Talk:Houla massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Responsibility

It seems that this Wikipedia 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 [1].

The NRO article cites a few different sources - one being the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article [2], and in addition accounts in Dutch and French from church sources in Syria [3][4].

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. [5] (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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/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 [6] 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[ting] 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[1].... 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 ("[that article] 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/wiki/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 [7] [8] 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 Wikipedia). — 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 Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia deleting any mention of it from their page! Personally, I believe Wikipedia 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)

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)

It's too bad that you already knew what happened here, and what we'd write, before any investigations were conducted. -Darouet (talk) 20:51, 10 November 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))

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have requested outside commentary on whether we should include any reference to the FAZ story and associated sources in this article. While I am not certain that our wiki article should adopt the perspective of the FAZ story, I and some other editors are convinced it should be included. Other editors do not believe the alternative explanation should be included or referenced at all, calling it "completely undue weight and fringe... proved to be false... [a] conspiracy theory... poorly sourced..." and calling its deletion "neutral." NOTE: this rfc description was written after the three posts below. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

I concur with this assessment. (I have not followed the editing of I7laseral (talk · contribs), so I am not referring to this part of the posting above.) In addition, without regarding the question of the veracity of the reports, all notable positions taken with regard to the event would need to be included.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting outside commentary. -Darouet (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to include a mention of the FAZ article in question, but until demonstrated otherwise, it appears to me to be an extreme minority view and should be treated as such (i.e., limited to a few sentences at most and noted as a contrasting minority view). Previously there was an attempt to give the FAZ article a prominent mention in the lead section, which for what at the time was one dissenting source (out of thousands on the subject) seemed excessive. (If substantial proportion of reliable sources now regard the FAZ article as a valid countertheory, though, feel free to disregard.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Faz is undoubtedly a high quality RS. Its coverage of the Houla massacre should be included in the article as a significant viewpoint that has been reported in RS per WP:NPOV. I won't comment on weighting because I haven't looked at enough of the sources that cover the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Alaex THomson of channel 4 news was on the spot soon after and spoke to people directly after the events . the german report came from a pro-Assad reportre in Damascus didnt it ? who wasn't anywhere near the place? like Alex THomson was. if its mentioned it should be mentioned where it came from -Damascus, not Houla, this version, and then picked p by press tv etc and pro-Assad people everywhere. Sayerslle (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's no question of FAZ being anything other than a reliable source. Rainer Hermann is a distinguished foreign correspondent who has been reporting on the ME for over 20 years and is fluent in Arabic and Farsi. It's a significant interpretation of the Houla massacre. As regards his sources he claims that they came from "oppositionists" - that is, those opposed to both the regime and the use of violence - who visited the scene afterwards and recorded eyewitness testimony [9]. Given the amount of propaganda and misinformation emanating from all sides involved in or with an interest in this conflict, I think this is a really hard article to do a good job of editing. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored much of the content previously deleted, and mentioned the FAZ article in the lead. The inclusion of FAZ material in the body of the article is justified by the quality of FAZ as a source, the media coverage generated by the alternative explanation, and our own obligation to report in a neutral manner what has been found by the experts upon whom we rely. Mention in the lead is justified because this alternative explanation is a significant minority view, and this is indicated at all times in the article. Furthermore, the FAZ account arguably deserves more attention than the account provided by the Syrian government, which, like the opposition, is not a neutral party in the dispute.

Please realize that I am not a partisan in this fight: I do not support one side or the other, and that I do not favor the FAZ account over others. On the contrary, I would tend to think that the HRC report is correct in stating that pro-government forces are the most likely perpetrators. Nevertheless, this article is not meant to describe my opinion or that of any other editor, but should rather report what respectable, reliable and important sources have published.

Lastly, as the article currently stands, criticism of the FAZ report is as prominent as description of the report itself. This may be OK, but we should probably write a short paragraph or even sentence on the attention and support, in some media circles, that the FAZ report received. I may have time to work on this later. Thanks, all, for your contribution to this article. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)\

It was proven false and its undue weight. It is the EXTREME minority. ONLY a few German articles highlighted siting anti-FSA or "oppositionist" sources. Simple as that. Sopher99 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment As I said before, include it per WP:NPOV but keep in mind WP:DUE. Also, section has to include this Spiegel article which is direct answer on FAZ article. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, it means that WP:FRINGE theory does not deserve nearly a half of the article as it was. Shorten it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As I had edited the article, the FAZ account, which is an important but minority account, occupied 7% of the article, while the anti-FAZ account specifically refuting FAZ occupied 6%. The other 87% of the article didn't mention FAZ at all. Frankly I think that the FAZ story could have occupied more space (for instance 10-15% as a significant minority viewpoint), but as things were, readers were able to understand what respectable sources reported.

Given Sopher99's revert (which has never had consensus here), the FAZ account now occupies 0% of the article. How is it that one editor, who has contributed good content but never been neutral when editing on this subject, can prevent readers from even reading about a significant and alternative explanation provided by reliable sources? Even if Rainer Hermann is wrong in his account, he always has been and will remain a more neutral, reliable and respectable source of information than Sopher99, with no offense meant to the latter, obviously. Hermann is an established journalist at one of the most respectable news sources in the world.

Lastly, EllsworthSK and Sopher99, are you sure you understand what WP:FRINGE means? Wikipedia's article on the subject refers to "theories" such as creation science or moon landing conspiracies. The FAZ account is not even comparable to these. -Darouet (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I can't keep working on this, as enough has been written above. Unless Sopher99 self reverts I think we should take this to dispute resolution.-Darouet (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. EllsworthSK I agree regarding the Der Spiegel source, and I had restored it before Sopher99's revert.-Darouet (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Though I appreciate your concern, yes I do. So-called "alternative theories" are mostly in one category, this one falls in there too, hence why major media ignore it and is supported by nothing concrete (notice the sources in FAZ - anonymous someone and mother of cloister that is really close to regime and makes no secret of it. And interestingly enough, even though FAZ article criticizes lack of reactions on other side of the spectrum in the story in major western outlets, it does the same). And nope, no 6 percent. Alternative account section has even more space in here than the so-called mainstream account (frankly, I dont really think that these names are ok but lets leave that for another day). By my account it is 9387 bytes for "mainstream" and 9760 bytes for "alternative". That is not WP:DUE. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

who has called the report 'a significant and alternative explanation' , except for you? can you point to RS that describe this report as a significant account? or does significant mean significant in your eyes. Sayerslle (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually Sayerslle that's our judgement to make on behalf of this encyclopedia; because the FAZ is a major paper, and because other papers reported on their coverage, I am one of a number of editors including Helvetica, Khazar2, FunkMonk, Kmonos, meco, GirasoleDE, some IPs, and even EllsworthSK (to a lesser extent) who have argued that the FAZ account needs inclusion. It is not just "a significant and alternative explanation," but also the alternative explanation. I think that comments regarding FAZ's reliability on the reliable source notice board and here by editors Dlv999, FiachraByrne, Nick-D, Stephan Schulz, and TFD, make it significant (two other users at RSN also found FAZ significant, but did not believe this meant FAZ account should be included here). And while I agree that the FAZ account was not picked up by mainstream papers outside Germany, it was referenced by plenty of smaller ones, and investigated by Der Spiegel and the Human Rights Commission. I understand that the August HRC report doesn't support the FAZ account, but my edits reflected that.

EllsworthSK, I am comparing the total number of characters in the article altogether, which almost wholly accepts and reports the "mainstream" account or whatever you'd call it, with the number of characters dedicated to describing the FAZ account. That's 5,352 characters of 64,033 which is 8.4% (I'm including the lead statements as well now). Not including the whole rest of the article altogether or the lead, 8,250 characters are used to describe the mainstream account, and 4,149 characters are used to criticize the FAZ account. Just so we're comparing the same things.

The assertion that an alternative explanation for a massacre as reported by reliable sources in a war zone might be equivalent to "creation science" just can't be taken seriously: the implication is that accounts presented by reliable sources but not conforming to most other media sources are no different from pseudoscience. Arguments related to WP:DUE are appropriate here, but arguments related to WP:FRINGE are not. -Darouet (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I'm amenable to the idea that the FAZ account, and its critique, could be shortened, though I believe both merit a statement of inclusion in the lead. EllsworthSK, what alternative titles would you propose for "Mainstream" and "Alternative" accounts? I agree these aren't necessarily appropriate titles. -Darouet (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok back to the point. What we will have to include in that "alternative" section is

a, government stance - government accused "terrorist" and denied any responsibility

b, FAZ stance + Berliner Morgenpost stance (they are both basically the same one, difference between them and gov is that Syrian gov is not RS and these both are) - FAZ and Morgenpost conducted their own research where they interviewed several anonymous witnesses who claimed to be in the town during the attack and accused of sunni extremists of carrying it out

c, short section from der Spiegel like "der Spiegel conducted their own research in the town which contradicted FAZ findings where relatives of killed, even those with close connections to PM and/or military, accused pro-government militias of carrying out the massacre".

This is just from top of my head, mind you. But what I am getting to is nothing extremely long, no need for excerptions from the article, just some 10-15 factual sentences. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable, and I think we have enough material to implement it already. Think about the "mainstream" and "alternative" naming? Will come back to this shortly. -Darouet (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

there was shelling and then a massacre - "There was an extensive Syrian Army shelling barrage, then around one hundred men were able to enter the shelling zone without a single mortar, bullet or shell landing anywhere near them from the Syrian Army side. Perhaps that is simply coincidence. Perhaps it indicates clear communication and co-ordination between the two groups." isnt that the way it was reported generally. What about 'Prevailing view' (shabiha responsible) versus 'Assad regime/FAZ view' (nothing to do with Syrian Army/shabiha)Sayerslle (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi All - I've shortened the section and re-introduced it. One paragraph (4 sentences) treats the government account. The next paragraph treats the FAZ/BM reports (4 sentences). The third paragraph is a single sentence noting conflicting eyewitness accounts from the BBC, Channel 4, and a specific rejection of FAZ by Der Spiegel; much from these sources is treated elsewhere. Lastly, a fourth paragraph notes the UN's rejection of the FAZ account and the statement from Pillay (2 sentences). -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To quote Ell's point

b, " FAZ stance + Berliner Morgenpost stance (they are both basically the same one, difference between them and gov is that Syrian gov is not RS and these both are) - FAZ and Morgenpost conducted their own research where they interviewed several anonymous witnesses who claimed to be in the town during the attack and accused of sunni extremists of carrying it out

c, short section from der Spiegel like "der Spiegel conducted their own research in the town which contradicted FAZ findings where relatives of killed, even those with close connections to PM and/or military, accused pro-government militias of carrying out the massacre". "

Sopher99 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific, Sopher99, as to what you're trying to indicate above? Thanks for bringing things to the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the reference to the FAZ account to the lead, because is important, as discussed above, and because it is not the same as the Government account. In some ways it is more important because it's by an independent jouralist. I've also added links to mainstream, reliable sources that reference the account, while leaving out less prominent ones. These sources have also been placed in the main body of the article.

In the lead, I've removed mention of the Berlin Morgenpost because it seems that the FAZ account is the dominant one. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.