Talk:Danny Abdul Dayem

"Evidence of fabrication"
Only references provided are to youtube video from ad-Dounia TV (Syrian semi-official channel) that regardless does not provide any proof of fabrication and second reference is conspiracy website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User Asabbagh Please refrain from reverting changes until consensus has been reached on Talk page. Roamingkurd (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is it "Conspiratorial"?. The video of Danny (it doesn't matter who filmed it or broadcast it at all) is the evidence, no need to attempt to hide it. Regardless, the paragraph you are adamant about hiding mentions the fact that Danny denies the allegations. I'd say that hiding the video is quite one-sided and a form of censorship. We have to keep this NPOV, and by deleting any mention of that evidence and the link to the evidence, whether or not you agree with it, is NOT NPOV. Asabbagh (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, here is a link to Danny himself admitting that the video is real, he says "I don’t know how they got it, this is all private, we should have, this has all been deleted, we have to delete all this stuff" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR6cYM3C95g Asabbagh (talk)

Infowars.com is widely regarding as a conspiracy site. The youtube video links (one titled 'Danny the Zionist') do not provide any concrete 'evidence' of 'Media Fabrication,' and if anything reinforce that they are spurious. The only media source appears to the semi-official Syrian TV station. Additionally, the youtube link you provided to a CNN clip only confirms all this.

For these reasons, I feel WP:UNDUE, it editorializes, presents irrelevant information, and on its own terms repeats bogus news. You provided media reports that were likewise subsequently and unquestionably disproven.

Roamingkurd (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I repeat just for you: It doesn't matter who filmed the video showing Danny's acting, the video is there and you have not provided a single valid reason for why it should be hidden from Wikipedia. You have absolutely no authority to decide whether or not this video is evidence, therefore I will re-add it, and the article will state that this is the leaked footage that some are using as evidence. The second video showing Danny and Anderson Cooper attempting to do damage control only confirms that the original video was 100% real. None of the media reports I provided were "subsequently and unquestionably disproven." Asabbagh (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not arguing the video is not real. Just that there is nothing of substantive backing up your claims which appear to be pushing forward a political agenda. I am once again removing the paragraph in question. Please do not revert until a consensus is reached her as per Wiki policy. Roamingkurd (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok so you know the video is real. What other claims are you referring to? You don't think that Syrians have used this video as evidence to prove Danny's lies? Obviously it has, you even admit that it was even broadcast on TV. Why are you trying to hide that fact? As for your personal accusations against me, I ask you to refrain, this talk page is a place for objective discussion about the article's content, not for personal attacks! Asabbagh (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because a video is real does not make it noteworthy. Again you are taking a biased position referencing 'Danny's lies?' which the video is not something proven in this video. No respected or trusted news organization has carried the story as you describe, i.e. that this video proves the activist in question fabricated his broadcasts. Roamingkurd (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be a section on here because SYRIAN AL DUNIA TV is known for its false reporting. If anything, this should be called False accusations of fabrication! Conspiratorial with out adequate references. Preceding unsigned

I'm with the last guy there is a lots of bias on both sides of the media I did see Danny make fabrications along with others video similar to this and other thing there is no such thing as "trusted" news channel it's biased I think in my opinion in most cases neutral reporting is usually nations that have no relation to the conflict nor have relations with those nations in conflict so please sir don't cover up the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RoamingKurd, the youtube video doesn't have any demonstrable evidence of fabrication and there is no other indication it is otherwise other than from conspiracy/propaganda sites. Thus that section is not worthy of inclusion. 68.74.71.19 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

we can accuse each other of being biased towards one or the other but the facts are there, it should be posted in a neutral way otherwise it clearly censorship by RoamingKurd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 04:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

here is a more clearer video of Danny in fabrication http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFSCzzi2yRg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you 28boxhead, that is precisely my argument; The video exists, and it is a FACT that lots of people are using that video as evidence against Danny's claims. This FACT has to be mentioned, the wikipedia article does not have an opinion on whether or not the video is real, but the wikipedia article should mention the FACT that a video exists, that people have used it as evidence against Danny, and link to the video. I have started a subpage here User:Asabbagh/Danny_Abdul_Dayem to keep that paragraph temporarily until we re-add it into the main article. Asabbagh (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe RoamingKurd the only one who keeps changing and putting biased info on Danny clearly a ANTI-ASSAD BIGOT there is no neutrality in his/her input Wikipedia should block him from making new changes to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears it's been resolved above that whether or not the video is real is not what is in dispute. Rather, it is the claims to what is exactly is demonstrated by the video, a convincing case for is yet to be made. Please see WP:NOR Bbx998 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, convincing case has not been made that video demonstrates 'fabrication.' Appears to simply be attempt to defame/discredit subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.233.24 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RoamingKurd, the youtube video isnt showing any signs of fabrication and it is likely from conspiracy/propaganda sites. It is not worthy of inclusion. <---

IGNORE anonymous commentators probably RoamingKurd he needs to be Permban doesn't know what in world what conspiracy means if the evidence in the video in your face

Here is another source, I wonder if RoamingKurd thinks rt.com is also a conspiracy site. Asabbagh (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No not conspiracy site, rather propaganda site. Well-known as mouthpiece for the Kremlin and Russian government funded. That aside, the article still does not add any value to proving your point. Interestingly, the article appears to copy some parts straight out of this wiki. Roamingkurd (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statements are starting to get ridiculous. How does this not prove my point? My point was, and still is, that the video was used by Syrians to prove Danny Abdul Dayem's propaganda. How can you possibly still deny this fact? And more importantly, why are you trying to censor it? Asabbagh (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your have been making the claim that Danny is 'lying' and 'fabricating' 'propaganda.' It is still not clear what in the video conclusively proves 'fabrication' or 'lies.' This isn't a place to editorialize or a news site, it is an encyclopedia meant for encyclopedic material, which your paragraph is not. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"No not conspiracy site, rather propaganda site. Well-known as mouthpiece for the Kremlin and Russian government funded" roamingkurd, could you please give an example of a site or news outlet that does not do propaganda? are you saying the Russian government is the only government on the planet that does not (always) tell the truth? could you give me a link to a news agency that is not a conspiracy site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.213.161 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

why cant you just shut up and just put allegation of fabrications its neutral let the viewer judge for himself so go ahead paste what was erased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 28boxhead, it will be added, it is not up to a user such as RoamingKurd to decide whether or not we add it. I will have a moderator intervene if need be. Asabbagh (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I even seen people like him shut down youtube accounts that are against NTC and NATO on Libya, talk about censorship like 1VSMRK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you want to call it a 'fabrication' or 'propaganda' the video needs to be addressed on the main article. I can't understand why you are so adamant to opposing it. The fact of the matter is, that the video in question undercuts previous impressions we have of Danny. I remember watching the initial interview with Anderson Cooper, and being disturbed at the supposed intense images that were taking place right before Danny. Now we know that those images were played up for the media. Roamingkurd why are you so opposed to this? The video itself is proof? What sort of political agenda are you advocating? This is the reason that wikipedia isn't an academic source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)