Talk:Riyad Farid Hijab

Spokesman Mohammed el-Etri?

Who is the spokesman Muhammad el-Etri referred to by Al Jazeera? Is he the same person as former PM Muhammad Naji al-Otari? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This AP source names him as Muhammad Otari. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resigned or sacked

The below comment was copy-pasted from Harry the Dirty Dog's talk page by User:Harry the Dirty Dog.

Re. the claim that my version of the article gives undue weight to the government side of the story: It only mentions twice that the government says he was dismissed/"sacked". Meanwhile, the section Departure from office extensively covers claims about his alleged defection, including direct quotes from his "spokesman" and Western reactions to the "defection". If anything, this gives undue weight to the "defected" version of events. Re. "we should mention the most reliably sourced version of events first": that the "spokesman"'s account as given to Al Jazeera and repeated by Western media is the more reliable of the two accounts is simply an opinion. Personal opinions of Wikipedia editors have no place here per WP:NPOV. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not about personal opinions, it's about reliability of sources. Seriously, do you really believe that Syrian State TV is a more reliable source than Reuters or Al Jazeera? Reuters has no propaganda interest in reporting a defection. Syrian State TV has a propaganda interest in saying he was sacked. So weighing that up, it is not POV or giving undue weight to simply state the most reliable version first while also stating what the other version is. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the current wording

On 6 August 2012, his spokesman claimed he had resigned and defected to the rebel side in the Syrian civil war, although according to Syrian government sources he was dismissed.

and

On 6 August 2012 Al Jazeera and Reuters reported that, according to to Mohammad Otari who claimed to speak for the former Prime Minister, Hijab had resigned and that he and his family had defected to Jordan, although Syrian state TV reported that Hijab had been "sacked" and that Deputy PM Omar Ibrahim Ghalawanji would become the head of a new caretaker government. According Otari, Hijab released a statement to Al Jazeera criticizing the current Syrian government, calling it a "terrorist regime". The statement declared "I am from today a soldier in this blessed revolution". According to Otari, Hijab had been planning his defection for months with the help of the Free Syrian Army. Hijab was reportedly heading for Qatar, an active supporter of the Syrian rebels.

is sufficiently NPOV. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and Reuters have no first-hand information. They're just quoting Hijab's "spokesman". That their take on the situation is "the most reliable version" is simply your POV. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which version of a story is the true one. Furthermore, insisting that the 'defection' version is mentioned first in the Departure from office section, with the addition "although Syrian state TV reported that...", implies that the 'defection' story is the real one. My version read:

On 6 August 2012, he either was dismissed from his function or defected to the rebel side in the Syrian civil war.

How you can say that that gives undue weight to the official version is beyond me. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed that version because it was unwieldy, and because the reliable sources (as opposed to the unreliable one) in the article say that his spokesman says he has resigned. At Wikipedia, we give more weight to reliable sources than ones that are less than reliable. We quote what Syrian State TV has said because it's factual that that's what they said, but it is not a reliable source when balancing whether he resigned or was sacked. Therefore it should be mentioned as an aside, and not given equal weight to what the reliable sources are reporting. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unwieldy? Compare my version:

On 6 August 2012, he either was dismissed from his function or defected to the rebel side in the Syrian civil war.

to yours:

On 6 August 2012, his spokesman claimed he had resigned and defected to the rebel side in the Syrian civil war, although according to Syrian government sources he was dismissed.

The latter is clearly longer, so if any of the two can be called 'unwieldy', it's yours.

Re. "at Wikipedia, we give more weight to reliable sources than ones that are less than reliable": SANA is not inherently less reliable than Western news agencies such as Reuters. They both have their own agendas. Don't mistake Reuters for a neutral, factual agency – to quite an extent, it presents the news from a Western point of view.

Re. "balancing whether he resigned or was sacked": we shouldn't be balancing this at all, just presenting both points of view. If you think Wikipedia editors should "balance whether he resigned or was sacked" based on their own opinions of what constitutes a reliable news source, you haven't understood WP:NPOV.

Re. "it should (...) not [be] given equal weight": yes it should. See WP:NPOV.

- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times, FWIW, treats his defection as fact.[1] That right there outweighs Syrian gov claims for me, though I agree we should mention both. Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times bases its report upon the statement made by Hijab's "spokesman". So do Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc. We only have one source for either version of the story: SANA for the 'dismissed' version and Hijab's "spokesman" for the 'defected' version. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But the "dismissed" source is not a reliable source! (Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.) That's the whole point. The fact that his spokesman's words are being quoted in realiable sources with a reputation for fact-checking etc etc. de facto gives them more weight. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Taal, after changing my version to yours initially, you stated that it shouldn't be changed again without consensus. But it seems clear that consensus is in fact that the BBC, Al Jazeera, etc., are much more reliable sources than Syrian state media. Are you willing to change? Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You + Harry the Dog does not equal 'consensus'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing of this edit is absurdly POV, implying that "Western media" (some sort of homogenous blob) has all been tricked by one man, while Venezuelan (not Western somehow?) media is a more reliable source. I think the time has come to ask for some outside help here. Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You said yourself that reliable media (by which you mean Western media) generally view this as a defection, so I don't think there's anything wrong with stating that "Western media generally" reported on the departure as a defection. I did not mean to imply that they have been tricked, but I realize that the phrasing "went along with" could be interpreted as such. Feel free to change it into something that sounds more neutral to you. Furthermore, I did not intend to show that any of the two has the 'right' or 'more reliable' version of events, just showing that the media do not universally report on this as a defection, as you seemed to claim earlier. In fact, it was you who asked for sources supporting Assad's version. And no, I do not think Venezuela is generally regarded as part of the Western world. See also File:Civilizations map.png. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is some absurd POV there. Let's not forget that this is a biography of a living person and we must be careful about the reliability of sources. Syrian State TV is a questionable source. Questionable sources "are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". What Syrian State TV says cannot be taken at face value, especially over other very reliable sources that will have checked their facts. That's all there is to it. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

1. If we're going down the BLP route, we might as well delete the claims of defection too, because they haven't been confirmed by Hijab himself. Only by a man claiming to be his spokesman; his status as a spokesman hasn't been confirmed by Hijab either.

2. You're quoting that correctly: questionable sources "are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". SANA, however, is not used for citing claims about third parties: it is used as a reference for the sentence "Syrian state TV reported that Hijab had been "sacked"". Obviously, it can be used as a reference for that. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hence why it's mentioned. But stating as fact that someone has been sacked (rather than just that it has been reported) requires a reliable source because saying that someone has been sacked is contentious (unless it is true). Therefore a reliable source is required to give it equal weight to a statement that is reported in many reliable sources. NO weight can be given to a propaganda outlet which has a COI in making him look as bad as possible. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm fine with language suggesting that Hijab said via spokesman that he resigned while Assad says he was sacked. What I think it silly here is treat his defection as still in doubt. Chinese, Russian, British, Qatari, American, etc. media all seem to agree that he has defected, regardless of whether he was fired or actually sent in a resignation letter. I'm not sure why you're fighting that language so hard, Taal, including breaking 3RR to do so. Khazar2 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Defection"

I've changed the header of the "Departure from Office" section to "Defection", since that's the more notable part here. Regardless of whether Hijab was sacked or fled of his own accord, it appears clear per reliable sources that he's with the opposition now either way. Let me know if any reliable sources still have this in dispute, though, and I'll be glad to change it back. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm at 3 reverts so won't go any further, but my changes above have all been reverted by a user who says that consensus must be reached until his unique version can be changed. I'll simply note that the New York Times [2], BBC [3], and Al Jazeera [4] all flatly describe this event as a defection; the only source that does not has its salary paid by the Al-Assad government, so there's no way these versions should be given equal weight. If other reliable sources can be found supporting Assad's version, I'd be glad to reconsider, but in the meantime, I hope any passing editors will revert to the [sourced version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riyad_Farid_Hijab&diff=506225953&oldid=506224642]. Khazar2 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You can quote dozens of news websites, but that doesn't change the fact that they all base their stories upon one single source: the man purporting to be Hijab's spokesman. There is thus only once source for the 'defection' version of events, and it isn't even certain if it's a reliable one (anyone can claim to be Hijab's spokesman). As to reverting to the so-called 'sourced version': the 'dismissed' claim is sourced as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, unfortunately. If almost all reliable sources say that he defected, we trust their judgement and also say he defected. If you feel the NYT, BBC, and Al Jazeera have jumped to conclusions, that's a problem better solved by sending angry letters to their editorial boards than trying to correct them on Wikipedia. Here we just have to follow the reliable sources, which all say one thing. Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So every time a newspaper prints Mr Otari's claim, it becomes more reliable, even though they all base their story upon the very same claim by the very same Mr Otari? That's a rather untenable interpretation of WP:RS, in my opinion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the New York Times is a better judge of what claim is reliable than Internet user TaalVerbeteraar or Internet user Khazar. The NYT did not report it as "Otari: Minister 'Defects'". They reported it as "Minister Defects". They also confirmed it with other Syrian sources, as Al Jazeera did with Jordanian sources. But even if they hadn't, we would trust their judgement over either yours or mine. Khazar2 (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you truly feel that it's too early to say that Hijab defected as world media does, you should consider taking this up at WP:ERRORS as well; a blurb about this is currently on the front page. Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm principled but I'm also a realist. Seeing the reactions here I think a proposal to change the front page would have a snowball's chance in hell. By the way, it's not the "world media" that say Hijab defected, it's the Western media. Russian, Chinese, Iranian etc. media tend to go with the 'dismissed' line. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is no more Western than Iran. That said, I notice a sharp distinction between what non-government newspapers are reporting compared to countries that have state-owned press and are allies of Syria. Generally Wikipedia follows the former for reliable sources. Khazar2 (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're effectively admitting that as far as you're concerned, being an ally of Syria is a major factor in qualifying as unreliable. That train of thought does not seem to be compatible with WP:NPOV to me. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this debate can go on. Russia, China, Iran, etc support the government (or at least not the rebels) while the West, Qatar (where Al Jazeera is based), Turkey, etc support the rebels. And by the West I mean the Western World, (roughly the countries shaded blue in this map). So you can naturally expect a bit of flavour in the reporting from both sides. Both statements are also not necessarily contradicting: (1) He could have defected to the opposition, causing him to be sacked and (2) He could have been sacked, causing him to defect to the opposition. Both these elements can be presented with attribution to their respective sources as they are currently done in the article (I suppose "Western" can be expanded to "Western countries like the USA, UK, etc." if you think the number matters in giving a balanced presentation and the "went along with" language can be changed). As regards the main page blurb, this will need to go back to the ITN/C page and I'm not sure if this is a good idea myself, how about we say "Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Farid Hijab defects is reported to have defected to the opposition".? Although, none of this will matter if he turns up in Jordan tomorrow and confirms his statement (which we dont have any reason to believe false as of yet). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that the PM has defected, whether he was sacked or dismissed. Al Jazeera has confirmed with Jordanian officials that he's there. NYT has confirmed with multiple Syrian sources. The Free Syrian Army has released a statement that he's been working with them. As you say, regardless of the cause, he's clearly with the opposition now. Our usual news sources around the world are clearly comfortable with saying he's defected, and even Russia Today and Xinhua (Chinese state media), lynchpins of Taal's argument above, now call this a defection.[5][6] We have to really work to find significant dissension (Iran, Venezuela). The majority view seems clear, though I've got no problem noting that a few countries' state-owned media disagree. Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)