Talk:Aleppo massacre

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus of this discussion was to merge. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that Aleppo Massacre (December 2016) be merged into Battle of Aleppo (2012–16). There's so little information available regarding this incident that it's better left within the main article. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: the merger proposal is suppose to be made on the destination page, not here, per WP:MERGE. This means that this discussion is out of place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Incorrect. that's only a suggestion. Read further at WP:MERGEINIT: "This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page [...] Having a discussion on the source page is acceptable." (underline mine) — kashmiri ^TALK 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• oppose. Even if there is little information available (for now), murder of 80 people is a significant event, and should be left as an article accordingly.--R2D2015 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Aleppo has 1.5 million residents, a death of 80 people in a war zone is nothing special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.194.120 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. You are talking about merging an article that is only 6.4k into an article that is over 110k, per WP:SIZERULE this shouldn't be merged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Knowledgekid87, that's because the actual purpose here is not to "merge" but to "delete" without having to go through the AfD process, where that proposal would probably fail. How much you want to bet that the moment this is "merged" into the other articles, certain editors will edit war to remove any mention of the topic from the target article as well? They'll cite "undue" or "no consensus" or "fringe" or whatever they can just to do it. You'll see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• If this should be merged anywhere, it should likely be Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016). Someone should review whether those two articles contain the same or similar information. --Izno (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The page doesn't have a lot of information and seems too recent, it is also part of the Aleppo Offensive and should be mentioned mainly in Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016). There also seems to be a trend of fake American news especially on Syria and it would be bad to list incorrect information on Wikipedia YemeniFriend (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with your claim lies in the fact that it was not reported by the US, but by the UN: [1]--R2D2015 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Although maybe it would be better to merge with Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) as YemeniFriend said. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It should be marged with Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) as YemeniFriend said, also information about this event is only one-sided.

Vorman (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Info needs to be verified first. César Darío González Reyes (talk) • 22:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Too soon to see whether a seperate article will be needed and whether this will be the proper name for the subject. Present available info is includable within the 'battle' page. Extra-judicial killings, even a series of them, does not necessarily constitute a 'maasacre'. In is not up to us to attach that word to the event. This at present is essentially a content fork and possibly a POV one. Pincrete (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion would a better merge be Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)? The phase of the battle which this event is part of, I would support either merge.Pincrete (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have stated, the killing of 82 people is a significant event by itself. For those complaining that the article is biased - the article cites neutral, credible, well-known media outlets such as NYT, Reuters, CNN, the BBC, and the Guardian. It also cites the United Nations. Compare that to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara%27a_attack which literally has 1 citation to a wordpress blog (!), 1 to the conspiracy website SouthFront (!!), 2 to Sputnik (!!!), and 3 to the Leith Fadel-run al-Masdar News (!!!!). And the Reuters and Ynet sources mention nothing about civilians being killed. So this article certainly is reaching a much higher standard than some of the articles which haven't been removed or edited.

Jushyosaha604 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Merge the so called massacre of aleppo page into this article. No need for western garbage propaganda filth fake news to have another separate page. 175.156.128.16 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, no independent verification of these reports. If something comes out, a new article can easily be created, but what we have so far is just a POV fork at best. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The event isn't notable enough to have its own article, yet alone being called a "massacre", thats just the viewpoint of highly pro-salafi jihadist news outlets such as reuters, al-Jazeera,telegraph or CNN, therefore I believe the very existence of such a separate article calling it a "massacre" is a breach fo wikipedia's NPOV (and whoever removed my support,please don't do it, I am not interfering in peoples which oppose the motion posts and i respect their opinion, so please respect mine too) 78.63.161.19 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote: "pro-salafi jihadist news outlets such as reuters, al-Jazeera,telegraph or CNN" WTF? So this is the quality of argument in this RfC? Right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, or even remove for now, as same here no independent verification of these reports, Mainstream Media cried foul during the military activities without having any credible source on the ground, this war is litterally too much bisaed and distorted , let us keep Wikipedia's neutrality , as it is the core of this site and regardless of either it is BBC, CNN, NYT.. or RT, Sputnik, etc.. all those sources are biased. - Msakr99 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream media is what we consider to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. You're thinking of Twitter or Reddit or something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - notable topic, covered in reliable sources. Note that out of the four "Supports" above, two are recently created WP:SPAs and the other one is not based on policy ("no independent verification of these reports" has nothing to do with notability - it's only about whether there's coverage in reliable sources or not. And there is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - besides extremely biased reports, there has been no confirmation that this "massacre" happened; if it did, we probably need an article (just because of the extensive media coverage), but until we have no independent verification it is far too early to give such an event its own article. Furthermore, the scale of this "massarce" is actually quite small - mass killings happen almost daily in Syria, but most of them have no own articles. Applodion (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, the criteria for keeping the article or merging it is not "neutrality", nor is it "I like it" or "don't like it", it's notability, which is established by whether or not this is getting widespread coverage in lots of sources, which it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is a notable topic confirmed by reliable sources, we have articles for much smaller Massacres. 3bdulelah (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - No credible information available, all reports from biased sources. --tscherpownik (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - base on biased reports. Actually, rebels have killed many children in Aleppo. - 'It was an individual mistake': Syrian rebels detain soldiers who beheaded a young boy but warn that Assad's'killing machines' are even worse, DailyMail. --Thomas.Lu (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. These events are significant enough to deserve a separate page, and they received wide coverage. This is a legitimate sub-page of the page about the war. Some people tell that mass killings were not confirmed. This is not so. Here are [2],[3], for example, an RS (one of many) telling that people were killed as a matter of fact. The mass killings of civilians in Aleppo are a matter of fact and have been widely reported. It is another matter if the particular episode of mass killing belong to this or that "massacre". Perhaps this page should more clearly define the time frame of the events, but once again, this is a different issue. Perhaps this page should be expanded and renamed as Mass killings of civilians in Aleppo, but this not the question under discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I currently have no opinion on whether this deserves its own article - I'd prefer to wait and see. However, all sides would do well to acknowledge that they are taking part in a bitter information war, and that this event (whether it is ultimately shown to be true, or as false as the Ibrahim Qashoush article proved to be) is very much a part of that war. Currently, I don't know which it is. I don't think that the presence of "reliable sources" here means much at all, considering that all of the so-called reliable sources on one side of the war say one thing, while all of the reliable sources on the other side say another thing about this event. Some posters here seem to believe that only the pro-rebel side of this war has "reliable sources". I do not believe that this is true. If this article stays, I believe that the fact that this event was part of an "information war" between the two sides should be made abundantly clear -- whether or not the massacre actually happened. Esn (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If anyone conducts information war in the project (as you tell), she/he must be site-banned per WP:Not here. If you see such contributors, please report them with evidence on appropriate administrative noticeboards. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - seems right now very unclear about what happen. Best to wait before a separate article for confirmations and investigations. Kormin (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose In important event who occurred in 2016, not form 2012. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly support a merger. Not important whether it's merged to the article about the battle itself or the offensive. As it stands though, this whole article is largely a POV fork. The allegations have not been verified, and even Reuters, which is by no means biased in favor of the Syrian government (quite the opposite), headlines their article as: "Syrian army, Iraqi militia accused of 'slaughter' of civilians in Aleppo" - making clear that these are allegations which have been made and not facts which Reuters has verified. By having a separate article under the current title, Wikipedia effective asserts these allegations as fact, thus violating NPOV. -Helvetica (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

At best, that's a reason to change things here, rather than merge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@VM - It's a good reason to merge because unless/until the allegations are actually *confirmed* by a reputable source then there's no good argument for notability. Occasionally hoaxes and false claims are notable enough for inclusion, but we have yet to see indication that this would be the case here. In the mean time though I have been working to NPOV the article, which you unfortunately reverted (see discussion below). *If* it doesn't end up getting merged, then a more neutral title would be needed as well (assuming that there's still no actual confirmation by then. -Helvetica (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

These are not "allegations" (that's your own POV and OR) but rather *reports* from reputable sources. This is not a hoax by any stretch. POV is not a valid argument in Delete/Merge discussions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely not enough information to verify this massacre actually took place and this article gives it legitimacy. The Syrian government also denied the reports.GWA88 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It is unknown if this massacre happened. A lot of these articles have a nasty habit of almost devolving into cases of original research. Initial news reports are commonly unreliable or come from biased sources such as SOHR. WP:NOTNEWS. Having an article for every alleged Syrian massacre in Wikipedia is not very helpful. WP:OVERLAP and WP:RECENTISM. Ceosad (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "original research" by sources. It's what sources do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The fact of this event ever happening is questioned, especially that not a single photograph reliably traceable to the event surfaced to-date. It will be prudent, in these times of propaganda war, not to copy every single news piece of another "massacre" in Syria (or Iraq, or Yemen for this matter) into a separate Wikipedia article. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Not notable and verified enough to be an article by itself. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Not much original content in this article to begin with. I also don't see any of the information here as verifiable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's THIRTEEN reliable sources in the article. That's "verifiable". Please actually read WP:V.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No, just reports of unverifiable incidents. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Not according to sources (what is that "No" answering?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as Ceosad and others have said. KMilos (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support not independently verified allegations. --Երևանցի ^talk 10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support the evidence cited in this article is based on secondhand anonymous "reports". Until there's more evidence this should be folded into the main Battle article. As is stands this article is POV build atop nothing. California burrito (talk)
• Support Clearly the same event, plus there is not nearly enough weight to call this a massacre, it needs to be a nigh unanimous view. --Harlowan (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - No sources have appeared since the reports first broke. Per Tourbillon, it can be recreated if necessary. Jr8825 • Talk 04:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support There is absolutely no material evidence that this event ever happened. Most likely it's just another fake news propaganda. User:BobNesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support At the moment it is a pov fork from Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) with anonymous claims of an unverified massacre expanded into an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, although not for a full merge of content as currently drafted. The reports and allegations about individual killings should probably be included in some way in a broader page about the recapture of eastern Aleppo – along with the thousands that have been verified over the course of the conflict – but no way should WP have a standalone page entitled simply "Aleppo massacre" (which explicitly asserts in the lead and infobox currently that 82 people were, definitely, killed) as if these allegations amount to a discrete, verified historical event now known near-universally by this name. N-HH talk/edits 14:24, 29 December 2016 (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.

This article should be removed

This article should be removed, the sources are biased and not independent It should be double-checked before posting, else it's propaganda

Kens.x.2 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

absolutely agree - all speculation and propaganda from Islamist "sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.138.194 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Against Naturality & Truth

These are claims without any independent source to confirm them , alongside any measures for verifying those claims because no independent reporter or international organization are exist in newly captured areas ,in addition , we cant call rebels escaping forces as a natural witnesses for such claim ,these are totally called "propaganda" . It Just reminds me Ghouta Chemical Attack ,take alook at it , these are usual "humanitarian" campaigns for looser side to decease their defeats aspects. Is there any page in wiki for rebels using eastern aleppo people as "humanitarian shield" and wasting their life as it was reported by UN ?! P.rafati (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lack of local sources

Sources report from Geneva or Lebanon, none from the ground. One of them even uses the rebels as source as seen in the title. I would wait until the usual pictures or videos are leaked as it is common in these situations, either by the White Helmets or any other sources. Overall western media, when reporting from the outside, have been proven widely mistaken on Middle East affairs for decades now. Any source on e.g. chinese news agencies? 80.174.37.208 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It s Like Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq .P.rafati (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. That's it. It's not that hard. It's all there is to it. Please see WP:RS and WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No you do not. That the media is well known does NOT make it credible automatically. PERIOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.156.118 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support.Information about this event is only one-sided. Marek we don't live in black and white world. You always make me laught calling RT, Insider, Sputnik, Al-Masdar and many more as biased. You can't just say that all western media are creditable, while all eastern are not. Vorman (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not any Confirmation By UN

Source about UN says" we have recieved some reports" . not any confirmation , not any measurement and so on ...

Reminder about reliable sources

Just a reminder to all the newly created accounts flooding this page, RT News and stuff from twitter are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please do not add them to the article. As far as other sources go, please read WP:RS for an explanation of what a reliable sources are, and if you have questions ask at WP:RSN. As a rule of thumb and like it or not, non-mainstream sources are generally NOT considered reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

it is disgusting that a fake news provider like stopfake.org is considered reliable. Does Chodorkovsky donate that much to Wikimedia? Revolting .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.138.194 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Stopfake.org is not being used in the article. "Disgusting"? "Revolting"? You really need to tone it down.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb nothing from Russia is reliable. Therefore as a lesser evil looks like the West has to support Al Qaeda. It seems Europe and the USA are not ready to NOT to meddle in the internal affairs of third countries. BRB looking for something insightful on this issue in Debkafile. 80.174.37.208 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not it. Also please stop WP:SOAPBOXing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP is a soapbox for the pro-NATO point of view on most geopolitical topics, due to the general bias of which sources are seen as trustworthy and therefore allowed to be used. More and more people are realizing that "intentionally misleading news" is a thing, and it's one of the reasons that trust in mainstream media is at a particularly low point right now, and by extension trust in Wikipedia as well. ;) Esn (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, please stop WP:SOAPBOXing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Now that you mention it, I'll tell you I come to Wikipedia to gather information on factual data, not articles based on "sources reporting about other sources" without giving names, locations or pictures. It would be wise to double-check we are not falling for propaganda when creating articles like this one, moreover with all the media turmoil since Trump was elected. In short, clean mind: who are quoting all those sources? I'm truly tired of people trying to forcefeed me what to believe. This place should be an encyclopaedia, not a newsreel without actual footage like plenty out there. Thanks. 80.174.37.208 (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Marek, can you please link to the proof of your claim that RT is not considered reliable on Wikipedia? It is not listed in WP:PUS. I remember several discussions on the topic, and AFAIK, they ended in "no consensus", with a general agreement that it depends on the situation. Esn (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:PUS is an obscure and outdated essay. Check the archives of WP:RSN. Roughly speaking, RT can be used for only non-controversial statements (in which case, might as well find another source) or for reporting position of the Russian government.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Lack of confirmed facts

I and several other editors have edited the article to note that none of the facts have been *confirmed* by a reputable source - i.e. modifying statements with "alleged," "allegedly," etc.

And indeed, even Reuters, a mainstream British news outlet which certainly doesn't have a bias in favor of the Syrian government, reported allegations and accusations, not confirmed facts.

Some editors here have argued that the United Nations is the source, but even the UN spokespeople merely said that they had "received reports which they deemed credible" - NOT that they had actually confirmed any of the allegations.

I also edited the article's lead to note the the Syrian government completely denies the allegations.

Unfortunately, the user "Volunteer Marek" (spelling?) reverted both my edits and those of others which had noted that these are allegations. I have restored the edits.

Hopefully this will soon become a moot point when the allegations are merged into another article about the battle of Aleppo or its end, but until that time, it's important that we follow NPOV and not assert the allegations as confirmed fact when none of the mainstream news outlets do that. -Helvetica (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

First, the Daily Beast is not a reliable source. Second, sources don't say "alleged" or "allegations". They say "reports". If you want to change it to "UN received reports", "it was reported that..." that's fine. But "alleged" is straight up WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. See also WP:ALLEGED.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@VM - The same WP:ALLEGED you cited says the following: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, ***although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined***" (emphasis mine), and that's precisely the case here. As I noted, this is the same sort of wording that Reuters used. Their headline reads: "Syrian army, Iraqi militia accused of 'slaughter' of civilians in Aleppo" - making clear that this is an allegation/accusation which has been made - not a fact which they have confirmed. You're not accusing Reuters of being weasels, are you?

If you want to edit to have the article say something like "the UN said that they received reports," then I don't see a problem with that, but the key thing is that unless/until a reliable source has actually *confirmed* this alleged "massacre" then it violates NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that it actually took place at any point during the article.

Finally, regarding "the Daily Beast," it's actually a fairly mainstream outlet, but I can look for other sources. Also, given the nature of what it's being used for - to document the fact that the Syrian government denies that any such massacre took place, I don't think that a particularly high standard needs to be met. -Helvetica (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: A quick search turned up this from the AP, again confirming that the Syrian government denies the allegations: "Several residents and opposition activists have told The Associated Press that government forces were carrying out summary killings of rebels in the streets in neighborhoods captured on Monday, but the Syrian military flatly denied the claims, saying such allegations were "a desperate attempt" to try gain international sympathy." http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20161213/civilian-casualties-mount-in-aleppo

I also found this from Reuters (from the same date as their other article), which explicitly states that the allegations of a massacre have not been confirmed: "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is alarmed by unverified reports of atrocities against a large number of civilians, including women and children, in Syria's Aleppo, his spokesman said on Monday." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-un-idUSKBN1412QN

So again, it's abundantly clear that what we're dealing with here are *unconfirmed* reports, and this needs to be made very clear in the article. If any part of the article asserts the allegations as fact then this violates both NPOV and accurate use of sources. -Helvetica (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not so. Here is for example an RS (one of many) telling that people were killed as a matter of fact. The mass killings of civilians in Aleppo are a matter of fact and have been widely reported. It is another matter if the particular episode of mass killing belong to this or that "massacre". Perhaps this page should more clearly define the time frame of the events, but once again, this is a different issue. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @user "My very best wishes" - you seem to be confused here. The title of the article you linked is "Massacre of innocents: As Syria and Russia bombard eastern Aleppo children are also dying in the west of the city." It does use the word "massacre" and report it as fact, but it's dated the 29th of October and is referring to civilians (in both government- and rebel-held neighborhoods of the city who were killed as a result of fighting between the Syrian army and various militant groups (AKA "collateral damage"). But that fighting has ended now as the government has taken over the entire city (expept for perhaps a small remaining pocket where the rebel fighters and their families are in the process of being evacuated by green buses to Idlib). The subject of this article, which is actually more of a POV fork, is an alleged *intentional and targeted* killing of civilians by the Syrian military and allied militias following their capture of previously rebel-held areas. But these allegations have not been confirmed....Actually, reading the latter part of your comment, it looks like you're maybe aware of this issue, but it seems that you're suggesting that there should be an "Aleppo Massacre" article which discusses the killing of civilians (intentional or otherwise) by all sides throughout the entire duration of the battle there (more than four years)? If that's the case though, it's probably best to address that issue in the merger discussion above. -Helvetica (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's simply look at a secondary source specifically about the events after the capture of the city [4]. It tells "Syrian pro-government forces in eastern Aleppo have been killing people, including women and children, on the spot in their homes and on the street, the United Nations says.". That is what "UN says" It does not tell "alleged" anywhere. So should we. You can't define whole section as Allegations of a "Massacre" as you did [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@MVBW - the intro to the BBC article you linked above was misleading to say the least, but when you actually delve a bit into the article they finally admit what the AP and Reuters (which I linked above) did earlier on:

""We're filled with the deepest foreboding for those who remain in this last hellish corner" of eastern Aleppo, UN human rights office spokesman Rupert Colville told a news conference.

He said that 82 civilians had ***reportedly*** been killed by pro-government forces, of whom 11 were women and 13 children, adding that the death toll could be much higher.

"Yesterday evening, we received further deeply disturbing reports that numerous bodies were lying on the streets," Mr Colville added, ***while admitting it was hard to verify the reports***." (emphasis mine)

So when one reads a few paragraphs into the BBC article it again becomes clear that there are simply "reports" (from rebel fighters, "opposition activists," etc.) alleging that there has been a massacre of civilians and accusing the Syrian military and their allied militias, but that these reports and their allegations have NOT been verified - not by the UN, and not by the BBC.

Therefore we can't just cherry-pick the intro of that article when the preponderance of Western media coverage, and indeed other paragraphs in *that same article* make clear that these are unproven allegations.

It seems that we may be at a something of an impasse here, in which case an RFC would be called for. -Helvetica (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems that someone has moved the article to Aleppo_offensive_(November–December_2016)#Alleged_massacre_by_pro-government_forces. The discussion may have to continue at that page. For the record, Helvetica, I think you made good points here. You have my support for your proposed changes. Esn (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible POV Fork

I have added a POV box to the top of the article to notify readers that this article is unbalanced and possibly a POV fork for the following reasons:

1.) The massacre has not been confirmed as having happened by independent journalists on the ground such as Vanessa Beeley.

2.) Most or all of the sources used by this article are heavily biased against President Assad.

3.) These sources use the rebels as primary sources, whom have been proven to lie about Assad.

Flooperdoodler (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Flooperdoodler

If this is a POV fork, what in the world is it a fork of? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(Right, another just-created-SPA).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This article might be a POV fork of Aleppo offensive (November-December 2016). Flooperdoodler (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Flooperdoodler

No, this article is about the massacre of civilians. That article is about the fighting. Two different but related things.

And oh yeah, rt is not a reliable source. The sources presently used in the article are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)