Talk:Adra massacre

Untitled

Article Scope: I edited the last few entries out as they had nothing to do with the so-called massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.116.60 (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

the sources look a bit indifferent , - cant there be more RS - a bit less SANA, Chinese, stuff, facebook - funkmonk started the article, a paragon of impartial editing i'm sure, but the refs don't look the best imo. don't know how reliable this source is - [1] - but it says Russiatoday might be messing with videos of funerals - putin/Russia is not likely to be too scrupulous.Sayerslle (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the original sources used before whining and accusing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

is one not to consider all sources used? Sayerslle (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at what you just wrote above. What I wrote was obviously a response to your childish slander. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

point taken. I apologise- sincere. Sayerslle (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• The above comments are extremely hypocritical considering these adittions:[2] You've basically used something equivalent to MEMRI as source, just directed against Russia (Institute of Modern Russia). Don't. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

putting this article here - the Russian reportage uses irrelevant footage [3] - and all kinds of chicanery in Russia/putin/Assad regime reportage generally- you are so indulgent to these sources, i am warier, so what of that? the article by James Miller points up some problems with the reporting of this - Sayerslle (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That is about as partisan as the VanDyke leaks, which I doubt you want on Wikipdia. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How sure are we that it happened?

http://www.interpretermag.com/the-massacre-in-syria-that-wasnt/ "The Massacre in Syria That Wasn’t"

Some new evidence suggests that the massacre might not have happened. I am not that familiar with the topic, so someone who is should check it out and perhaps add it. 223.218.129.61 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today and Pravda and Syrian regime are sure - so its as sure as that. Sayerslle (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If all you can come up with is the mouth piece of the son of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, you should simply let it go. This massacre has been widely reported by Western sources. This is low, even for a pro-cannibal. As for why there's no footage, that's obvious. The dead were pro-Assad and the government does not want to destroy their own morale just for the sake of propaganda. That's purely an opposition-thing, they are desperate for the West's approval. Assad doesn't care about that, so at least their dead can get some dignity. Furthermore, the government doesn't want reprisals against civilian Sunnis in pro-government areas. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

[4] - your article here needs some balance but its a bit difficult with the authoritarian air around itSayerslle (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, a random blog run by yet another unemployed bum. After this stunt, it will be quite hard to take you seriously when you whine about biased and unreliable sources (like in the beginning of this talk page). Beyond hypocrisy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

and Russia Today is run by employed apparatchiks - so what. integrity, mate - ever heard of that? you insult people- that's all you do - like that navsteva, and snarwani - your article here is crap - read the miller article - you saying its all lies? you believe what you want to believe , nothing else. orwell explained your type ages ago. you don't know any history. Sayerslle (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please quit your red-herrings, I have never added any RT links. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

quit your 'cannibal-lover' garbage - remember they murdered the doctor - , the Syrian regime 'He was tortured for eight months, we think every day. Beaten with rubber pipes, blindfolded and burned with cigarettes, kicked and punched, given electric shocks. His weight dropped to five stone and he was like a skeleton. It was a dark chamber, underground, 6ft by 8ft with eight other men. He said they even arrested children, 12- and 13-year-olds, and when they were crying for their mummy they were beaten so hard. They were told they would die if they cried again. He told me all this when I found him. His nails had been pulled off, but he said that was nothing. He was in shackles and he couldn't walk properly when they arranged for us to meet in the terrorism court, in the Mezzeh district' - 'torturer-lover'. Sayerslle (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened with the guy, it's pretty rich for an American to preach about "torture". Heard of Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? And your Salafist pets never torture anyone? Your cohort and their owner Saudi Arabia? My point is that being pro-opposition for "moral" reasons is beyond laughable at this point. But let's get back to the relevant issue: random blogs and vehemently anti-Russian websites are not going to be used as sources here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

what is the source of the first ref anyhow 'news.com' ? whats that?- reporting on reports from the regime, and panarmenian.net - is that RS ? the article is rub-bish. Sayerslle (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, let's discuss the actual article. If those are unreliable, replace them with reliable sources that say the same, or remove them. In some cases, it appears unreliable sources have replaced reliable ones, even though they said the same thing. This needs to be chcked before anything is removed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, the killings were confirmed by the opposition group SOHR, local opposition media activists and an opposition official. So it has not been an exclusive pro-Assad/Russian claim, the other side has confirmed it as well. So please refrain from any further POV edits. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sayer keeps adding the above POV/unreliable anti-Russian source. This needs to be removed. Or at least find, you know, reliable sources. Sayers conduct is laughable and hypocritical, considering the section he started above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • you led me to twitter funkmoti - i'm just reporting back on what I find there - excellent commentators and people with integrity - have expressed doubts over the authenticity of photos and vids put forward as related to this article subject -is interpreter not a RS - does a source have to be pro-Putin, pro-Assad, pro-Hezbollah, to be o.k with you? Sayerslle (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not supposed to "report back what you find", this is Wikipedia, not your personal blog. If you don't use reliable sources you will simply be reverted. If you then revert again, you will be blocked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

why are you so sure interpreter is not a RS. you keep addressing me like you are in authority over me and in charge of Wikipedia. you are not, thank Christ. just you not liking anti-Putin or anti-Assad material does not immediately make it not RS. where does it say interpreter is not RSSayerslle (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained that to you on this very page, so read that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean your personal lucubrations about how you don't like interpreter -, 'yeh, like how can an American say anything about assad regime when look at blah blah whatever, slavery, Iraq, anything I think of' - where have Wikipedia pronounced on it as an RS or not. Sayerslle (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please spare me the daft slander and stick to the facts. This is the publisher of your disgusting propaganda piece: Institute of Modern Russia. Enough said. They hardly give a fuck about Syria, they only care about putting Russia in a bad light, and sucking up to their American sponsors. And you're of course falling for it. No reliable sources have reported anything like them, so it is at the very best "undue weight/fringe" to feature it here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ive asked at the noticeboard. Sayerslle (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Link please. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems I have to do everything myself.[5] Since not a single source outside your propaganda trash questions the massacre, we should not use language that is any more cautious than in any other Syrian massacre article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Title

While I am, on my own time, firmly on the side of the legitimate government rather than the assorted scum they are fighting, in the interests of NPOV this article should be renamed "Battle of Adra" or something similar, and the initial emphasis at least should be on the basic, universally agreed facts from a primarily military perspective.

"Rebel" propagandists have consistently tried to describe battles as government massacres, without sufficient time for hyperbole to be separated from fact, much to the exasperation of even disinterested observers. This is no more acceptable from the government perspective, even if I wish it was.

In all cases, any "massacre" accusations or the like should be a section, or a link, on a main page which dispassionately discusses the engagement. Batchuba (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, most sources call it a massacre, and most other articles about massacres in this war have the word in the title. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_the_Syrian_Civil_WarFunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adra massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614032758/http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/12/31/520266.htm to http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/12/31/520266.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)