Talk:Omran Daqneesh

Reliable sources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifS0fi9WB8#t=2m13s https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201608211044494380-viral-syrian-boy-photographer-alleged-terrorist-ties/ http://english.almanar.com.lb/15057 following edit Chinese and Russian media, both allies of Assad, called the images "propaganda". Some international media have proposed that the image was staged. Other proof from social media was revealed that the man who shot the photo of Omran also made a selfie near the beheading of the 12 years old boy Abdullah Issa by Syrian rebels some days ago. The man belonged to the Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki fraction.

There is more than enough proof and sources to make the following edit.--Crossswords (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Social media are not reliable sources. "Proof from social media was revealed" is not stated in the Sputniknews link, which in any case seems not to be a suitably reliable source for the inclusion of these claims. Without independent reliable sources, this material cannot stay in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * read the other article it was proved--Crossswords (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I gotta say I agree here with, so the unreliable sources were removed. We should not link to YouTube and biased sources, and especially not to propaganda sources. Should only rely on secondary sources, especially for controversial claims. Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this is one of many sources, you even removed the german Wikipedia links--Crossswords (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sources have to go. This is a WP:BLP page. We can NOT cite Wikipedia. Please see WP:CIRCULAR. Sagecandor (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, Sagecandor and MPS1992 are right. The "sources" added by Crossswords to support the text that he added are plainly not reliable sources. "Proof from social media" makes no sense; Sputnik News is a Russian propaganda; nd the random YouTube clip is just that, a random YouTube clip. Neutralitytalk 05:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * how they are not reliable? You can remove the youtube video but everything else is reliable, So Sputnik is propaganda but BBC isnt which financed by the British government? And to my knowledge linking different language Wikipedia is allowed.--Crossswords (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss that would be Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But judging from, not sure that source passes muster as reliable at all, especially not for this topic. Sagecandor (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First, the burden is on you to prove reliability (not on other editors to disprove a negative). Second, Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference. Nor is any user-generated content, as a general matter. See WP:CIRCULAR. Third, to compare Sputnik to the BBC is outlandish. The BBC is editorially independent of the UK government. Sputnik News, by contrast, is widely acknowledged to be a Kremlin propaganda organ. Neutralitytalk 05:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * compare Sputnik to the BBC is outlandish`? so you say its propaganda for being owned by the government but the BBC isnt? The BBC is owned by HM Government (Her Majesty Government) meanwhile Sputnik is owned by Rossiya Segodnya which is a whole own new organisation, thats one step less controlled by the state and clearly sounds less biased than the BBC. Your links you provided are published by institutions owned by the Estonian and Dutch governments (Western countries).--Crossswords (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rossiya Segodnya itself is wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, created by an Executive Order of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013. Sagecandor (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Crossswords, you are basically engaging in "I can't hear you" type behavior. First, the BBC is editorially independent of the British government, while Sputnik News is widely acknowledged to be Kremlin propaganda. Second, the whole BBC thing is completely irrelevant whataboutism and irrelevant here, since we're not talking about the BBC. Third, you claim, falsely, that the sources describing Sputnik as propaganda are "published by institutions owned by the Estonian and Dutch governments." That is not true. Book 1 is a report by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, which is an independent think tank. Link 2 is a chapter written by a Finnish academic in a book co-edited by two academics (one from the University of Tartu (in Estonia) and one from the Kazan Federal University (in Russia), and published by a global academic press (Springer Nature). Please stop saying things that are factually false. Neutralitytalk 06:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies is an independent think tank but it is lead by Rob de Wijk who is working also for the Dutch government in the Holland Space Cluster and in Nato etc. This is just one example how interconnect governments are in these so called independent think tanks and its not different with academics.--Crossswords (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sputnik News has been accused of bias, disinformation and being a Russian propaganda outlet. Sagecandor (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Add information
When I went down there were already White Helmets. And the journalists. American and German. They offered me money for the interview. They asked me to say that Russian planes bombed the house. But I refused, because I did not hear the noise of planes or rockets before the explosion. - father's words

http://www.tvc.ru/news/show/id/117344

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source for this? And, are you suggesting that the father conducted an interview in English? MPS1992 (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)