Talk:2014 Syrian detainee report

To add to article

To add to the article: did the victims include children? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the victims were young men". If you're looking for something more specific, there's the Exhibition and HRW report sources. Caesar116 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in the first paragraph, "current Syrian regime," is no longer accurate. 65.95.50.13 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Exhibit

Briefly started on Caesar Exhibit, but merging it back to here.

Refs

US:

Europe:

https://www.alynsmith.eu/caesar_syria_torture_exhibition_in_european_parliament

UN:

Latest entry

The sources in the latest entry don't mention Magnitsky. The latest action was a House report committee to add it into the NDAA of 2020 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/333/1, for now it is only available as a PDF. I believe it is Committee Report 333 by the House, to be entered into Senate Bill S1790. Use CTRL-F to find the terms in the sources or reports. Caesar116 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC) @Daviddwd:[reply]

House Committee Report 333 report to S1790 doesn't mention Magnitsky (sanctions) either. Caesar116 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute - Main body of the article

Although the rest of the article seems okay to me, the main body of the article seems to violate Wikipedia:Npov.

Here’s why I think that's the case:

The part of the paragraph in the article where it says "and was commissioned by the government of Qatar", only has one citation, an Al Jazeera(1) article(arguably a primary source) which, although it does mention/claim that the Qatari government commissioned the report and has a link to the Caesar Report PDF document itself, it does not have any further links to hard evidence that confirms the claim that Qatar was involved in commissioning the Caesar Report. It should also be worth mentioning that the Caesar Report itself makes no mention of the Qatari government (or anything relating to it) sponsoring, commissioning or funding the work behind the report, whatsoever. This is where I think the aforementioned part of the paragraph also violates Wikipedia:Primary. If anyone doesn't believe me, I tried searching for the word "Qatar" in the Caesar Report and it doesn't show up, not even once.

The next part of the paragraph, where it says "Qatar has been a key funder of the rebels in Syria", has that same problem with only one citation being used(a Los Angeles Times article, arguably also a primary source), but it also has a problem with its relevance (or lack thereof). The Los Angeles Times article at the time did say that Qatar gave military and financial aid to the Syrian opposition and, outside of the article itself, Qatar has generally supported the rebels in the past, but this isn't relevant to the Caesar Report as the Caesar Report itself doesn't refer to anyone who fought in the civil war and the only connection to the Syrian opposition that Caesar himself reportedly had was working for the Syrian National Movement, an NGO run by anti-regime activists to document the abuses that would eventually go into the report itself. Therefore, that part of the paragraph, I think, violates Wikipedia:Primary too and also violates Wikipedia:OFFTOPIC.

I think the problematic parts of the paragraph that I mentioned above would potentially give the reader the impression that Qatar commissioned the report for the sole purpose of directly undermining the Assad regime without any actual evidence for that being the case.

Then there's the last paragraph that I have a huge problem with:

"The Syrian government questioned the report due to its ties to hostile sides against the Syrian government and pointed to how many of the photos were identified as casualties among international terrorists fighting the Syrian government or Syrian army troops or civilians massacred by them due to supporting the Syrian government."

This paragraph doesn't appear to be written in an impartial manner and looks like it more-or-less directly quoted from the article that was cited next to it instead of being written to impartially judge the claims that were made by the regime back then.

It is also worth mentioning that the only citation next to that paragraph is a repost from Xinhua, which is a Chinese state-controlled news agency(2), and that it reported the regime's response (as well as the overall reporting from SANA, the Syrian state-controlled news agency) as fact. That, I think, not only violates Wikipedia:Primary, but it also violates Wikipedia:QUESTIONED.

And, as an aside, the aforementioned paragraph probably should've been written like this instead:

"In response, the Syrian government claimed that what was written in the Caesar Report was "politicized" and "lacks objectivity and professionalism" and that the claims made in it were "baseless", while it also claimed that the legal firm that was involved in writing the report was "clearly linked to hostile sides to the Syrian Arab Republic since the beginning of the crisis in Syria"."

Another example paragraph that can be written carefully and impartially would be:

"The Syrian government also claimed that some of the photos of the deceased in the report were of "unidentified persons" who were "foreign terrorists from [sic] several nationalities" who were "killed when attacking the military checkpoints and civil institutions", while some of the other photos were of "civilians and military personnel who were tortured and killed by the armed terrorist groups because of their support to the state"."

(1) FYI, Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government.

(2) It should also be worth mentioning that the Chinese government had diplomatically supported the Assad regime in the past. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the paragraph that mentions Human Rights Watch corroborating the Caesar Report contradicts the previous paragraph before it, therefore, it makes it a bit pointless to write, IMO. Just thought I would add that. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]