Talk:Aleppo University bombings

Lack of neutrality

The article is mainly chasing the anti-regime reports and assuming a state terrorsim based on references known for being active tools of anti-Assad propaganada. Therefore, the page is lacking neutrality.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What specific statements in the article are "anti-Assad propaganada"? VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Syria Exclusive: Proving the Assad Jet Fighter's Attack on Aleppo University" the source itself is not reliable. Further more, the statement is very dubious... an editor living in America, working in an unsignificant American website is "Proving that the Assad Jet Fighter's Attack on Aleppo University" based on an a video footage where nothing is clear.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you; the EA Worldview does not appear to be a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This video shows an a missile hitting the university ON A SECOND PASS. The sound of a jet roaring overhead can be clearly heard. Compare at 32 seconds the first video and the second:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jan/23/syria-aleppo-university-bombing-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke7Lb_6k9DM --Agamemnus (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this page, like many others, reflects on an eagerness to latch onto and promote anti-government ("Assad") propaganda with little scrutiny. VQuakr asked (long ago now) "What specific statements in the article are "anti-Assad propaganada"? I'll start with two worth fixing right now, each with an explanation below. --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Syria Blamed Car Bombs?

I deleted the misleading and unsupported part of the claim "Syrian State TV claimed rebels had launched two rockets at the campus after a car bomb blast." This has been said several times, prominently, to suggest shifting lies from the government. But there's never been a direct quote, and none can be found. It's an urban legend, started by either activist "Simon" or activist "Edward Dark." I hope I don't need to copy over the full explanation that can be seen here. Al-Khabar's report, originally cited, is not Syrian state TV, gov.-affiliated, or supported by anything else. It also doesn't cite a car bomb, but suggests some kind of on-site explosion followed by rockets. Instead, I relate what officials and allied media did say - two rockets fired by rebels, from a district they ran which is to the N-NW (not mentioned, as that's Wikimapia information I added, for ballistic consideration (seems to match the scene, but that's my opinion).--AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

University Press Office Blamed SAF?

The front page did say "...while the University press office claimed that Syrian air force MiG fighter planes deliberately targeted the University and denounced the attack as a "criminal attack". I deleted this entirely. The claim was distorted and wrong, and the actual base evidence has no value as proof of anything other than anti-gov. groups blamed the gov. The cited source New York Times, with all their known bias that, could only say: "The university’s press office appeared to have issued a statement accusing Syrian air force MiG fighter planes of targeting the campus ... (and) denounced the attacks as a ‘‘criminal act. But it was unclear if the statement, which was posted on an opposition Facebook page, reflected the view of the leadership of the government-run university." Even that "appearance" was never very clear, and it never did get any clearer than that. Could just as well go under the opposition propaganda section. Helpfully, they linked to the Facebook page, University of Revolution. And with some digging I found the post in question and the statement on fancy letterhead with rebel colored watermark, and talk of living "free" and "proud" vis-à-vis the "Assad regime." The site is Aleppo U opposition, not a university-affiliated page. The statement published there is pretty clearly signed by these same people, just described a bit differently: "The Media Office of the University of Aleppo.. University of revolution" - just clarifying which university they're describing that way. Does that really "appear" much like the university press office? No. They give the order of attack wrong (dorm building 9 hit first, then the roundabout), seems to mention Shadi Helweh lying about something (he's a car bomb liar, some insist), declares that all perpetrators and especially him should pay, and the "international community has a (??) responsibility about the crimes of the Assad regime." So, they're stupid little letter just isn't mentioned now. Fair enough? --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Other New Edits

I was late to check and see serious changes following my two guarded ones explained above. Between these, the page's tone is almost 180-flipped now from how it was. ElCommandanteVzl, fair enough adds, I think, but some not cited, and maybe too much, now lacking neutrality (or balance of biases) the other way. I like "CNN claims," rest kept. Good touch. I may adjust this if you don't first. I'm pretty busy though, and maybe this really is fair now how it is. And thanks. --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you just got blocked for a bit - after that then, one spot to review. But to be sure, the page is way better now. Let's just keep it sustainable. cheers. --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

While the article itself was fairly neutral, the infobox asserted things that were by no means certain or accepted. I rectified it by deleting that part of the infobox. Better no assertation than a crude one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)