Jump to content

Talk:Maram Susli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.76.240.49 (talk) at 15:24, 1 March 2018 (vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Find sources notice 2

Possible sources

Found these after a Googling "Maram Susli". Maybe they the content contained therein can be incorporated in some way:

  1. Meet Syria's answer to Kim Kardashian
  2. Meet Syrian Girl, the internet sensation dismissed as a Kim Kardashian wannabe who fearlessly posts her views on ISIS, al-Assad, the US and the conflict that is destroying her homeland
  3. The Best English-speaking Friend Assad Could Ask For, Front and Center on the Net
  4. Australian blogger Syrian Girl posts views on ISIS, US airstrikes, Ebola
  5. The Kardashian wannabe trolling for Assad
  6. To Make Your Conspiracy Theory Legit, Just Find an 'Expert'

There's probably more and these just seemed (at first glance) to be possible reliable sources. There may even be more in non-English. Anyway, I'm posting them here so they can be assessed for reliability and possible inclusion in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locked

Why exactly is this sorry stub of an article subject to an editing lock? 2602:301:77B5:26F0:4047:F9B3:891:8403 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected by administrator CambridgeBayWeather to prevent any further disruption per Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Maram Susli. If you would like to request an edit please refer to Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a clear violation of WP:BLP. All the citations are hostile towards the subject and no neutral or positive one. Has she been convicted of libel or fraud? If not, why should the article be composed solely of criticism? What is the point of the BLP policy if it can't prevent attack articles like this? 2400:4030:9AA3:AC00:C5A4:320A:5B61:5E4 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "does videos on topics such as the Syrian Civil War, conspiracy theories and the Gamergate controversy" etc. is well-sourced and neutral. By all means find other comments on her from reliable sources and propose them here. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

See the two contributions above. The article can not be edited because it is 'protected' against 'vandalism'. For me the actual state of this article is pure vandalism. Francisj. (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it vandalism? – Nihlus (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: When a number of newly-created accounts show up and make the same claim against an article, especially when there are no grounds stated for the claim, it starts to give the appearance that one person is attempting to force their preferred version of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly biased. It is pretty obvious to see that the person who wrote it has a very onesided view of the topics that Syrian Girl addresses in her blog. Espessialy the situation in Syria. The claim of her being a "conspiracy theorist" is clearly an ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.76.240.49 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wired article

I believe the Wired article cited in the article still has some value even if the claim that the evidence was de-bunked is removed. The source still mentions that Susli provided the evidence that Postol based his claims on, so it still seems acceptable per WP:RSCONTEXT and I have re-added it. If someone is able to find a better more "neutrally" worded source that avoids any mention of de-bunked, then it can be added. Without any source, however, the entire sentence itself is unverified and contentious, which means it can be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]