Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 24 September 2012

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Houla massacre was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 May 2012.

A news item involving Houla massacre was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 May 2012.

Has the UN really said that?

An article published by Euronews states "While Syrian state TV blamed 'armed terrorist gangs', a spokesman for UN chief Ban Ki-moon and international envoy Kofi Annan accused the Syrian government of carrying out a 'brutal' breach of international law." This wording looks to me suspiciously like the the news outlet is conflating reactions to the massacre with statements given by the two top UN officials prior to the attacks. We should remember that Ban ki-Moon gave a statement to that effect on the day of the massacre, i.e. prior to knowledge of the massacre. If this new position from the UN can be corroborated by other sources, fine, but if not, perhaps we should take our precautions with respect to the real possibility that the Euronews article is fudging this issue? __meco (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As more news outlets are reporting this I'm more inclined to believe it to be correct, however, I would have liked seeing a reference to press conferences held by Ban and Annan, just to make sure there isn't some confusion of this issue as I explained above. __meco (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

General Mood's statements in two places

Currently Mood's statements are presented fully both in the introduction and in the Aftermath section. One place should suffice, or, the mention in the lede should be compressed significantly. __meco (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however I would leave it in Aftermath section rather than lede since it is significant to the rest of the section, especially UN report about how "Syrian Government immediately cease the use of heavy weapons in population centers". EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

But that report surely didn't come as a result of this incident? Wasn't that the report that was published in Friday? We need clarity on this. __meco (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not know. I vaguely remember that either Mood or Ban Ki Moon said this today but I would have to re-check it. However report from NYT which is used as reference uses it in context of this massacre, not earlier events. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Found it "This appalling and brutal crime involving indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force is a flagrant violation of international law and of the commitments of the Syrian government to cease the use of heavy weapons in population centres and violence in all its forms," said a statement issued on behalf of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Joint Special Envoy of the UN and the League of Arab States for Syria, Kofi Annan.. Therefore regarding Mood statement, it should probably stay in aftermath section and removed from lede. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a better timeline

When did the shelling begin? When did the throat-cuttings occur? When was the standoff between the armed militants and the police? When was the hospital burned down? We need to try and pin-point these events, and duration of events, when applicable, using the information that is scattered in the numerous references used for this article. Perhaps a starting point could be adding such bits of information here, as comments to this post? (Or as a sub-section) If there are conflicting accounts, we need them all presented, at least here, and then we can decide what to put into the article when we have consolidated the information. __meco (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. The UN is presenting a formal report on this in 2-3 days, which will be helpful for this. Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent excellent source from EllsworthSK. Can you take a look at the mock-up table I propose we try and use for this work? I've added all the witness testimonies from EllsworthSK's source into it. Is this something we can try and work with? __meco (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but I'm a little hesitant to adding so much detail and weight to eyewitness testimony (even in transcluded format). Is there precedent for this kind of approach in similar articles? Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The table is for this page, the talk page. I propose it be used in the sub-section below. With an orderly and comprehensive listing of all witness testimonies as they are presented by various media outlets, it will, that is my idea, be an invaluable tool in weighing all the information and composing what is to go into the article itself. (I hope that clarification makes your question about precedents moot, because this is something I just came up with.) __meco (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. I agree that this would be very helpful for this page--thanks for your efforts. Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This BBC story attempts to give a narrative and map of the attacks. Khazar2 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've extracted two statements from it. Unfortunately the journalist doesn't mention either where these victims/witnesses are from, to whom they were speaking or where and how these videos have been obtained by the BBC. __meco (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline tracer

The following table is transcluded from a sub-page. If you want updates to appear on your watchlist you must click "watch" below (Talk:2012 Houla massacre/Timeline tracer (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs))

SYNTH content

It looks like the background section has had a bit of WP:SYNTH content added to it, such as this Huff Post piece not mentioning the current massacre, but only detailing past events. Per that policy, I suggest we not include any sources here that don't directly mention our topic; listing unrelated human rights violations that the Syrian govt has been accused of or that the Syrian opposition has been accused of is both off-topic and a bit POV. Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Disappointingly, that editor has declined to engage me here, but has reverted again when I tried to remove it. I'd appreciate another look at this, but I'd still argue that our job is to summarize only sources about the Houla Massacre here--not to list past crimes of Al Qaeda, nor of Assad's government, nor of the Syrian opposition, nor of the United Nations, etc., etc. Including cherry-picked past events that haven't been mentioned in reliable sources in connection to this seems to me clearly POV. Khazar2 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Huffington post is not a reliable source, it has no editorial oversight for individual pieces. Find a better source for claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.230.32 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to your removing that part of the content if you'd like to. Khazar2 (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Huffington post is a reliable source. But regardless I will search for other sources. Sopher99 (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates

This are Houla coordinates. Rakela (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary of UN Security Council resolution--opinion requested

An editor has reverted my attempts to add a fuller description of the UN Security council resolution. The New York Times makes it very explicit that the resolution does not directly blame the Syrian government for all the deaths: "The 15-member Council approved a statement that, while not blaming the Syrian government directly for all the deaths, rebuked it for its use of tanks and artillery against civilians despite agreeing to an April 12 cease-fire." It seems to me that leaving out this qualifier is a bit dishonest, but I could be wrong. A third opinion would be appreciated. Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You would be right, except for including that part implies that a second party (such as the FSA) is also responsible. That is misleading, because the only thing mood was able to confirm was that artillery and knives were used, and Mood acknowledged that only the gov has artillery power.

If you can find a way to say "while not blaming the Syrian government for all the deaths- as the source of knife attacks and close range shootings can not be easily be identified in any circumstances" I believe it would work better. What I am trying to say is that what you added leaves the reader with a sense that the Syrian government is not solely responsible - but thats not what is being said. Please find a way to fix this problem. Sopher99 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that, in my understanding, the UN is holding back from explicitly saying that the Syrian government is solely responsible: "Mr. Ban skated very close to blaming Syrian government shelling for at least some of the deaths while carefully noting that the cause had not been completely determined." It's important to note that this statement still has wiggle-room in it. (My understanding is that Russia is largely responsible for the watering down).

It seems to me that if we don't include or paraphrase some form of "while not blaming the Syrian government directly for all the deaths", we're misrepresenting the statement. What we could do, though, is follow Al Jazeera's lead and discuss this statement in more detail later on the in the article. Britain and other nations wanted a more direct condemnation of Assad; Russia balked. Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is strong implication, but does not judge directly who was involved probably because of ongoing UNSMIS investigation and because of Russian stance (who protect their pet dictator at all cost, but let´s leave that aside). As was said, report does not says that Syrian government is not solely responsible, it says that currently they cannot say with 100 percent accuracy who is responsible, yet neither UNSC resolution, nor Major General Mood statements implicates rebel forces of committing this massacre, therefore trying to bring them on same level won´t fly, at least not here. Therefore we should wait till final UNSMIS report (if it ever comes), state in article what was in sources - ie strong implication towards Syrian security forces (military and militia) being penetrators, but not establishing guilt to neither side. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you'd like to rework the sentence in the lead section accordingly, I'd appreciate it. I've done a lot of work on this article today and am probably nearing my revert limit. Khazar2 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I shortened the lead both according to this discussion and the above discussion with mede about duplicity of general Mood statements. Would this be acceptable as lead?

The Houla massacre was an attack that took place on May 25, 2012, in two opposition-controlled villages in the Houla Region, a cluster of villages north of Homs where at least 108 people, including 34 women and 49 children, were killed. The official news agency of the Syrian government alleged that Al-Qaeda terrorist groups were responsible for the killings, while opposition groups alleged that the Syrian military and government-linked militias known as Shabiha were the perpetrators. Residents say they had sent the UN obser mission in Syria a plea for help before the massacre, warning of an imminent attack by the government, but the UN monitors did not respond.

The Syrian Government was condemned for its role in the massacre unanimously by the United Nations Security Council. The statement said that the attacks "involved a series of government artillery and tank shellings on a residential neighborhood" and the security council called for the Syrian Government to withdraw heavy weapons from Syrian towns.

EllsworthSK (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I love how no one responds on this in discussion and afterwards reverts the edit without writing a letter here, here are the reasons for deletion of this and that. a, 17 dead is number long time ruled out by UN. UN is RS, SANA is not. b, general Mood statement, discussed above. Duplicity. c, SNC - same as SANA. RS gave us number of casualties while SNC is not RS. d, Kofi Annan - duplicity, already mentioned in international respons. So what is the problem? EllsworthSK (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format

This article suffers from inconsistency in date format. Dates are variously given as "27 May", "May 27", and even "28th May". Misplaced Pages guidelines say that the date format should be consistent throughout an article. I was adressing this issue the other day, obtaining full consistency, but was immediately reverted by user Meco on the grounds that the original date format should be retained (WP:DATERET). It is pretty obvious that, when there are several date formats in the same article, one has to be chosen. I had chosen international format over the US format, because the article has no strong national ties (WP:STRONGNAT) to the United States (in fact, it has none whatsoever). When I pointed out to Meco that he had reintroduced inconsistent date formats to the article with his action, he was faced with the same problem: he had to choose one format. He chose the least appropriate, the US format, for reasons he can best explain himself.

For quality reasons, this inconsistency has to be fixed, as this is a highly visible article, covering a current event in a series of ongoing events. One format has to be chosen, and in my view, it's pretty obvious that US date format is the least suitable for the article – and indeed for the whole series on this topic.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your argument, but I submit that per WP:ENGVAR, this isn't worth spending our time debating when the article has so much development left to be done; as long as there's a consistent format in the article, that's the only important thing for now. Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there are more important things to do in the article, but there had been no debate at all about this if Meco had just refrained from that knee-jerk revert. And we would still have consistent date format. But I'll leave it for now. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mexican government's reaction

Is it relevant to the article if I include Mexico's reaction? I noticed that there are other countries listed in the International Reactions' section. ComputerJA (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it. You're welcome! ComputerJA (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Syrian government has a history of committing massacres"

I appreciate the honest attempt to present the facts on this terrible incident as far as they are known and confirmed. In that spirit I propose to delete the sentence "The Syrian government has a history of committing massacres", because this statement is not related to facts of this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.109.18.2 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If that has been fairly incontrovertibly confirmed that would seem an appropriate part of the background history to this incident. __meco (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Many governments that actually use their military forces "have a history of committing massacres." I think that background from the current uprising / civil war, including mention of recent civilian casualties at the hands of the Syrian Army, and also mention of the recent suicide bombings, would be more informative. -Darouet (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be clearly POV if we said something like "the UN has a history of ignoring massacres", and then linked to criticisms of the organizaiton following Rwanda. I don't think we should get a free pass to "make a case" against the Assad government until we see that our reliable sources are doing the same. Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Something should be done about the Events section

Would it perhaps make the article more transparent if we divided this into "Media reports of massacre in Houla" and "Witness testimonies", or something else? I'm open to ideas. I don't think the current section/title is an ideal way to organize this information. __meco (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me we have a diverse enough range of sources in there (UN, media, witnesses, political groups, etc.) that an accurate new header would be hard to find. I suppose we could call it "Reports on massacre" but only in the sense that almost any Misplaced Pages section could be called "Reports on..." This section will hopefully continue to "harden" into more directly verifiability as reports like the UN's and HRW's continue to emerge.

So I think I'm good with the current title for now, but also open for other ideas. Khazar2 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm good with your second opinion. __meco (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate section on witness testimonies

We have as of now four separate articles in the timeline tracer table above which quotes testimonies from witnesses who either survived the attacks or who give direct information including names and locations and details of killings. What I find interesting with these is that a) all named witnesses to the killings blame the government and its militias, and b) no witnesses give details about victims of the artillery/mortar/tanks attacks by the Syrian regular military. Would it be a good idea to present this somewhat as I have laid it out now? Or would stating that none of the victims of government shelling are mentioned in the witness testimonies be original synthesis? __meco (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel like mentioning it as an omission would be OR/synth ("Witnesses did not mention..."), but I'd think it would be fair to say something like "Witnesses focused on..." We might also more prominently emphasize the UN report stating that most victims did not die by heavy weapons, but up close and ugly. I added this last night, but it ended up a bit buried at the end of a paragraph. Khazar2 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Related article nominated for deletion

May 2012 Homs clashes is a stub article which has been nominated for deletion. Perhaps adding links to it in this article (and contributing to it) would help placing the massacre in a bigger context or at least connect it with related events. __meco (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Reworking of lead section

I've attempted to rework the lead section of the article to reduce the garble of conflicting claims. The media is now relying heavily on the UN reporting as the most reliable source, and so I've emphasized UN sources and de-emphasized opposition and Assad-govt. sources when it comes to casualties and causes of death. I'd be glad to hear other opinions on this if I've been excessively bold, though. Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We now have a figure of 20 casualties from shelling through the recently added Channel 4 article. __meco (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We should now perhaps focus on condensing the paragraphs of the Events section where the two opposition blocs present their initial claims? __meco (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I would think again that the initial claims could be greatly reduced, and more weight given to the more reliable (and far more widely reported as legitimate) UN report. Those initial claims are still worth mentioning, I think, but far less relevant. But I'll let somebody else take the first crack at this one; I've probably wandered into 3RR territory already with all this rewriting and a few borderline-vandalism reverts. Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't worry about 3RR. There's no tendency towards edit warring here. __meco (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perpetrators

An editor has just changed the perpetrator section of the infobox from "Shabiha militias and Syrian military (alleged as most likely perpetrators by the UN)" to "Unknown". This strikes me as both true and misleading; the majority of reliable sources are following the UN in discussing this not as a mystery, but as a massacre most likely perpetrated by Shabiha militias. I'm fine with a rephrasing if needed, but I think we need to follow our sources in reporting the alleged likely perpetrator. Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN round 2?

This article is being considered for a second inclusion on In The News at WP:ITN/C due to today's diplomatic fallout; opinions one way or the other, and help crafting a potential blurb, would be welcome. Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Syrian government has a history of committing massacres"

I'm a bit wary of this initial sentence in the Background section. I've glanced at the three articles that are linked and they seem to support this statement, however, I have not investigated the references in those articles to establish whether this is the final verdict or "merely" the majority opinion or mainstream media consensus. Have those articles been subjected to the same level of NPOV enforcement as we have hopefully managed with the present article? In any case, using other Misplaced Pages articles as references is in itself inadmissible, so we should do something quickly about this matter. __meco (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been complaining about that paragraph on this page for days. =) I agree that it's needlessly prejudicial. BBC, Al Jazeera, and other reliable sources are not discussing this in terms of a 10- to 20-year "history of committing massacres" (though they are putting it in the context of the war's violence). Even the sentence on previous Houla violence seems shaky to me--if this is importnat background, why has it been mentioned by zero news organizations with reference to the massacre? A better background section to my mind would have a few sentences describing the origins of the civil war, and its previous violence, per a reliable source that is discussing the Houla massacre directly. In either case, though, I agree that "history of massacres" has to go. Khazar2 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the POV of this statement is ridiculous and not in any way constructive to a neutral article. Let's have a vote shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need that. The problem has been identified and we're addressing it. __meco (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The article reads:

According to Al Jazeera's correspondent Hadi al-Abdallah, the Free Syrian Army had gained control of the town of Houla, and it became a hub for opposition militants. The Syrian Army was unable to enter the town, forcing them to shell it from a distance.<ref name=AJ526/>

I thought those massacred were stabbed and shot from close range. Why the contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:59, May 30, 2012‎ (UTC)

A small portion of those killed were killed by heavy weapons fire (artillery and tanks). However, most were killed by (apparently) Shabiha in summary executions during the shelling. Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And HRW report says it was on outskirts, outside the combat zone.EllsworthSK (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Shabiha: govt linked or govt-hired?

The description of Shabiha was just changed from "government-linked" to "government-hired". The latter is widely suspected, but I'm not sure it's verified yet per reliable sources. BBC, for example, describes Shabiha as "a sectarian civilian militia that supports the regime of Bashar al-Assad" , and Al Jazeera calls them "armed pro-government forces", which is different from being paid employees. Does anyone have more information on this? For now I'd suggest changing it back, but I'm open to other opinions. Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the wikipedia article for Shabihba and you can find all the sources you need. Regardless the source says "pro-goverment", so thats whats being used now. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at that article, which unfortunately is a bit of a mess. The only reference I see here to "hired" is an inaccurate summary of the source, so I went ahead and removed it. I have no personal opinion on this, so I don't mind seeing it included if that's the way the majority of our reliable sources describe those groups; I just haven't seen that claim yet myself. Khazar2 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've given the Shabiha article a good work-over to improve the missing and distorted sources. The closest to your "government-hired" reference I could find was one Syrian opposition group that had said that some of the Shabiha were mercenaries. For future reference, this is a good example of why editors are asked not to cite Misplaced Pages as their source; better to find a reliable source of your own directly. Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Two massacre sites

The two villages Taldo and al-Shoumarieh were the sites of the massacres. Both names featured in the article earlier on, but now al-Shoumarieh is missing. __meco (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

First, my apologies if I'm the one responsible (I may well be--I've been attemptng a lot of reorganizing work here as a more coherent narrative emerges, and it's quite likely I made some errors).

But I also wonder if it dropped out organically. The sources I'm reading seem to be consistently naming Taldo as the site where families were killed--are we still sure al-Shoumarieh was a site of the violence? I may have just not been noticing this. Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consult the timeline tracer table above. __meco (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting interview sheds some insights

This interview from Iran's Press TV yields some rare perspectives on what might be the reality behind the Houla massacre. The interviewee is not a notable individual, but Press TV surely is pushing a point with this. Is there something here which we can use? __meco (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don´t think we should, as Press TV is not RS.EllsworthSK (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, surely it is? __meco (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

as the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, - it speaks for the Iranian regime - it can be relied on for that - I dont think it has a record of reliable, neutral reportage - its always pushing its agenda - fair enough, but we shouldn't be blind - sources should be identified and then readers can decide what to make of the 'info' from that source imo. Sayerslle (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We have some reactions from Iran in the International Reactions section already, which seem to me like enough. Syria's version of events struck me as worth including as a major player in the conflict, even though their version is now widely discredited. Iran has the disadvantage of being both a minority viewpoint and a non-participant (to my knowledge); it seems like undue weight to give this much article space, but I'm up for hearing a more specific point you'd like to insert. Khazar2 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm arguing this should be counted towards the inclusion of anything from this article, but you should keep in mind that Syria is generally recognized as Iran's de facto protegé. __meco (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Still, it seems the countries being looked at as Syria's significant allies in most coverage now are Russia and China, because of the UN Sec Council vetoes. Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Need for better disambiguation in title

There was a botched move attempt here earlier on today. The need for disambiguation stems from the existence of another article, Hula massacre, about a 1948 massacre in Lebanon. I agree with the original target of the move, i.e. 2012 Houla massacre. Then that other article should be moved to 1948 Hula massacre. __meco (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Since this also coincides with standard naming convention I'm going ahead with the move. __meco (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The standard naming convention is to append the year when multiple events are referred to by the same name. "Hula massacre" and "Houla massacre" are different (albeit similar) names.

When subjects' names are likely to be confused, our standard convention is to link the articles to each other via hatnotes, thereby assisting readers intending to reach the other article.

Redirecting "Houla massacre" to "2012 Houla massacre" and "Hula massacre" to "1948 Hula massacre" helps no one (because someone who accidentally types "Hula" instead of "Houla" or "Houla" instead of "Hula" still arrives at the wrong article). —David Levy 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the year is not a proper disambig, however since the place names are almost identical, we need to disabiguate according to the place name itself: Hula, Lebanon and Houla (Homs governorate, Syria); thus Hula massacre (Lebanon) and Houla massacre.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't how we do things. As noted above, we don't append disambiguation when two names are merely similar (as opposed to identical).

When subjects' names are likely to be confused, our standard convention is to link the articles to each other via hatnotes, thereby assisting readers intending to reach the other article.

Your continual, undiscussed moves of Hula massacre to Hula massacre (Lebanon) contradict our naming conventions and assist no one. As I previously explained to you, we don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)", which serves absolutely no purpose. In this instance, someone intending to reach Houla massacre and accidentally typing "Hula massacre" arrives at Hula massacre (Lebanon) — exactly the same article as before, with a title to which a useless qualifier (assisting no one in reaching the intended article) has been inappropriately appended. Either way, it's the hatnote that points readers in the right direction. —David Levy 21:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-emptive: Syrian regime's "investigation"

Just so we are clear, the so called "results" of the regime's "investigation" are going to be put in the Aftermath section. It is going to be one sentence saying "the Syrian government claimed to have launched an investigation in the massacre, and claimed that the results of the investigation showed that "armed gangs" committed the massacre to provoke "foreign intervention"." We don't need more than that. The regime's claim of investigation is already a ludicrous and unreliable concept, considering that unarmed Syrian government personnel can't even enter Houla, and further more it is the equivalent of Alqaeda "investigating" the 9/11 attacks or Pol Pot "investigating" the Cambodian genocide. Sopher99 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that SANA etc. cannot be considered reliable sources in themselves, but the amount of article space and context we give their claims should depend on how extensively reliable sources report, discuss, and rebut those claims... no way to determine it in advance. Khazar2 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary about what you are conceding to. Surely SANA is a perfectly acceptable source for presenting the view and relays of the Syrian government, and surely nobody has suggested it be used in any other manner? __meco (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

SANA is a reliable source for showing the views of the Syrian govt., but using SANA directly seems redundant in an issue like this. If a number of reliable sources are reporting what SANA is saying, then it's worth including and we can give it due weight. If few or no reliable sources are reporting what SANA is saying, including it here is undue weight. In either case, though, I think it's best to turn to the reliable sources, not directly to SANA (or, for that matter, the Local Coordination Committees, Free Syrian Army website, etc.); because of its government ownership, SANA is more of a primary source than a secondary source on these issues. Khazar2 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Although you clearly have both strong opinions and feelings about this matter, I'm of the opinion that we shall await the media reports of what this investigation says, then consider the emerging commentary on it, and only then make an attempt to synthesize the coverage. Furthermore, considering your initiative here, perhaps it would be a good idea if we vetted that proposed text here on the talk page prior to posting? __meco (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How can you imply that the word of western journalists is more reliable then that of actual government media considering the western journalists are not even in the country and are just operating off the hearsay of the rebel forces.(Yaik10a (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Testimony from villagers blaming bandits

This video from the Russian Damascus-based journalist Anhar Kochneva shows interviews with residents of Taldau following the massacre. An English translation of the testimonies is available. This video glaringly contradicts the narrative we are otherwise presented with of what took place in Houla last Friday. And it corroborates the Syrian government's version of the events. I became aware of the existence of this material watching this interview on Iran's Press TV with Webster G. Tarpley where he mentions this and two other alternative sources. The media organization that has broadcast this is Abkhazian Network News Agency (ANNA), which is described as "very small". __meco (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be added to the article. This is a groundbreaking realization and one that could potentially blow open our conceptions of what happened in Houla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The video report from ANNA is covered in this story from SyriaNews. __meco (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I also got from the Tarpley interview this article from the Vatican news agency Agenzia Fides which relates to threats against Roman Catholic and Alawite residents following Friday's massacre. __meco (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This video posted on YouTube today is in Arabic, and its blurb translates via Google Translate as "Free Hour - Meeting with Murad Musin, Vice Chairman of the Russian Committee for Solidarity with the people of the Syrian and Libyan." I don't know yet which network this is. Apparently the claim presented here is that the UN observers were present during the massacre, that they were directly involved. An English translation of this program is said to be forthcoming. __meco (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's Press TV's article based on the Tarpley interview. He mentions a third source, in addition to the two I've already outlined: "Belgian website with an author called Vox Clamantis which describes, in detail, how it was done that the hospital in Houla was burned down and the people that had been taking refuge in it were systematically massacred from up-close by the death squads not by the government." I haven't investigated this source yet. __meco (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RT and PressTV are not reliable sources. Even check the RS noticeboard. Additionally those sources are a minority view points. Both RT and PRess TV uphold the "alqaeda' narrative of the Syrian government intentionally, further making them unreliable. Sopher99 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation of the above: "Anything that contains content that Sopher99 doesn't like is not reliable." This is a pattern repeated word-for-word on any article he has editied. Meowy 15:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Translation of the above: "I don't approve of Sopher99's awareness that the majority of sources that uphold the Syrian government's narrative are not RS." Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Translation : ' anything that contains facts that meowy finds uncomfortable will be attacked and ridiculed and undermined' Sayerslle (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And here's an RT article from May 28 that we seem to have overlooked. It also corroborates the alternative narrative which all of the above tend to point toward. I'm unable to do further work on any of this today. __meco (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% opposed to some version of this eventually being added, but this still seems very much the minority viewpoint (relying on YouTube videos, etc.). Let's see if more famous and well-regarded organizations pick it up as well: Al Jazeera, BBC, New York times, etc. Khazar2 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This entire argument is useless considering Robert Mood and the monitors say the villagers blame pro-Assad Shabiha. Shabiha are litterally identified as thugs. Thugs are bandits. Sopher99 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't dismiss these witnesses by claiming they are describing Shabiha. They are clearly siding with the government soldiers against those who attacked the soldiers.

"Police road posts were attacked. All soldiers were killed, and then they attacked our villages, torched a hospital in Al-Hula."

"Bandits killed our pharmaceutist near his pharmacy just because he has treated a wounded soldier."

"Thousands of thugs from the Al - Rastan attacked the town, killed all the soldiers at checkpoints. Burned the city hospital."

Correspondent:

"Al-Jazeera shows clips supposedly from the Tal - Dow and Al-Hula, how you look at it?"

Syed Abdul Wahhab:

"Al-Jazeera - it's a lying channel, the whole world knows that. We don't believe what they say because we are seeing it with my own eyes."

And it goes on and on. These witnesses are not to be misunderstood. __meco (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you know they are witnesses from Houla, couldn't they be "witnesses" from the neighboring Alawite villages. We have over a dozen RS media claiming the opposite - That pro assad shabiha are responsible.

The source you gave says al jazeera is a lying channel and not to trust what you see.... yet Al jazeera's footage is from the UN monitoring missions itself... so yeah... Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The video clearly states that these are residents from Tal - Dow (Taldou) and Al-Hula. __meco (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that all foreign media in Syria is accompanied and guided by government minders and soldiers (unless they snuck into Syria). Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a Russian journalist who lives in Damascus. Given Russia's historically close relations with Syria it's quite possible this outfit is afforded the freedom of travel which western journalists are not given. __meco (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And Alex thomsons report from inside the town of Houla, on Channel 4 the other night? yet , look, 'this is russian journalist who lives in damascus...'yeah - cynical. cynical. why not just add sourced material you want to the article, you have confidence in it obviously - it'll be in the edit history - be proud of the material you want to add meco. go for it. Sayerslle (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First, youtube video cannot be used as RS. Second, Press TV is not reliable source. Third, reliability of something like ANNA is heavily questionable and should be firstly presented on RS Noticeboard before even thinking about adding it to the article. As for my personal opinion, video lies. Village is rebel-occupied and only journalist on the ground was Channel 4 correspondents. No one else. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested an assessment at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Abkhazian Network News Agency showing video interviews with Houla massacre survivors (plus Syria News). __meco (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The ANNA is completely unreliable I should point out. Its a news source only about Syria, made in 2011, only in Russian, and fully takes on the Syrian governments narratives

Here is some of their headlines, translated through google translate

"France must not blindly follow the U.S. in their crusades"

"Syria news: Al-Hula - ordinary fascism, the first witness"

" "Humanists" have once again prepared to attack the chosen victim"

Sopher99 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have simply reposted your post from WP:RSN. I suggest we await the result of the inquiry at that noticeboard. Also, you might want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Indentation. __meco (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

When I posted to the WP:RSN, I realized I had not made that point on the Talk, so I went ahead and did so. Sopher99 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

are you accusing Channel 4 News of lying ? meco. Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see where that question came from. I don't think I've written anything that reflects my personal would-be opinion on that particular source. __meco (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What he is saying is that if Channel 4 was the only news media to get into rebel controlled Houla and Taldou - then they were the only media to interview residents there (Any other "interviews" are fake) Sopher99 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just heard Sarah Whitsun?, HRC, on radio, not sure of spelling of her surname, and she said quite clearly, 'we have spoken to survivors and documented their accounts and their belief were government security forces' - the U.N, HRC, channel 4 News, the townspeople, thats their belief - versus the regime itself, - whatever ANNA is, and its dystopian, distinctly Orwellian, header, 'truth explaining facts, facts supporting truth ' - its beyond parody aint it? (truth explains facts! - shouldnt that be facts define truth?-its almost a kind of acknowledgement that their ideological? sectarian? preferences will precede the facts in deciding things) - and russians, 'who might be afforded the freedom of travel'- and press tv - say good night to the folks, gracie Sayerslle (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should place so much confidence in Google Translate. __meco (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

what does the header translate as then? i clicked on the link you supplied and thats the first thing I read - this orwellian header - i didnt ask google to translate anything. it doesn't matter anyhow. i don't see why you don't just add what you want, be responsible for your edits, - kind of 'put up or shut up' - if you say, 'oh i dunno, i'm not sure whether its RS or not - got to ask the grown-ups' - that indicates to me you know bloody well its a load of bs. should be ashamed of yourself. Sayerslle (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH and it was me who suggested to bring this to WP:RSN, not meco. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot of heat appears to be being expended on whether these sources are reliable. However, even if found to be "reliable sources" (which, frankly, would surprise me), wouldn't this still fall under WP:DUE as an enormously minority viewpoint? If these claims start be to picked up by major world media organizations, the RS problem is solved; if they're not picked up by established reliable sources--which have covered the Houla massacre daily, and extensively--I'm not sure their fringe theories deserve article space per WP:FRINGE. Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are applying a frame of reference for the comparison of the two sides that is frankly not appropriate. We're not discussing claims of having found an alternative medical treatment for cancer or the purported invention of a free energy device. We are dealing with a sovereign nation which is experiencing tremendous atrocities and sufferings of its people. In that context WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE can hardly be applied as with matters such as the two examples I just gave. Because the entire international community is against North Korea or were against Ghaddafi, that didn't mean we don't or didn't fully cover the other side of those stories when we have the sources available. Also, it's not like there's a plethora of alternative theories for what happened either. There's the version of the UN and the opposition and there's the version of the government. Surely all acceptable sources for the other side, and we know they are few, should be welcomed! I'd like your comment on this, Khazar2. __meco (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:DUE is that it applies to all articles: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" about those specific views."

We've already given the Syrian govt. a reasonable amount of page space for its retort, I think, and I'd have no problem adding 2-3 sentences on Iran in the international reactions section. But the non-Shabiha view appears very much a "tiny minority" right now, and I think we need to treat it as such until it's discussed more widely in mainstream reliable sources. (For now, we don't appear to have established that even a minority of mainstream secondary sources are addressing this view.) I could be wrong, though--especially as I've been without Internet access for 2 days or so--and will be happy to help keep an eye out for evidence to the contrary. Khazar2 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@ meco 'theres the version of the U.N. and the opposition..' - what about the townspeople meco - you've written them out of the account entirely now - wow - and does the U.N have a single version - arent Russian federation and china on the security council - are you 4 real or just stirringSayerslle (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Meco's done a lot of hard work on this article; even beyond the basic principle of assuming good faith, I feel like he's clearly earned good faith, even if I disagree with him in this instance. I suggest we keep this focused on the proposed text and not personalities. Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

what text exactly is proposed? - to set out exactly what text is thought desirable to be included - is a good idea Sayerslle (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is someone able to decipher the Arabic text to the following video? It shows children who have been executed wearing Syrian government flag wristbands. It is supposedly of the Houla massacre, but we need confirmation of this. This could change general opinion of this. Please watch the video and let me know. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=705_1338379800 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

1, Liveleak is not RS. Just as YT or FB. So nothing will be confirmed.

2, Throughout whole video no one talks. Editing video and adding there unoriginal text can do every monkey with access to the video editor program.

3, Syrian opposition used current flag till fall of the last year when they exchanged it for the pre-Baath. Meanwhile many children died. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

-You're kidding me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"If these claims start be to picked up by major world media organizations, the RS problem is solved; if they're not picked up by established reliable sources--which have covered the Houla massacre daily, and extensively--I'm not sure their fringe theories deserve article space per WP:FRINGE." khazar wrote that above. seems about right. Sayerslle (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative version of events

This article sheds new light on the massacre. It appeared last Friday (8 June) on the front page of Germany's most prestigious newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here is a rough translation of the relevant paragraphs: "In recent days, Syrian opposition members from the area were able to reconstruct the probable course of events in Houla relying on credible eyewitness accounts. Their results contradict the rebels' claims, who had blamed Shabiha militias close to the régime for the crime. ... The fighting started when Sunni insurgents attacked the three Syrian Army checkpoints around Houla. The checkpoints had been set up to protect the Alawite villages around the predominantly Sunni Houla against attacks. A checkpoint that had been attacked called in support from units of the Syrian army which maintains a base 1,500 meters from the site and promptly sent reinforcements. In the battles around Houla, which reportedly lasted for some 90 minutes, dozens of soldiers and rebels were killed. During the fighting, the three villages of Houla were sealed off from the outside world. According to the eyewitnesses this was when the massacre occurred. They say that the killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to the Alawite and Shiite minorities in Houla, which is more than ninety percent Sunni. Thus, several dozen members of a family were slaughtered which had converted in recent years from Sunni to Shiite Islam. Moreover, members of the Alawite family Shomaliya were killed as well as the family of a Sunni member of parliament, because he was considered a collaborator. Immediately after the massacre, the perpetrators allegedly filmed their victims, presented them as Sunni victims and spread the videos via the Internet. Representatives of the Syrian government confirmed this version, but pointed out that the government had agreed not to speak publicly of Alawites and Sunnis."--41.205.52.190 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If that source is RS then why not add it if you think that right . i've never heard of the paper, but the wp article indicates it is probably RS - a rightish german paper - i don't understand "Syrian opposition members from the area were able to reconstruct the probable course of events in Houla - their results contradict the rebels claims " - I thought the opposition and the rebels were one and the same - I believe the most widely reported version of events in RS is still reflected better by , for eg, this in the guardian - i think the german paper isnt clear exactly who its sources are for this version - the guardian is clear - the german paper says 'Syrian opposition members' - and opposition members who come up with a version that Assad/putin will love. seems odd to me. the narrative is obviously contested. Sayerslle (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very unclear about its sources. Still, it's very much a mainstream newspaper. __meco (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

True, the article's sources are not very clear, but the newspaper is very mainstream and their Middle East correspondent Rainer Herrmann is quite renowned so the assumption is he would not just publish any hearsay unless he believed it to be serious. 'Opposition' is a broad term, and of course opinions between local fighters ('rebels') and political activists ('opposition') may diverge. The obvious way of checking this would be to find out the names and religious denominations of the victims - but this is not for Misplaced Pages to do.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth including a sentence or two about this; if other reliable sources support this version, we can continue to expand. For now it's definitely a minority view, though--it appears to be the only paper reporting this--and needs to be treated as such. Khazar2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This corroborates the position by the Syrian government on the Houla massacre. Since we already present that, it would seem appropriate to juxtapose this information with that. __meco (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This article from Antiwar.com brings more on the Frankfurter Allgemeine account and others. __meco (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Look here for English report: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-houla-massacre-john-rosenthal# FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rosenthal is not reliable. During the Libyan civil war he was obsessed with making op-eds on how "Libyan rebels are alqaeda". I7laseral (talk)

Well. They are. http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/06/218969.html FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see identity of the perpetrator in that article? Alqaeda could be in Libya, doesn't mean the rebels are alqaeda. I am shocked of how lowly you interpreted that article. I7laseral (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm shocked that anyone can be so naive. But wait a couple of years, and most Westerners will regret they supported any armed uprisings in the Middle East instead of the peaceful ones. Only people there with fighting experience (apart from army and security personnel) are Islamists trained in Iraq and Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah you buy into the conspiracy theories. But you do realize that a proportion of alqaeda in Iraq were trained by and sent by the Syrian government to cause trouble for the United states occupation forces right? Now they are coming back home. I7laseral (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, so if that's the case, we agree on one thing: The armed opposition is Islamist. Doesn't matter who trained them. Whatever they say now, they'll turn on the West next once they get what they want. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't say that. All iI mean to say is that 500 out of 70,000 fighters are salifi. 20,000-30,000 civilian members, 40,000 core FSA fighters (out of 70,000-80,000 defectors), 1000-2000 tribal fighters, and 500 alqaeda, several dozen pershmega, several dozen libyans, and several dozen Hamas. And what does this have to do with the West? If the west really hated assad, they would have intervened a year ago. (and they can by the way, UN article 7) West needs Syrian government for stability with Israel. It was only 2 weeks ago that Ehud Barak said Israel had decided to end their Quasi friendship with Assad. I7laseral (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you have it broken down better than the opposition itself. As for the Israelis, they're too confused about the Arab Spring to be coherent. They seem to have taken the road of "let the Arabs kill each other", that saves them the bullets. Doesn't keep them from inciting, though. First time Netanyahu ever gave a damn about the lives of Arabs: http://charismanews.com/world/33494-netanyahu-condemns-syrian-massacre-of-civilians FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Coincides with their announcement of "changing their minds about Assad", doesn't it? You should not interpret the conflict as a proxy war. Syria accused America of inciting things, until articles came out revealing how the United States actually stopped Turkey from arming the opposition and creating buffer zones, believing such actions were "going to fast". There is a common consensus that all that talk from Qatar and Saudi Arabia about arming the opposition were BS, and no state has yet to take any arming action, but according to the Washington post, the USA is currently "investigating" or "vetting" on whether to give a green light. I7laseral (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why they don't go all in is the same I've mentioned above. They're simply afraid of empowering al-Qaeda types, they've repeatedly said this. And rightly so. It certainly isn't out of love for Assad. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility

It seems that this Misplaced Pages article is asserting the POV that the Assad regime and/or its allies bear responsibility for the massacre, but there does not seem to be a general consensus for this view. An article was recently published in the National Review, a publication generally considered neoconservative and certainly not known for being anti-war or pro-Assad, which reports that rebel forces were probably responsible for most of the civilian deaths in Houla .

The NRO article cites a few different sources - one being the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article , and in addition accounts in Dutch and French from church sources in Syria .

In any event, these articles and reports should carry at least as much weight as those blaming the Syrian government for the massacre. Especially so when one considers that your typical AP article attributing whatever atrocity to the Assad government is prefaced with something along the lines of "According to opposition activists..." Surely these men and women of the clergy have at least as much credibility as some unnamed "activists." -Helvetica (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because the RS dont support your pro-Assad leanings and desire to claim the regime is innocent of everything. the clergy are pro-Assad arent they? just add the material , lay it alongside - why do all the ASsad stasi state lovers all run to talk pages to start whining - just add what you like lay it alongside - take the sodding tag away - its disingenuous. If RS deliver a narrative that you don't like that is not a breach of npov.Sayerslle (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of the FAZ report should be included, but a majority of reliable sources continue to report the Shabiha as the perpetrators, or the most likely perpetrators. The NRO source is just a blog post rehashing that report. The Dutch opinion writer adds a small bit of weight, but the French report seems to be about another incident entirely. Let's put it in, but to give equal weight to what remains a very isolated claim would be disingenuous. Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you put in, do you even know if any of them are RS? I7laseral (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

FAZ clearly is; I'd be surprised if the Dutch source turned out to be. Since it has no new reporting, the NRO source isn't particularly relevant except for determining prominence of the claim. But the NRO is a respected enough publication that its reporter's blogs are probably still considered RS. Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should put the FAZ in. They site "eye witness accounts" , yet they had no reporters on the ground. the only reporter on the ground was from Channel 4 news. the rest is the observers and Mood. Mood said that all witnesses reported shabiha. FAZ has a conservative bias, says so on it's wiki. Furthermore I request that even if we do put in the article, we get a user to professionally translate the article. We should not trust John Rosenthall, as he is not reliable. 3/4ths of John Rosenthall's past articles were about accusing the Libyan rebels of being "alqaeda". I7laseral (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But blog posts and opinion pieces are good enough to back up ridiculous claims (Shia slogans on foreheds, etc.)? That's quite some double standards. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am putting forward that we get user accustomed to translating the articles to translate the FAZ article into English, and use that translated article as a source, If we do determine the FAZ article to be remotely reliable. I7laseral (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The only one who isn't a reliable source, I7laseral, is you. Incorporate that FAZ article into this article. I don't see the justification from the opposition. All I see is some emotional responses getting in the way of academic neutrality. If you want to sport your opinion, go to a political science forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks for adding this recent development. It seems to me, we will only get closer to the truth once they figure out who the victims were - pro-Assad Alawite family or anti-Assad. This german articles says the german government is not convinced it's clear what happend in Houla http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/syrien-syrische-wahrheiten--syrische-luegen,10808018,16329698.html Kmonos (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The UN monitors and Robert mood all said that the residents and survivors say that Shabiha killed them. Channel 4 news, the only news on the ground in Houla, reported that all the locals said that is was shabiha that committed the massacre. Houla is a Sunni town, there are no Alawites in Houla. Houla has been a protest hub for over a year. I7laseral (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the whole talk page ;) We'll probably have to wait years until the truth comes out - at least until after the war. But you have to admit: there are credible sources stating the opposite of the current consensus. Kmonos (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Greatly outnumbered by hundreds of sources not stating the opposite, including the UN and Channel 4 news (aka the only nonpartisan media and observers on the ground in Houla). I7laseral (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same facts. And in each comment you make it sound like there's lots of sources when really it's just one: the report created by the UN team after questioning witnesses. Channel4 and everyone else is just reporting these findings. They are reliable, they are in the article. I'm not sure what your point is. Kmonos (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually CHannel 4 had a correspondent on the ground who interviewed residents himself. My point is that in reality there are only 2 legitimate nonpartisan sources. I7laseral (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To call the UN report "just one" is misleading in any case. The point is that this is the report that a majority of reliable sources have given the most weight to, followed by the reports of various activist groups, followed by the Syrian govt's version, with the FAZ report trailing a very, very distant fourth (it's only been mentioned one other place so far that we know of). I propose that our article follow the same structure, accurately summarizing our reliable sources. When the FAZ report is given weight by groups like Al Jazeera, BBC, the New York Times, Reuters, CNN, Le Monde, etc., then I'll be more convinced that it's not just a fringe theory. No reason yet to upend the article over one report in one newspaper, that was re-posted on one American reporter's blog. Khazar2 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

-Yeah, because we know Al Jazeera is so reliable. It's headquarters are only in a country dictated by a monarchy that has openly announced its support for the rebels. The double standard here is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 07:50, June 13, 2012‎ (UTC)

Interesting. Are all the other organizations I mentioned headquartered there, too? Khazar2 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

An international NGO, International Movement for a Just World, now also echoes the FAZ claims that the rebels are responsible for this massacre. (cached) __meco (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's progress, but still clearly a minority viewpoint. An NGO is rarely a reliable source. Khazar2 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That "NGO" is a conspiracy website founded by the president of malaysia. It has no credibility whatsoever, and is very close to being statemedia. Sopher99 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Khazar2's first comment in this thread.Kmonos (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Those claims seem unfounded from my research. Do you have any sources for those claims? __meco (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made an inquiry at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard with regard to you're argument calling the FAZ article fringe theory. You might consider changing your opinion or your argument, at least based on the early responses on that noticeboard. __meco (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, fringe or whatever, I am sceptical about giving any sort of precedence to state-run media. At the very least it is obviously not neutral. And I don't see how you can call that an NGO (it stands for Non-Governmental Organization, in case you didn't know...).--Yalens (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

National Review, a Western conservative newspaper is publishing reports that the massacre may have been carried out by rebels. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-houla-massacre-john-rosenthal# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

thats the same german report regurgitated Sayerslle (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But more legitimate news media sources are reporting this, giving an extended notion of credence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Various news sources are saying that the Houla massacre should be reconsidered. Click on the link and take your pick of the various new sources detailing this. http://news.google.com/news/story?q=houla+massacre&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnsu&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1680&bih=952&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dXiOrlPXSwmXCAMgLjCbSG3X7483M&ei=gmDZT5HDK-SI2gWmu4ivBQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=3&ved=0CEAQqgIwAg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 03:59, June 14, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not one of those sites isn't a conspiracy theory website. I7laseral (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

... and you might consider re-reading the above thread. I've said several times that the FAZ report should be included in some form; I just don't see any reason to give it anywhere close to equal weight of the demonstrably majority viewpoint. If thousands of our reliable sources report one version, and four report another (and this appears to be where the numbers are so far), it's absurd to argue that the latter be given equal weight to the former; that's the main thing I was trying to point out here. Khazar2 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Another national review article has confirmed that the information in the FAZ article comes directly from information provided by the pro-assad conspiracy website Syriantruth. I will now be removing the FAZ article from wikipedia. FAZ did not name or provide any information unto to who these "witnesses" are. No RS has echoed their reports - in fact the opposite has just happened. This RS article reports the information in the FAZ article directly comes from conspiracy partisan sites.

• http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302606/assad-s-houla-propaganda-aymenn-jawad-al-tamimi#

I7laseral (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Another national review article has confirmed that the information in the FAZ article comes directly from information provided by the pro-assad conspiracy website Syriantruth." It hasn't - it has shown that the version of the FAZ is quite similar to that of the pro-Assad outlets. In an article from yesterday, Rainer Hermann sticks to his version: Syrien: Eine Auslöschung. Instead of deleting the FAZ article, it should be mentioned with the NR criticism. --GirasoleDE (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider any of the main stream media as reliable sources. They seems to blame everything on the government of Bashar al-Assad and often overlook the complexity of the situation in Syria. Here is a alternative source that is not the "Western" main stream media nor the media of al-Assad or his allies.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/06/12/joe-lauria-7/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.152 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory website. Why do you think its called "antiwar" I7laseral (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:I7laseral Let's look at all the edit wars you get in I7laseral, you appear to operate not with academic integrity, but with a political agenda. You're the last person to be critiquing a sources reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2 warning about engaging in edit conflicts in the past year. Not alot. Also in neither case did I break the 3 revert rule. You have a political agenda of vandalizing pages with pro-assad flotsam. I7laseral (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There you go again, you use the word 'vandalizing' every time somebody makes a contribution that contends with your position on this conflict. Please keep your points of view neutral, and I will do the same. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I´ll just throw my opinion here. FAZ is reliable source and as such it should be included in the article. Same goes for this article which raises many good points and questions the reliability of the FAZ report. As for antiwar.com and other conspiracy websites, keep it for yourself, they are useless on any semi-decent wikipedia article. And at the end keep in mind WP:DUE EllsworthSK (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rainer Herrmann has responded to criticism in a further article, strongly reiterating his version of events which he sums up as follows: "After Friday prayers on 25 May more than 700 gunmen organized in three groups under the leadership of Abdurrazzaq Tlass and Yahya Yusuf, coming from Rastan, Kafr Laha and Akraba, attacked three army checkpoints near Taldou. The rebels, who were superior in numbers, and the (mostly also Sunni) soldiers fought a bloody battle in which two dozen soldiers, most of them conscripts, were killed. During and after the fighting rebels, supported by residents of Taldou, exterminated the entire families of Sayyid and Abdarrazzaq. They had refused to join the opposition." To my mind, it has now become untenable to exclude this detailed and well-researched point of view, held by a prominent and reliable source, from the introduction and the body of the article.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

herrmann doesnt mention Alex THomsons reports , seems ignorant of them, says its all the UN's version. Has Herrmann visited the place? THomson did. was in the area at the time and days afterwards. and herrmann? this says he is in Damascus. yet he knows better than THomson?Sayerslle (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I could react on more parts but this is a bloody joke. Syrian government stated that 3 soldiers died not two dozen, Tlass is a commander of al-Farouq brigades, biggest organized unit in whole FSA and thinking that he is leading an attack from Homs where he is stationed, most crucial battlefield in whole conflict, into the completely useless countryside is strange. As for Taldou, we have journalist who was on scene. He reported that all civilians from small part of the town controlled by army left for rebel-held areas while Hermann is saying (based on unnamed second-hand source) that residents took to the arms to defend their town against bloodthirsty invaders (and than apparently were completely OK with them taking control over it). Herrmann is also ignoring issue of shelling which was denied repeatedly by Syrian government, yet confirmed by UN team and witnessed by CH4 news team while they were visiting nearby Alawite village in order to get information about Shabiha and their activity. Alawites from those villages also said that those killed were sunnis, although in their version of events massacre was result of sunni tribial feud. Maybe if Hermann would be using more sources than the one who is releasing government propaganda reports to conspiracy website which claims that Beslan massacre was CIA organized and sources which he does not bother to name or identify I would be reluctant to doubt the established facts about the event. One way or another my point stands, include his claims into the article, together with criticism. Due to WP:DUE do not give it the same weight as already presented facts which we have from third-party UN team on the ground and journalist who managed to go into the area and spend there time in both rebel-controlled and government-controlled villages. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Hermann holds a Ph.D. in Syrian history, has studied in Damascus and speaks Arabic. As far as I know, Alex Thomson does not speak Arabic. So his talking to the witnesses is as tainted by POV and transmission as everything else in Syria. If you read his accounts of Houla carefully, you will notice that while he has been to the place, his observations seem rather scarce and superficial. This is not saying that he's got it wrong and Hermann's got it right, just that his testimony is not of infinitely superior value. Rainer Hermann is the senior Middle East correspondent of Germany's leading newspaper. He is taking a considerable risk if his story (running very much against the editorial line of his own newspaper) should be proven erroneous.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you don´t know if Thomson speaks Arabic. Major news channels do not have habit of sending their correspondents into foreign warzone without knowledge of local language. Second, even if he hadn´t he was with UN team composed partially of soldiers from Arabic countries (like Yemen) which may very easily provide translation service. Third, I read Thomson reports several times, I found no evidence of scare or superficial value, I think you are attributing to his style of writing something that isn´t there. Fourth, his story had to go through proper newspaper channels, specifically editor-in-chief. It was approved by him and therefore if his claims are rebutted (what, frankly, largely already were giving usage and history of his sources) main guilt will fall on editor-in-chief who approved it. And fifth, given the reliability in my personal opinion we follow the line of 1. reliable, third-party source who was on site of event (UN team, CH4) 2. Reliable source inside the country of event (in this case FAZ) 3. Reliable source outside the country of event (like BBC or CNN) 4. Unreliable source from participant in conflict (like SOHR and SANA in this case). EllsworthSK (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes and before I forget, I can easily provide you with an example of reliable source inside the country of event posting utter bollocks. During Libyan civil war, Telegraph senior correspondent, who was stationed in Benghazi, Damien McElroy reported that Sudanese armed forces crossed the borders and seized town of Kufra and surrounding territory, including strategic oil fields in Cyrenaica. Despite being in country (not that far away from Kufra, mind you), despite speaking arabic, depite having contacts in NTC (from whom he had those informations), Benghazi local council and NLA (rebel army) he reported this. Turns out nothing like that happened. Ever. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys who are suppressing the FAZ report -- you are a total disgrace. Apparently it's fine to publicise, eg, the claims of one biased individual living in London (aka 'The Syrian Observatory on Human Rights'), but no mention of an alternative narrative will be allowed, even when it comes straight from the 'respectable' Western media. As for the lazy 'conspiracy theory' arguments, perhaps you would like to explain why the idea that the biggest powers in the world, clearly bent on invading Syria, might stage a 'false flag' attack in order to get the public onside, is (apparently) transparently ludicrous? You are utterly naive about history and how the world works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to broaden your horizons a little, you could have a look at some examples of "Western Governments admit Carrying out "False Flag" Terror" (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17663) (and please don't complain that it's a 'conspiracy website': the article links are to sources from your beloved 'reliable' Western media). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a conspiracy website, and it does not link to any RS. Furthermore the government has been committing massacres since Spring 2011. They have committed massacres before that too, such as in Aleppo in 1980 and Hama 1982. There is no "invasion plan". The west had well over a year to intervene in Syria under UN article 7 (which allows nations to bypass sec council for humanitarian missions). I7laseral (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How come the killing of Islamist fighters only count as "massacres" when done by Syria, and not by Israel and the US? Preposterous. As for conspiracies against Syria.... FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

....Because Syria is not killing islamists fighters, they are killing civilians living in protesting areas (and more recently fsa areas). Furthermore what you showed me was a thinktank set up by netanyahu. Not a conspiracy theory. Of course Israel wants to develop strategies against syria and lebanon. Duh. I7laseral (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, but Israeli "strategies" usually end up influencing American policies. As for the Syrian army not killing Islamists, well, I think you're alone with that idea, not even the most ardently anti-Assad folks seem to agree. And I was referring to 1982 in any case. Yes, civilians are being killed, but by both sides. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Lasreal, you are either lazy or a liar: all the links in the article are to 'reliable sources' such as the New York Times, Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald etc. I encourage others to check the link and prove this to themselves. Secondly, of somewhat more direct relevance to the issue at hand, people might be interested in this blog post by the BBC world news editor, Jon Williams (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html), which includes the observation: In such circumstances, it's more important than ever that we report what we don't know, not merely what we do. In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic death toll aside, the facts are few: it's not clear who ordered the killings - or why. Given the difficulties of reporting inside Syria, video filed by the opposition on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube may provide some insight into the story on the ground. But stories are never black and white - often shades of grey. Those opposed to President Assad have an agenda. One senior Western official went as far as to describe their YouTube communications strategy as "brilliant". But he also likened it to so-called "psy-ops", brainwashing techniques used by the US and other military to convince people of things that may not necessarily be true. A healthy scepticism is one of the essential qualities of any journalist - never more so than in reporting conflict. The stakes are high - all may not always be as it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

'Given the difficultiesof reporting within Syria ...' why is that then? yet Channel 4s Alex Thomson did manage it anyhow - and observed the area days afterwards - In the Battle of Midway the japanese regime said only one c arrier was sunk - regimes are capable of lying too and seek to control journalists. if they could be free in syria to report - fine - better. Sayerslle (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I never suggested that the Syrian regime was incapable of lying! -- the point at hand is whether alternative narratives on the events at Houla should be suppressed outright, even when they come from established western media sources like the FAZ (I also noted the double standard operating whereby people who are nothing more than anti-Assad propagandists get space in the article). Incidentally, you mention Alex Thomson: I wonder if you came across his admission that his FSA handlers deliberately, though unsuccessfully, led him to be killed (see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/08/alex-thompson-syrian-rebels). This would suggest a fairly sophisticated understanding of 'false flag' operations on the part of the FSA, and also a confidence that any Western journalist killed in Syria would immediately be blamed (by the oh-so-independent-and-"reliable" Western media) on the Syrian government, and that any suggestion of another explanation dismissed as 'lunatic conspiracy theory'.

Also, I want to emphasise again that the editor Laseral is either pathologically lazy (too much so to even hover his mouse above the hyperlinks in an article), or a deliberate liar (" does not link to any RS" when the hyperlinks are almost exclusively to 'RS's) -- in either case, it should not give anyone much confidence as to his editorial judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Added to that, Laseral claims baldly that "UN article 7 allows nations to bypass sec council for humanitarian missions)". I wonder if he himself has looked up that ludicrous claim (I say 'ludicrous' because the idea that any member state could bypass the rule of the Security Council would utterly undermine the entire structure and purpose of the UN). In any event, I did, and you can read the entire Chapter (not article) VII here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml. Now, there is absolutely nothing on that page which suggests the West could simply 'bypass sec council for humanitarian missions'. Again, Lazyunreal plays fast and loose with the facts, and I suggest other editors should treat his claims with a massive dose of scepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

regarding "bypass sec council for humanitarian missions". This is indeed somewhat possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 Kmonos (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Without acceding your argument, I will make a couple of points in agreement with what you write. It does seem somewhat of a paradox how we happily have been promulgating the claims originating with the Syrian Observatory, which has not been evidenced by other than its own claims to be other than a one-man propaganda office, simply because the mainstream media does so. However, now, when it comes to the contrasting information emerging out of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and its senior reporter, many editors here find it imperative that we exert all kinds of checks and considerations on the possible chinks in the journalistic craftsmanship and editorial oversight upon which that is founded. My sense is that some of the current discussion along this avenue goes beyond propriety with respect to WP:RS and WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTH.

My second point of agreement also undermines the argument presented just above by EllsworthSK which asserts an apparent lack of logic in that a would-be launch of a military operation by a Homs-based FSA commander "into the completely useless countryside is strange." This argument is based on an absent ability to conceive of the Houla operation being waged specifically for the aim of subsequently spinning it as a government attack, i.e. a false flag operation. And that claim has been presented by many so it ought not have been beyond the range of the imagination of anyone actively editing this article. __meco (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and coincidentally it also goes in line with Syrian regime propaganda which was unable to identify any more leaders of armed opposition, so they regularly write about Abdul-Razzak Tlass and like to accuse him of everything, ranging from terrorist attacks to kidnapping, presenting him as the biggest terrorist in Syria (his uncle must be proud). He is ignoring fact that he is stationed in Homs, not countryside (for that they are other commanders of units which commands them, read this article which will give you some insight about FSA in al-Ghouda area - the one where Houla is), also is ignoring the fact that Houla area was rebel-controlled prior to the massacre, ignoring residents testimonies, ignoring HRW report with survivors, ignoring CH4 interview with survivors, ignoring shelling. So you want it in the article? By my guest, it is RS after all. But don´t try to convince me that this FAZ report is logical and not just bunch of unsourced BS which has incredible amount of holes which editor never bothered to give any answers on. And IP should not ever bother to link me something on globalsource.ca, maybe you like to read articles from self-proclaimed CIA asset Susan Lindauer and most useless congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who both believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but not the rest of the world. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

'And IP should not ever bother to link me something on globalsource.ca'... touched a nerve did I? And yet my point was that if you were not so lazy, and/or allergic to a point of view different from your own, you would have realised that the article *links directly* to articles from the mainstream, "reliable" Western media! Sheesh!

On another note, and to try to cool things down a little (mea culpa), it appears we have some common ground here: putting the FAZ article (at least) as a source in the page. On that note, I can't find any 'official' translation, so it appears the options are to a) link directly to the German article, b) link to one of the blogs/non-mainstream websites which have cited it, or c) go with some kind of unofficial translation (I've seen one here http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/06/new-faz-piece-on-houla-massacre-the-extermination.html) Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you are new here and therefore know nothing about wikipedia guidelines but read the WP:RS before you start playing smart. And if you ever bothered to read the articles it links to, you´d know that globalresearch.ca demagogically put the claim out of context in order to create their impression of false flag operation which they use in later articles for 9/11 and that is exactly the reason why globalresearch.ca can never, ever be considered RS together with other sources you posted such as antiwar.com. Do not bother to post them again, it may have some weight on some anonymous forum you like to visit, not here. As for FAZ article, reference directly on FAZ website (even though it is in German), is ok. Than again when you do so, I will post the article I wrote about here in first post together with these two testimonies from Abdul Razaq family survivors, which FAZ claims to be Alawites, who says exactly the opposite of FAZ. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

'Playing smart?' How exactly? Or maybe it's just not playing dumb, like you? The article from globalresearch.ca links directly to articles from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html), the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Possible-police-role-in-2002-Bali-attack/2005/10/12/1128796591857.html), and the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/26/terrorism), among others. I never said globalreasearch.ca itself was an RS... neither did I post anything from antiwar.com (?)

As for your counter-sources, I would have thought they would be unnecessary, as the entire page is all about the government-is-responsible narrative, but you don't seem to be interested in presenting both sides in a neutral way (as recommended, incidentally, by Misplaced Pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why all these ad-hominem remarks and off-topic polemic? Everybody seems to be in agreement that FAZ ought to have a place in the article, preferably with a short clause in the introduction and a paragraph in the body of the article. It should be counterbalanced by the sources quoted by EllsworthSK, but in a way that marks it as debatable but not as absurd.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, done and done -- do your worst, mate! I'm outta here ;-)

PS, for anyone who's interested, I think this article is worth reading http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=683:the-houla-massacre-part-2-shades-of-grey&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69 -- of course, it's not a Misplaced Pages-deemed 'reliable source' (definition: a NATO-country media mega-corporation with a history of distorting the news in the interests of Western military interventions), but it quotes from them (mainly the BBC in this case), including this tidbit from the BBC's Paul Danahar: UN observers are hoping to soon investigate the latest reports of killings. Kofi Annan will be updating the UN today on his mission and on the massacre in Houla. Members of the international community in Damascus say that, contrary to initial reports, most of the people in Houla were killed by gunfire spraying the rooms, not by execution-style killings with a gun placed to the back of the head. Also people's throats were not cut, although one person did have an eye gouged out. (and you can see it at the 'real link' here, if you are unable to sift through unapproved media sources! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18348201)

As the website notes, These were crucial new claims challenging key aspects of the consensus on Houla - the media had been as one in reporting as established fact the horrific cutting of children’s throats, for example. It now appears that this was a fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

.....The UN has video of their corpses....not a fabrication.... I7laseral (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote above is from the BBC, more-or-less quoting the UN! Which one is a fabrication, Laz? I think your head is going to explode! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW guys, I know it's a little late now, but I would like to apologise for my overly aggressive tone. I probably won't come back on this page any time soon, but if I do, I'll make an effort to tone it down a little. Sayonara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

l7aseral, why do you revert mention of FAZ on the grounds that 'consensus has not been reached'? Who is objecting to the inclusion of this source? Even those who do not share its views have said here that it should appear in the article. I would challenge you to include it yourself in the manner you think proper, rather than suppressing a relevant POV on an as yet not fully investigated event.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually moved it to the aftermath section. I7laseral (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but that is not where it belongs. Hermann is not a voice reacting to the events, but claims to be reconstructing the events themselves. Also, one sentence is not enough to represent a source with a reference that is not in English. A few key phrases of his article in translation (available above) need to be included.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That is where it belongs. The aftermath sections has other claims by sources claiming shabiha as the perpetrators. The faz article is a very much minority view, with no sources from the ground (being as there were no journalist but channel 4), and contradicted the UN's claims and Channel 4's claim. It belongs in the aftermath section, regarding the accusations that occurred in the aftermath. Putting it in the aftermath also gives rooms to add the criticisms of the Faz article. I will add sentences though. I7laseral (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, Lazreal gets it wrong again: if you read the article itself, you would note that it cites anonymous witnesses from the area (anonymous because they were afraid to identify themselves to potential opposition reprisals); also that Russian journalist Marat Musin was in Houla and interviewed eyewitnesses; finally, that a Dutch freelance journalist spoke with nuns at an (apparently nearby) nunnery who corroborated the counter-narrative. Now, you can say that it's all BS, or that there are good counter-arguments to their stories (and maybe there are), but it simply isn't true to say that there are 'no sources on the ground' to back up the FAZ piece. (Of course, bald-faced untruths appear to be the editor in question's stock-in-trade).

What people like Laz and Ellsworth (ie, people utterly allergic to the very idea that there could be more to this story than the Western-media line) need to ask themselves is, IF their beloved 'RS' media is so trustworthy, why have details already changed? And why is the BBC world news editor suddenly so coy about assigning blame for the attack? (I cited his comment above, but to wit: 'In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic death toll aside, the facts are few: it's not clear who ordered the killings - or why.')

As for the burying and rubbishing of the reference in the article, that's par for the course, I guess, and it's what makes Misplaced Pages so useless (and time-consuming and soul-destroying for editors) on issues such as these: you get barrow-pushers who have no interest in 'presenting controversies' in neutral articles on contentious topics. That's not even touching on the issue of actual government operatives who are presumably monitoring and distorting the articles -- but then, to think that multimillion-dollar spy agencies dedicated to control of information flows would do anything about an encyclopaedia anyone can hop on and edit, that must be absolute tin-foil-hat madness, mustn't it? ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise IP with no history of wikipedia editing is suddenly an expert in everything related to it. After all, he has significant amount of knowledge from sites like globalresearch.ca. So I will write this one last time - ANNA was discussed not only here but also on admin noticeboard. It was established by broad consensus that it is not reliable source and your Russian journalist was never there as Houla is rebel-occupied up until this very day. Also there is no nearby nunnery, whole al-Houla region is sunni dominated with several Alawite villages, not one is christian or have any christian enclave. And given that you never even bothered to back this claim by any source I see no reason why I should give it any significance. So it is true that there is not one single, sole source on the ground to back up the FAZ piece, whether you like it or not. Also if you ever bothered to read that editorial in its context, you´d know that editor is writing about control of Shabiha militas by Assad regime and questions how much was this action ordered by government and whether it is not possible that Shabiha militia are acting that independently that they simply do not take orders. What, bytheway, is problem with militia in every conflict (Janjaweed or Impuzamugambi for example). Oh and yes, vile CIA agencies which control all world media of whom wikipedia and editors which follow its guidelines are petty tools and agents. Great talking to you, it won´t happen again. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know I should probably try and find the original discussion, but it seems a bit strange to me that a Misplaced Pages committee can somehow decide that the Russian journalist was 'never there'..? How exactly was that determined? And how neutral were the decision-makers?

This actually leads to my broader point, which is less about what actually happened in Houla than in Misplaced Pages editors taking a suppressing-of-information, rather than a presenting-the-controversy, approach. (In fairness, you yourself have shown willingness to accept the latter, which I respect.) My initial outburst came from the fact that everyone online with an ounce of interest in the Houla massacre - from whatever political standpoint - was discussing the FAZ article, and then you have Misplaced Pages deleting any mention of it from their page! Personally, I believe Misplaced Pages would be a much better source of information if a concise version of the discussion you mentioned was actually on the main page for regular readers to see. If the NATO-media story is as watertight as you seem to believe it is, such an approach would actually weaken, rather than strengthen, the claims you obviously think are erroneous.

Finally, this probably will be the last time I talk to you, but I would like to repeat my apology for my at times unnecessarily aggressive and unfriendly tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Channel4: I found several sources quoting Thomson (even directly on twitter talking to him) as "The jury’s out on exactly who did it – I don’t think we’ll ever know firmly..." but that line is now gone: http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/homs-utterly-worlds-coexist/1837 Can anyone confirm/deny that he wrote that? For example this: https://twitter.com/medialens/statuses/210320345381601282 I don't think medialense made that quote up and he is replying several times without denying he wrote this. Kmonos (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, the quote is actually from an interview rather than a blog, which is probably why you're having trouble finding it! You can watch it here: http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/homs-utterly-worlds-coexist/1837 In fairness to the supporters of the conventional narrative, Thomson doesn't really appear to be suggesting that the rebels committed the massacre: he finishes by opining that it is 'utterly incredible' (or some such) that it *wasn't* the Syrian government's (or at least pro-government militia's) doing, based I think on the idea that the artillery barrage stopped as the massacre happened, and only the government has heavy weapons. (Personally, I wouldn't see the logic as that straightforward, but hey). Anyway, hope that helps. From the unsigned IP address guy :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An opinion piece dated June 2 of Flemish-Belgian state media VRT here by Martin Janssen, a Dutch Arabist living in Damascus, mentions three sources: Fides, the Deir Mar Yakub (Jacques le Mutilé), Qara, monastery and two Russian journalists, Marat Musin en Olga Kulygina, who were in Houla on May 25. The piece introduces important nuance in the point still made in the infobox, that the government "alone" would be responsible. While a "failure to protect" seems inevitable, given the circumstances, it is not said, for me, that government is sole responsible. A third possibility (while we are of course not professional journalists) mentioned by a Xinhua version of the Sept. 17 CoI update by Pinheiro, evokes interference by "foreign elements" in the war's events. In the wake of recent reports of direct support by some countries to the rebels, i think it would be good to continue questioning the facts. Wakari07 (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Something that is also rarely mentioned is the role of US diplomat Karen Koning AbuZayd in the construction of the UN reports. What if the UN asked a North Korean diplomat to report on human rights in Israeli-occupied Palestine? There a huge probability in my view that this person will want to find the state of Israel responsible... I think it is false to consider her as neutral. Wakari07 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Navi Pallay, the UN human rights chief, who is Indian, says that the Syrian regime was responsible. The west is not a fan of Navi Pallay, as she likes to criticize Israel. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch agree that the vast majority of crimes are committed by the Syrian government and the Shabiha. Both organizations regularly criticize Israel's rights abuses. Erdogan also calls Assad a murderer, and Erdogan/Turkey is the SOURCE of the Gazan relief ships.

By the way the west did not start backing rebels with aid until May 2012 (this conflict has lasted since March 2011), so the west has little lack of neutrality. Any one in their right minds would give logistical aid and even coordinate weapons for the Free Syrian Army (particularly its defector sector). Sopher99 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Alawi Shia"

Hello. I am concerned that the article describes Alawis as "Alawi Shia". Now, the word "Shia" usually means Shia Twelvers, ie, the religion followed by Iran, Hezbollah and others. While the religion followed by the Syrian governing party is known as "Alawi" or "Nusayri". So I think that its a deliberate attempt to smear Shia Twelvers with guilt for this massacre, by describing the Alawis as "Alawi Shia". I feel that its a deliberate campaign by the people of the same ideology who just blew up 60 innocent Shia (Twelver) pilgrims in Iraq yesterday, to smear the reputation of Shias by any means necessary, even trying to implicate Shias in a massacre, in a conflict which does not even include Shia. So I think Alawis should be described as Alawis or Nusayris, and not Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.14.54 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i added the material from Channel 4 news - the written report - " he says (ie.the villager that Alex Thomson is speaking to) - and all agree - these men were Shia and Alawite who had come from specific Shia/Alawite villages.." which I take to mean the villager says some were Alawite and some were Shia, that is, not from the sub-Shiite sect of Alawites. Sayerslle (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Shia is an umbrella term for many sects, including Alawis, not just Twelvers. And for the record, just because the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated "Observatory for Human Rights" claims Alawis were behind it doesn't make it true, see discussion above. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

the villagers - alex thomsons reports - Sayerslle (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that Alawis are generally the most emphatic in support of the regime, the page incriminates them so many times it gets redundant. I just fixed one instance where it said "Shia and Alawite men, from Shia and Alawite villages".... is that really necessary? We all know that Alawis come primarily from Alawi villages, by definition. It looks like someone is just trying to use the phrases "Shia" and "Alawite" as many times as possible.--Yalens (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I may comment that all Alawis are Shia, so we should just mention once that the Alawi faith is a Shia sect, and then after that just say Alawi....--Yalens (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

New German article questioning the SOHR narrative

http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-another-german-journalist-has-doubts-about-houla-massacre-845.html FunkMonk (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrianews.cc is a conspiracy theory website. Everyone knowns that. I7laseral (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that that the article was not published there in the first place, so what's your point? FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

FAIR story: http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/06/14/was-houla-massacre-a-manufactured-atrocity/ FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

FAIR.org is not a RS.I7laseral (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested translation of the Berliner Morgenpost article. __meco (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eyewitnesses-contradict-claims-that-rebels-carried-out-houla-massacre-a-839593.html I7laseral (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also carried translated report of Russian journalist Marat Musin, who was on the ground: http://www.voltairenet.org/THE-HOULA-MASSACRE-Opposition Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Marat Musin original report published by ANNA? __meco (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

German articles

I was asked to provide details/translations on the German articles. So here it goes:

• Both of these papers, FAZ and Berliner Morgenpost are very reputable sources (as much or more so than the Guardian).
• The FAZ article from the 13th of June is by Rainer Hermann, FAZ's local correspondent in Damascus. He quotes the following witnesses who blame Sunni rebels:

• Nuns of the St Jacob Cloister in Qara, interviewed by Dutch journalist Martin Janssen. The nuns told Janssen that "700 armed rebels who came from the direction of Rastan assaulted a street barricade of the army just before Taldou; after the massacre they piled up the corpses of dead soldiers and civilians in front of the mosque; and the following they they told the UN observers in front of rebel-friendly cameras their version of the supposed massacre by the Syrian Army."
• Marat Musin, a Russian journalist for press agency Anna, who stayed in Houla on the 25th und 26th of May, became an eyewitness and also collected and published statements of other eyewitnesses which are counter the official statements

• The Berliner Morgenpost article from the 23rd of June contains an interview of Agnès-Mariam de la Croix, a nun from the cloister of St Jacob, as well as an eyewitness hiding in the cloister. The Morgenpost article is by Alfred Hackensberger, Arab/Middle East correspondent for German newspapers "Die Zeit", "Süddeutsche Zeitung", "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", "Standard", "taz" as well as "Sky News" who is usually based in Tangiers.

• The anonymous eyewitness, a man in his late 30s codenamed "Dschibril" by the Morgenpost journalist, reported the following :

"Fighting began around noon as the rebels who came from Ar-Rastan and Saan, attacked the checkpoints of the Army around Houla. The emplacements at the edge of the town near the hospital were overrun first. The soldiers fled and the rebels entered the hospital and killed patients there. Dschibril doesn't know why or how many were killed. Then different groups of armed men went into preselected houses and started shooting all the inhabitants. They did not harm the neighbours at all, recalls Dschibril.

He knew one of the two murdered families - the Sajids - personally. 'They were Sunni - like all of us. They were killed because they did not want to be part of the revolution.' They allegedly also killed the family of a member of parliament who insisted on his candidacy in the May election and refused to boycott the FSA. 'After the massacre, the rebels took all the corpses into the mosque' says Dschibril. He answers the question whether the loyalist Shabiha militia committed the massacre by saying that is 'total nonsense' and clicking his tongue."

"'Of course many people in Houla know what really happened,' says Dschibril.'But they all fear for their lives. Whoever opens his mouth there can only report the rebels' version; everything else means certain death.'"

-- Marcika (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

UN doesn't even pretend to know who did it

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/world/middleeast/syrian-pro-government-television-station-attacked.html FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The UN was not given access to the site by the Syrian government. This is the confusion of their report, they are not saying there aren't indicators. I7laseral (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's true the UN report leans more towards the government-/Shabibha-responsibility line, but the fact remains that, to quote the report: "48. The CoI considered the information available to it on the killings in Al-Houla in an impartial manner and considered carefully the prevailing views on the party responsible, determining that three were most likely in light of the evidence. First, that the perpetrators were Shabbiha or other local militia from neighbouring villages, possibly operating together with, or with the acquiescence of, the Government security forces; second, that the perpetrators were anti-Government forces seeking to escalate the conflict while punishing those that failed to support – or who actively opposed - the rebellion; or third, foreign groups with unknown affiliation. 49. With the available evidence, the CoI could not rule out any of these possibilities." NB, emphasis mine (read it here if you like: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/COI_OralUpdate_A.HRC.20.CRP.1.pdf - scroll down to secs 48 and 49). Of course, this can hardly compare to the judgements of certain illustrious editors who simply 'know' that any alternative to the NATO-media explanation is 'BS'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

PJ Media article about the alternative version: http://pjmedia.com/blog/general-mood-two-versions-of-the-houla-massacre/?singlepage=true

Wow -- that article contains an absolute bombshell which should give even editors Lazreal and Ellsworth ('there is not one single source on the ground to back up the FAZ claim') pause: UN General Mood says, and I quote: 'We have interviewed locals with one story, and we have interviewed locals that has another story' (!!!!) SO, the head of the UN investigation team admits that locals have different accounts of what actually happened!

This pretty much explodes the entire thrust of this Misplaced Pages article (that the UN has essentially claimed the Syrian government were responsible, and that there is no evidence beyond one FAZ article that eyewitnesses said anything other than that it was Shabibha or government troops), but of course this isn't how the great Western 'Reliable Source' (not) media are covering the story, so... garbage in, garbage out, I guess. (Watch the video here; the relevant question is asked at around 2:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOTJdHTloLg&feature=relmfu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, hold your heels. Although I guess you are fan of everything that has in bold written shocking, this isn´t the case. CH4 correspondent which was there also technically got two different accounts, one from "resident" who was sole civilian in government controlled area who says that AQ did it and than admitted that he wasn´t even there when it happened and afterwards same story from everyone else when they entered populated area, controlled by rebels. As for RS here you go and now I am reverting it back to Shabiha being most likely penetrator by UN report. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Although I guess you are fan of everything that has in bold written shocking" I have no idea what you're trying to say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That is style usually used by tabloids. Shocking truth, shocking revelation and stuff like this with several question/exclamation marks just to get attention. 99 percent of time there is nothing new or interesting in there. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, that's a pretty good description of most of the SOFHR generated news the western press gobbles up every day ("Assad emails"? Chemical weapons? Gay girls in Damascus?). I think it's safe to say that this is where the sensationalism lies (alternative views are barely mentioned in the west). FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but I agree. I hold no love for SOHR, they are just other side of the conflict. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, did you actually watch the video? I strongly doubt the spin you're putting on it (ie that Mood was simply referring to one obvious nutter with a different story). Has it ever occurred to you that you may be guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of, namely, exaggerating (or, in your case, downplaying) any evidence that goes against your preconceived ideas? Also, here is an interesting article detailing the German scepticism about the NATO-media narrative, for anyone who's interested: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG24Ak02.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've added a link to that Asia Times Online piece in the article, as it quotes from Die Welt and Bild, two major German newspapers. I don't feel great about having to do such a 'secondary link', as it would be a lot nicer to link directly to the newspapers themselves (and I'm not sure exactly how Asia Times Online stacks up in the 'Reliable Source' stakes, regardless of how fundamentally bogus that is IMHO), but I'm not sure exactly what else can be done. Anyone have any idea how editors are supposed to deal with this kind of situation? (Ellsworth? You seem to be fairly au fait with Misplaced Pages procedures). I imagine it must be fairly common... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And the editor 'Lazreal' (or whatever his tag is) has deleted this with the comment 'unreliable source'. Which is the 'unreliable source' exactly: Asia Times Online, or Die Welt or Bild?? The whole point is that the latter sources are in GERMAN. I really feel this editor is simply determined to suppress any mention of anything that might undermine his view of the facts, which is in total violation of the rules of Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith, I am placing the paragraph here for now:

In addition to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, two other major German newspapers, Die Welt and Bild have suggested the rebels, rather than the Syrian government or pro-governement or militia, were responsible for the massacre. According to the translation supplied by the Asia Times Online, Bild correspondent Jurgen Todenhofer said the rebels had been "deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government", and that this "massacre-marketing strategy" was "among the most disgusting things that I have ever experienced in an armed conflict"

The problem is that it's relying on the Asia Times reporter to be faithfully reporting what the two German papers are saying, I guess (although I have to say I think 'Lasreal's *real* problem with it is that it undermines the story he is clearly wedded to). I guess we need to get German translations of the sources? Anyone? I'm too tired to get into edit-wars with clearly biased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

"UN investigators have reported that witnesses and survivors claimed that the massacre was committed by Shabiha. ... There it states that is has been unable to identify the perpetrators and that further investigations would be needed for that, but that evidence leans toward the shabiha." These statements are simply not borne out by the report of the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission does NOT regard the Shabiha as the "primary suspect", but formulates three equally possible scenarios (blaming, respectively, pro-government militia, opposition rebels, or foreign Arab fighters) amongst which it considers itself unable to decide on the basis of the available evidence. The report says this without the least ambiguity. It also adds a great lot more detail about what happens, which should be reflected both in the introduction and the following paragraphs. Specifically, the two alternative identities of the perpetrators (opposition rebels and foreign fighters) are so far entirely absent from the introduction, which only quotes the Syrian government's untrustworthy and generic allegation of a 'terrorist' background. While the UN investigators could not work in Houla itself, theirs is the only serious inquiry so far, and whoever reads it will see that it has been carried out in an extremely professional and detailed fashion.--207.237.104.75 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They do in fact say it leans towards shabiha, your wrong. I7laseral (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't read the UN's latest report that way. __meco (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, we are in no position to interpret it. That is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the report. Where does it say 'it leans towards the Shabiha'?--207.237.104.75 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it regrettable that established contributors to this article now appear to operate from an entrenched position on this issue. Here Sopher99 reverts back to the pre new UN report version without even bothering to make an argument. If Sopher99, I7laseral or others have strong arguments why the main suspicion for the attacks should be apportioned to the government still, they should present their case and allow for their premises and arguments to be examined and debated. __meco (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The report says in para 49: "With the available evidence, the CoI could not rule out any of these possibilities (i.e. the three scenarios of Shabiha, rebels or foreign fighters)." It adds in para 55: "The CoI is unable to determine the identity of the perpetrators at this time; nevertheless the CoI considers that forces loyal to the Government may have been responsible for many of the deaths." (referring back to the shelling). It is true, however, that Navi Pillay has stated "the bulk of the information gathered to date points to the involvement of government-supported Shabbiha militia responsible for many of the killings, and the use of indiscriminate fire of heavy weapons by the government." I would consider this an interpretation of the report which she is entitled to, but the fact remains that she has not been part of the inquiry herself. However that may be, all of this should be neutrally reflected in the article sine ira et studio.--207.237.104.75 (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

introduction

BTW, guys, the intro as it stands is (IMHO) utterly unsatisfactory, as well as highly POV. After a reasonably neutral first paragraph, it reads:

The Syrian government alleged that Al-Qaeda terrorist groups were responsible for the killings, while Houla residents and opposition groups alleged that the Syrian military and government-hired militias known as Shabiha were the perpetrators. Townspeople described how Shabiha, who were thought to be men from Shia/Alawite villages to the south and west of Houla (Kabu and Felleh were named repeatedly) entered the town after shelling of the ground for several hours. According to one eyewitness, the killers had written Shia slogans on their foreheads (the Alawi faith is a Shia sect).

The fifteen nations of the U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned the Syrian government for firing heavy weapons at civilians. The U.S., U.K., and eleven other nations jointly expelled Syrian ambassadors and diplomats from their territories.

On June 1, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted to condemn Syria for the massacre in the town of Houla and called for an international criminal inquiry into the events. The resolution - approved by 41 of the 47, whilst Russia, China and Cuba voted against - blamed pro-regime militia and government troops for the deaths. On June 27, the council published a report on rights violations in Syria where it temperates its previous position on the culpability of the Syrian government in the attacks. There it states that "with the available evidence" the Commission of Inquiry could not rule out any of three possible perpetrators. The report could not come to a solid conclusion due to restrictions of movement on the ground by the Syrian government.

So, first we are told that 'residents' and 'townspeople' said Shabibha were responsible; then we hear that the UNSC condemned the Syrian government for firing heavy weapons (which is not actually particularly relevant to the issue, as the victims were mostly *not* killed by artillery fire), and then we are told that the UNHRC blamed the Syrian government/pro-government militia. It is only in the last few lines that we are told that the most recent (and, surely, most accurate, by simple dictates of logic) UNHRC report admits that there is not enough evidence to say for certain who was responsible!

Having glanced at the report itself, I would agree that they lean toward blaming the Syrian government/militia, and this should probably be mentioned. But surely the intro would be more accurate if the UN's most recent findings were placed in prime (ie first) position, the reports by the Western media put second (and, I would argue, balanced at least somewhat with the fact that several leading German newspapers have quoted opposing eyewitness accounts -- not to mention General Mood's own statement to a reporter at a press conference, which I mentioned in a previous post); and I believe the quoting of a single eyewitness as to 'Shia slogans on the forehead' in the intro is something of a violation of 'undue weight' principles (quite apart from whether or not it's true). Finally, I'm not really sure how relevant the UN vote is to the massacre story, although I'm less exercised about that. Thoughts anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-look-back-at-the-houla-massacre-in-syria-a-845854.html I7laseral (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I saw that article already. It contributes absolutely NOTHING to the points I'm making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a source

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has the second highest circulation of any paper within Germany, and among German papers has the highest circulation outside Germany's borders. I personally find myself to be in disagreement, often, with the paper's editorial line; nevertheless the quality of the publication makes this one of the most important papers in the world and the very definition of a reliable source from an encyclopedic point of view. We are not entitled to adopt the paper's perspective, but we don't have the liberty to ignore it.

I first encountered I7laseral when he made futile efforts to delete references to American involvement in the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état. What struck me about I7laseral from his efforts at that time was his strange combination, for an editor of an international encyclopedia, of reckless and destructive confidence, alongside total ignorance and also disinterest in the subject which he edited. What I7laseral wrote deserves to be quoted here: " 5 professors saying the cia was part of a coup does not amount to evidence or any credibility what so ever. The professors were not there during the coup, and the cia has never been accused of such a thing even by the syrian government." I will leave it to those interested in the subject to conduct their own investigations beyond those of the "5 professors." Suffice it to say that among historians, the presence of hundreds of declassified documents, including correspondence between the American ministry in Damascus and the State Department in Washington, D.C., has ended this "debate."

I don't even know what I should truly believe happened in Houla, except that it was horrific and we have conflicting accounts. If I7laseral and the cabal he edits with wish to remove all mention of investigations by internationally recognized and acclaimed publications, I can't stop them. But this encyclopedia is not better off for their efforts, which are not made to improve access to knowledge or build the greatest encyclopedia on earth. Such edits are made, rather, in a war these editors sometimes seem to be fighting themselves, as openly self-declared partisans, in a horribly tragic conflict now taking place in Syria. That's tragic for our encyclopedia as well. -Darouet (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

1. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG24Ak02.html

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles