Talk:Aqrab massacre

POV
Minor arming? Where do you suspect the heavy weapons and artillery come from. There is no shortage of sources saying who did the "minor warming"
 * Further this deceptive edit summary doesnt deal with the content. There is NO mention of minor or major arming, its simply stating what is cited as fact on the main civil war page that there was extern al support (definition of intervention?) and you are removing your own edit. No problems adding military siege and that was my removal and my bad
 * this is directly relevant as in the source listed, please see that and not your own synthesis(Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

The issue I am dealing here with is Undue weight. Why not talk about Arab Spring, Military defectors, Battle of Bab Amr, Hezbollah, iran, the Kurds, Syrian liberation army, killing of protesters, the refugees, inter blackout, mass arrest campaign.

I suggest we just leave the background out of this. No need for a background, just direct people to the Syrian civil war page. Sopher99 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then go ahead an add it. You dont have censor what is here because it is turue. No one is stopping you from adding the arab spring context, the defectors (though then add those who have rejected the opposition since too and that is true as well), adding state violence is just as equal as adding opposition violence. Not sure what the kurds have to do with this (asn in the organisation)_. Likewise Iran if youre not going to mention the west and the arab states (hence ive said external intervention without taking names). Add refugees too. Background is standard practice on these articles. Unlike the pov:
 * Where is the assertion of "local activists" in the source"? This is ORIGINAL RESEARCHLihaas (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

Delete the article?
No one has proved so far that the massacre actually occurred. There are more views than sides in the conflict and none of them seem convergent. This fulfills 6th and 7th deletion criteria. If no one gives a reason to keep it, I will start the deletion procedure. --Emesik (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Even if it was theoretically proved a hoax, it would still be notable enough for an article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)