Talk:Bana al-Abed

mention of blog removed from page

A blogger who has been following this and asserting that is is a hoax, had been written up on page. an IP removed it: (These doubts have been summarised in a blog by Barbara Mckenzie.) I don't know if this blogger is notable, or cited in the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Hoax

This template is not appropriate. From my understanding it is used for articles that were made to a hoax, not for articles about hoaxes. The article clearly expresses doubt in the account's authenticity. Hang googles (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016

Please change the sentence "Bana al-Abed (born 2009; Arabic: البنا العبد‎‎) is a fictional character or hoax persona, presented as a 7-year old Syrian girl who claims to be tweeting from Aleppo ...", as Bana actually is a real person. The existence of Bana Alabed in East Aleppo has been proven through the usage of geolocation by a reliable source:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/12/14/bana-alabed-verification-using-open-source-information/

It must be noted that "bellingcat" is far from being a reliable source. It is a collection of completely unqualified bloggers (principally Eliot Higgins, operating from his home in the English midlands) who present themselves as 'citizen journalists' but are largely funded by Atlantic Council to broadcast pro-NATO propaganda through social media. Bellingcat was set up 2 days before the MH17 plane shootdown and its first assignment was to try to prove that Russia was guilty and exonerate Ukraine. Bellingcat's work on this and various projects has been extensively debunked by experts in the appropriate fields: far too many references to quote here.Silicondale (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thus this sentence should be phrased as followed: Bana al-Abed (born 2009‎‎) is a 7-year old Syrian girl who is tweeting from Aleppo ..."

I disagree. There is no evidence that tweets were posted either by Bana or her mother, and plenty of circumstantial evidence (see Barbara McKenzie's blog referenced below) that they were written by a native English speaker. The nature of Twitter is such that tweets can be posted by anybody with access to the account, from anywhere in the world. The fact that at least one tweeter replying to Bana was blocked immediately at 2am Aleppo time is strong evidence supporting this. So it should be re-phrased: "Bana al-Abed (born 2009‎‎) is a 7-year old Syrian girl who was in Aleppo, in whose name a Twitter account has been created and used by person or persons unknown ..."Silicondale (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to: "is a 7-year old Syrian girl from Aleppo whose mother helped her send messages through Twitter during the siege of the city." There are videos and pictures of Bana saying things on the account. There still isn't "proof" that the account was operated by someone else, that should go in the Criticism section in an appropriate manner.

"The fact that at least one tweeter replying to Bana was blocked immediately at 2am Aleppo time is strong evidence supporting this." is such weak evidence. How long is "immediately"? Donald Trump has reportedly tweeted at 3am, so it's unusual but not impossible. Hang googles (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for considering my contribution 15:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

www.bellingcat.com is not reliable source, its just little more then personal blog, so that is far from enough to even question this. And you should be aware that we have incredible amount of sources that Aleppo is without power, water and internet for months now, so no, someone may be tweeting, but that is not a girl from Aleppo, but anti-Assad propaganda. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP was in the right. To my knowledge there aren't any reliable sources that call it "a fictional character or hoax persona". It has been criticized as such, but reliable sources cover it as a legitimate account. Hang googles (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Washington Post was of the opinion, that www.bellingcat.com was a sufficiently reliable source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/14/in-aleppos-misinformation-war-a-7-year-old-girl-prompts-a-fact-check/

However, which source that is more credible and reliable than bellingcat and the above mentioned Washington Post article can you present in order to proof, that Bana Alabed actually is a hoax? At least one video from the Bana account shows, that Banas family had access to solar panels in Aleppo. Thus, your "incredible amount of sources" obviously ignore this fact deliberately. Therefore, they seem to be even less reliable than bellingcat.

The fact that the intensely russophobic source Bellingcat (exemplified by its unconvincing and easily debunked treatment of the MH17 shootdown over Ukraine in 2014) is quoted in a newspaper with similar intensely russophobic agenda cannot be taken as any support of its credibility. Indeed, the crux of the problem is that all of western mainstream media now follow the same russophobic agenda, with virtually none of the dissent which could be seen even at the height of the Cold War. There are certainly independent sources such as Barbara McKenzie, Eva Bartlett, Carla Ortiz, and Vanessa Beeley, who give reliable first-hand evidence of what has really happened in Aleppo, but removal of the reference to Barbara McKenzie's blog is in my view a reflection of political bias of the Wikipedia editors. This will reflect badly on Wikipedia itself in times to come. Silicondale (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"removal of the reference to Barbara McKenzie's blog is in my view a reflection of political bias of the Wikipedia editors" This is the edit by an IP that removed the link to her blog and its ISP comes up as "British Broadcasting Corporation", interesting. But also note that a 21st Century Wire article that was used as a reference at the the time you made that comment does link and quote to her blog in the bolded part that says "By Barbara McKenzie..." Hang googles (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Well, obviously the Washington Post was of the opinion," - oh the Washington Post - "Democracy Dies in Darkness" as Jeff Bezos turns off the lights. Hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2320:9D60:414F:721E:6D6E:C650 (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DELETE ARTICLE: Bana Alabed was NOT IN ALEPPO

Testimony from Carla Ortiz - who was recently in eastern Aleppo - broadcast on CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRLIQyZhQK8&feature=youtu.be This makes it clear that Bana Alabed was NOT in Aleppo. The whole story is fake. I propose that this article should be deleted. Silicondale (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Layout error fixed as per WP:TPO - comment moved from top of talk page to correct position. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we wipe from history what Pravda and Izvestia reported when the USSR still existed? Should we wipe what Hitler and Goebbels said in 1940? No. Don't delete this article and this article has been archived, hundreds of times over. Recording history isn't just recording actual history, but propaganda as well. Let's remember how our institutions were infiltrated by propagandists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2320:9D60:414F:721E:6D6E:C650 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sentence referring to Bana's supposed political views

Deleted this sentence:

She opposes the Russian military intervention in Syria.

because this represents an adult political opinion which cannot be put into the mouth of a 7-year-old child without VERY strong corroborative evidence! In fact most if not all of her tweets were most likely written by an adult such as her mother, or more probably a British or other western intelligence officer charged with creating this propaganda story. Note that tweets can be posted from anywhere in the world by anybody with access to the account.Silicondale (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• Layout error fixed as per WP:TPO - comment moved from top of talk page to correct position. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

More evidence that Bana Alabed is nothing more than a child being abused for jihadi propaganda

https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/811910311791841282 - considering that another 7-year-old girl was murdered by her parents in a so-called "suicide" attack in Damascus this week, I think this is an article which Wikipedia would do well to delete - or to drastically edit to reflect the facts: that the account was set up by western agencies (registered in UK) to generate propaganda on behalf of the jihadi terrorists funded by the west as part of a regime-change agenda.Silicondale (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"the account was set up by western agencies (registered in UK)"

The Bellingcat article says ""There was even an attempt to show that Bana’s account was run from the UK by a ham-fisted examination of the meta-data from her account. In that case the meta-data being examined was actually that of the person doing the searching, rather than @AlabedBana. That particular sleuth did eventually delete his tweet and withdraw his comments, but still maintains the account is “suspicious” and that he “had something on it”. What this “something” is remains to be seen."" And shows screenshots of the tweets. Hang googles (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The article by Barbara McKenzie completely discredits Bellingcat's claims, which should be disregarded: the fact that Bellingcat is quoted by the Washington Post should not be taken as confirmation, as that newspaper has consistently followed the US government line which Bellingcat supports (Bellingcat is not independent but is funded by Atlantic Council and other western agencies). Barbara McKenzie points out that there is indeed strong circumstantial evidence that the Twitter account really WAS set up and funded by the UK government. Silicondale (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is more evidence, and very very critical of Bellingcat:

https://barbaramckenzie.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/unravelling-bana-a-response-to-bellingcats-article-finding-bana/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.246.143.200 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This very detailed blog by Barbara McKenzie forensically takes apart the Bellingcat "report" and shows in detail that the whole Bana Alabed saga is nothing but a propaganda stunt. Will the editors now accept this fact and delete the article? Silicondale (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to prove anything just by analyzing her English ability. It's possible to read, write, and understand English but not be as good in speaking it. There aren't as many native speakers in Syria to practice with. Yes, that Twitter DM chat in English could be seen as unusual but that's just one example. And for what it's worth the chat did begin in English (Bana: Hi) and both accounts appear to only tweet in English.

You still haven't shown any "proof" that the account is run by people in the UK so that particular Bellingcat quote I gave is still valid in that way. Hang googles (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And what constitutes "proof"? It is self-evident from looking at the entire Bana Alabed story, in the context of other western-managed pro-jihadi propaganda from and about Aleppo that this is PURELY a propaganda stunt. Of course it has now been shown that she is a real little girl, and probably was even in eastern Aleppo at some point in time. However, the links with other proven propagandists (like "Mr Alhamdo") and the slick media presentation of the White Helmets show that this is part of an orchestrated media campaign against the Syrian government and its allies. This point was made also in Barbara McKenzie's blog. As for proof - what proof can you offer that either Bana Alabed or her mother wrote ANY of the tweets? Silicondale (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I live and work in Silicon Valley California. On a windy day the Internet often goes down for hours at home. I'm very impressed with Aleppo's Internet infrastructure in that it continues to work even when 1/2 the city is literally bombed to rubble. I would like to know who their Internet provider is, because they can become very wealthy if they replace Comcast and AT&T here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources rather than twits from twitter or blog posts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The Hoax Sister

This "girl" was caught stealing a photo from a noted Turkish photographer and claiming that was "her sister".

This brings about major doubts about her credibility and should not be suppressed by Wikipedia volunteers of political bias.

Regardless, I'm happy that it was up for as long as it was.

Whatever ISIS apologist edited that story, just know that you are contributing to terrorist propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.170.197.194 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2017‎

Please provide reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

1989's Soviet Union called to ask for their reliable news source Izvestia and their reliable truth of Pravda back. They were stolen just before the WMD of Iraq hoax, and so far they have not been returned. It is known that during the burglary at least Phil Donahue and Chris Hedges were injured, although there were many less famous casualties. The theft took place at a St. Petersburg museum just after the neo-conservatives got into power in the United States in late 2000. The exhibit was called "Бесстыдная пропаганда в поддержку безумного воинствующего государства" whatever that might mean. I thought you may be able to help since obviously you were really interested in the news and care about actual truth. NOTE: The neo-conservatives are certainly not suspects in this theft because even though they were openly Marxist in the 1960's, they have truly became conservatives. Leo Strauss explains in detail how they came to become true conservatives when he explained the "Nobel Lie" and its utility in advancing their causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

TIME TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

The accumulating evidence now conclusively shows that the entire "Bana Alabed" story is no more than an anti-Syrian propaganda construct. Its continued existence as a Wikipedia "biography" article reflects very badly on the reliability and impartiality of Wikipedia as a whole. Ecton miner (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Really?

The article as it now stands says things like "Bana supported Trumps strikes" or "Bana believes this or that" as if these are actually her thoughts. She's ten years old for God's sake! The article should be rephrased.Jorge1777 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to us to make these judgements. If RSs say it was her, then we say it was her. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

overly credulous article beginning

"Bana al-Abed (Arabic: بانا العبد; born 7 June 2009) is a Syrian girl from Aleppo, Syria who, with assistance from her English-speaking mother, sent messages through Twitter documenting the siege of the city"

She wasn't being "assisted" by her mother, she was 6/7 years old when the tweets started, too young to understand all the participants and sides of the war and form articulate opinions on it. It's extremely obvious that it was all her mother using her as a prop. The few times she was ever on camera her mother was coaching her what to say.