Talk:Maram Susli/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wired article

I believe the Wired article cited in the article still has some value even if the claim that the evidence was de-bunked is removed. The source still mentions that Susli provided the evidence that Postol based his claims on, so it still seems acceptable per WP:RSCONTEXT and I have re-added it. If someone is able to find a better more "neutrally" worded source that avoids any mention of de-bunked, then it can be added. Without any source, however, the entire sentence itself is unverified and contentious, which means it can be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Locked

Why exactly is this sorry stub of an article subject to an editing lock? 2602:301:77B5:26F0:4047:F9B3:891:8403 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The page was protected by administrator CambridgeBayWeather to prevent any further disruption per Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Maram Susli. If you would like to request an edit please refer to Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is a clear violation of WP:BLP. All the citations are hostile towards the subject and no neutral or positive one. Has she been convicted of libel or fraud? If not, why should the article be composed solely of criticism? What is the point of the BLP policy if it can't prevent attack articles like this? 2400:4030:9AA3:AC00:C5A4:320A:5B61:5E4 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but "does videos on topics such as the Syrian Civil War, conspiracy theories and the Gamergate controversy" etc. is well-sourced and neutral. By all means find other comments on her from reliable sources and propose them here. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Her video, A Tale of Two Syrian Boys

Was also the video that prompted Trump to take away funding from ISIS. Allanana79 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Images which is pertinent to an error some editors (including myself) have been making. Philip Cross (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

TomReagan90, what sanitising or censorship are you referring to? What reliably sourced information do you believe has been removed? Konli17 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear why such minor changes have resulted in an edit war. The article was rearranged but I disagree with TomReagan90 that "lots of reliably sourced material" was removed. CowHouse (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead as it now stands seems to be a curation of random facts related to her life as if to say "Look at all these naughty things she believes/has done". Obviously this is not ideal for a lead of an article, especially when the material is literally repeated almost word for word in the proceeding paragraphs.Jorge1777 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What you consider the "naughty things" are cited to reliable sources and those affiliations have not been contested elsewhere. The other points are also repeated in the main article. Repetition is inevitable in the opening summary. Philip Cross (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead is full of details which are not in the body. It needs stripping back and the details of which media platforms she has been on etc moved into the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The citations to her appearances on Australian Sky and Abby Martin's RT series have no other sources on the web and should be removed as non-notable. The same goes for a radio talkshow reference, but as it presented by someone of unimpeachable integrity, I think it should stay. Philip Cross (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Two single-purpose accounts seem to be adding anything featuring Susli/al-Laham they can find. Removed the dodgy sources again. The Abby Martin/RT program seems to have especially non-mainstream content. Philip Cross (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Susli's views

Most of Susli's views listed in the article are pretty dubious. However, her opinion of the Syrian rebels is much more mainstream. If it's to be kept, I reckon it ought to be separated from the rest. Konli17 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

See the two contributions above. The article can not be edited because it is 'protected' against 'vandalism'. For me the actual state of this article is pure vandalism. Francisj. (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is it vandalism? – Nihlus (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Observation: When a number of newly-created accounts show up and make the same claim against an article, especially when there are no grounds stated for the claim, it starts to give the appearance that one person is attempting to force their preferred version of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased. It is pretty obvious to see that the person who wrote it has a very onesided view of the topics that Syrian Girl addresses in her blog. Espessialy the situation in Syria. The claim of her being a "conspiracy theorist" is clearly an ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.76.240.49 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• It also seems to be a well-verified fact, so... Drmies (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey everyone, accusations were levelled at myself that I am a "meat puppet". This is absurd as my only interest is improving this article so that it accurately reflects the subject matter. I have not removed any material that has been proven to be correct. I have added legitimate content with citations. I have organised this page such that there is no repetition, and so that it is more readable. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

this was excuse to stop me from editing her (biased) page for removing her Page's bias Masonicon (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

ISIS militants statements issue

The claim that Susli stated that ISIS beheadings are staged is simply false, as she particularly refered to that of James Foley, which as of recent has been proven to be indeed faked. The way in which the information is presented not only lacks nuance, but uses a terribly biased source, which is produced by Al Arabiya, a network, financed by the Saudi royal family, which obviously is against the positions of Susli, thus smeared her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.6.223 (talk)

No reliable source connects Susli with the beheading of James Foley as far as I can determine. Someone added a YouTube video earlier today as a citation, but it from the YT account of Paul Joseph Watson which is not a reliable source. Along with the citation to The Times article, which does not mention Susli, the passage is original research which should be removed. Philip Cross (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The reliable source of her saying which is/isn't staged is obviously her own words at the time, and short-connecting "Susli with the beheading of James Foley" as if that's the argument point shows Philip Cross's deliberate uncritical slander and bias, which makes him unreliable as an editor for this page, and his comments should be removed entirely to help with credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.217.185 (talk)

Possible sources

Found these after a Googling "Maram Susli". Maybe they the content contained therein can be incorporated in some way:

1. Meet Syria's answer to Kim Kardashian
2. Meet Syrian Girl, the internet sensation dismissed as a Kim Kardashian wannabe who fearlessly posts her views on ISIS, al-Assad, the US and the conflict that is destroying her homeland
3. The Best English-speaking Friend Assad Could Ask For, Front and Center on the Net
4. Australian blogger Syrian Girl posts views on ISIS, US airstrikes, Ebola
5. The Kardashian wannabe trolling for Assad
6. To Make Your Conspiracy Theory Legit, Just Find an 'Expert'

There's probably more and these just seemed (at first glance) to be possible reliable sources. There may even be more in non-English. Anyway, I'm posting them here so they can be assessed for reliability and possible inclusion in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A list of randomly searched articles defaming Susli as a posing model and conspiracy theorist instead of a critial commentator on the war in Syria, is obvious uncritical bias and slander, and not a faithful and credible description suitable for Wikipedia. Her fame is simply millions of collective views on Youtube, and other social media platforms for being a critical commentator (whether right or wrong), and should include a list of appearances on main stream news media, and other influences based on this. If her views are controversial then include a topic titled Controversial Views, instead of poorly writing all content in a defamatory manner.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.217.185 (talk)

"Criticism" or "controversy" sections on Wikipedia are not recommended on the grounds of maintaining a neutral point of view. As one section of that document explains: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Later it the passage, it is stated: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." In practice, you are objecting to fundamental Wikipedia policies which go beyond the use of any fringe sources which Maram Susli advocates may prefer. Admissible sources which defend individuals connected with such sites as InfoWars are likely to be in very short supply, if not non-existent.

It would have been better to have begun a new section rather than revive a four-year old thread, but references to Wikipedia policies will assist lurkers. Philip Cross (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Far-right associations

Could someone explain why her connections to Ryan Dawson, David Duke and Richard B. Spencer or her advocacy of "anti-Zionism" are undue? All additions were cited to reliable sources like The Guardian, CNN and The Jerusalem Post. Philip Cross (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: This article isn't a laundry list of people she has been in videos with. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary this material is "cited to third-party reliable sources" establishing the notability of these connections. As Maram Susli's profile originates from her activities as a "YouTube content creator" (opening summary), it is reasonable to mention individuals with whom she has chosen to appear online. Philip Cross (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: Being mentioned in an outlet does not make it due weight to be included. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This material is clearly due as it is reported by multiple independent reliable sources. If it were only evident from primary sources, e.g. her own feeds, it would be undue, but the fact it is widely reported shows the weight it has in the reportage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Passing reports of them do not make them ripe for inclusion in this biography. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the blanket revert, but included subsequent Burrobert copy edits/ref fixes, as lots of copy edits and ref fixes were lost. I think we need to tackle the issues one by one. Which specific connections do you think are undue? These don't appear to be "passing reports". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: The whole "Interviews and opinions" section is a textbook example of UNDUE. There is no attempt to put together a narrative, just a list of bad things. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Guerillero:: Spencer and Duke are very notable, and multiple reliable sources thought these things were worth reporting on, so I don't understand why they're undue. If the issue is a lack of a narrative, that seems fixable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As a start, the last paragraph needs deleting. She is eager to get her viewpoint across. Her views are hardly popular and her appearances on more orthodox media channels may be more limited. Maybe if she came across as a nutcase she would get invited to the more orthodox media channels in order to give more credence to the orthodox line. She is passionate about Syria and does deep, extensive, often original research. I get the impression she would associate with any media outlet to express her views. Chamberlain went to visit Hitler, and he wasnt a Nazi.

SSNP described as fascist/far right

An edit was made recently to remove the descriptions of far right and fascist being associated with Susli and the SSNP. The editor pointed out that the SSNP wiki page identifies the party as left wing in the info box, while noting repeatedly in the article that academics have described it as fascist. Also, the talk page shows that there is a slow motion conflict going on about how to describe the party.

I feel the current labeling of the party in the infobox should be ignored for the purposes of this page for a few reasons. First, the page has a banner identifying it as poorly sourced. Second, the arguments on the talk page are not resolved. Third, the article repeatedly cites different scholars calling the group far right/fascist. And finally, the source for the infobox is one about the Lebanese branch of the SSNP.

The used to call SSNP "left" is only concerning Lebanon. There is a unique political situation in the country, such that a variety of ethnic and religious parties have to form unity goverments. The current one in power is the pro-Syria faction (as opposed to the pro-Western faction). While many of the parties in the government are left wing, members like SSNP and Hezbollah clearly are not.

But I'm not trying to ignite a discussion of the SSNP page here on Susli's page. I'm only showing how first, the SSNP page is contentious and not a valid source in any case, and second not concerning Syria. As a Syrian nationalist, Susli identifies with a party that has a clearly fascist ideology based on an imagined Greater Syrian ethnicity that she has frequently spoken of. More importantly, numerous academics have described SSNP as far right and fascist.

It's normal for a fascist party to have a few elements of the left. For example, Hitler's environmentalism or opposition to British imperialism does not make the Nazis left wing. SSNP's anti-Western or secular nature are also not disqualifying of the fact that it is a racial supremacist party.

Syrian Girl is a racial supremacist and a bigot. I'm not using that as a slur, she speaks of race and the superiority of her imagined Greater Syrian ethnicity frequently. She holds women in traditional gender roles, attacks gay and transgender identities, attacks Jews as a race and as a religion (in addition to and separate from criticism of Zionism and Israeli policy), calls Western culture decadent and corrupting, demands Syrian territorial expansion to some imagined glorious past, she attacks leftism and leftists as "leftists" and I could go on and on. Thankfully, reliable sources make my own statements unnecessary.

Susli is a far right commentator. Her perspective is from the far right. Her support for fascism is not something she hides. The page should make note of that. FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We say at one point that "Susli has appeared as a guest on far-right and neo-Nazi podcasts and media networks".

We should avoid contentious labels "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. It is sufficient to describe her as a supporter of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Readers can work it out from there. We should not bring in a description of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party from outside the sources we are using. That would be synthesis.

"Syrian Girl is a racial supremacist and a bigot. I'm not using that as a slur".

Some of the contentious labels that policy says to avoid are: racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, extremist, denialist, bigot, neo-Nazi.

We would need reliable sources supporting the various descriptions of Susli provided above.

This is a BLP.

Burrobert (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a source about how SSNP is described as fascist, and was born out of 1930's European fascism. I still feel there is a need to include Susli's frequent comments on race and irredentism, but for now I guess her party affiliation will have to do. FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

While I personally agree with what FrankForAllBirds says about both the SSNP and this particular supporter, for the purposes of a neutral encyclopedia Burrobert's version is correct. We should avoid contentious labels and synthesis. We should simply link to the party's article (and work on making that article more solidly grounded in the academic sources). If there are reliable sources that discuss her comments on race and irridentism, we can report them appropriately, but not if not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Result to Keep article

BusterD stated in the decision to Keep that "Of the extended confirmed contributors, none asserted delete." I asserted Delete. Is BusterD claiming that I am not a confirmed contributor? Wootendw (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Extended confirmed" refers to editors who have been editing more than 30 days and who have made 500 or more edits. EC is a classification of at least mildly experienced editors who have made sufficient contributions to automatically gain certain user privileges. So my characterization excludes User:Wootendw, who has 46 edits total, including 21 this year. The statement was intended to distinguish accounts which have made an investment in time and energy on Wikipedia from those which have not. "Of the extended confirmed contributors, none asserted delete" is a statement of fact, not a claim or assertion. Since the AfD process was obviously rife with off-wiki canvassing, I felt it important to make that part of the closing statement. BusterD (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove Daily Beast Article

One of the references used in the article, Schachtman, Noah; Kennedy, Michael (17 October 2014). "The Kardashian Look-Alike Trolling for Assad", says that "Susli appears to have shared her thoughts with the Internet as “Syrian Sister”" but adds that "[t]here’s no way to say for sure which accounts belonged to Susli—and she has said in the past that she has been misquoted."(emphasis added). As there is no evidence provide in the article that Miss Susli has ever called herself "Syrian Sister" (and has denied doing so), and as there are at least 11 paragraphs in the article that attribute such things as Nazis, calling for American blood, Freemasons, etc., to Susli, the article should not be used for reference. Some parts of the article do concede, on the subject of Holocaust denial, that Susli believes that “Jews were ethnically cleansed from Germany… However, if you want to talk about specifics and numbers and events and stuff, I’m going to leave that to the historians. And I think you’d find that there’s historians on both sides.”. The intermixing of 'Syrian Sister' and Susli throughout much of the article makes it difficult to ascertain whether claims came from Susli or an imposter. The article should not be used as a reference and all references exclusively to [6] should be removed, if and when the article is editable again. Wootendw (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is editable for extended confirmed users (See WP:XCON). Wikipedia does not deal directly in assembling evidence. That is, it is not a place for original research. Instead, it reflects reliable sources which are judged not on the content of this or that specific article, but on their general trustworthiness. As such, you need to produce reliable sources that state that she is not Syrian Girl Sister. It may then be apparent that the Daily Beast article and other sources are obviously wrong on that particular point and editors agree to remove all reference to it, or it may be the judgement of editors on the page that it's better that the dispute over this be reported. However, until you produce these sources that deny the connection, no movement is possible. Currently what we have is that multiple sources say Maram Susli is Syrian Girl Sister.OsFish (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Currently what we have is that multiple sources say Maram Susli is Syrian Girl"

Maram Susli is "Syrian Girl" as is Mimi al-Laham. No doubt about that and Susli has never denied it.

It is "Syrian Sister" whom (or that) I am referring to. As it is difficult to prove a negative, it is my opinion that the authors ought produce reliable sources that say "Syrian Sister" is Susli in order to maintain Wikipedia's reputation as a valued source. Wootendw (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for the slip - Syrian Sister. I have amended my comment to show the error. The point still stands. You need to provide reliable sources. Your own (or my own) testimony on the truth of something or otherwise, as a wikipedia editor, carries zero weight without providing reliable sources. OsFish (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wootendw is correct that we can't prove a negative but we have at least two RSs (Guardian and Bellingcat) saying she is also known as "Syrian Sister" so in the absence of reliable sources contesting this we have no reason to doubt it. Susli herself doesn't deny it, just says "in the past" she "has been" misquoted. The Daily Beast account is more nuanced, which is why it is a good source to cite. There is nothing else in our article that refers to Susli' "Syrian Sister" persona apart from that first sentence, so I don't see any problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Susli has denied it. Just not in a citable article. And it wouldn't make any difference even if Susli did deny it, even in a sworn affidavit, nor in a citable reference because, as you agree, a negative cannot be proved. That's why the burden of proof should be on those making the claim. Wootendw (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It would really help if you could provide some kind of source for your claim. At the moment, I have no idea if this is something you learnt in private communication or if she flew a plane with a banner denying it across the skies with accompanying video broadcast by all channels.OsFish (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Request to add: [Category:Syrian propagandists], [Category:RT (TV network) people] and [Category:Anti-Zionism in Australia]

223.25.74.34 (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Some of the suggested categories may not be appropriate for articles covered by WP:BLP. Melmann 22:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate label for BLP

The use of the WP:label "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence is inappropriate for this BLP. It is sourced to an organisation which has not merited an entry on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is stated at WP:label "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Burrobert (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether a source has a Wikipedia page is not a measure of reliability. There are pages for the Daily Mail and Grayzone, but they're both formally considered unreliable. There are other sources for the statement that Susli is a conpsiracy theorist in addition to the Center For European Policy Analysis.

"Meanwhile, a source Postol had used for his Ghouta investigation had risen in prominence on social media, prompting some journalists to investigate her credibility and, by association, Postol’s. The Syrian-Australian blogger Maram Susli (also known as Syrian Girl and Partisan Girl) advocated a pro-regime stance on Syria and endorsed conspiracy theories about 9/11 Truth, the Holocaust, and the New World Order (Shachtman & Kennedy, 2017)."

from: Culloty, Eileen (2021) Evaluating conspiracy claims as public sphere communication, Journal for Cultural Research, 25:1, 36-50, DOI:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886421

and

"For his part, the credibility of the MIT professor Theodor Postol was undermined by an association with conspiracy theorists. In response to the Khan Sheikhou attack, Postol again accused the US government of using false information to justify airstrikes on Syria.

"However, one of Postol's key sources was revealed to be a regular contributor to conspiracy theory outlets. Postol had characterized Maram Susli, a Syrian-Australian blogger, as a chemistry expert. Investigations by journalists revealed that the chemistry graduate was a a regular Infowars contributor who had endorsed conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the Holocaust and has appeared on programmes with white supremacists including the leader of the Ku Klux Klan (Monbiot 2017; Shachtman and Kennedy 2017).

from Cullotty, Eileen (2020) "Conspiracy and the epistemological challenges of mediatized conflict" in Ben O'Loughlin, Katy Parry, Laura Roselle, Sarah Maltby (eds) Spaces of War, War of Spaces, Bloomsbury.

and

"Another widely reported conspiracy theory came from the network of RT and Infowars-linked personality Maram Susli (know as Syrian Girl or Partisangirl); who suggested that Maxron may have set the fire in order to avoid giving a national address on the Yellow Vest situation in France.

From Hotchkiss, M. B. (2020, March). Notre Dame Fire Conspiracism as Reflective of Russian Ideological Competition with the West. In International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (pp. 219-XIV). Academic Conferences International Limited.

and

"Postol est une figure controversée à propos de l’utilisation des armes chimiques en Syrie. Il s’est d’abord fait connaître sur le sujet après l’attaque au sarin du 21 août 2013 à Damas, suggérant que l’attaque avait été mise en scène. Il est devenu particulièrement célèbre quand son propre manque d’expertise en chimie l’a amené à approcher la youtubeuse conspirationniste Maram Susli, également connue sous les noms de Mimi al-Laham, PartisanGirl, Syrian Girl et Syrian Sister, pour obtenir ses conseils sur la fabrication d’armes chimiques."

from: Syrie Factuel (2019, September) "La déclaration de Tulsi Gabbard sur les attaques chimiques en Syrie : Un texte confus et bourré de contradictions", Bellingcat.

and

"However, despite his impressive-sounding title, Postol is no expert on chemical weapons, and had to approach an Assad-supporting conspiracy theorist, Maram Susli, who also goes by several other names including Partisan Girl, for advice in this regard. "

from Amr, Salahi (2019) "Tulsi Loves Assad: How Syria Became a US Presidential Campaign Issue", The New Arab, 22 August 2019

I think we have enough to support the statement. OsFish (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Let P be the proposition that an outlet is reliable and Q be the proposition that an outlet has a Wiki page. Then my statement was

P --> Q

or, equivalently,

not Q --> not P

You provided some examples of unreliable sources which have Wiki pages. In other words, you proved the proposition:

There exists a Q such that not P holds.

This does not invalidate the proposition P --> Q. What you need to show is:

There exists a P such that not Q holds.

Are there any such counterexamples?

Btw, none of the sources you mention above appear in Maram’s bio. Burrobert (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia policy that a source is only reliable if it has the English Wikipedia page. Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Journal for Cultural Research is RS but has no Wikipedia page. Same for the book I cited. So you have already been presented with such sources. These sources can be added, but I chose not to add them immediately because that particular sentence is currently the subject of a dispute. This dispute was prompted by you edit-warring in violation of the active community sanctions on this page, following my reversion of an edit that you justified by claiming a conspiracy theory was widely accepted as true. I am also very surprised, given that you have been on Wikipedia for seven years, that you did not know that "having a Wikipedia page" is not a necessary criterion for a reliable source. Are you sure you want to continue this dispute in such a manner? OsFish (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I support adding these sources. They all seem to be reliable and there are enough examples for us to use the words in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert's latest wholesale removal of content, sources, and context in this topic area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maram_Susli&diff=prev&oldid=1183773032

He knows that the content in the Daily Beast article is correct, and is easily verifiable, so he's attempted to make a deletion of a crucial piece of information, under the cover of his objection to a completely different - and ultimately totally unnecessary - source.

Here's the article in question: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-kardashian-look-alike-trolling-for-assad

Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The material is unsourced or poorly sourced and must be removed from this BLP. Burrobert (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You just violated 1RR. Also: "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast."[1] Also, honest question here: do you think it's a good idea for your reputation to simp-edit for someone who habitually works with the likes of David Duke (KKK), Ryan Dawson (Holocaust denier), NazBols, and Duginist fascists? Just curious, like... (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef. Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF from LinkedIn (i.e. usable for "uncontroversial self-description.":[2]

• She has contributed to publications such as the New Eastern Outlook and media outlets including RT, Press TV, and Al Mayadeen. Susli has appeared as a guest on Satellite News channels France24, SkyNews, Al Mayadeen, Indus News as well as George Galloway’s Mother of all talk shows
• Conference contributions listed:
  • World Online Conference on Multipolarity (April 29, 2023)
  • 4th Western Australia Computational Chemistry Conference (December 2-3 2021)
  • Schiller Institute Conference (March 20 2021)
  • 2nd Western Australia Computational Chemistry Conference (November 13, 2019)
  • Internationale Friedenspolitik Kongress Brandherd Syrien (October 22 2016)
  • Kongress Verteidiger Europas Forum Linz (October 28 2016)

Freelance gigs listed:

• • Sputnik, Al-Mayadeen, GlobalResearch, New Eastern Outlook

Monbiot, George (15 November 2017). "A lesson from Syria: it's crucial not to fuel far-right conspiracy theories". the Guardian. Retrieved 7 November 2023. (WP:RSOPINION)

• Postol and Susli both appeared on a podcast run by the Holocaust “revisionist” Ryan Dawson

Carlston, Morgan (18 February 2016). "Don't Doubt the Iron Dome". bellingcat. Retrieved 7 November 2023.

• Even though there appears to be mainstream acceptance of Postol’s criticism, he also has affiliations with fringe individuals, appearing in YouTube videos with 9/11 conspiracy theorist Ryan Dawson, and (along with Richard Lloyd) assisting Assad propagandist Maram Susli in her attempts to disprove allegations of Syrian President Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons in August 2013. Both also assisted Seymour Hersh in his widely criticized Ghouta articles. When questioned over Susli’s alleged Holocaust denial, Postol said “When I got statements from outside people saying she was a Holocaust denier, quite frankly I wasn’t going to ask her”.

Holt, Jared (30 October 2019). "Angelo John Gage Spreads Hate with a Twitter Blue-Check". Right Wing Watch. Retrieved 7 November 2023.

• On his YouTube channel, Gage has hosted anti-Semitic pundits and white nationalist pundits, including E. Michael Jones, Jean-François Gariépy, Kevin MacDonald, Adam Green, Ryan Dawson, and Tomislav Sunić, and conspiracy theorist Maram Susli.

Burley, Shane (2022-10-25). No Pasaran: Antifascist Dispatches from a World in Crisis. AK Press. ISBN 1-84935-483-9.

• Susli herself has far right sympathies, appearing on podcasts hosted by [David] Duke and having been interviewed by [Richard] Spencer and Lana Lokteff.

Guckert, Élie (21 August 2020). "Le massacre chimique de la Ghouta, cas d'école du conspirationnisme pro-Assad". Conspiracy Watch (in French). Retrieved 7 November 2023. (considered RS by fr.wikipedia)

• Dans une interview accordée au complotiste Ryan Dawson en 2014 au sujet de la jeune blogueuse [Susli], le chercheur du MIT [Postol] lâche sans sourciller : « Je savais qu’elle était chimiste car je la suivais sur Twitter. Je pouvais voir à sa voix qu’elle était une chimiste aguerrie ».

Higgins, Eliot (2021-05-27). We Are Bellingcat. London Oxford New York New Delhi Sydney: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1-5266-4506-8.

• Espousing baseless theories about 911 and more, [Susli] has appeared on the podcast of former KKK leader David Duke as well as that of Ryan Dawson, who denies many aspects of the Holocaust, calling the gas chambers 'extraordinary bullshit'

BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The statement at issue was "She has published in the Duginist Journal of Eurasian Affairs, as well as numerous far-right and neo-Nazi podcasts and media networks". The only reasonable source provided was CNN, which only mentioned Susli in passing, saying "Spencer interviewing Maram Susli ... who has contributed to conspiracy site InfoWars". Mention of Spencer is probably not DUE based on this one reference. Nevertheless, I included it as the only bit of relevant info from the sources. Even if the Daily Beast were suitable for a BLP, there was nothing in that source that would support the statement that was at issue. An additional point is that none of this was mentioned in the body of the article, making its inclusion in the lead problematic, even if there were sources.

Anyway, what additional content do you think should be added to the body of the article, and possibly the lead, based on these new sources? Burrobert (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The article currently mentions Spencer but not Duke and Dawson. We have two sources for Spencer, two for Duke, four for Dawson and one for Gage, so I think they should be added to the body, with a brief summary in the lead. We don't have a decent source for Eurasian Affairs, so that should not be added. Something has happened to the France24 ref in the reverts so that needs restoring.

Different topic, but I think the New Eastern Outlook section is not due in the lead, and should move to the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My comments below are based on the excepts you have provided.

What we can say based on these sources?:

Monbiot’s opinion piece: We could say Susli appeared on a podcast run by Ryan Dawson. However, Ryan Dawson does not seem to have a wiki bio so readers won't get much information from that.

Iron Dome: We have already mentioned Postol and Maram’s collaboration. Other relevant content from this article is opinion, in one case second-hand opinion.

Right Wing Watch: I am unfamiliar with Angelo John Gage and he does not appear to have a wiki bio. Not sure that the source is suitable for a BLP (see below), but even if it is, all it says is that Maram appeared on the YouTube channel of someone who does not have a wiki bio. Is that noteworthy?

Reasons why the Right Wing Watch source may be unsuitable for a BLP.

• It has a huge bias as it is run by the advocacy group People for the American Way
• The cited article only mentions Maram in passing.
• It is unclear whether the site it has an editorial process.

Shane Burley: Can’t comment on the quality of the source. The editor, Shane Burley, does not appear to have a wiki bio. Apparently, the book is written by "antifascist researchers". Assuming the source is usable for facts, we could say Maram appeared in podcasts hosted by David Duke and has been interviewed by Richard Spencer and Lana Lokteff. We would provide a wiki link to the three interviewers.

Conspiracy Watch: Does not include anything new as we already mention Postol and Maram’s collaboration. Don’t know anything about Conspiracy Watch. It does not appear to have a wiki bio in the English wiki but has a large page on the French wiki. It seems to be run by two people, Rudy Reichstadt, who has no wiki bio, and Valérie Igounet, who does. It seems to focus on conspiracy theory, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

The other bellingcat source: Confirms that Maram appeared on a podcast of David Duke and Ryan Dawson. The rest is opinion.

So, in summary we can say that Maram appeared on podcasts, YouTube videos etc. hosted by Ryan Dawson, Angelo John Gage, David Duke, Richard Spencer, Lana Lokteff. We then have various opinions about these people. We don’t need to say anything about David Duke, Richard Spencer and Lana Lokteff as they have wiki bios. We would need to use BLP policies to determine what we could say about Ryan Dawson and Angelo John Gage. We also need to consider whether descriptions of them are relevant to Maram’s bio.

I agree about moving the description of New Eastern Outlook to the body. The unattributed description of the NEO is sourced to the RAND corporation and the US Department of Treasury. We should attribute that description if it is to be retained. Her contributions to NEO ended in 2017.

I found one article by Maram on Dugin’s site ([3]) but don’t see a way of searching the Eurasian Affairs journal to see if Maram contributed there as well. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Have moved this detail from lead to body with concise summary in lead. I think body version needs some work including attribution re the characterisations of these platforms (current version might be SYNTH). I think fine to add a very minimalist mention of the podcasts too but will leave for now in case other editors want to weigh in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's a good start. As you said, let's see if there are any other comments or suggestions. Burrobert (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)