Talk:Battle of Tremseh

Uhm

this isn't even confirmed by anyone. All we got so far is several activists saying different things and giving different numbers of people killed. Just because most media organisations have given up trying to find the truth and report what the opposition activists say verbatim doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow. I say we wait a few days for the picture to clear up. 62.31.145.100 (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I added a {{POV}} template. The article presents a single point of view. --Ghainmem (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. We have added the government's report. The only reason why is seems single is that the opposition has a lot more information to report. This has been the case with most events in Syria. The Syrian government tends to give vague report, and the LCC and SOHR give more detailed reports. Its just how it is. Sopher99 (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the 'government claim' in infobox, that's clearly not enough. All the references currently available report on a massacre based on reports from unnamed 'activists', some of them state the information is not confirmed, some mention Syrian official report but nevertheless they are clearly skewed. Lack of information from the Syrian government is no excuse: until such information becomes available and is added, the article will remain non-neutral and should remain marked as such, even if the reason of skewedness is objective, i.e. vagueness or lack of information. And, anyway, the info from the opposition is also far from being clear. For example the reference that currently has number eight (to al-jazeera blog; can a blog be considered a reliable source?) says militias entered the village and started killing people, ostensibly by shelling them. --Ghainmem (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I suppose you do not know what a Shabiha is.

Furthermore just because there is only a little bit of info does not make it non-nuetral. For example the 2001 september 11th attacks has an incredible amount of info provided by the USA goverment, and very little info provided by alqaeda. Doesn't mean it isn't neutral. Just because one side fails to provide as much info doesn't make something pov. Sopher99 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't, and nobody does. I don't think 9/11 is a good example, because then, from the very beginning, there was plenty of information from many independent sources, with several organizations assuming (and then denying) responsibility for the attacks, and, as far as I remember, alqaeda was not one of them until some days later. I would even say the first days were 'better' with regard to freedom of information, because later it became more 'filtered'. But in this article you only have information from anonymous activists (well, now there's a statement by Annan, I haven't read it yet, so I don't know what his statement is based upon). --Ghainmem (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But they give their position such as "head of the SORH" or "head of the local coordination committees in Hama". The sources never tell us who in the Syrian government denies the claims. So it works both ways. Activists stay anonymous to prevent their arrests.

Regardless, a natural imbalance in the quantity and quality of information given by the two sides does not break NPOV. What if the Syrian government was to only respond with the word "no"? This is the same situation. When the goverment elborates, we will put in the elaboration. Wikipedia does not wait for the two sides to explain there views, wikipedia just includes the two sides views. Sopher99 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with sopher, all available information about the event should be included. If the official media gave only a vague report, then we include it, and this makes us neutral enough because it is not our problem that they didn't like to say more about what happend --aad_Dira (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

I also agree with sopher. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is really biased... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.99.74 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ITN

Just to let you know guys, this article is being nominated for INT section on the main page here. You might want to reach some consensus on article's name, NPOV, etc.Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The title should be battle

It was a military assault on a rebel position which killed dozens or hundreds of rebels.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So was the Houla Massacre.

The deaths in the Turaymisah was overwhelmingly civilian, only a few dozen rebels died, compared to over 200 civilians dead. The key to this is that they were summarily executed.

Besides of which, we call it whatever the media and all RS call it. All sources are calling it a massacre, including Kofi Annan and Robert Mood. Sopher99 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is contested. The Syrian military claim that only rebels were killed. No independant observers have been on place. It is very frequent that civilians, even in number, die during a military assaults --DanielUmel (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but Kofi Anan and the UN observers confirm a massacre happened. Besides the syrian government claimed a massacre DID happen.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18832286

Besides all sources are calling it a massacre. we call it whatever the sources call it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but here are his comment: Annan voiced shock at the “intense fighting, significant casualties, and the confirmed use of heavy weaponry such as artillery, tanks and helicopters.”"

He describes a battle , not a massacre. Intense fighting, heavy artillery... He also don't mention civilians.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He also says atrocities. http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/13/226069.html and by the way that is exactly how the Houla massacre began. Besides hundreds were summarily executed.

Yes, you are right, there is no independent observers have been on place to tell us if it was really a battle. So, the solution is the reliable sources. Taking a look at the article references, I see 10 out of 16 calling it a massacre, and the others not using a certain name, but certainly no one is calling it a "battle" at all --aad_Dira (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

This is what Mood says: “The operation in al-Tremsa is assessed as an extension of the SAAF operation in Khan Sheikhoun to Souran over the recent number of days,” said the two-page report by the U.N. mission in Syria, known as UNSMIS.

Nobody called Khan Sheikoun operation a massacre. Annd Mood is putting what happened here in the same tone. A military operation. The only one who are calling it "massacre" are rebels, who seem to have suffered massive losses in this battle.

If you don't like the word Battle, the word operation used by Mood is a more common use.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

its not common use either. Only mood used the word operation. All RS are calling it a massacre. See WP:commonname Sopher99 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are also forgetting that the Syrian government also called it a massacre, before hte military spokesman said operation. Sopher99 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The opposition is calling it massacre. The word massacre has been reported in a lot of reports. But I see the comment of General mood calling it "operation" being taken in all online newspaper now.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Massacre is the most common name being used for titles, but it's usually followed by ", says activists" or preceded by "Activists:..". The BBC is calling it "killings" [1] which also means massacre. IMO, the name should remain "massacre" for now. Provide a wide number of WP:RS calling it "operation" or "battle", then we can talk? Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You should google the word operation for the last hour in the news. Widely reported --DanielUmel (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats wrong as only news about Robert Mood's statement is widely reported. As is Kofi Annan's and as is the Syrian op and government. No sources are calling it and operation. Sopher99 (talk)

Even activists are now saying most killed were rebels.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. only members of the Sham news network are. Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So:

Mood and Annan are calling it military operation, with "intense fighting and heavy artillery" Governement said they carried a military operation Activists are telling that between dozens of rebels and up to the big majority of the killed were rebels The operation was a regular counter attack due to a previous rebel attack.

This is clearly a battle (or an operation, by common use) , not a massacre. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No they are only stating what they can so far confirm. they can't access the town itself to confirm if it is a massacre or not. As I said the Houla massacre played out exactly like that too. Once more people were summarily executed.

Besides of which Annan calls them "Atrocities" ie massacre. Sopher99 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest giving the article a neutral title like "Turaymisah incident" and reflect claims whether it was a massacre, a battle, an anti terror operation or a combination of these in the articles content. The content of the article I suggest to structure in sections like claims from the side of the Syrian government, claims from the side of the opposition, statements from neutral sides, UN observations and reactions and national and international reactions. --84.189.91.244 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but no. Many things are not confirmed but we still call the common name the media does. For example none of "suicide bombings" in syria were confirmed by independent journalists, we still call them bombings. If the massacre turns out to be false we change the name. Until then we keep the page name massacre. We use the proper wikipedia guidelines when dealing with this. Sopher99 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that the nature of the bloody events in Turaymisah is disputed in "the media". Some media report it one way and some other media report it a diffrent way. The only thing what seems agreed to by all media that there were many casulties in Turaymisah. In the case of the bombings things were different. All media agreed then that a bombing happened. But here the only thing agreed in the media is that use of heavy weapons happened and a lot of human beings died. --84.189.91.244 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not disputed in the media, rather any independent journalist are obliged to report any disputed claims that exist. The Houla massacre was also not confirmed until observers entered, but we still called it the Houla massacre before and after they entered. Sopher99 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Houla massacre is different. There it is not disputed between the warring factions and their sympathizers that massacres happened but who committed the massacres. For Turaymisah the happening of a massacre itself is disputed. What is agreed - mainly between the waring factions, their sympathizers and observers - is that bloodshed and the use of heavy weapons happened but the nature of the events in Turaymisah is disputed. An alternative to get to neutrality may be making two articles out of these events - one for the alleged massacre(s) in Turaymisah and one for the still ongoing military operation in Turaymisah. Do you think it would be better to make two articles out of the ongoing events in Turaymisah? --84.189.91.244 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the POV template wants a serious reasons to post, but I see none so far, so please give a good reasons for it or I gonna remove it. Second, the "massacre" is a neutral title in all cases, because it doesn't determine who did the massacre, and it was confirmed by the regime itself but claimed it happened in a different way. This is the case of all articles from this type, like Al-Qubair massacre and Houla massacre, if you want to change it open a new discussion at Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present) because this is a general move on the level of all uprising articles. Nevertheless, there is no need to waste time here --aad_Dira (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

Just so everybody knows, the Syrian opposition is disputing it now among themselves as well. One opposition group says 220 dead, mostly civilians, second group says 160 dead, but only 40-60 confirmed and includes dozens of rebel fighters, third source says only 7 civilians dead and around 30 rebel fighters killed. So, while I agree the previous two events were civilian massacres in this case I'm smelling an opposition attempt at propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The 40-60 confirmed only refers to identification of the corpses. Furthermore the "7" number comes from a random guy from the Sham news network, an organization I never heard of (and probably you haven't either) until today. The LCC and its General Revolution Commission affiliate makes up well over 80% of on-the-ground unarmed opposition. The SOHR is 5 random people living in London. Sopher99 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

SOHR is the group whos figures are most widely used in the international media and its not just 5 random people living in London, they have a whole network of hundreds of activists within Syria itself. The LCC and the Revolution Commission are more biased and unreliable than SOHR in my oppinion. Also, Sham has been around since the start, since late February last year. For now even the VDC has put on its list of fatalities only 7 civilians and 1 rebel from Tremseh. I'm just trying to look at it all objectively. EkoGraf (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All less than 10 fatalities were reported in the first hours of 12th July, but around midnight the bodies was discovered in the nearby farms, and the people started searching looking for more bodies, until the figures came to +200 deaths. Another point, the Houla massacre happened only after the FSA retreated from the village, then the regime militias entered and killed people, so it is almost the same case --aad_Dira (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps "Turaymisah assault" might be a title everyone can agree with? --22:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.91.244 (talk)

Yes in Houla the rebels pulled back and the military came in, but this time around, per the opposition itself, it seems the FSA stayed till the end, a lot got killed and the remainder made attempts to retreat with the wounded. P.S. I would be for "Turaymisah assault" but only if the current dispute, which is among the opposition as well, over what happened continues. For now the current name, massacre, is the one being predominantly used in the media so it should stay. EkoGraf (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMON is massacre, not assault. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the correct policies to refer to in this case are WP:POVTITLE and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming. According to them (and based on the WP:RS mentioned above), the current name is totally fine, even if some think it's POV. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Is holding the article from being featured in the main page. As far as I can see in the previous section, there is consensus to keep the current title. I suggest removing the tag. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Could the editors expand the sources? Since it is not informative as it is. Egeymi (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean editors may provide full citation instead of such reduced ones including only the title or url. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was The article was moved to Battle of Tremseh, and the move was not contested for more than three weeks, therefore I close the request (non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Turaymisah massacre → Tremseh massacre – It is the most common name used to refer to this event The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, BBC and The Wall Street Journal. [2], [3], [4], [5]. I couldn't make the move myself, because the target page is a redirect. P.S. those articles can be used to expand the article as well. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom EllsworthSK (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I vote against the word massacre. It is not most coommonly used. It is only used by rebels.--DanielUmel (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, rather it's a discussion. consensus doesn't mean unanimity; nor is it the result of a vote. In determining consensus, we consider the quality of the arguments, which is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Per WP:POVTITLE, non-neutral but common names should be used for article titles. If you can prove that the name isn't common in reliable sources, then we can discuss that. Simply opposing with no valid reason is not constructive and carries no weight whatsoever. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support the use of the word, massacre, in title whoever use this.Egeymi (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We may also take into consideration the description given in this source.Egeymi (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (The NYork Times)

The source has interesting information that should be added to the article, however I don't think it changes much of the fact that this event is referred to by most reliable sources as a massacre (at least during yesterday). If this changes by time, we can change the title again. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bahraini Activist, I put the source just to support your view above, not to withdraw the current move proposal. Egeymi (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I vote against the word massacre. It's not a massacre when it's directed against armed rebels. Kinrous (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We will talk about that after this move is closed. But apparently it is looking more and more like it was a military operation that ended in a sound rebel defeat and than they decided to cry massacre. EkoGraf (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Given the changing situation I've moved the article to killings. This does not impact the debate above and once things become clearer we can sort out a final title but "massacre" was far too POV given the current situation.©Geni 23:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, given the new information about the event and the changing situation it stands to reason massacre is POV. EkoGraf (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, massacre is the common term used now by all RS --aad_Dira (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

EkoGrah, there was execution by knifes for more than 100 people, does that fits in the "opposition propaganda" of a battle between FSA and the Syrian army? The situation doesn't differ actually from Houla massacre --aad_Dira (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

First of, no need to be sarcastic. Second, that report about the knifes and more than 100 people was given in the first hours after the event when it was all still murky, in those first hours they even made a claim of over 300 dead. Third, now that the situation is starting to clear up, opposition activist groups, including the notable SOHR activist group, have stated that a lot less people died and that most were in fact rebel fighters. And opposition activists have themselves said that it wasn't a random act of retribution against a Sunni village like Houla, the activists have stated it all started when FSA fighters attacked a military convoy and the Army counter-attacked. Latest figures SOHR has given is 103 confirmed dead, of which 50 were rebels, half. Now even the UN observer team has stated that the military mostly targeted rebel and opposition activist homes and not civilian ones. So yeah, I think that pretty much fits into the term battle or military operation. Finally, please stick to the facts and keep a neutral point of view and set your personal views and feelings aside. Thank you. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the article, I can see only two sources supports this claimed changes in the opposition story, which is not enough. All local people statements from several sources mentioned the killing by knifes after shabiha entered, and those statements were included in Reuters and Al-Jazeera news. For SOHR, the dozens of fighters part is right, but it also stated that at least 17 civilians were killed while trying to leave the town, and dozens as well were executed by the army and shabiha, which means it happened after they entered. SOHR itself didn't report any figures higher than 150 death toll, so it backed nothing at all, the other sources reported higher figures were SNC, LLC, Hama revolutionary council and Syrian media center. And, as far as I know, none of those have reported a new lesser death toll, so their statements still important and from opposition reliable sources, especially SNC. From this, I can see that it is still confirmed by most opposition sources at least dozens of civilians were executed by knifes after the FSA had already withdrawn --aad_Dira (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

For me, killings and massacre aren't much different. The first seems less POV. Also, the change done by Geni to ITN is reasonable, though I would have added the word "reportedly" since numbers aren't solid yet. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I did the move for Tramisyah to Tremseh so now we can start the real discussion about the name. Battle is the more appropriate, operation is the most common.--DanielUmel (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dira, having many news agencies quoting each other doesn't makes what they say as true, especially from biased channels like Aljazeera. Kinrous (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both DanielUmel and Kinrous. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support the word "massacre" per nom. Tradedia (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment This discussion should be closed since it has been discredited that a massacre happened since the discussion started. Per Sopher, DanielUmel and me the article has been renamed to Battle of Tremseh which is the more appropriate term given there was major fighting in which around 50 rebels were killed. The number of civilians killed has been estimated to be, per opposition claims, no more than 18-53, most during the shelling that was targeting rebel positions. So it was not a targeted massacre as the previous events. EkoGraf (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

Sopher99, please review the other articles on massacres, i.e. Al-Qubeir. In each case, the view of Syrian government is given for the sake of being neutral. In this case, the same should be followed. Please be respectful. We do not express our own subjective views in regard to what is pointless or not. Although the view of SANA is given in the article, it should also be included in the reactions section. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

who changed the article from Neutral to extremely a Pro-Syrian Regime article,the Syrian Press is no Longer Trusted by Any Press in the world.the Syrian Press is only releasing Propaganda statements as in the last days of Qaddafi's Regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the article is fairly neutral and balanced. EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

The paragraph cited by this article has close paraphrasing. This needs fixing immediately, otherwise the article might get pulled from main page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Made modifications. Is it ok now? EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; I'm editing from my BlackBerry. Check using duplication detector tool. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol don't know how to use that tool. :D EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply insert the link to this article and to the source, check the quotation box then click compare (or whatever it says). If you get more than 3 words match, that's a problem, also if the structure of sentences is similar that's a problem too. You can read WP:Close paraphrasing for further details about how to identify and remove it. Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I made some more modifications to the text. So when you get around to it check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They were cleared, thanks. However, there are still some close paraphrasing, I'll list what I find:

1. [6]: "or were thrown into the Orontes River".
2. [7]: "his team was ready to investigate if a cease-fire was reached." compared with "his team was ready to investigate if a cease-fire is reached". "dozens of the dead were rebel fighters".
3. [8]: "an activist at the anti-government Sham News Network said" compared with "An activist at the anti-regime Sham News Network said".
4. [9]: "put the death toll at more than 100"
5. [10]: "he had confirmed 74 deaths, but had only 20 names. Another provided a list of 103 names".
6. [11]: "dozens of the dead were rebel fighters". This one is already pointed above, seems like we found a source plagiarizing another?
7. [12]: "but had only 20 names. Another provided a list of 103 names." Same as above.
8. [13]: "but had only 20 names. Another provided a list of 103 names.". "had been able to confirm". "activists backed away from".
9. [14]: "may have been less but was certainly over 100."
10. [15]: "mainly targeted the homes of rebels and activists"
11. [16]: "that he is “outraged” by reports of horrific mass killings"
12. [17]: "but had only 20 names. Another provided a list of 103 names."
13. [18]: "that the Syrian government must take the". "action from the international community".
14. [19]: "Liu Weimin, spokesman of Chinese Foreign Ministry said". " strongly condemned the massacre".
15. [20]: "massacre had shown that the Syrian regime had lost all legitimacy and it had to be stopped at once for the sake of regional and international security. The statement also urged Security Council".
16. [21]: "was deeply saddened and outraged to learn of reports of yet another massacre committed by the syrian regime"

Also, reference 34 and 36 are for the same article and 40 needs fixing. Excuse for me pulling out of this article for now; I have other things to do. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a bit excessive. In case whole paragraphs are copy-pastes of the original articles than yes they need to be changed so not to infringe on the copy-right issue. However, what you are pointing out is a bit too much. There will always be a few things that are gonna be said in the same way because of the inability to say it any other way. Still, I'm gonna modify some of those you pointed out so to lessen further the copy-right problem. EkoGraf (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's too much. I bet that Nikkimaria would still have spotted more lol! Those "few things" will be spotted, the best thing is to summarize/re-word them completely. For instance: "dozens of the dead were rebel fighters" to "dozens of armed opposition troops had died". "One local activist stated that he had confirmed 74 deaths, but had only 20 names. Another provided a list of 103 names" to "Two local activists showed two lists, one had 103 names, the other 20, however the latter stated that only 74 deaths were confirmed." Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename into battle

The independant medias are not confirming rebel accounts at all:

New York Times titles "details of a battle challenge reports of a syrian massacre" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/world/middleeast/details-of-a-battle-challenge-reports-of-a-syrian-massacre.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

BBC title "Syrian killings targeted rebels" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18840535 That + UN report + activists (Sham + Observatory) mean that the word massacre is highly POV and I will add back the tag.--DanielUmel (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria is a civil war, fueled by foreign funding, namely that of its Sunni neighbors. The clash in the 1 square kilometer village has been reported to involve 150 tanks, which about underlines the reliability of the reporting. I most definitely oppose using words such as killings or massacre on this incident. 89.166.56.118 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Clashes or massacre?

I think that this New York Times article can be very useful Details of a Battle Challenge Reports of a Syrian Massacre --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. But if you read carefully, you will see it is used in the article and also, discussed in two parts on this page.Egeymi (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Editorial comment

EkoGraf, I have deleted the words "This is in line with...." from a sentence that you wrote about two different reports of the numbers of dead.

In fact, the two reports do not line up with each other. If both reports said that 30 military and 7 civilians died, then a Wkipedia editor might state that the two reports were in line, because, they would be, by simple mathematics. But they did not.

One report said "30 + 7" and the other report said "a large number plus none". Thirty is not "a large number" when the number 250 is also being bandied around. And 7 civilians doesn't equal no civilians in anybody's language.

Please do not interpret the facts! Just stating them is enough.

Amandajm (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of the this is in line with was that it was in line with the governments claim of killing a large number of terrorists. 30 is a large number. EkoGraf (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

Allegations and claims. Wikipedia, at least when it comes to news, is just as reliable as a tabloid newspaper. Disappointing, I thought it was better than this. This is just another covert job to get rid of an inconvenient leader, much like Gaddafi. The Syrian army is defending Syria from a terrorist organization, just like the Libyan army was defending Libya from the LIFG - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group Much propaganda is being thrown about by these extremist sides and almost every newspaper and news source in the West seems to sing to their tune. Ridiculous and makes me lose faith somewhat in humanity when people can't see what is so clearly lies. Anyway, my point is that none of the citations in this article are truly reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.245.38 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What you have said is nothing but Conspiracy theories and kremlin propaganda. There is not one grain of truth in what you just said. Sopher99 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, you tool. LIFG was destroyed in 90s when Younis and his Thunderbirds stormed Derna. You know nothing. And WP is not considered even by WP as RS. Also if I had to guess, none of the citations are relibale because they do not include a, SANA b, Russia Today c, Press TV. Great post IP, you can hardly go any lower. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)