Talk:Houla massacre/Archive 1

Has the UN really said that?
An article published by Euronews states "While Syrian state TV blamed 'armed terrorist gangs', a spokesman for UN chief Ban Ki-moon and international envoy Kofi Annan accused the Syrian government of carrying out a 'brutal' breach of international law." This wording looks to me suspiciously like the the news outlet is conflating reactions to the massacre with statements given by the two top UN officials prior to the attacks. We should remember that Ban ki-Moon gave a statement to that effect on the day of the massacre, i.e. prior to knowledge of the massacre. If this new position from the UN can be corroborated by other sources, fine, but if not, perhaps we should take our precautions with respect to the real possibility that the Euronews article is fudging this issue? __meco (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As more news outlets are reporting this I'm more inclined to believe it to be correct, however, I would have liked seeing a reference to press conferences held by Ban and Annan, just to make sure there isn't some confusion of this issue as I explained above. __meco (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

General Mood's statements in two places
Currently Mood's statements are presented fully both in the introduction and in the Aftermath section. One place should suffice, or, the mention in the lede should be compressed significantly. __meco (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, however I would leave it in Aftermath section rather than lede since it is significant to the rest of the section, especially UN report about how "Syrian Government immediately cease the use of heavy weapons in population centers". EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But that report surely didn't come as a result of this incident? Wasn't that the report that was published in Friday? We need clarity on this. __meco (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do not know. I vaguely remember that either Mood or Ban Ki Moon said this today but I would have to re-check it. However report from NYT which is used as reference uses it in context of this massacre, not earlier events. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it "This appalling and brutal crime involving indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force is a flagrant violation of international law and of the commitments of the Syrian government to cease the use of heavy weapons in population centres and violence in all its forms," said a statement issued on behalf of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Joint Special Envoy of the UN and the League of Arab States for Syria, Kofi Annan.. Therefore regarding Mood statement, it should probably stay in aftermath section and removed from lede. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a better timeline
When did the shelling begin? When did the throat-cuttings occur? When was the standoff between the armed militants and the police? When was the hospital burned down? We need to try and pin-point these events, and duration of events, when applicable, using the information that is scattered in the numerous references used for this article. Perhaps a starting point could be adding such bits of information here, as comments to this post? (Or as a sub-section) If there are conflicting accounts, we need them all presented, at least here, and then we can decide what to put into the article when we have consolidated the information. __meco (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. The UN is presenting a formal report on this in 2-3 days, which will be helpful for this. Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent excellent source from EllsworthSK. Can you take a look at the mock-up table I propose we try and use for this work? I've added all the witness testimonies from EllsworthSK's source into it. Is this something we can try and work with? __meco (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting idea, but I'm a little hesitant to adding so much detail and weight to eyewitness testimony (even in transcluded format). Is there precedent for this kind of approach in similar articles? Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The table is for this page, the talk page. I propose it be used in the sub-section below. With an orderly and comprehensive listing of all witness testimonies as they are presented by various media outlets, it will, that is my idea, be an invaluable tool in weighing all the information and composing what is to go into the article itself. (I hope that clarification makes your question about precedents moot, because this is something I just came up with.) __meco (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misunderstood. I agree that this would be very helpful for this page--thanks for your efforts. Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This BBC story attempts to give a narrative and map of the attacks. Khazar2 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've extracted two statements from it. Unfortunately the journalist doesn't mention either where these victims/witnesses are from, to whom they were speaking or where and how these videos have been obtained by the BBC. __meco (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Timestamp section (include references)

 * ''If the reference is already used in the article, say so.


 * Example: event A began around noon on Friday and lasted for five hours, according to source S (http://bbc..., not used in article)

According to Human Rights Watch investigation events unfolded as following
 * Friday protests As usually, residents held protests against government of Bashar al-Assad. According to witness it came under fire from one of the checkpoints on what FSA in town responded by attack on two military checkpoints. When this protest started, when shooting started and subsequently when FSA assaulted checkpoint is unclear. Number of killed and injured is unclear as well, all we know is that 3 soldiers died and 16 were injured (according to Syrian government)
 * Shelling starts at cca 14:30. Till 19:00 army is using only tank shells.
 * Shelling intensifies, gunmen enter town outskirts At 18:30 armed gunmen enters Houla outskirts, area which is owned and where lives Abdul Razzaq family near water dam. 62 members of family are killed. At 19:00 shelling intensifies and army starts using mortars and rocket artillery. Gunmen leaves the estate/house and FSA fighters comes in. When shelling stopped and what happened to rest of the city, including how did other 46 civilians died remains unclear. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline tracer

 * ''The following table is transcluded from a sub-page. If you want updates to appear on your watchlist you must click "watch" below

SYNTH content
It looks like the background section has had a bit of WP:SYNTH content added to it, such as this Huff Post piece not mentioning the current massacre, but only detailing past events. Per that policy, I suggest we not include any sources here that don't directly mention our topic; listing unrelated human rights violations that the Syrian govt has been accused of or that the Syrian opposition has been accused of is both off-topic and a bit POV. Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disappointingly, that editor has declined to engage me here, but has reverted again when I tried to remove it. I'd appreciate another look at this, but I'd still argue that our job is to summarize only sources about the Houla Massacre here--not to list past crimes of Al Qaeda, nor of Assad's government, nor of the Syrian opposition, nor of the United Nations, etc., etc. Including cherry-picked past events that haven't been mentioned in reliable sources in connection to this seems to me clearly POV. Khazar2 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huffington post is not a reliable source, it has no editorial oversight for individual pieces. Find a better source for claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.230.32 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to your removing that part of the content if you'd like to. Khazar2 (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huffington post is a reliable source. But regardless I will search for other sources. Sopher99 (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates
This are Houla coordinates. Rakela (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary of UN Security Council resolution--opinion requested
An editor has reverted my attempts to add a fuller description of the UN Security council resolution. The New York Times makes it very explicit that the resolution does not directly blame the Syrian government for all the deaths: "The 15-member Council approved a statement that, while not blaming the Syrian government directly for all the deaths, rebuked it for its use of tanks and artillery against civilians despite agreeing to an April 12 cease-fire." It seems to me that leaving out this qualifier is a bit dishonest, but I could be wrong. A third opinion would be appreciated. Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You would be right, except for including that part implies that a second party (such as the FSA) is also responsible. That is misleading, because the only thing mood was able to confirm was that artillery and knives were used, and Mood acknowledged that only the gov has artillery power.

If you can find a way to say "while not blaming the Syrian government for all the deaths- as the source of knife attacks and close range shootings can not be easily be identified in any circumstances" I believe it would work better. What I am trying to say is that what you added leaves the reader with a sense that the Syrian government is not solely responsible - but thats not what is being said. Please find a way to fix this problem. Sopher99 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, in my understanding, the UN is holding back from explicitly saying that the Syrian government is solely responsible: "Mr. Ban skated very close to blaming Syrian government shelling for at least some of the deaths while carefully noting that the cause had not been completely determined." It's important to note that this statement still has wiggle-room in it. (My understanding is that Russia is largely responsible for the watering down).
 * It seems to me that if we don't include or paraphrase some form of "while not blaming the Syrian government directly for all the deaths", we're misrepresenting the statement. What we could do, though, is follow Al Jazeera's lead and discuss this statement in more detail later on the in the article. Britain and other nations wanted a more direct condemnation of Assad; Russia balked. Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is strong implication, but does not judge directly who was involved probably because of ongoing UNSMIS investigation and because of Russian stance (who protect their pet dictator at all cost, but let´s leave that aside). As was said, report does not says that Syrian government is not solely responsible, it says that currently they cannot say with 100 percent accuracy who is responsible, yet neither UNSC resolution, nor Major General Mood statements implicates rebel forces of committing this massacre, therefore trying to bring them on same level won´t fly, at least not here. Therefore we should wait till final UNSMIS report (if it ever comes), state in article what was in sources - ie strong implication towards Syrian security forces (military and militia) being penetrators, but not establishing guilt to neither side. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you'd like to rework the sentence in the lead section accordingly, I'd appreciate it. I've done a lot of work on this article today and am probably nearing my revert limit. Khazar2 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I shortened the lead both according to this discussion and the above discussion with mede about duplicity of general Mood statements. Would this be acceptable as lead?

''The Houla massacre was an attack that took place on May 25, 2012, in two opposition-controlled villages in the Houla Region, a cluster of villages north of Homs where at least 108 people, including 34 women and 49 children, were killed. The official news agency of the Syrian government alleged that Al-Qaeda terrorist groups were responsible for the killings, while opposition groups alleged that the Syrian military and government-linked militias known as Shabiha were the perpetrators.[3][4] Residents say they had sent the UN obser mission in Syria a plea for help before the massacre, warning of an imminent attack by the government, but the UN monitors did not respond.[5]''

''The Syrian Government was condemned for its role in the massacre unanimously by the United Nations Security Council. The statement said that the attacks "involved a series of government artillery and tank shellings on a residential neighborhood" and the security council called for the Syrian Government to withdraw heavy weapons from Syrian towns.[1][6]''

EllsworthSK (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I love how no one responds on this in discussion and afterwards reverts the edit without writing a letter here, here are the reasons for deletion of this and that. a, 17 dead is number long time ruled out by UN. UN is RS, SANA is not. b, general Mood statement, discussed above. Duplicity. c, SNC - same as SANA. RS gave us number of casualties while SNC is not RS. d, Kofi Annan - duplicity, already mentioned in international respons. So what is the problem? EllsworthSK (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format
This article suffers from inconsistency in date format. Dates are variously given as "27 May", "May 27", and even "28th May". Wikipedia guidelines say that the date format should be consistent throughout an article. I was adressing this issue the other day, obtaining full consistency, but was immediately reverted by user Meco on the grounds that the original date format should be retained (WP:DATERET). It is pretty obvious that, when there are several date formats in the same article, one has to be chosen. I had chosen international format over the US format, because the article has no strong national ties (WP:STRONGNAT) to the United States (in fact, it has none whatsoever). When I pointed out to Meco that he had reintroduced inconsistent date formats to the article with his action, he was faced with the same problem: he had to choose one format. He chose the least appropriate, the US format, for reasons he can best explain himself.

For quality reasons, this inconsistency has to be fixed, as this is a highly visible article, covering a current event in a series of ongoing events. One format has to be chosen, and in my view, it's pretty obvious that US date format is the least suitable for the article – and indeed for the whole series on this topic.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your argument, but I submit that per WP:ENGVAR, this isn't worth spending our time debating when the article has so much development left to be done; as long as there's a consistent format in the article, that's the only important thing for now. Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that there are more important things to do in the article, but there had been no debate at all about this if Meco had just refrained from that knee-jerk revert. And we would still have consistent date format. But I'll leave it for now. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mexican government's reaction
Is it relevant to the article if I include Mexico's reaction? I noticed that there are other countries listed in the International Reactions' section. ComputerJA (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. You're welcome! ComputerJA (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Syrian government has a history of committing massacres"
I appreciate the honest attempt to present the facts on this terrible incident as far as they are known and confirmed. In that spirit I propose to delete the sentence "The Syrian government has a history of committing massacres", because this statement is not related to facts of this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.109.18.2 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If that has been fairly incontrovertibly confirmed that would seem an appropriate part of the background history to this incident. __meco (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Many governments that actually use their military forces "have a history of committing massacres." I think that background from the current uprising / civil war, including mention of recent civilian casualties at the hands of the Syrian Army, and also mention of the recent suicide bombings, would be more informative. -Darouet (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be clearly POV if we said something like "the UN has a history of ignoring massacres", and then linked to criticisms of the organizaiton following Rwanda. I don't think we should get a free pass to "make a case" against the Assad government until we see that our reliable sources are doing the same. Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Something should be done about the Events section
Would it perhaps make the article more transparent if we divided this into "Media reports of massacre in Houla" and "Witness testimonies", or something else? I'm open to ideas. I don't think the current section/title is an ideal way to organize this information. __meco (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me we have a diverse enough range of sources in there (UN, media, witnesses, political groups, etc.) that an accurate new header would be hard to find. I suppose we could call it "Reports on massacre" but only in the sense that almost any Wikipedia section could be called "Reports on..." This section will hopefully continue to "harden" into more directly verifiability as reports like the UN's and HRW's continue to emerge.
 * So I think I'm good with the current title for now, but also open for other ideas. Khazar2 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm good with your second opinion. __meco (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate section on witness testimonies
We have as of now four separate articles in the timeline tracer table above which quotes testimonies from witnesses who either survived the attacks or who give direct information including names and locations and details of killings. What I find interesting with these is that a) all named witnesses to the killings blame the government and its militias, and b) no witnesses give details about victims of the artillery/mortar/tanks attacks by the Syrian regular military. Would it be a good idea to present this somewhat as I have laid it out now? Or would stating that none of the victims of government shelling are mentioned in the witness testimonies be original synthesis? __meco (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like mentioning it as an omission would be OR/synth ("Witnesses did not mention..."), but I'd think it would be fair to say something like "Witnesses focused on..." We might also more prominently emphasize the UN report stating that most victims did not die by heavy weapons, but up close and ugly. I added this last night, but it ended up a bit buried at the end of a paragraph. Khazar2 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Related article nominated for deletion
May 2012 Homs clashes is a stub article which has been nominated for deletion. Perhaps adding links to it in this article (and contributing to it) would help placing the massacre in a bigger context or at least connect it with related events. __meco (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Reworking of lead section
I've attempted to rework the lead section of the article to reduce the garble of conflicting claims. The media is now relying heavily on the UN reporting as the most reliable source, and so I've emphasized UN sources and de-emphasized opposition and Assad-govt. sources when it comes to casualties and causes of death. I'd be glad to hear other opinions on this if I've been excessively bold, though. Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We now have a figure of 20 casualties from shelling through the recently added Channel 4 article. __meco (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We should now perhaps focus on condensing the paragraphs of the Events section where the two opposition blocs present their initial claims? __meco (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I would think again that the initial claims could be greatly reduced, and more weight given to the more reliable (and far more widely reported as legitimate) UN report. Those initial claims are still worth mentioning, I think, but far less relevant. But I'll let somebody else take the first crack at this one; I've probably wandered into 3RR territory already with all this rewriting and a few borderline-vandalism reverts. Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't worry about 3RR. There's no tendency towards edit warring here. __meco (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perpetrators
An editor has just changed the perpetrator section of the infobox from "Shabiha militias and Syrian military (alleged as most likely perpetrators by the UN)" to "Unknown". This strikes me as both true and misleading; the majority of reliable sources are following the UN in discussing this not as a mystery, but as a massacre most likely perpetrated by Shabiha militias. I'm fine with a rephrasing if needed, but I think we need to follow our sources in reporting the alleged likely perpetrator. Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN round 2?
This article is being considered for a second inclusion on In The News at WP:ITN/C due to today's diplomatic fallout; opinions one way or the other, and help crafting a potential blurb, would be welcome. Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Syrian government has a history of committing massacres"
I'm a bit wary of this initial sentence in the Background section. I've glanced at the three articles that are linked and they seem to support this statement, however, I have not investigated the references in those articles to establish whether this is the final verdict or "merely" the majority opinion or mainstream media consensus. Have those articles been subjected to the same level of NPOV enforcement as we have hopefully managed with the present article? In any case, using other Wikipedia articles as references is in itself inadmissible, so we should do something quickly about this matter. __meco (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been complaining about that paragraph on this page for days. =) I agree that it's needlessly prejudicial. BBC, Al Jazeera, and other reliable sources are not discussing this in terms of a 10- to 20-year "history of committing massacres" (though they are putting it in the context of the war's violence). Even the sentence on previous Houla violence seems shaky to me--if this is importnat background, why has it been mentioned by zero news organizations with reference to the massacre? A better background section to my mind would have a few sentences describing the origins of the civil war, and its previous violence, per a reliable source that is discussing the Houla massacre directly. In either case, though, I agree that "history of massacres" has to go. Khazar2 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree, the POV of this statement is ridiculous and not in any way constructive to a neutral article. Let's have a vote shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need that. The problem has been identified and we're addressing it. __meco (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
The article reads:

According to Al Jazeera's correspondent Hadi al-Abdallah, the Free Syrian Army had gained control of the town of Houla, and it became a hub for opposition militants. The Syrian Army was unable to enter the town, forcing them to shell it from a distance.

I thought those massacred were stabbed and shot from close range. Why the contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:59, May 30, 2012‎ (UTC)
 * A small portion of those killed were killed by heavy weapons fire (artillery and tanks). However, most were killed by (apparently) Shabiha in summary executions during the shelling. Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And HRW report says it was on outskirts, outside the combat zone.EllsworthSK (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Shabiha: govt linked or govt-hired?
The description of Shabiha was just changed from "government-linked" to "government-hired". The latter is widely suspected, but I'm not sure it's verified yet per reliable sources. BBC, for example, describes Shabiha as "a sectarian civilian militia that supports the regime of Bashar al-Assad", and Al Jazeera calls them "armed pro-government forces", which is different from being paid employees. Does anyone have more information on this? For now I'd suggest changing it back, but I'm open to other opinions. Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the wikipedia article for Shabihba and you can find all the sources you need. Regardless the source says "pro-goverment", so thats whats being used now. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am looking at that article, which unfortunately is a bit of a mess. The only reference I see here to "hired" is an inaccurate summary of the source, so I went ahead and removed it. I have no personal opinion on this, so I don't mind seeing it included if that's the way the majority of our reliable sources describe those groups; I just haven't seen that claim yet myself. Khazar2 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've given the Shabiha article a good work-over to improve the missing and distorted sources. The closest to your "government-hired" reference I could find was one Syrian opposition group that had said that some of the Shabiha were mercenaries. For future reference, this is a good example of why editors are asked not to cite Wikipedia as their source; better to find a reliable source of your own directly. Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Two massacre sites
The two villages Taldo and al-Shoumarieh were the sites of the massacres. Both names featured in the article earlier on, but now al-Shoumarieh is missing. __meco (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, my apologies if I'm the one responsible (I may well be--I've been attemptng a lot of reorganizing work here as a more coherent narrative emerges, and it's quite likely I made some errors).
 * But I also wonder if it dropped out organically. The sources I'm reading seem to be consistently naming Taldo as the site where families were killed--are we still sure al-Shoumarieh was a site of the violence? I may have just not been noticing this. Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to consult the timeline tracer table above. __meco (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting interview sheds some insights
This interview from Iran's Press TV yields some rare perspectives on what might be the reality behind the Houla massacre. The interviewee is not a notable individual, but Press TV surely is pushing a point with this. Is there something here which we can use? __meco (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don´t think we should, as Press TV is not RS.EllsworthSK (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, surely it is? __meco (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * as the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, - it speaks for the Iranian regime - it can be relied on for that - I dont think it has a record of reliable, neutral reportage - its always pushing its agenda - fair enough, but we shouldn't be blind - sources should be identified and then readers can decide what to make of the 'info' from that source imo. Sayerslle (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have some reactions from Iran in the International Reactions section already, which seem to me like enough. Syria's version of events struck me as worth including as a major player in the conflict, even though their version is now widely discredited. Iran has the disadvantage of being both a minority viewpoint and a non-participant (to my knowledge); it seems like undue weight to give this much article space, but I'm up for hearing a more specific point you'd like to insert. Khazar2 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm arguing this should be counted towards the inclusion of anything from this article, but you should keep in mind that Syria is generally recognized as Iran's de facto protegé. __meco (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Still, it seems the countries being looked at as Syria's significant allies in most coverage now are Russia and China, because of the UN Sec Council vetoes. Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Need for better disambiguation in title
There was a botched move attempt here earlier on today. The need for disambiguation stems from the existence of another article, Hula massacre, about a 1948 massacre in Lebanon. I agree with the original target of the move, i.e. 2012 Houla massacre. Then that other article should be moved to 1948 Hula massacre. __meco (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Since this also coincides with standard naming convention I'm going ahead with the move. __meco (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The standard naming convention is to append the year when multiple events are referred to by the same name. "Hula massacre" and "Houla massacre" are different (albeit similar) names.
 * When subjects' names are likely to be confused, our standard convention is to link the articles to each other via hatnotes, thereby assisting readers intending to reach the other article.
 * Redirecting "Houla massacre" to "2012 Houla massacre" and "Hula massacre" to "1948 Hula massacre" helps no one (because someone who accidentally types "Hula" instead of "Houla" or "Houla" instead of "Hula" still arrives at the wrong article). —David Levy 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the year is not a proper disambig, however since the place names are almost identical, we need to disabiguate according to the place name itself: Hula, Lebanon and Houla (Homs governorate, Syria); thus Hula massacre (Lebanon) and Houla massacre.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't how we do things. As noted above, we don't append disambiguation when two names are merely similar (as opposed to identical).
 * When subjects' names are likely to be confused, our standard convention is to link the articles to each other via hatnotes, thereby assisting readers intending to reach the other article.
 * Your continual, undiscussed moves of Hula massacre to Hula massacre (Lebanon) contradict our naming conventions and assist no one. As I previously explained to you, we don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)", which serves absolutely no purpose.  In this instance, someone intending to reach Houla massacre and accidentally typing "Hula massacre" arrives at Hula massacre (Lebanon) — exactly the same article as before, with a title to which a useless qualifier (assisting no one in reaching the intended article) has been inappropriately appended.  Either way, it's the hatnote that points readers in the right direction.  —David Levy 21:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Testimony from villagers blaming bandits
This video from the Russian Damascus-based journalist Anhar Kochneva shows interviews with residents of Taldau following the massacre. An English translation of the testimonies is available. This video glaringly contradicts the narrative we are otherwise presented with of what took place in Houla last Friday. And it corroborates the Syrian government's version of the events. I became aware of the existence of this material watching this interview on Iran's Press TV with Webster G. Tarpley where he mentions this and two other alternative sources. The media organization that has broadcast this is Abkhazian Network News Agency (ANNA), which is described as "very small". __meco (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This needs to be added to the article. This is a groundbreaking realization and one that could potentially blow open our conceptions of what happened in Houla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The video report from ANNA is covered in this story from SyriaNews. __meco (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also got from the Tarpley interview this article from the Vatican news agency Agenzia Fides which relates to threats against Roman Catholic and Alawite residents following Friday's massacre. __meco (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This video posted on YouTube today is in Arabic, and its blurb translates via Google Translate as "Free Hour - Meeting with Murad Musin, Vice Chairman of the Russian Committee for Solidarity with the people of the Syrian and Libyan." I don't know yet which network this is. Apparently the claim presented here is that the UN observers were present during the massacre, that they were directly involved. An English translation of this program is said to be forthcoming. __meco (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's Press TV's article based on the Tarpley interview. He mentions a third source, in addition to the two I've already outlined: "Belgian website with an author called Vox Clamantis which describes, in detail, how it was done that the hospital in Houla was burned down and the people that had been taking refuge in it were systematically massacred from up-close by the death squads not by the government." I haven't investigated this source yet. __meco (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RT and PressTV are not reliable sources. Even check the RS noticeboard. Additionally those sources are a minority view points. Both RT and PRess TV uphold the "alqaeda' narrative of the Syrian government intentionally, further making them unreliable. Sopher99 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Translation of the above: "Anything that contains content that Sopher99 doesn't like is not reliable." This is a pattern repeated word-for-word on any article he has editied. Meowy 15:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Translation of the above: "I don't approve of Sopher99's awareness that the majority of sources that uphold the Syrian government's narrative are not RS." Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Translation : ' anything that contains facts that meowy finds uncomfortable will be attacked and ridiculed and undermined' Sayerslle (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's an RT article from May 28 that we seem to have overlooked. It also corroborates the alternative narrative which all of the above tend to point toward. I'm unable to do further work on any of this today. __meco (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% opposed to some version of this eventually being added, but this still seems very much the minority viewpoint (relying on YouTube videos, etc.). Let's see if more famous and well-regarded organizations pick it up as well: Al Jazeera, BBC, New York times, etc. Khazar2 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This entire argument is useless considering Robert Mood and the monitors say the villagers blame pro-Assad Shabiha. Shabiha are litterally identified as thugs. Thugs are bandits. Sopher99 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you can't dismiss these witnesses by claiming they are describing Shabiha. They are clearly siding with the government soldiers against those who attacked the soldiers.


 * "Police road posts were attacked. All soldiers were killed, and then they attacked our villages, torched a hospital in Al-Hula."


 * "Bandits killed our pharmaceutist near his pharmacy just because he has treated a wounded soldier."


 * "Thousands of thugs from the Al - Rastan attacked the town, killed all the soldiers at checkpoints. Burned the city hospital."


 * Correspondent:
 * "Al-Jazeera shows clips supposedly from the Tal - Dow and Al-Hula, how you look at it?"


 * Syed Abdul Wahhab:
 * "Al-Jazeera - it's a lying channel, the whole world knows that. We don't believe what they say because we are seeing it with my own eyes."


 * And it goes on and on. These witnesses are not to be misunderstood. __meco (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are witnesses from Houla, couldn't they be "witnesses" from the neighboring Alawite villages. We have over a dozen RS media claiming the opposite - That pro assad shabiha are responsible.
 * The source you gave says al jazeera is a lying channel and not to trust what you see.... yet Al jazeera's footage is from the UN monitoring missions itself... so yeah... Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The video clearly states that these are residents from Tal - Dow (Taldou) and Al-Hula. __meco (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that all foreign media in Syria is accompanied and guided by government minders and soldiers (unless they snuck into Syria). Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a Russian journalist who lives in Damascus. Given Russia's historically close relations with Syria it's quite possible this outfit is afforded the freedom of travel which western journalists are not given. __meco (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And Alex thomsons report from inside the town of Houla, on Channel 4 the other night? yet, look,   'this is russian journalist who lives in damascus...'yeah -  cynical. cynical. why not just add  sourced material you want to the article, you have confidence in it obviously - it'll be in the edit history - be proud of the material you want to add meco. go for it. Sayerslle (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * First, youtube video cannot be used as RS. Second, Press TV is not reliable source. Third, reliability of something like ANNA is heavily questionable and should be firstly presented on RS Noticeboard before even thinking about adding it to the article. As for my personal opinion, video lies. Village is rebel-occupied and only journalist on the ground was Channel 4 correspondents. No one else. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have requested an assessment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. __meco (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The ANNA is completely unreliable I should point out. Its a news source only about Syria, made in 2011, only in Russian, and fully takes on the Syrian governments narratives


 * Here is some of their headlines, translated through google translate


 * "France must not blindly follow the U.S. in their crusades"


 * "Syria news: Al-Hula - ordinary fascism, the first witness"


 * " "Humanists" have once again prepared to attack the chosen victim"


 * Sopher99 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have simply reposted your post from WP:RSN. I suggest we await the result of the inquiry at that noticeboard. Also, you might want to take a look at Indentation. __meco (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When I posted to the WP:RSN, I realized I had not made that point on the Talk, so I went ahead and did so. Sopher99 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * are you accusing Channel 4 News of lying ? meco. Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see where that question came from. I don't think I've written anything that reflects my personal would-be opinion on that particular source. __meco (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What he is saying is that if Channel 4 was the only news media to get into rebel controlled Houla and Taldou - then they were the only media to interview residents there (Any other "interviews" are fake) Sopher99 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just heard Sarah Whitsun?, HRC, on radio, not sure of spelling of her surname, and she said quite clearly,  'we have spoken to survivors  and documented their accounts and their belief [the perpetrators] were government  security forces' - the U.N, HRC,  channel 4 News, the townspeople, thats their belief - versus the regime itself, -  whatever ANNA is, and its  dystopian, distinctly Orwellian, header, 'truth explaining facts, facts supporting truth ' - its beyond parody aint it? (truth explains facts! - shouldnt that be facts define truth?-its almost a kind of acknowledgement that their ideological? sectarian? preferences will precede the  facts in deciding things) - and  russians, 'who might be afforded the freedom of travel'- and press tv - say good night to the folks, gracie  Sayerslle (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should place so much confidence in Google Translate. __meco (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what does the header translate as then? i clicked on the link you supplied and thats the first thing I read - this orwellian header - i didnt ask google to translate anything. it doesn't matter anyhow. i don't see why you don't just add what you want, be responsible for your edits, - kind of 'put up or shut up' - if you say, 'oh i dunno, i'm not sure whether its RS or not - got to ask the grown-ups' - that indicates to me you know bloody well its a load of bs. should be ashamed of yourself. Sayerslle (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:GOODFAITH and it was me who suggested to bring this to WP:RSN, not meco. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of heat appears to be being expended on whether these sources are reliable. However, even if found to be "reliable sources" (which, frankly, would surprise me), wouldn't this still fall under WP:DUE as an enormously minority viewpoint? If these claims start be to picked up by major world media organizations, the RS problem is solved; if they're not picked up by established reliable sources--which have covered the Houla massacre daily, and extensively--I'm not sure their fringe theories deserve article space per WP:FRINGE. Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are applying a frame of reference for the comparison of the two sides that is frankly not appropriate. We're not discussing claims of having found an alternative medical treatment for cancer or the purported invention of a free energy device. We are dealing with a sovereign nation which is experiencing tremendous atrocities and sufferings of its people. In that context WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE can hardly be applied as with matters such as the two examples I just gave. Because the entire international community is against North Korea or were against Ghaddafi, that didn't mean we don't or didn't fully cover the other side of those stories when we have the sources available. Also, it's not like there's a plethora of alternative theories for what happened either. There's the version of the UN and the opposition and there's the version of the government. Surely all acceptable sources for the other side, and we know they are few, should be welcomed! I'd like your comment on this, Khazar2. __meco (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:DUE is that it applies to all articles: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" about those specific views."
 * We've already given the Syrian govt. a reasonable amount of page space for its retort, I think, and I'd have no problem adding 2-3 sentences on Iran in the international reactions section. But the non-Shabiha view appears very much a "tiny minority" right now, and I think we need to treat it as such until it's discussed more widely in mainstream reliable sources. (For now, we don't appear to have established that even a minority of mainstream secondary sources are addressing this view.) I could be wrong, though--especially as I've been without Internet access for 2 days or so--and will be happy to help keep an eye out for evidence to the contrary. Khazar2 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ meco 'theres the version of the U.N. and the opposition..' - what about the townspeople meco - you've written them out of the account entirely now - wow - and does the U.N have a single version - arent Russian federation and china on the security council -  are you  4 real or just stirringSayerslle (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Meco's done a lot of hard work on this article; even beyond the basic principle of assuming good faith, I feel like he's clearly earned good faith, even if I disagree with him in this instance. I suggest we keep this focused on the proposed text and not personalities. Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what text exactly is proposed?  - to set out exactly what text  is thought desirable to be included - is a good idea Sayerslle (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is someone able to decipher the Arabic text to the following video? It shows children who have been executed wearing Syrian government flag wristbands. It is supposedly of the Houla massacre, but we need confirmation of this. This could change general opinion of this. Please watch the video and let me know. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=705_1338379800 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1, Liveleak is not RS. Just as YT or FB. So nothing will be confirmed.
 * 2, Throughout whole video no one talks. Editing video and adding there unoriginal text can do every monkey with access to the video editor program.
 * 3, Syrian opposition used current flag till fall of the last year when they exchanged it for the pre-Baath. Meanwhile many children died. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

-You're kidding me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "If these claims start be to picked up by major world media organizations, the RS problem is solved; if they're not picked up by established reliable sources--which have covered the Houla massacre daily, and extensively--I'm not sure their fringe theories deserve article space per WP:FRINGE." khazar wrote that above. seems about right. Sayerslle (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative version of events
This article sheds new light on the massacre. It appeared last Friday (8 June) on the front page of Germany's most prestigious newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here is a rough translation of the relevant paragraphs: "In recent days, Syrian opposition members from the area were able to reconstruct the probable course of events in Houla relying on credible eyewitness accounts. Their results contradict the rebels' claims, who had blamed Shabiha militias close to the régime for the crime. ... The fighting started when Sunni insurgents attacked the three Syrian Army checkpoints around Houla. The checkpoints had been set up to protect the Alawite villages around the predominantly Sunni Houla against attacks. A checkpoint that had been attacked called in support from units of the Syrian army which maintains a base 1,500 meters from the site and promptly sent reinforcements. In the battles around Houla, which reportedly lasted for some 90 minutes, dozens of soldiers and rebels were killed. During the fighting, the three villages of Houla were sealed off from the outside world. According to the eyewitnesses this was when the massacre occurred. They say that the killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to the Alawite and Shiite minorities in Houla, which is more than ninety percent Sunni. Thus, several dozen members of a family were slaughtered which had converted in recent years from Sunni to Shiite Islam. Moreover, members of the Alawite family Shomaliya were killed as well as the family of a Sunni member of parliament, because he was considered a collaborator. Immediately after the massacre, the perpetrators allegedly filmed their victims, presented them as Sunni victims and spread the videos via the Internet. Representatives of the Syrian government confirmed this version, but pointed out that the government had agreed not to speak publicly of Alawites and Sunnis."--41.205.52.190 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If that source is RS then why not add it if you think  that right . i've never heard of the paper, but the wp article indicates it is probably RS - a rightish german paper - i don't understand  "Syrian opposition members from the area were able to reconstruct the probable  course of events in Houla - their results contradict the rebels claims " - I thought the opposition and the rebels were one and the same - I believe the most widely reported version of events in RS is still reflected  better by, for eg, this in the guardian  - i think the german paper  isnt clear exactly who its sources are for this version - the guardian is clear - the german paper says  'Syrian opposition members' - and opposition members who come up with a version that Assad/putin will love. seems odd to me. the narrative is obviously contested.  Sayerslle (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is very unclear about its sources. Still, it's very much a mainstream newspaper. __meco (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True, the article's sources are not very clear, but the newspaper is very mainstream and their Middle East correspondent Rainer Herrmann is quite renowned so the assumption is he would not just publish any hearsay unless he believed it to be serious. 'Opposition' is a broad term, and of course opinions between local fighters ('rebels') and political activists ('opposition') may diverge. The obvious way of checking this would be to find out the names and religious denominations of the victims - but this is not for Wikipedia to do.--41.205.52.190 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably worth including a sentence or two about this; if other reliable sources support this version, we can continue to expand. For now it's definitely a minority view, though--it appears to be the only paper reporting this--and needs to be treated as such. Khazar2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This corroborates the position by the Syrian government on the Houla massacre. Since we already present that, it would seem appropriate to juxtapose this information with that. __meco (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article from Antiwar.com brings more on the Frankfurter Allgemeine account and others. __meco (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Look here for English report: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-houla-massacre-john-rosenthal# FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rosenthal is not reliable. During the Libyan civil war he was obsessed with making op-eds on how "Libyan rebels are alqaeda". I7laseral (talk)
 * Well. They are. http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/06/218969.html FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you see identity of the perpetrator in that article? Alqaeda could be in Libya, doesn't mean the rebels are alqaeda. I am shocked of how lowly you interpreted that article. I7laseral (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked that anyone can be so naive. But wait a couple of years, and most Westerners will regret they supported any armed uprisings in the Middle East instead of the peaceful ones. Only people there with fighting experience (apart from army and security personnel) are Islamists trained in Iraq and Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah you buy into the conspiracy theories. But you do realize that a proportion of alqaeda in Iraq were trained by and sent by the Syrian government to cause trouble for the United states occupation forces right? Now they are coming back home. I7laseral (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, so if that's the case, we agree on one thing: The armed opposition is Islamist. Doesn't matter who trained them. Whatever they say now, they'll turn on the West next once they get what they want. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, I didn't say that. All iI mean to say is that 500 out of 70,000 fighters are salifi. 20,000-30,000 civilian members, 40,000 core FSA fighters (out of 70,000-80,000 defectors), 1000-2000 tribal fighters, and 500 alqaeda, several dozen pershmega, several dozen libyans, and several dozen Hamas. And what does this have to do with the West? If the west really hated assad, they would have intervened a year ago. (and they can by the way, UN article 7) West needs Syrian government for stability with Israel. It was only 2 weeks ago that Ehud Barak said Israel had decided to end their Quasi friendship with Assad. I7laseral (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have it broken down better than the opposition itself. As for the Israelis, they're too confused about the Arab Spring to be coherent. They seem to have taken the road of "let the Arabs kill each other", that saves them the bullets. Doesn't keep them from inciting, though. First time Netanyahu ever gave a damn about the lives of Arabs: http://charismanews.com/world/33494-netanyahu-condemns-syrian-massacre-of-civilians FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Coincides with their announcement of "changing their minds about Assad", doesn't it? You should not interpret the conflict as a proxy war. Syria accused America of inciting things, until articles came out revealing how the United States actually stopped Turkey from arming the opposition and creating buffer zones, believing such actions were "going to fast". There is a common consensus that all that talk from Qatar and Saudi Arabia about arming the opposition were BS, and no state has yet to take any arming action, but according to the Washington post, the USA is currently "investigating" or "vetting" on whether to give a green light. I7laseral (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why they don't go all in is the same I've mentioned above. They're simply afraid of empowering al-Qaeda types, they've repeatedly said this. And rightly so. It certainly isn't out of love for Assad. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Alawi Shia"
Hello. I am concerned that the article describes Alawis as "Alawi Shia". Now, the word "Shia" usually means Shia Twelvers, ie, the religion followed by Iran, Hezbollah and others. While the religion followed by the Syrian governing party is known as "Alawi" or "Nusayri". So I think that its a deliberate attempt to smear Shia Twelvers with guilt for this massacre, by describing the Alawis as "Alawi Shia". I feel that its a deliberate campaign by the people of the same ideology who just blew up 60 innocent Shia (Twelver) pilgrims in Iraq yesterday, to smear the reputation of Shias by any means necessary, even trying to implicate Shias in a massacre, in a conflict which does not even include Shia. So I think Alawis should be described as Alawis or Nusayris, and not Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.14.54 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i added the material from Channel 4 news - the written report - " he says (ie.the villager that Alex Thomson is speaking to) - and all agree - these men were Shia and Alawite who had come from specific Shia/Alawite villages.." which I take to mean the villager says some were Alawite and some were Shia, that is, not from the sub-Shiite sect of Alawites. Sayerslle (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shia is an umbrella term for many sects, including Alawis, not just Twelvers. And for the record, just because the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated "Observatory for Human Rights" claims Alawis were behind it doesn't make it true, see discussion above. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the villagers - alex thomsons reports - Sayerslle (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While it is true that Alawis are generally the most emphatic in support of the regime, the page incriminates them so many times it gets redundant. I just fixed one instance where it said "Shia and Alawite men, from Shia and Alawite villages".... is that really necessary? We all know that Alawis come primarily from Alawi villages, by definition. It looks like someone is just trying to use the phrases "Shia" and "Alawite" as many times as possible.--Yalens (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I may comment that all Alawis are Shia, so we should just mention once that the Alawi faith is a Shia sect, and then after that just say Alawi....--Yalens (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

New German article questioning the SOHR narrative
http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-another-german-journalist-has-doubts-about-houla-massacre-845.html FunkMonk (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Syrianews.cc is a conspiracy theory website. Everyone knowns that. I7laseral (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You know very well that that the article was not published there in the first place, so what's your point? FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FAIR story: http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/06/14/was-houla-massacre-a-manufactured-atrocity/ FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FAIR.org is not a RS.I7laseral (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have requested translation of the Berliner Morgenpost article. __meco (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eyewitnesses-contradict-claims-that-rebels-carried-out-houla-massacre-a-839593.html I7laseral (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also carried translated report of Russian journalist Marat Musin, who was on the ground: http://www.voltairenet.org/THE-HOULA-MASSACRE-Opposition Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Was Marat Musin original report published by ANNA? __meco (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

German articles
I was asked to provide details/translations on the German articles. So here it goes:
 * Both of these papers, FAZ and Berliner Morgenpost are very reputable sources (as much or more so than the Guardian).
 * The FAZ article from the 13th of June is by Rainer Hermann, FAZ's local correspondent in Damascus. He quotes the following witnesses who blame Sunni rebels:
 * Nuns of the St Jacob Cloister in Qara, interviewed by Dutch journalist Martin Janssen. The nuns told Janssen that [my translation follows] "700 armed rebels who came from the direction of Rastan assaulted a street barricade of the army just before Taldou; after the massacre they piled up the corpses of dead soldiers and civilians in front of the mosque; and the following they they told the UN observers in front of rebel-friendly cameras their version of the supposed massacre by the Syrian Army."
 * Marat Musin, a Russian journalist for press agency Anna, who stayed in Houla on the 25th und 26th of May, became an eyewitness and also collected and published statements of other eyewitnesses which are counter the official statements


 * The Berliner Morgenpost article from the 23rd of June contains an interview of Agnès-Mariam de la Croix, a nun from the cloister of St Jacob, as well as an eyewitness hiding in the cloister. The Morgenpost article is by Alfred Hackensberger, Arab/Middle East correspondent for German newspapers "Die Zeit", "Süddeutsche Zeitung", "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", "Standard", "taz" as well as "Sky News" who is usually based in Tangiers.
 * The anonymous eyewitness, a man in his late 30s codenamed "Dschibril" by the Morgenpost journalist, reported the following [my translation follows]:
 * "Fighting began around noon [of May 25] as the rebels who came from Ar-Rastan and Saan, attacked the checkpoints of the Army around Houla. The emplacements at the edge of the town near the hospital were overrun first. The soldiers fled and the rebels entered the hospital and killed patients there. Dschibril doesn't know why or how many were killed. Then different groups of armed men went into preselected houses and started shooting all the inhabitants. They did not harm the neighbours at all, recalls Dschibril.
 * He knew one of the two murdered families - the Sajids - personally. 'They were Sunni - like all of us. They were killed because they did not want to be part of the revolution.' They allegedly also killed the family of a member of parliament who insisted on his candidacy in the May election and refused to boycott the FSA. 'After the massacre, the rebels took all the corpses into the mosque' says Dschibril. He answers the question whether the loyalist Shabiha militia committed the massacre by saying that is 'total nonsense' and clicking his tongue."
 * [...] "'Of course many people in Houla know what really happened,' says Dschibril.'But they all fear for their lives. Whoever opens his mouth there can only report the rebels' version; everything else means certain death.'"

-- Marcika (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
"UN investigators have reported that witnesses and survivors claimed that the massacre was committed by Shabiha. ... There it states that is has been unable to identify the perpetrators and that further investigations would be needed for that, but that evidence leans toward the shabiha." These statements are simply not borne out by the report of the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission does NOT regard the Shabiha as the "primary suspect", but formulates three equally possible scenarios (blaming, respectively, pro-government militia, opposition rebels, or foreign Arab fighters) amongst which it considers itself unable to decide on the basis of the available evidence. The report says this without the least ambiguity. It also adds a great lot more detail about what happens, which should be reflected both in the introduction and the following paragraphs. Specifically, the two alternative identities of the perpetrators (opposition rebels and foreign fighters) are so far entirely absent from the introduction, which only quotes the Syrian government's untrustworthy and generic allegation of a 'terrorist' background. While the UN investigators could not work in Houla itself, theirs is the only serious inquiry so far, and whoever reads it will see that it has been carried out in an extremely professional and detailed fashion.--207.237.104.75 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They do in fact say it leans towards shabiha, your wrong. I7laseral (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't read the UN's latest report that way. __meco (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's ambiguous, we are in no position to interpret it. That is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the report. Where does it say 'it leans towards the Shabiha'?--207.237.104.75 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it regrettable that established contributors to this article now appear to operate from an entrenched position on this issue. Here Sopher99 reverts back to the pre new UN report version without even bothering to make an argument. If Sopher99, I7laseral or others have strong arguments why the main suspicion for the attacks should be apportioned to the government still, they should present their case and allow for their premises and arguments to be examined and debated. __meco (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The report says in para 49: "With the available evidence, the CoI could not rule out any of these possibilities (i.e. the three scenarios of Shabiha, rebels or foreign fighters)." It adds in para 55: "The CoI is unable to determine the identity of the perpetrators at this time; nevertheless the CoI considers that forces loyal to the Government may have been responsible for many of the deaths." (referring back to the shelling). It is true, however, that Navi Pillay has stated "the bulk of the information gathered to date points to the involvement of government-supported Shabbiha militia responsible for many of the killings, and the use of indiscriminate fire of heavy weapons by the government." I would consider this an interpretation of the report which she is entitled to, but the fact remains that she has not been part of the inquiry herself. However that may be, all of this should be neutrally reflected in the article sine ira et studio.--207.237.104.75 (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

introduction
BTW, guys, the intro as it stands is (IMHO) utterly unsatisfactory, as well as highly POV. After a reasonably neutral first paragraph, it reads:

''The Syrian government alleged that Al-Qaeda terrorist groups were responsible for the killings,[6][7] while Houla residents[8] and opposition groups alleged that the Syrian military and government-hired militias known as Shabiha were the perpetrators.[9] Townspeople described how Shabiha, who were thought to be men from Shia/Alawite villages to the south and west of Houla (Kabu and Felleh were named repeatedly) entered the town after shelling of the ground for several hours. According to one eyewitness, the killers had written Shia slogans on their foreheads (the Alawi faith is a Shia sect).[10][11]

''The fifteen nations of the U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned the Syrian government for firing heavy weapons at civilians.[1] The U.S., U.K., and eleven other nations jointly expelled Syrian ambassadors and diplomats from their territories.[12][13]

''On June 1, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted to condemn Syria for the massacre in the town of Houla and called for an international criminal inquiry into the events. The resolution - approved by 41 of the 47, whilst Russia, China and Cuba voted against - blamed pro-regime militia and government troops for the deaths.[14] On June 27, the council published a report on rights violations in Syria where it temperates its previous position on the culpability of the Syrian government in the attacks. There it states that "with the available evidence" the Commission of Inquiry could not rule out any of three possible perpetrators. The report could not come to a solid conclusion due to restrictions of movement on the ground by the Syrian government.[15]''

So, first we are told that 'residents' and 'townspeople' said Shabibha were responsible; then we hear that the UNSC condemned the Syrian government for firing heavy weapons (which is not actually particularly relevant to the issue, as the victims were mostly *not* killed by artillery fire), and then we are told that the UNHRC blamed the Syrian government/pro-government militia. It is only in the last few lines that we are told that the most recent (and, surely, most accurate, by simple dictates of logic) UNHRC report admits that there is not enough evidence to say for certain who was responsible!

Having glanced at the report itself, I would agree that they lean toward blaming the Syrian government/militia, and this should probably be mentioned. But surely the intro would be more accurate if the UN's most recent findings were placed in prime (ie first) position, the reports by the Western media put second (and, I would argue, balanced at least somewhat with the fact that several leading German newspapers have quoted opposing eyewitness accounts -- not to mention General Mood's own statement to a reporter at a press conference, which I mentioned in a previous post); and I believe the quoting of a single eyewitness as to 'Shia slogans on the forehead' in the intro is something of a violation of 'undue weight' principles (quite apart from whether or not it's true). Finally, I'm not really sure how relevant the UN vote is to the massacre story, although I'm less exercised about that. Thoughts anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-look-back-at-the-houla-massacre-in-syria-a-845854.html I7laseral (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, I saw that article already. It contributes absolutely NOTHING to the points I'm making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

UN doesn't even pretend to know who did it
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/world/middleeast/syrian-pro-government-television-station-attacked.html FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The UN was not given access to the site by the Syrian government. This is the confusion of their report, they are not saying there aren't indicators. I7laseral (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true the UN report leans more towards the government-/Shabibha-responsibility line, but the fact remains that, to quote the report: "48. The CoI considered the information available to it on the killings in Al-Houla in an impartial manner and considered carefully the prevailing views on the party responsible, determining that three were most likely in light of the evidence. First, that the perpetrators were Shabbiha or other local militia from neighbouring villages, possibly operating together with, or with the acquiescence of, the Government security forces; second, that the perpetrators were anti-Government forces seeking to escalate the conflict while punishing those that failed to support – or who actively opposed - the rebellion; or third, foreign groups with unknown affiliation. 49. With the available evidence, the CoI could not rule out any of these possibilities." NB, emphasis mine (read it here if you like: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/COI_OralUpdate_A.HRC.20.CRP.1.pdf - scroll down to secs 48 and 49). Of course, this can hardly compare to the judgements of certain illustrious editors who simply 'know' that any alternative to the NATO-media explanation is 'BS'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PJ Media article about the alternative version: http://pjmedia.com/blog/general-mood-two-versions-of-the-houla-massacre/?singlepage=true


 * Wow -- that article contains an absolute bombshell which should give even editors Lazreal and Ellsworth ('there is not one single source on the ground to back up the FAZ claim') pause: UN General Mood says, and I quote: 'We have interviewed locals with one story, and we have interviewed locals that has [sic] another story' (!!!!) SO, the head of the UN investigation team admits that locals have different accounts of what actually happened!
 * This pretty much explodes the entire thrust of this Wikipedia article (that the UN has essentially claimed the Syrian government were responsible, and that there is no evidence beyond one FAZ article that eyewitnesses said anything other than that it was Shabibha or government troops), but of course this isn't how the great Western 'Reliable Source' (not) media are covering the story, so... garbage in, garbage out, I guess. (Watch the video here; the relevant question is asked at around 2:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOTJdHTloLg&feature=relmfu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold your heels. Although I guess you are fan of everything that has in bold written shocking, this isn´t the case. CH4 correspondent which was there also technically got two different accounts, one from "resident" who was sole civilian in government controlled area who says that AQ did it and than admitted that he wasn´t even there when it happened and afterwards same story from everyone else when they entered populated area, controlled by rebels. As for RS here you go and now I am reverting it back to Shabiha being most likely penetrator by UN report. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although I guess you are fan of everything that has in bold written shocking" I have no idea what you're trying to say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is style usually used by tabloids. Shocking truth, shocking revelation and stuff like this with several question/exclamation marks just to get attention. 99 percent of time there is nothing new or interesting in there. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, that's a pretty good description of most of the SOFHR generated news the western press gobbles up every day ("Assad emails"? Chemical weapons? Gay girls in Damascus?). I think it's safe to say that this is where the sensationalism lies (alternative views are barely mentioned in the west). FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This may surprise you, but I agree. I hold no love for SOHR, they are just other side of the conflict. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, did you actually watch the video? I strongly doubt the spin you're putting on it (ie that Mood was simply referring to one obvious nutter with a different story). Has it ever occurred to you that you may be guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of, namely, exaggerating (or, in your case, downplaying) any evidence that goes against your preconceived ideas? Also, here is an interesting article detailing the German scepticism about the NATO-media narrative, for anyone who's interested: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG24Ak02.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I've added a link to that Asia Times Online piece in the article, as it quotes from Die Welt and Bild, two major German newspapers. I don't feel great about having to do such a 'secondary link', as it would be a lot nicer to link directly to the newspapers themselves (and I'm not sure exactly how Asia Times Online stacks up in the 'Reliable Source' stakes, regardless of how fundamentally bogus that is IMHO), but I'm not sure exactly what else can be done. Anyone have any idea how editors are supposed to deal with this kind of situation? (Ellsworth? You seem to be fairly au fait with Wikipedia procedures). I imagine it must be fairly common... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And the editor 'Lazreal' (or whatever his tag is) has deleted this with the comment 'unreliable source'. Which is the 'unreliable source' exactly: Asia Times Online, or Die Welt or Bild?? The whole point is that the latter sources are in GERMAN. I really feel this editor is simply determined to suppress any mention of anything that might undermine his view of the facts, which is in total violation of the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As a sign of good faith, I am placing the paragraph here for now:


 * In addition to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, two other major German newspapers, Die Welt and Bild have suggested the rebels, rather than the Syrian government or pro-governement or militia, were responsible for the massacre. According to the translation supplied by the Asia Times Online, Bild correspondent Jurgen Todenhofer said the rebels had been "deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government", and that this "massacre-marketing strategy" was "among the most disgusting things that I have ever experienced in an armed conflict" 


 * The problem is that it's relying on the Asia Times reporter to be faithfully reporting what the two German papers are saying, I guess (although I have to say I think 'Lasreal's *real* problem with it is that it undermines the story he is clearly wedded to). I guess we need to get German translations of the sources? Anyone? I'm too tired to get into edit-wars with clearly biased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)