simple outline of what multiple sources (Pentagon, Syrian government, Russia) have said. All you're doing is transforming the lede into 50% quotations for absolutely no reason. What exactly do you think the old lede is implying? This is exactly why I requested the article to be protected. I was afraid of users transforming everything without any sort of discussion.Ftxs (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Did a little digging. Axxxion has a history of this. He tried to do the same thing in this article just recently and editors have to do serious leg work to undo his additions. He is trying to shape any Syrian Civil War article that has anything to do with Russia or the Syrian government in the lenses he views it in, even if that involves changing the entire premise of the article he's editing. I think it's pretty deplorable. Admins need to step in.UnteenthSense (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving ″Battle of Khasham″

• I fail to see anything in the well-established facts about this incident that would warrant such title, which by inference, validates unsubstantiated claims that there had been any ″assault/attack″ prior to the strike.Axxxion (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There does not need to have an "assault/attack" before the actual incident in order for it to have been a battle. Is this what is about? Your afraid that if the article is entitled Battle of Khasham that that is somehow an implication of Syrian/Russian wrongdoing. Nothing is being inferred by anybody. Here is the Washington Post, saying 1. the battle happened in/near the town of Khasham and 2. it is a battle to begin with (not an "incident")("U.S. troops may be at risk of 'mission creep' after a deadly battle in the Syrian desert". Washington Post. 2018-02-08. Retrieved 2018-02-13.)Ftxs (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Show me any RS that calls this incident "the battle of Khasham".Axxxion (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The source you have cited above (WP) describes this incident as follows: ″overnight confrontation in which U.S. warplanes bombed pro-Syrian-government forces as they approached an American-supported base.″; yes, the term "battle" is used further down the text simply to avoid repetition. "Battle" in the title is a blatant POV-pushing spin put on the whole article from start.Axxxion (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because the words are used in that particular order does not make it not the case. There are multiple reputable sources calling this a battle. There are multiple reputable sources that place the clash occurring in/near the town of Khasham. Put two and two together and you know what makes. Calling this a simple "incident" detracts from the scale of what occurred and is disingenuous and nondescript. What point of view exactly do you think it is I'm pushing? url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/world/europe/russia-syria-dead.html | access-date=2018-02-13}}</ref>Ftxs (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep The title Battle of Khasham is more accurate and I agree with the above, calling it a simple incident is just downgrading what happened, in my opinion. An incident would an airstrike or a bad shooting or something. This was an all-out confrontation complete with bombers, ground troops, drones, artillery, and hundreds of men. That's just about the textbook definition of a battle. As for the lead, the current one is better. It's way more cogent than the alternative, way better constructed (at least by encyclopedic standards), and I don't really see any lack of neutrality in it. It's pretty much writing down what three sides have said about the battle. Not much more than that. I can't help but wonder (going through your contributions), who has the real agenda, here? raises eyebrow Funny thing, judging by the edit history, literally everything you've added has been something to do with Russia. You even removed the reaction box from the U.S. under the Reaction section despite it containing more than what you claimed it had in it to justify its removal, before it was replaced. That's a little strange. UnteenthSense (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic standards" applied to an event of which we know with certainty next to nothing apart from what the Central Command′s posting said on the day when it occurred? Ftxs, please steer clear of inferring any personal motive/agenda behind my edits. Analyse the article and sources, not me, just like I am trying not to look into an intriguing phenomenon of a very recently registered editor displaying a thorough knowledge of WP′s tools and techniques. I amnot afraid of "any wrongdoing" by any side: I know one thing with certainty: that he who kills best wins and he is right, by definition, as he is the one who will be sitting in judgment of what is right and wrong. I disagree with the lede as it obviously violates the Manual′s guidelines for the lede, even on a technicality such as using refs, whereas inline citations should be in the main body of an article. Essentially, the lede the way it stands expounds the U.S. military′s press release on 7 February, which would be fine in an appropriate section, but this is not what the lede should be.Axxxion (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Ftxs. That's the user above, I believe. I don't know what you're reading, sir but we have more information than just CentCom's statements. It honestly sounds like your trying to find nefarious motive in multiple editors' writing of the lead to justify rewriting the entire article in your vision, and nobody else's. The lede also includes more information than CentCom's statements too. I believe that the lede shold be written based on the facts that we have. And it is. I saw your version of the lede, which basically deletes a well-written intro and replaces it with what is entirely quotations from a press release, which is not what I like to see on WP. I have analyzed the sources and I believe it's fine where it stands. Stop questioning everybody's grasp of the facts. It's your edits that are disruptive, misleading, and frankly sort of authoritarian. Still voting to keep the article where it is and maintain the lede.UnteenthSense (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

UnteenthSense, can you elaborate on this statement of yours that is apparently about me: ″I can't help but wonder (going through your contributions), who has the real agenda, here? raises eyebrow Funny thing, judging by the edit history, literally everything you've added has been something to do with Russia.″ I fail to make any sense of this unprovoked rambling, incoherent verbal personal assault, as well as the continuation thereof in your next posting. Are you having any personal trouble with me? All I was saying is that there are as yet no hard known facts about the incident and it is early days (as per WP:RECENTISM) to have any "encyclopedic" lede. The lede, I repeat, is supposed to be based not on facts as such, but on the text of the article, as it ought to be its summary.Axxxion (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what I mean. You have a history of going through articles and altering them (not simple editing or improvements but altering the entire premise) of an article to fit your viewpoint or agenda. The most recent I can think of is with List of United States attacks on the Syrian government during the Syrian Civil War where your edits had to be forcibly reverted. And now you're accusing me of being a sockpuppet of GodsPlaaaaan? Now you're coming into this article, and without any sort of consensus, you're changing everything; the lede, the background section, the title, removing whole parts, etc. I think as further evidence that this article should not be moved is just looking at Pages that link to "Talk:Battle of Khasham" plenty of people had no problem linking Battle of Khasham all over WP just the way it is. The lede is fine. You want it to contain just the facts? It already does. Numerous people have come on and edited the lede, to expand it, but you're the first person to come on here and completely replace it, that isn't fair to the other editors.

You've been called out my multiple editors (me, Ftxs, GodsPlaaaaan) in the last two days alone. That's worthy of concern. I'm not vindictive or personally attacking you, I'm simply raising red flags with your editing.UnteenthSense (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MOVE There was no battle in the conventional sense of that word. There was an infiltration attempt by some irregular force from one side and a very one-sided response from the US and proxies. 108.162.139.23 (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Reactions in Russia

@Ftxs: Well, just wanted to point out that the WP:NOTFACEBOOK as you wrote here doesn't mean that original sources from Facebook are prohibited, it does tell you that the Wikipedia is simply not a blog... Please, consider to undo your edit or provide a policy that establishes such an prohibition. Thanks.

Sorry but I may have blidnly linked to the wrong guideline. However in here it says, " Blogs, social media, fan sites, and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable". Wiki policy also says here that self-published sources may only be used as sources about themselves and not about third parties, going on to say "These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."Ftxs (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ftxs: Well, you pointed that out wrong once again.😉

I think the Facebook sources are legible but only if they are citing other sources and excluding itself.

Wikipedia policy is clear on this. Facebook posts are used as self-published sources about themselves and not about third parties. Its standard practice that any Facebook posts that appear as sources on Wikipedia are almost immediately removed. See WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:SELFPUB. EkoGraf (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Update

With two major airstrike events involving the US occurring on both the 7th and 10th of February, I feel this entire article needs to be updated as a whole. So far I have just edited the infobox and introduction. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted for now as it seems this article is based on the 7-8 Feb clashes. We could probably incorporate the related 10 February airstrike once the article is cleared up more. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

GodsPlaaaaanWas the 10 February airstrike the one involving the footage of the strike on the tank? And do we know if it took place near Khasham? Can't figure it out.16:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftxs (talk • contribs)

Nevermind, figured it out. https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2018/13-february-oirspox-coalition-in-selfdefense-struck-a-t72 . I don't see a problem with it being added in. Part of clashes near Khahsham involving coalition forces which is what this article is about.Ftxs (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Political ramifications in Russia?

Should the section about 'Political ramifications in Russia' be changed to 'Political ramifications'? This event clearly is going to effect American, and probably Syrian government policy as well, so would a general section about Political Ramifications with subsections about the ramifications in Russia, the U.S., and Syria respectively be more appropriate? Thoughts?Ftxs (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If they do happen in the US and Syria yes, most certainly. But at the moment that whole section is exclusively about ramifications in Russia. EkoGraf (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Important information for editors of this article

As per my request on ANI, both User:Ftxs and User:UnteenthSense have been confirmed as sock puppets. Therefore please, disregard their above postings on this page.Axxxion (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How have you really guessed this? davronova.a. 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I explained on ANI (See link on my Talk. in the "Non-consensus" section). Also, the line of personal attack on me sounded very familiar (was very similar a few months ago, I cannot retrieve it now). Also, very familiar in a broader sense: characteristic of all so called security services operatives conducting ops like "reflexive control" and somesuch: instead of discussing the matter at hand, launching personal innuendoes suggesting your dirty motives, being paranoid, unbalanced, etc. Looked kind of funny this time: See above, with introductory phrases "I am not Ftxs...".Axxxion (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wagner PMC Confirmed Belligerent With Direct Involvement of Moscow

Okay, it now seems that the Russian PMC 'Wagner' were directly involved having received direct authorisation from a Russian minister and their chief Yevgeny Prigozhin communicated from Khasham to Putin's chief of staff Anton Vaino and deputy chief of staff Vladimir Ostrovenko. DNA Cowboy (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Wagner Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

SDF forces not accounted?

Hi. The Strength section of the infobox only mentions US troops, but the Casualties section mentions one SDF wounded. Should the Strength section mention SDF troops too? 209.6.25.213 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

200 Americans killed?

Casualties section says 200 Americans killed despite there only being 40 in the strength section and later in the article it says no Americans died? 66.251.112.224 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have been changed back to no casualties a few seconds after I posted this 66.251.112.224 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the "200 casualties" thing was added by a new editor who seemed to be interested in promoting a pro-Syrian point of view. I've changed it back. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing as US-Russia battle

There seems to be a constant desire here by some editors to convert the Battle of Khasham into a confrontation between US and Wagner troops in which the US "annihilated" Wagner. This,I presume, is based on numerous social media posts (Youtube, Instagram) misrepresenting this incident. The battle of Khasham was the bombing of Syrian troops by the US. Whether Russians were involved or killed has been put into question by thorough ground investigation by reliable sources - Der Spiegel and SOHR and is not even confirmed by US, Russian or Syrian official sources.2.139.15.254 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Der Speigel and SOHR claims are, at best, poor information collection. The Reuters version is an over-estimate in the other direction. See the academic reference I just added. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti I reverted your edits as non-constructive. Claiming "Der Speigel (sic) claims are at best, poor information collection" is proof enough that you are not here to improve this article. 81.244.208.103 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's the problem: Wikipedia has a definition for non-constructive editing. My edits referenced a reliable, academic source that analyzed multiple reports on the subject to produce a reasonable, nuanced assessment that balanced out outlier statements. I also resolved a failed verification issue that you tagged by locating and adding the archived article (which was scrubbed by its original publisher without any basis given). You removed all these, favoring an outdated pair of reports from 2018 that are known to have been adopted by a persistent Russian disinformation campaign on the subject. These sources contradict the majority of reliable sources and Russian statements, which are listed here: The New York Times, The War Horse, a paper published by the University of Southern Denmark, Reuters, RealClearDefense (a division of RealClearPolitics), Al-Jazeera, and the Russian Foreign Ministry. When confronted with this reality, you declared that this is proof enough that you are not here to improve this article. Unless you can justify your undue weight granted to dated and marginal reports that have been explicitly criticized for their misrepresentation of what occurred, the article will be restored to reflect the accurate statement that Russian Wagner forces were directly involved and sustained significant losses. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A few problems with your comments here, Pbritti. There is no known "Russian propaganda" campaign related to the issue of the Battle of Khasham, or at least no reliable source can attest to one. The fact that you are trying to argue there is does imply you are here on some kind of Don Quixotesque crusade against Russian windmills. You are also using sub-standard sources such as RealClearDefense. Having reviewed it, I see it incorporates innaccuracies such as the Wagner audio which later proved to be falsified. Der Spiegel is a major German publication which is a solid reliable source, RealClearPolitics is a news aggregator and RealClearDefense is little more than an online blog. The US sources supporting mass massive involvement and casualties have the issue of WP:RECENTISM - they are initial reports which, as is clear from the article and subsequent investigation, proved not to be accurate, or at the least remained unconfirmed. We cannot include hearsay as fact. 187.250.62.195 (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You're attacking one source of disputed reliability to ignore the many other highly reliable sources that have contradicted your unsupported viewpoint. See the USD source: "The official view from Russia (with Der Spiegel as its co-advocate) is that the US repelled an attack from Syrian forces and in doing so happened to kill 20-30 Russians in the vicinity (whom Spiegel designate as Wagnerites)"; "it would take the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, the Ataman Evgenii Shabayev, the politician Alsknis and various sources used by RFE/RL, Reuters and Kommersant to tell roughly the same lie". Add to this that it would also take Al-Jazeera also joining in on the lie more than five years later and the whole insistence on dismissing Wagner involvement is fanciful. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wildly misrepresenting sources. Spiegel says that between 10 and 20 Wagnerites were killed, and not in the confrontation but subsequent airstrikes. SOHR denies US involvement at all in the Russian casualties, saying the 15 PMC casualties were from a booby trap, presumably left by ISIS or some other islamist outfit. The statement from the Syrian army fails verification in terms of Russian casualties and there is no mention of them from official US or Russian sources. The CNN source currently in the article claiming Russian casualties also fails verification - the sentence in the article requires a failed verification tag. Therefore, based on reliable sources we cannot establish as fact that Russians were killed during a confrontation with US forces. 187.250.62.195 (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is all simply untrue. We know that Russians were killed in a confrontation with American forces based on numerous reliable sources:

• The Independent (article): "The Kremlin has only confirmed the deaths of 'several dozen' of its citizens, but continued to insist its military was not involved"; "BGen Braga said that reports that between 200 and 300 of the Russian and Syrian force had been killed was 'close to our estimates.'"
• Al-Masdar News (a pro-Assad source you claim failed to verify that Russians had been killed; article): "The U.S. Coalition attack on the pro-government forces in the Deir Ezzor Governorate last week killed many Russian fighters in the area, a military source told Al-Masdar News"; "The first two identified Russian fighters were identified as Vladimir Loginov and Kirill Ananiev; however, since then, many others have been reported dead".
• France 24 (article): "The outgoing head of the CIA appeared to confirm Thursday reports that around 200 Russian mercenaries were killed in February during a clash with US-led forces in Syria".
• The New York Times (2018, an early review of multiple sources that does not address the Der Spiegel and SOHR narratives, article): "Initially, Russian officials said only four Russian citizens — but perhaps dozens more — were killed; a Syrian officer said around 100 Syrian soldiers had died. The documents obtained by The Times estimated 200 to 300 of the “pro-regime force” were killed"
• Connecting the dots of PMC Wagner: Strategic actor or mere business opportunity? (2019, published by the University of Southern Denmark, and the only meta-study to review all sources involved):
  • "The official view from Russia (with Der Spiegel as its co-advocate) is that the US repelled an attack from Syrian forces and in doing so happened to kill 20-30 Russians in the vicinity"
  • "later Russian sources began circulating numbers of Russian dead in the order of 200"
  • "Russia admitted officially of five dead Russians on the 15th February, whereas Russian left-wing politician Viktor Alsknis gave an unofficial figure of 334 deaths"
  • "The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights has suggested that the number has been inflated because the deaths resulting from the explosion of a warehouse in Tabbiyyah in a separate incident have been added to the count"
  • "the simplest estimate of what occurred on 7-8 February 2018 is that 65-200 Russians (of which a few may have been Russian special operators assisting or leading the Wagnerites) died as a result of the fighting, some in the field, and some in hospital beds in Syria and Russia"

Everyone agrees that Russian mercenaries were killed in a fight with American soldiers in February 2018. Russian officials have confirmed "several dozen" Russian deaths, American officials reckon up to 200, and independent sources have confirmed several of the dead by name. Additionally, the only academic meta-study that has reviewed Der Spiegel and the SOHR narratives has assessed them as underestimating the count and Reuters/Pompeo as overestimating, putting the total somewhere between 65–200 Wagner dead. This is rather definitive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is only so long I can continue to WP:AGF with you, Pbritti while you continue to misrepresent sources. You seem to have been on Wikipedia for some time so you should know how this project works and its policies.

This thing Connecting the dots of PMC Wagner: Strategic actor or mere business opportunity? that you refer to as "a meta-study of all sources" on the so-called Battle of Khasham is what seems to be an end-of-year report on Wagner by some young university student which does not come even close to being considered a reliable source, hence its inaccurate statements which you seem to be replicating word for word.

This guy Niklas Rendboe (a young management consultant by what I see) completely misquotes Der Spiegel and SOHR sources, neither state anything of what he or you say. The Der Spiegel article categorically concludes that there is no evidence of Russians participated in the attack or even joined in the fighting at all. All it states is 10-20 died in Tabiya for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The SOHR report CLEARLY states that 45 Syrian loyalists were killed by Coalition strikes and that Russians were AMONG the 23 killed by a booby-trap in Tabiya.

Please back your arguments with accurate statements and using reliable sources if you want to continue this discussion. Avoid this Rendboe guy as a source and avoid basing your arguments on initial reporting affected by WP:RECENTISM - they all come from the same initial largely debunked source. But honestly, you have made it clear enough that you are trying to push a marginal theory and are not WP:HERE. Hundreds of dead Russians (now including special forces) killed in a firefight with US forces. Sorry but no. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not our imagination or desires. 187.250.62.195 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You act like I can't read the Spiegel article, which contains a couple of claimed eyewitness accounts. One, a local, reported that "among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives". These claims stand in direct contrast to on-the-ground reporting by other news organizations and intelligence agencies dating from between 2018 and 2023 (arguments of RECENTISM fall flat when you consider things like this). A plausible explanation for the discrepancy–and one explicitly mentioned in Rendboe–is that because the Syrian militia contingent was mostly formed from local residents, there was a greater likelihood locals would have been encouraged to disavow Russian involvement. Rendboe, at the time of his thesis, was also a researcher on Russian mercenary activity at the Royal Danish Defence College. We tend to disapprove of master's theses (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), but a quick search reveals that Rendboe's thesis has been cited in other scholarly work on Wagner and is thus acceptable. His credentials are more than sufficient. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)