Talk:Douma massacre (2015)

Source for international condemnation of massacre

International condemnation by United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Qatar, ..... one source here 495656778774 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where 'international condemnation of massacre' came from. For all the (FSA-friendly) Wikipedia said was 'Reactions'. Then again, what happened to the reaction of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.111.241 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Image

Does anyone have a free file that can be used to illustrate the massacre? 50.187.216.93 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@50.187.216.93: check out http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/17/an-official-massacre-in-syria-shows-yet-another-reason-why-people-flee-to-the-uk-5346819/, how about this one or this one?

PS: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2015_Douma_air_strikes

Background

There should be a "background" section about how Douma was captured by the rebels in the first place and about the SAA's attacks on rebel held areas of Damascus with the objective of preventing a siege of its capital stronghold. Hopefully more info about the actual attacks will be added when news sources publish more in-depth articles. Right now the article is pretty terse. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article violates Wiki guidelines

This is nothing more than an news article and violates the guidelines against turning Wiki into a blog or online newspaper. The source of this information, Syrian Observatory, is partisan, biased, anti-Assad and unreliable. This article should be taken down. BabelBoy (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's reported in a lot of mainstream news sites too. Unless you think every Sunni Arab and Western source is biased. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Then again, since many Western sources of 'news' on this conflict are clearly biased and self-serving, your reply proves very little. Check out the number of questionable anti-Sryian videos on YouTube. That said, why does Wikipedia continues to use reports from the self-styled Syrian Observatory as a major source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.103.233 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced article

Wheter or not this happend and wheter it was condemmend or not is not really the main issue I have with this artilce; I do however think that it should be placed in the massacre section and not as a battle. The only way this article can stay on wikipedia like this is when the afforementioned rebel capture of Douma is explained and this bombing follows as a sub-subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.43.20.178 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV doesnt exist no more in WP

As usual, depending on the ideology of the dominant editors of the article, the article is labelled as "massacre" or "attack". It doesnt matter that in both cases the target were civilians, what only matters is if the civilians were in an opposition-held area or in a government-held area. How sad turning an encyclopedia into an agit-prop blog...--HCPUNXKID 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)