Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Source

http://www.tehrantimes.com/middle-east/110195-hundreds-killed-in-syria-gas-attack-reports- I nominate this source because it does the best job of describing the Syrian response to this Sarin claim or Syrian Holocaust. Particularly, the first nine paragraphs of it describe allegations and reactions. 173.14.238.118 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Concern

Why is a Jerusalem Post journalist's opinion featured so prominently in the "Background" section? Seems pretty POV from my view point. 23 editor (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it (as it was basically repeating the "red line" quote with additional opinionated flare) and have expanded the background section and provided sources. 23 editor (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm very concerned with the fact this article does not mention Carla Del Ponte, a former UN criminal court inspector who found evidence that the Syrian rebels used chemical weapon. Please Google her to find numerous credible mainstream media report on this subject:

http://www.google.com/search?q=carla%20del%20ponte%20syria%20chemical%20weapons&safe=off

For example, this article from above Google:

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-carried-out-by-rebels-says-un/

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kerry news conference - sounds like strikes inevitable

Article should have mention of this briefing (today) in the Reactions section. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PERSONAL
Done. Can't wait for the inevitable infobox wars on the main article once the U.S. and its allies start bombing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "Inevitable" sounds too much like WP:SPECULATION and "once the U.S. and its allies start bombing" is not exactly a neutral editor. USchick (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

POV lead

The possibility that the attacks were launched by the rebels themselves is not mentioned in the lead, although many sources suggest it and it would make perfect sense. And although the perpetrator is unclear, the lead suggests Assad was behind it.--Kohelet (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It would not make any sense. The rebels don't have the technological capabilities to launch chemical weapons.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if serious...there was a similar attack on a smaller scale a few months back, they arrested a group of Al Nusra jihadists in Turkey with cans of sarin. They're being supplied from abroad.--Kohelet (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Source?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Here you go [1][2][3][4][5]USchick (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the present version of the lead, I see "The Syrian government initially denied that chemical attacks occurred, and later accused rebels of carrying them out.[16] ... officials from Russia and Iran stated that the perpetrators were the rebels.[17]" So the possibility that the attacks were launched by the rebels themselves is mentioned twice in the lead, and it's attributed (not just to anonymous "experts"). Maybe we could change from the word "accused", which could be a bit weaselly? "stated"? Boud (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think "accused" is weaselly. It is not as though the article says, "Many people of the Syrian government accuse...", which would be weaselly. Wisdomthatiswoe (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that the Syrian government and the rebels blame each other for the attack, as reported by BBC News [6]. USchick (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR

It seems to me that WP:3RR is going to quickly be relevant if edit-warring continues. Boud (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed?

Please stop deleting the alleged until there is an official Proof. Official in the case is the UN. Other Parties like "West" or "State" are just propagating their view. We have to wait for UN for Confirmation. Until then it is alleged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.203.78.1 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Many parts of the article (including the title) read as if the attack was confirmed by reliable sources. What I'm reading in sources is that currently it's only a claim by the opposition, which makes the article factually inaccurate. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why I insisted on the Analysis, verifiability, doubts and speculations section. Just in the last few hours the US State Department said that so far they have been unable to confirm that chemical weapons were used in the attacks but that they are continuing to investigate. EkoGraf (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That section reflects the situation. Perhaps these two source will help with expanding it: [7], [8]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the way the number of victims is mentioned in the article is misleading. It assumes the number of victims to be unconfirmed and to vary between 183 to 1,729. While these numbers were from the first reports and were still to be confirmed, now all recent reports from organizations on site confirm numbers higher than 1,200 as far as I can tell. Additionally, the explicit mention of the (SOHR) source afterwards with their number of 183 is really misleading for the readers and suggests taking it as the more reliable number! A list of documented victims is already available from the 'united office of human rights - eastern Ghouta' with a number of 361 victims: [9] documented with names, and a total of 1,286 confirmed but still to be identified. Also here is another reliable source, with detailed reports and references in contrast to SOHR: [10]. The official confirmed number from the 'united medical center in eastern Ghouta' is 1,302 and it does not include numbers from westen Gouta. A copy of the official document is shown on the aforementioned site towards the end of it. I strongly suggest putting this source and this number instead of the SOHR, since it seems to be the more honest and reliable source. Additionally I suggest removing the SOHR altogether since it's outdated, with no references (they operate through people working for them on ground but no office on site and didn't do the counting themselves as I understood from activists in the region), and they have no new numbers or reports about their current count. Id10tothe9 (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is confirmed by reliable sources all over the planet including hundreds of videos from the multiple towns that were hit. Furthermore whoever sourced that "professor of microbiology" claiming that these attacks would cause blisters, that is completely erroneous. If one bothered to simply check the Wikipedia page for nerve gas, you'll find that there are no blisters formed from any type of nerve agents and this source is probably mistaking them for another chemical weapon like mustard gas or Lewisite. The rest of the section is pure conjecture by projecting motives onto Assad without any actual basis in fact. ~ Sincerely, user bbcrackmonkey

The reliable sources have so far only relayed the videos of the alleged attacks, not confirmed that chemicals were actually used. And each time when the sources talk about the videos they note that they can not independently confirm the authenticity of the claims. EkoGraf (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for nerve gas does mention blisters: "Blisters and burning of the eyes and/or lungs may also occur." Boardhead (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Assad is not allowing UN experts already in damascus to investigate the issue,Assad knows that he will be caught,and the investigation will prove that his army launched it.Alhanuty (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This entire article is hearsay; all citations are to journalists repeating the unproven assertions of third parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.255.234 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Assad just gave the green light to the inspectors. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've just updated the article. Take a look at this edit by user:FutureTrillionaire. Do you find it appropriate? I've contacted him on this talk page regarding it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Both the Assad regime and the opposition agree that a chemical attack happened. There's no debate about that. The perpetrator however is disputed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, reliable sources are still referring to the attack as alleged (BBC, AJE). I don't think Wikipedia should jump ahead of sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So what is your reply to my point above about the SOHR source being totally out of place and that the numbers should be corrected? I'm new to editing wikipedia articles so I don't want to break any rules but if no reply comes I'm going to edit that source out and put the correct numbers because this article currently serves as a propaganda for untruthful claims. Id10tothe9 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

SOHR, even though an opposition activist group, has reported on both Army and rebel war crimes in the past in a neutral manner and has been established an authoritative and neutral source on the number of dead in the conflict. Example, they report 322 dead documented so far while FSA and SNC claim 1,300-1,700 without verification from the get-go. EkoGraf (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

absolutely untrue, I already gave you the lists with the names of the victims, and by reading about SOHR you can see the controversy about its current manager who seized control by changing the passwords and kicking the other members out. And it IS misleading to only mention such a source after mentioning the available range from the different sources, and making it appear as if this number is the trusted one while lists of much larger numbers exist from the active organizations actually at the location. Here is a list of currently 541 victims documented by name and references [11]. Id10tothe9 (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The SOHR figure is mentioned because it is the lowest one cited in the attack. We have also pointed out the highest one. Thus the point of the SOHR figure in the lead was to establish the lowest to highest range of death tolls that are being claimed. We don't give preference to one number over the other. And thank you for the VDC list we will put it to good use as a new claimed figure. Thank you!

To inform you Eco,that Iran said that the syrian government will allow inspectors in,just before Iran saying that in 24 hours,imran al zoabi said they won't allow the visit,It is Iran and Russia that pressured to allow the visit.Alhanuty (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Id10tothe9, welcome to Wikipedia! I think that in the article, listing of different claims of the numbers of 21 August chemical weapons victims at the moment should go mainly in the infobox, with a brief, WP:NPOV summary in the lead. This is why I shifted your information to the infobox (the box that you probably see at the top right-hand part of your browser window). If there is really a need for documenting the different claims of numbers of victims, then we could start a section or subsection in the main body of the article. Later it would become easier to summarise that briefly if we wish to change the sentence(s) about this in the lead.

The Center for Documentation of Violations in Syria list of victims is obviously quite special compared to the others, since it is much more detailed: it lists name, civilian/non-civilian status, sex/age group, and location of the 21 August chemical weapons victims (along with other victims listed in the database). That's why a subsection on the numbers and demography of victims might be justified in addition to the infobox summary. (By the way, a hint: you might better understand Wikipedia editing once you learn to edit the source directly, instead of using Visual Editor.) Boud (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is contradictory to not have "alleged" or "reported" in the top section but to have "unable to conclusively say" and "could not "scientifically confirm the cause" of the medical symptoms" in the analysis. ErixTheRed (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Boud! I'll try to use the source editing to get more familiar with editing ;). Yah I guess creating a subsection to discuss the different claims would make sense, but I guess we can wait a few more days to get better statistics. But meanwhile, I still have a strong objection to mentioning the details of the SOHR report while ignoring the other reports, in my opinion it makes the reporting one-sided. Maybe this should also stay in the infobox. It gives an impression that lessens the graveness of the incidence since we have much stronger claims available as well. I could find no mention of the 46 rebel fighters in neither of the mentioned sources, and the second source of the original SOHR report mentions a count of only 170 victims in both eastern and western Ghouta, it's not apparent that all of them died due to a chemical agent and only 40 of which are rebel fighters. Id10tothe9 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The SOHR source is actually pretty clear. This article we have created talks about the Ghouta attack which consisted of both the chemical bombardment and of the artillery bombardment (on a smaller scale) which happened simultaniusly. All of the death tolls claimed actually include those also killed in the simultanius small-scale artillery strikes. Yes the source says that 40 rebels from Rif Dimashq were killed in the Ghouta attacks, but if you read just a little bit more down the paragraphs you will see that it is stated an additional 6 rebels from other different provinces were also killed in the bombardments on Ghouta. And you are mistaken, there are not two sources citing the 46 dead rebels, there is only just the one source. We specified two numbers in the lead, the lowest number documented by SOHR and the highest number claimed by the FSA. The reason we, as you put it, mentioned the details of the SOHR report is that its the only report that made a breakdown of the casualties between civilian and rebel. We are not ignoring the others at all. All of the death tolls are properly presented and cited in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new to this discussion and have just read through this page. My concern is with the number of rebel casualties - which is obviously an extremely senisitive issue at this moment. I can see that I'm not the only one with such concerns. The main article suggests that 46 rebel fighters died from poison gas, but the SOHR source is (in spite of what Eko claims) much less specific. It merely notes the total deaths known as of Aug. 22 (the day after the attack) -- and among the total number that it gives for Ghouta (170 including 46 rebels), there is no way to know how many were due to gas poisoning. The gas was unleashed during a 'conventional' bombardment... so how many were killed by 'regular' bombs, and how many by gas? We have no way of knowing. Additionally, the SOHR source was posted very early -- before many additional deaths were known. And most of all, as an organization the SOHR has a record of anti-regime bias which, in spite of the organization's dedicated efforts and positive work, makes it an unreliable source at this critical moment. For this very reason, the UN no longer uses SOHR figures in their reports (see: http://rt.com/news/syria-death-count-political-875/ ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepperpicker (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Good stuff, you obviously seem clued. Are you a registered user? I would really recommend it, then you can really join the community. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~ Cheers Irondome (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence reports

The Cable blog is now a reliable source? Weapons being moved "as possible preparation" for an attack is pure speculation, and even if speculation is published in the WSJ, it does not belong in the article. Do I need to cite policy or can we agree on this? USchick (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You mention two different issues here. Re reliability, correct that we should not present every theory published in blogs and such. However, the second issue here is about speculation. If a reliable secondary source has connected "activity" at a weapons site to the attacks, we can cover that even if it constitutes speculation on the part of the secondary source. We just need to identify who is assuming what to accurately reflect the sources. WP:OR applies to editors, not to sources. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I added material from The Independent about Intercepted communications between an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defence and the leader of a chemical weapons unit. - The Independent, 28 August 2013,[12] - why is that considered inadmissible? Isnt that a reliable secondary source? Sayerslle (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from the source: "they have little doubt that the intelligence proves the regime’s culpability for the attack". This does not sound like conclusive evidence. The rest is speculation based on having "little doubt." Unless you have a better source, this information is bogus. USchick (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, USC. A quote can get away with assertions as long as they are reliably sourced as to the organ of transmission. The Indie certainly is a RS in the UK. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the source, I'm saying that the comments in the article are not supported by what the source actually said. When you say "You can get away with assertions" that's OR and in violation of policy. Perhaps you can be more accurate. USchick (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. The source carrying the material is paramount. Its not the quotes. Try to detach the two. The material is an article discussing the possibility in a well respected newspaper. That is not a WP issue as far as I know. You may disagree with the assertion made in the article, but its been published in a RS and its out there. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is long gone, we're arguing over nothing. USchick (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I will get it back then. Its a good source. Irondome (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your name will be added to the edit war list. USchick (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to learn some WP source groundrules, or you may have issues with other experienced users. As you appear to be. You must seperate the source from the assertion. I said that to you upthread. You appear to be confusing RS with what is actually said in them. You may disagree with the assertion, but if its reliably sourced... Irondome (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, I will take it into account. You may want to review the policy on pushing your POV with a bulldozer even though it has no basis in reality. USchick (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Snap. was about to say the same thing to you. perhaps I should rename you POVchick. Pip pip! Irondome (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Since no policy-based reason has been presented for removal of this section, I restored it per WP:CONSENSUS. The section probably needs some clean-up to ensure we are using the best secondary sources available. Please consider taking the snark to user talk pages if you can't avoid it altogether. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see consensus? Please stop edit warring. USchick (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Here you see consensus. Good restoration on solid RSS. I already sent a message to the original editor asking to replace, but you got there first. Cheers all. Irondome (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So it's collaborative to revert first and then to reach consensus? Ok, I'll be reverting a lot then. :) USchick (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to politely discuss stuff with you twice now, but each time I have been sarcastically rebuffed. So I have lost patience somewhat. I advise you not to go down that path. If you wish to discuss issues, then fine, but take friendly criticism in the spirit in which it is offered, without responding with scorn. Irondome (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to learn what the proper procedure is. Apparently it's to edit war and then to seek consensus? Is that right? USchick (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As discussed at the relevant policy page, consensus is based on policy. No policy-based reason has been provided to exclude. Consensus does not mean unanimity, hence your apparent belief that edits only may occur with your blessing is not founded in Wikipedia policy or practice. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today, three editors reached consensus about this section, and now after you started an admin edit war request, you continue to edit war. What is your excuse? USchick (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi Protection needed

We are getting swamped by lots of unsourced OR junk here. Can we protect the article a bit? Irondome (talk)

Support. We've already passed 3R for unsourced OR material by IP editors. Boud (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The IPs are mostly being disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the same reasons. Sopher99 (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I declined the request for protection at RFPP. This seems to involve the edits of one IP, and yet none of you has warned the IP or even discussed the problems with the IP, whichever would be more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I must say that when I was helping out for a few hrs, there were multiple and unrelenting IP reversions, additions, etc, coming in almost in real time. They were not all the same one, the ones I dealt with. There were loads of them. An early SP would have given regular eds breathing space, and stopped the frayed tempers. It was the first time I had experienced that on WP. It was full-on. Cheers Irondome (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Full protection till September 28, 2013

This article has been fully protected till September 28, 2013. As per policy, on pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. For information, a fully protected page can be edited only by administrators during the period of protection. The protection may be lifted by any administrator much sooner than the period mentioned, in case editors agree to discuss changes on this talk page, and reach consensus before undertaking contentious edits. Alternatively, modifications to this article can be proposed on this talk page for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on this talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Please contact me or any other administrator for any further administrative support. Please delete this notice after the protection has been lifted. Wifione ^Message 05:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Since this article is locked now here are a few tiny things for an admin to fix:

• Intelligence reports -> "a attack" (that whole sentence is very confused)
• Motives -> "argued that the Assad would use"
• International Reactions -> Arab League -> "chemical attacks against it's citizens" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.43.1 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• taubun -> tabun

Removal of a clearly wrong issue

I don't want to do this without opening it here first, but it's fairly relevant to the situation. It's about this: After an analysis a professor of microbiology, who watched the videos, concluded with a "best guess" that the videos were indicative of the aftermath of an attack with some incapacitating chemical agent, but probably not sarin gas or a similar weapon, as they would have left signs of visible blistering. from ^ "Chemical weapons strike in Syria?". Human Events. 21 August 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2013. (source 53 at time of writing). Nerve agents, such as Sarin, do not leave visible marks, especially not blistering. I think this reference should be removed entirely. 89.142.168.64 (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Editor of the source made a human error. Sopher99 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article seems closed, can an editor make the fix, please? 89.142.168.64 (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Motives

I added this statement under Motives and it was deleted, saying it has nothing to do with the attacks. According to the Wall Street Journal, this is a direct motive for the attacks, with Saud Arabia coaxing Congress and Obama to declare a war on Syria. Direct quote establishing motive: This past weekend, as the White House weighed possible military attacks against Mr. Assad, Saudi Arabia and its allies pressed Mr. Obama to take forceful action in response to the chemical-weapons reports, according to a U.S. official. The Arab message, according to another official, was: "You can't as president draw a line and then not respect it."

The Wall Street Journal reported that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia has been funding the Syrian rebels in an effort to topple President Bashar al-Assad. Together with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, Bandar bin Sultan is trying to instigate a war in order to expand the U.S. role in Syria and ultimately in Iran. USchick (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the motives behind the chemical weapons attack? Sopher99 (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article states that Congress and Obama are pressed to take forceful action in response to the chemical-weapons reports. If no chemical weapons were used, there's no need to launch a war, since that was the "line in the sand" the ultimatum for war. USchick (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:Crystal Ball , WP:Original Research . Your only providing your own "insight" by personally attempting to link Saudi arabia's motives in this conflict with the motives of a chemical weapon attack. Sopher99 (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Obama threatened to go to war if chemical weapons were used. He drew "a red line." According to Fox News [13] and TIME [14] and others [15] the line has been crossed. According to the Wall Street Journal and the CIA, Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia has been waiting for this to happen all along. It's not me saying this, it's the Wall Street Journal and the CIA.[16] In addition, Saudi Arabia is bribing Russia to stop supporting Assad.[17] [18] Motive. USchick (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that anywhere in the WSJ article - likely because only paid subscribers can see the article. Can you find a free version to show us? What you can do is copy and paste a paragraph of the article into google and some other site would probably have copied it. Sopher99 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are several links to the same article [19] [20] [21] can you see them? USchick (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The WSJ link we can't see unless we pay to subscribe. As for the other two - they only show us a summary paragraph, neither of which talks about chemical weapons Sopher99 (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have access to the article right? Copy and Paste the article here temporarily in this talkpage section. Sopher99 (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be a serious copyright violation. I'll be happy to do it if an admin approves it. The article is not for subscribers only, I'm surprised you can't access it. USchick (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This source is a summary of the WSJ article and talks about chemical weapons in Syria. [22] USchick (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Press TV as you know is not a reliable source, but even if it was it still doesn't not talk about the chemical weapons attack.

I think your getting confused as to where the WSJ article would go. It would go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war#Support_for_the_opposition Sopher99 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I used PressTV was to point you to the WSJ article. According to this source [23] "It was Prince Bandar's intelligence agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February." The article supports the same motive for this attack to be chemical, which would create a necessity for war. Here's another source establishing the same motive [24] That's multiple sources claiming the same motive for the importance of this attack to be chemical. I'm sure I can find more. USchick (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

All you have constructed here is evidence of Saudi Arabia's intention to be anti-Syrian government. That belongs on the main page under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war#Support_for_the_opposition

I can also provide a whole bunch of sources that Iran is anti-opposition, doesn't mean it belongs in this page. Just because I think Iran could have launched an attack, doesn't mean Iran's anti-opposition stance proves it. Sopher99 (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether Iran launched the attack, the disputed attack was either launched by Assad or the rebels. This motive is supported by sources as a realistic motive. I'd like to hear other people's opinion whether or not this statement belongs in the section under Motives: The Wall Street Journal reported that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia has been funding the Syrian rebels in an effort to topple President Bashar al-Assad. Together with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, Bandar bin Sultan is trying to instigate a war between the U.S. and Syria and ultimately in Iran. USchick (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that this is a conspiracy by Saudi Arabia. Despite no RS saying this is a conspiracy by Saudi Arabia. And the only thing you have to show for it is that Saudi Arabia "wants to start a fight between countries". Don't you see this is Original research in its purest form? Sopher99 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The CIA, the Wall Street Journal [25] and other sources [26] [27] establish it as a motive. USchick (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just nonsense. We don't need this in the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your opinion? USchick (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll echo what others have said, we can't theorise about potential motives and perpetrators behind these attacks in this way, even if something seems "obvious" to someone (like the "wake up!"-ers). The link between the attacks and the wish of certain individuals to see America's presence in Syria is merely a theory and should not be included in the article. BeŻet (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources have outlined a motive for an unexplained attack. To include other motives and exclude this one is blatant WP:POV. The other motives are speculation at best, and it's not up to us to cherry pick which motives we like better. USchick (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone has a reliable source disputing this motive, it needs to be added it to the Motives section to provide WP:BALANCE. USchick (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaking presenting another motive with presenting an WP:OR theory. We have already presented certain opinions. We can't manipulate the reader. What the OP (in my opinion) wanted to say is the following: Wall Street Journal said A and B, and therefore C (where C is implied/theorised by the author, not Wall Street Journal). We can however include the second quote if we attribute it to WSJ (as in, according to WST, Bandar bin Sultan is trying to instigate a war in order to expand the U.S. role in Syria and ultimately in Iran). BeŻet (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If we are not including all theories of motives then we really should remove the entire motive section. Clearly all motives at this point are theoretical and choosing to not include any likely motive because it does not suit certain peoples political views is entirely inappropriate. Otherwise all likely motives need to be included without prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.160.106 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

With that in mind, adding the following...Others have suggested that the attack being "carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work " may indicate some political interest interest made the attack, with the desire to point blame at the Syrian government. Possibly with the intention of sparking US or UN action against Syria. .... If anyone wishes to change the language or add or remove details feel free, but the point really does need to be made if we have any interest in the fullness of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.160.106 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoever continues to remove that portion, you are violating my right to freedom of speech. If you do happen to be working for a government agency you are currently in the act of violating another humans human rights and i consider you to be guilty of war crimes. Just to be sure you understand, i find you vile and deeply regret your existence spoiling our fine earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.160.106 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• This seem like a very POVish section, hanging on very limited interpretation as to why the attacks happened at such proximity to the UN arrival. According to various reportage for example, it noted that this is not the first time Assad has been involved in negotiations when some escalation happened. Suggesting that it was Hardline elements, within the assad regime trying to force his hand. The other way around, its was planned by Assad as part of long term strategy of slow escalation, stretching the "west" "red lines" while appearing to cooperate. That this was some Syrian officer overstepping his bounds. That this is Iranian ploy to escalate the situation, to improve its negotiation position. etc etc etc..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLNR (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If we're quoting a columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, I would think that the CIA is just as reliable quoted by the Wall Street Journal. Do we have consensus now? USchick (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The WSJ article is not behind a paywall. I can access it without a subscription. It does not appear to address the motives behind the attack that is the subject of this article. Synthesis of published material is not permitted on Wikipedia. The article has to explicitly connect the attack to a particular country for it to be mentioned in the article without breaching policy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the article is not clear about the motives. The title of the article is "A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works To Build Support to Topple Assad" and the article itself is about the line in the sand: "You can't as president draw a line and then not respect it." and the use of chemical weapons: "This past weekend, as the White House weighed possible military attacks against Mr. Assad, Saudi Arabia and its allies pressed Mr. Obama to take forceful action in response to the chemical-weapons reports." They met this weekend in response to this attack, since there was no other attack. The only question at the time was whether or not chemical weapons were being used. The article doesn't mention "2013 Ghouta attacks," but there's no question about which attacks were being discussed. USchick (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Alleged

At this point there is no confirmation of this (or who did it), outside US propaganda, so we should be careful and write "alleged" whenever an extraordinary claim is made. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the alleged claims, and extraordinary claims need to be removed as POV. USchick (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

and we should be careful also we don't just regurgitate Iranian and Russian propaganda, and the propaganda of their western epigones, without being clear where those certain viewpoints and predetermined positions derive from. Sayerslle (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't happening here anyway, so a bit early to cry wolf. As long as the West doesn't provide any credible evidence, we shouldn't write it as fact. Counter-claims by Russia and co. are irrelevant to this issue. And as far as I can see, this talk page is already dominated by the usual bunch of FSA-sympathisers, so the chance of pro-Syrian opinions being dominant, or even added, is slim. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The international consensus is pretty clear that a chemical attack did indeed occur; calling this "US propaganda" is a gross mischaracterization. The preponderance of the sources does not appear particularly conclusive about who is responsible, so that is where we want to be clear about who is saying what. Please review WP:AGF and WP:NPA regarding the "bunch of FSA-sympathisers" garbage. VQuakr (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I will stress that there is no evidence at all, apart from some Youtube videos. That's that. Nothing else. And even with those, there is no indication of who did it. It seems everyone is rushing to forget Colin Powell's WMD "evidence" from Iraq. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

there is no evidence at all... Objectively false. For example, third party medics on the ground reported patients with symptoms consistent with exposure to chemical weapons. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Patients? How about bodies? This is not about sick people, otherwise there would be no threat of war. FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this page isn't in danger of becoming a repository for propaganda from Syria and its allies. I haven't seen the evidence myself, so I have no hard-formed opinions here, but a cursory read of this page before VQuakr and I removed some of the POV crud made me feel like I was reading a pro-Damascus blog. We need a fair and thorough representation of the statements, evidence, and actions from all major sides here, presented with due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That has mainly been added by IPs, which are unlikely to be able to edit in the near future anyway. Most registered editors here seem to be pro-FSA/SNC/Nusra/whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - The Third paragraph of the lede

"The attacks occurred only a few kilometers from recently arrived United Nations investigators.[20] Damascus activists and the Human Rights Watch claimed (< no they didn't - the Syrian government was confirmed by the UN and the Reuters news agency to be blocking investigations - its even in the sources) the investigators were initially blocked from accessing the sites,[20][21] but Syrian officials say that within 30 hours of the UN officially requesting access to the site on August 24, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit them on 25 August.[22][23][24] (<One source and one source only is saying this, the "ips news net" which when you check appears to be a newsite which just focuses on anti-American news (not a reliable source)) On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, they were ordered to return by the Syrian government. They could also not visit the six main sites that day, as Syrian security officials said they could not guarantee their safety. The inspectors are still in Damascus as of 29 August"

The paragraph should look like this, as it did before whatever ip/user changed it.

" The attacks occurred only a few kilometers from recently arrived United Nations investigators. Initially blocking their access, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit them on 25 August. On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, due to apparent safety concerns were requested by the Syrian government to return and the inspectors subsequently could not reach the six main sites that day. The inspectors remain in Damascus carrying out their mission. "

Sopher99 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

looks solid. Also you might want to look at the second paragraph in the Analysis, verifiability, doubts and speculations#General section. --PLNR (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that statement backed up with "ips news", not to mention spelling mistakes. Sopher99 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just made this change (AGF on sourcing, etc). Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for serving as the admin/moderator. USchick (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article discusses Doctors without Borders and Medicines Sans Frontiers as if they were different groups - Doctors without Borders is the English name for MSF.

Syria under "International reactions"

Can we get consensus to have that removed? Obviously Syria is not an "international reaction", considering its military is widely suspected to have carried out the attacks itself...and either way, Syria is the country in which they occurred. Should be self-evident. Oh, and there's that tell-tale "syria" without capitalization... -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to the domestic response section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So how do we summon an admin to make this uncontroversial edit for us again? "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there...!" -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Added edit request for this. — -dainomite   03:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed this material outright: the only sources for it are copyright violations posted to YouTube (where the details in the publisher field in the reference template added by whoever posted this material was misleading), and it is Wikipedia policy to a) not include references or links to websites which violate copyright and b) not include unreferenced contentious material. I've posted the text below in case someone wants to find actual reliable and legal sources to use to support it. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

By August 24 Syrian government officials and media from allied governments, such as Iran, began claiming that Syrian arab army soldiers had discovered a secretive chemical lab in a tunnel in an area in Jobar previously controlled by the rebels. The report claimed some soldiers had suffered inhalation problems and had been hospitalized. On August 28 Syria's Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja'afari, stated that on August 22, 24, and 25 "members of the Syrian army inhaled poisonous gas as a result of the use by the terrorist armed groups of chemical agents close to what we call the nerve gas-the sarin. Dozens of Syrian soldiers are currently treated in the Syrian hospitals due to this use by the terrorist armed groups operating in the countryside of Damascus. The Syrian Government is requesting the secretary general to immediately instruct the investigation team operating now in Damascus to investigate immediately these three heinous crimes." He added ""We are saying that we know that the Syrian government is totally innocent of these accusations. We are sure of who did it. All that we are asking for is to give time to the investigating team operating now in Syria to conclude its reports, come up with a scientific report, to be examined by the security council members, away from any military or political pressure, because this threat of using force against my country's government has only one goal: undermining the mission for the investigating team so they will not come up with any investigation showing the innocence of the Arab government, the same thing that happened previously when the Arab League failed at coming up with a report to go after the Syrian Governemnt."

Non-expert quoted on effects of Sarin Gas.

"but probably not sarin gas or a similar weapon, as they would have left signs of visible blistering.[68]"

Sarin nerve agent is a acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. It is not a vesicant. Sarin does not cause blistering. These are facts. The expert quoted does not know what he is talking about, or is deliberately trying to cast doubt on a very probable nerve gas attack.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.6 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Several editors of this article are using Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as their argument for making erroneous claims. USchick (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's probably a mix or SYN of sort, with "similar weapon" referring to mustard gas which is a blister agent. While the argument against Sarin is probably the initial claim that there was no second hand contamination. In either case, I think we have more than enough expert sources to replace this with something more specific then this vague and confusing quote. --PLNR (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Motivation

Even the UK's JIC noted problems with motivation for the Syrian government carrying out the attacks: "no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW [chemical weapons] on an apparently larger scale now".[28] It still reckons the government did it, apparently based mostly on the belief that the rebels just didn't have the capability. This naturally leads into a discussion about evidence for and against rebel capability - there's certainly some evidence (not to hand right now, but findable) that rebels have attempted to develop CW capability, so the question becomes how far did they get... Podiaebba (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you have a chance to review this discussion Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks#Motives? There is evidence that rebels used chemical weapons in the past, supplied by Saudi Arabia.USchick (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed that, but skimming it now, I find that discussion a bit confusing. Podiaebba (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg argued that the Assad would use chemical weapons because nobody "will do a damn thing to stop him."[71] Syrian human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouneh also argued that the Assad government would launch a chemical attack because "it knows that the international community would not do anything about it" as for "previous crimes."[42] Israeli reporter Ron Ben-Yishai stated that the motive to use chemical weapons could be the "army's inability to seize the rebel's stronghold in Damascus' eastern neighbourhoods," or fear of rebel encroachment into Damascus with tacit civilian support

An analysis by Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons specialist formerly with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, noted that "the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs."[69] He also noted there were no government troop casualties from the attack.

The motives are clear. Too kill as many people as possible. 100,000 dead already - and you question a motive? Sopher99 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In a geo-political hotbed, there is rarely only one motive. USchick (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee about problems with motive. It's not like the Syrians are ignorant of Obama's "red line" threat, or of the fact that the only serious risk to the balance of the civil war (tilting their way despite much support to the disparate band of rebels) is Western intervention. Cui bono? is not definitive for motive, but it's always a question worth asking. PS Of course the US would never engage in chicanery to generate a reason for war, would they? Podiaebba (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Syria fired on protesters when arab league montors were there, and artillery shelled towns during kofi anan's "peace process". The plain simple fact is that the regime is desperate, brutal, and stupid. Just like Gaddafi's. By the way we have Chuck Hagel instead of Rumsfield, and Obama instead of Bush. Chuck Hagel is so anti-intervention that republicans tried filibustering his nomination, a first. Unlike Syria we have an electoral democracy, our government changes all the time. Sopher99 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes exactly! The Wall Street Journal explains how the CIA has been following Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia who is trying to instigate a war between the US and Syria knowing that Iran will be dragged into it. This area is a tinderbox, and the slightest spark from any direction can set it off. Here's a link to the article, but if you click it, please copy it to a word document and save it, so we can quote from it. The rest of us have clicked on it too many times and now can't access it w/o a subscription. [29] USchick (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a good source, yes - I've used it at Bandar_bin_Sultan#Director_General_of_Saudi_Intelligence_Agency_.282012_-_present.29. It makes clear the whole proxy war nature of the mess. Podiaebba (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There's also this kind of claim about Bandar. Podiaebba (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That source is under the same category as Alex Jones and all other Mossad-Cia NWO conspiracy theorists. Fringe. Sopher99 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for motives and previous use of chemical weapons is listed in the first discussion about Motives. The point is that all parties involved have ulterior motives and a long history of grudges, along with political motivations. Claiming only one motive on one side is extreme POV. USchick (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Has Alex Jones reported for AP, NPR and BBC? Dale Gavlak has. And I don't know what you mean by "Mossad-Cia NWO conspiracy theorists. Fringe." - are we supposed to pretend even after (for example) the recent CIA admissions about involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that they never do such things? Or is there some magical cut-off date where they became angelic? Is it OK to speculate about Syrian and Iranian intelligence machinations, but, not Saudi, Israeli or US? Please do explain. Podiaebba (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, some of the claims have made it into mainstream media, eg here. Podiaebba (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Our government's assessment regarding Assad's motives for the attack should definitely be included in the article:

"The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21."--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And so should the assessment from the CIA implicating Saudi Arabia. [30] USchick (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Our government's assessment"? Iraqi WMDs should be reason enough for that not being taken at face value. The US government (and allies) is obviously not a neutral, reliable source in these matters. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think the US govt is a reliable source, take it to RSN, but I doubt you'll find anyone that disagree that it's a RS. The US assessment is currently the most comprehensive one available, deriving its analysis from many sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

British parliament rejects military action in Syria [31] Motives based on oil, not chemical weapons. [32] Rebels have incentive to use chemical weapons: The Washington Times [33] World Tribune [34] FoxNews [35] Washington Post [36] USchick (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. government is not "ours" on wikipedia, and in any event Americans have a long history, since the American Revolution, of distrusting their own government's officials and statements. Furthermore, the United States is involved in Syria, and even if it weren't, there'd be no reason to think its published assessments were impartial. Governments have interests, and are not equivalent to media outlets. In this particular case, the U.S. president, secretary of state, and plenty of high level officials have been calling for strikes against Syria, and have an interest in the outcome of any "assessment." Even if the assessment were correct, it couldn't be impartial. -Darouet (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, any report that is not independently verified by a consensus of sources should be assigned due weight and its source clearly stated. It's not a valid reason for exclusion, but nor should the U.S. view be considered definitive. Presentation should be something like, "According to a declassified U.S. intelligence report released 30 August..." or, "The United States government claimed, based on intelligence it said it gathered in the days before and after the alleged attacks..." -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Exceptional claims should be attributed, not stated as fact. And no, the US government is not reliable when they obviously have a lot at stake themselves. It is not an impartial source in any sense of the word. Kuwaiti incubators, Iraqi WMD? Anyone remember that shit? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Is such a high protection warranted?

Is such a high protection level really warranted? Most of the POV-pushing has been done by IP editors, and this page documents a very recent event that has ongoing elements. Not allowing any non-admin editors to change the page for an entire month seems draconian, to put it mildly. Just my two cents... -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please read the note above that lists out the process for the protection to be lifted or for changes to be suggested to the article. Thanks and regards. Wifione ^Message 05:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a very wise decision and may save some regulars from uneeded crap. My only but serious criticism is that it was not semi-protected earlier. This would have sent a clear signal to all of clue, AND stopped the IP human-wave attacks. This may have let regular eds draw breath and not be so intemperate or uncommunicative with each other via the usual talkpage-consensus method. The pace of real world events has dramatically increased. Things were becoming impossible, irritation and random IPs popping up more or less in real time, having to make quick decisions, while dealing with some POV-stricken regulars who were not being too cooperative. We all got frayed. Could we have kept up a good content defence without edit-warring etc, 24/7? for I fear an intense and probably lengthy period of major conflict. Lets see how the admins do. It should be a good product then logically. User:Kudpung, are you out there btw? :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll not argue with Wifione's decision. I was considering pending changes but the edits and/or might be too complex for some of the reviewers to absorb from a cursory glance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the page should be lowered to semi-protection. Sopher99 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I am baffled by this decision, a Full protected "till September 28, 2013" for still a ~current event seems extreme. I support semi-protection. --PLNR (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A full month's full protection for an article on a current event is rather unusual, but I'm not all that familiar with the admin responses to articles in this area (beyond having a general awareness that lots of awful editing conduct has been going on). I've just edited through the protection to remove some obvious POV pushing which wasn't supported by its source - this didn't seem controversial, and I hope that it wasn't. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I support full protection indefinitely or until editors learn to collaborate, whichever happens sooner. Thank you! :) USchick (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate that we have a process, but as I pointed out, most of the disruptive editing activity was due to IP users. Is there really no way to protect a page so that unregistered and new users can't edit it? A request for semi-protection was turned down because it was deemed unnecessarily restrictive just two or three threads above this one. So what gives? -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd also want to know what warrants the full protection, and for such a long time (September 29). That seems heavy-handed, particularly for such an important current event article. Is there an edit war among non-IP users, and if so, why won't it suffice to warn/block said users from edit warring? Fletcher (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

LMAO! But I can't say I'm surprised. I don't even want to know how this happened. I think this is a good opportunity for us to take a break and chill out for a while.-FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:FutureTrillionaire Agreed. 24 hrs to chill and then semi-protect. There will be no more issues I bet with anyone. I hope :/. But if the total block continues beyond 24 hrs then I would be concerned. If an experienced and respected admin like User:Nick-D is commenting on the rarity of the measure, and the block continues beyound 24 hrs more or so, then I will be concerned. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

While it is unusual, I'm far from experienced in regards to the types of admin interventions which are necessary for articles on Middle Eastern conflict-related topics, and I don't want to be a backseat driver here. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be protected above semi-protection, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. — -dainomite   03:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Events are ongoing, of course there will be edit wars. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly, this is normal. Somebody I think overreacted here. If several editors are a problem, warn them, don't deny the ability to edit an article for 99.9% of the rest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'm very surprised not to be able to edit this. Podiaebba (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Suggest this gets moved down to semi-protect then review situation pls Tom B (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Request made: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.7B.7Bla.7C2013_Ghouta_attacks.7D.7D. Boud (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Meta-request made. Boud (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Threat of missile strikes" section

This section opens with "The US planned to launch up to 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syria." This is problematic both in terms of WP:CRYSTAL (predicting a future event) and also in terms of grammar. The sentence uses past tense to refer to a future event. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The plan has already been completed and announced, and that's why it's in past tense. The plan is currently being discussed and negotiated. Russia and China walked out from the negotiation after the plan was announced. It has not yet been carried out, which is a totally different issue. USchick (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The plan has neither been completed nor announced. It's pure speculation based on rumor. The U.S. hasn't even said that it will use military force, even if it's universally believed that it will. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, should move to US reactions. Or a subpart of the UN where the discussions and walkout was.(Lihaas (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

Edit request: Syrian government blocking inspector access?

The 3rd paragraph of the lead currently states:

"Initially blocking their access,[37][38] the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit them on 25 August."[39][40] On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, due to apparent safety concerns were requested by the Syrian government to return and the inspectors subsequently could not reach the six main sites that day. The inspectors remain in Damascus carrying out their mission.[41]"

This should be changed to:

"After reaching agreements with the Syrian government and rebel forces,[42] inspectors were able to reach the sites of the alleged attacks on 26 August,[43][44][45] despite threats to their safety caused by ongoing hostilities.[46][47][48][49]"

Additional details should be placed in the body of the article, rather than the lead.

According to most media coverage and UN press releases:

1. inspector access to other sites prior to this attack required months of negotiation;[50][51][52][53]
2. the UN formally requested additional access to Ghouta 22-24 August, in part by sending a special envoy, while also noting that "amid fighting between government and rebel forces, 'the security situation right now does not allow such access.'" [54][55][56][57][58]
3. on 25 August access was granted for 26 August,[59]
4. on 26 August inspectors carried out part of their mission despite coming under fire,[60][61]
5. on 27 August inspectors suspended operations due to safety concerns and continued fighting on both sides,[62]
6. on 28-29 August inspectors were able to successfully continue their work.[63][64][65][66]

With few exceptions,[67] only editorials, foreign officials or those involved in the conflict[68] have accused the regime of blocking access; most sources (including UN press releases) state that prior access required long negotiation,[69][70] that access to Ghouta is expected to require negotiation as well,[71][72][73] and that security is difficult in the midst of an ongoing conflict.[74][75]

I have quotes from all the articles and a few more if people don't mind TLDR posts (I'm pulling these up using LexisNexis so I don't have links in all cases). -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. "alleged" could be struck out IMO, because I don't think any party, at this point, is denying that people were gassed in Ghouta. -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask, what is your issue with "Blocking their access"? He certainly did not facilitate it with dispatch. You seem to be attempting to subtly change the "tone" with your revised wording. logically, Assad would have DEMANDED IMMEDIATE UN inspection if it was a false flag attack on such a huge scale, ideally asking the Russians to demand it via the UNSC. He didnt. Very odd. Irondome (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the government did, the Western media just ignores it. Similar with this: http://rt.com/news/syria-investigate-un-chemical-116/ FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. You just cant "cover up" an urgent official request by a nation state to the UN. There was no such contacts, or it would be in the record. This conspiracy stuff can go too far. I know Russia Today loves it but... Irondome (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, so you're implying that Western media is less partisan than RT when it comes to Syria? FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not implying. I am saying. RT is owned by Putin and his dictatorship. I have concerns about it as a RS actually. Irondome (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely don't consider it an RS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• You obviously don't have to downright deny something to question it. It has been questioned by many, and still is. Alleged should stay, until there is proper confirmation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source stating that the Assad regime asked the U.N. to investigate, and I'm not in the business of thinking up rationales for anybody's decisions. I'm just saying that our own description here should reflect that of most sources (wikipedia's policy) and the U.N. itself: the U.N. requested access on the 22nd, and it was granted on the 26th. The details can follow in the body of the article. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Its a fact confirmed by the UN and Reuters that the Syrian government was actively denying that it would allow UN inspectors to come in, regardless of what stage of planning the UN was in. These sentences have to remain. " The attacks occurred only a few kilometers from recently arrived United Nations investigators.[2] Initially blocking their access,[2][3] the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit them on 25 August." Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The U.N. has stated exactly the opposite, as shown above, and the statement of those two Reuters journalists is contradicted by those of almost all other journalists. As U.N. officials were stating themselves, it's not a simple thing to just waltz into a war zone (in the first few days officials stated it was too dangerous). Furthermore, U.N. officials also recognize that they need to negotiate with the Syrian government for access, as they did at other sites, since it remains a sovereign government, whatever you may think of it.

Sopher99, you should take the time to actually read the many news articles and U.N. press releases I cited, and as I've suggested many times before, stop editing this encyclopedia as a partisan in the conflict that is the Syrian Civil War. -Darouet (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Where can you show that the UN says that syrian government denied its official request to visit Ghouta? Can you please provide a link showing this. You cannot because they never did. They were escorted to the area the day after they officially requested to enter the locations. It is true they eventually came under sniper fire and worked in a very dangerous area where to opposing forces are fighting daily. Also this article does not mention that on Friday UN inspectors visited Syrian government hospitals to take samples and interview syrian military that are claimed by the syrian regime to be victims of chemical attacks. This is important news that is widely reported on syrian and lebanese media. It also has been reported in alternative media in the west. See for example: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/30/us_prepares_to_strike_syria_over Also this article does not link to the new claims made here: http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ It does appear likely the syrian army was involved in chemical attacks, but a good deal of evidence suggests rebels are also involved with chemical attacks. These are important factual points to make especially with military intervention around the corner, and with the vast majority of syrian people wanting peace, negotiations and an end to the war. NATO, Gulf States, and US continue to drag feet in arranging a geneva 2 peace convention, cease fires, etc. I do not have a wiki ID account but will make one soon. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.106.150 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are enough of you moon-landing conspiracy theorists to fill up a country. Any way - here are some links you asked for. Next time you can find them yourself by actually reading the article.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/22/dispatches-longest-short-walk-syria

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-syria-crisis-chemical-analysis-idUSBRE97L10020130822

Sopher99 (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That the inspectors visited Syrian government hospitals was not on 'alternative media' in the west - it was on BBC News tonight - I think they wanted also to visit other districts but the government told them where they could go.Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have one reuters article, and one HRW article, stating that inspectors were blocked (apparently you didn't see the Guardian article I linked stating the same thing). These statements are contradicted by all UN press releases and by the overwhelming majority of media coverage, which recognize that after months of negotiation to give inspectors access to other sites, a few days of negotiation to access Ghouta (part of a war zone) is understandable.

The tone of the article right now reflects that of editorials or U.S., U.K. officials who demanded immediate access to the sites; it does not reflect that of most coverage, of the U.N. itself, or neutrality. That needs to be corrected. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me a paragraph from your sources contradicting Reuters and HRW? All the UN said is that they came to an agreement, doesn't contradict the fact that the Syrian government initially denied access. Sopher99 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the U.N. and other sources, inspectors have access to no sites unless agreed to by the Syrian government, following negotiation.

On August 22nd, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, states that “The Secretary-General’s team, headed by Dr. Sellstrom, is currently in Syria... I urge the Government and opposition forces to enable them to examine the site of the alleged attacks without any delay or obfuscation... I understand shelling and fighting have continued today... I call on all parties to halt the fighting immediately and allow access to humanitarian aid and essential medical supplies, in order to prevent more needless deaths.”[76]

On the same day, a U.N. report states that "Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is asking the Syrian Government to allow a team of United Nations experts to investigate the latest allegations regarding the use of chemical weapons and is sending one of his senior officials to Damascus in this regard. Mr. Ban is requesting that the team, led by Swedish scientist Åke Sellström, be granted permission and access to “swiftly” investigate the incident which occurred on the morning of 21 August 2013. “A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the Government of Syria,” the spokesperson added. “He expects to receive a positive response without delay.” Meanwhile, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay today also urged the Government and opposition forces to enable the team to examine the site of the alleged attack “as a matter of utmost urgency.”"[77]

Describing events on the 22nd, Peter Beaumont and Ian Sample write for the Guardian that "UN chemical weapons inspectors' team only about six miles away. The 20-strong team, led by the Swedish chemical weapons expert Ake Sellstrom, arrived in Damascus three days ago, though only after months of negotiations between the UN and the Syrian regime over which sites the inspectors could visit. It seemed unlikely, however, that the inspectors would be able to gain quick access to the site to investigate what had happened."[78]

The Irish Times writes on the same day that "A team of UN inspectors is seeking access to an area near Damascus where the opposition says the chemical attack occurred, Mr Eliasson told reporters in New York after a closed- door UN Security Council briefing. Amid fighting between government and rebel forces, “the security situation right now does not allow such access,” he said, calling for a “cessation of hostilities” by government and opposition forces."[79]

Patrick McDonnell and Shashank Bengali write for the LA Times that "Any expanded U.N. inquiry would require approval of the Syrian government. Some kind of safe passage would have to be arranged for U.N. inspectors to enter what are heavily contested war zones."[80]

On August 23rd, Ban again calls for a cessation of conflict: "The time has clearly come for the parties to stop shooting, and start talking. I am determined to do everything I can to assist the victims and move towards a political solution. That is the only way this crisis will be resolved.”[81]

Kim Senupta writes for the Independent and the Belfast Telegraph that "the UN Deputy Secretary-General, Jan Eliasson, insisted in New York that the “security situation does not permit” visits to the area for the time being. He also stressed that doing so would need the explicit consent of the regime and this might take time as it would require a change to the mandate under which the inspectors were allowed into Syria."[82]

On the same day, Sam Lister and Joe Chucher for the Birmingham Mail similarly write, "A team of UN inspectors was only recently granted access to Syria to investigate previous alleged chemical attacks. It arrived in Syria on Sunday but needs permission to extend its work beyond the sites it is looking at."[83]

Nicholas Cecil writes for the Evening Standard of London on the same day, "The UN Secretary-General sent his disarmament chief Angela Kane to Damascus to demand weapons inspectors are granted access to the site of the alleged nerve gas atrocity... Ms Kane will ask for inspectors, already in the Syrian capital, to be permitted to visit the Ghouta area on the outskirts of the city, where the attack is reported to have taken place. Russia, an ally of Assad's, also called on his regime to allow inspectors access."

Julian Border and Dan Roberts write for The Guardian that "After four months of negotiations the Syrian government had allowed the inspection team, led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, to enter the country earlier this month to investigate earlier alleged chemical weapons allegations, but under strict constraints. The UN last night would not confirm or deny reports that its security department has yet to give the inspectors the green light to travel to the site even if the visit wins Syrian government approval."[84]

Articles after the 23rd continue in this tenor.

As you can see, and as described by the United Nations and media sources, inspectors do not have a mandate to travel anywhere in Syria: their presence is based upon consent by the regime, and sources do not describe them as "blocked" before they negotiate permission to access additional sites. A fair way to describe this, in the article, is that the U.N. requested permission on 22 August, and on 25 August the regime agreed to allow them access from the 26th forward. The lead is not the place for this detail, however, considering all else that should be written there. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the lead currently states that inspectors only had 1.5 hours of access on the 26th, which isn't what the U.N. says about what happened,[85] or what the National Post reports either.[86] -Darouet (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

All you have confirmed to me is that the UN believe the situation is dangerous and needs both sides to stop fighting ie cessation of conflict. This does not change the fact that the Syrian government denied that it would give access the first few days. We will mention the United Nations calls for cessation of conflict, but the Syrian government denying them access will also remain. Sopher99 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to use language inconsistent with that of the U.N. and most media sources you'll have to provide a rationale grounded in editorial policy; otherwise the language (your own) can't remain there. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

International reactions

1. UK:

the fate of the proposed motion is absent from the text referring to the UK.

2. Sweden:

If this section (international reactions) is intented for recording official reactions from foreign governments then only the FO comments should be there. Experts or former inspectors while being Swedish nationals do not represent an official response from Sweden and their comments should be transferred to the main body.

Agreed the UK motion needs to be in the article.

Disagree only FO comments should be there. Others are notable. In accordance with precedence non-official comments can come on another line with a double asteriks preceding. (to separate from single asterik official comments)(Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

Re 2 - I did not claim that we should remove those comments alltogether or that they are not notable enough. They are, however, comments made by swedish nationals in their capacity as *individuals* not as government officials (which they aren't with the exception of the minister). Therefore I suggested we move them to the main body where other similar opinions by experts are.

Ah ok. Then maybe have a subsection for "others" under reactions or go with what I suggested to differentiate it from official statements(Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

Reactions

1. Vatican should be listed as Holy See as that is the international political name.
2. The reactions section has a link to the country and then re-lists the country in introducing the content. Ie- "Australian Prime Minister...", which ought to just read "Prime Minister..." as the flag and link already mentions that which country.
3. In accordance with such lists, can an admin move the UN and Arab league to subsection "supranational bodies" and the countries to "states"
4. In accordance with MOS dating "Arab League released a statement on the 27th of August" should remove "th of" and simply state 27 August
5. "Iraq opposing strike on Syria highlights region’s complexity" is like a headline and makes no sense.
6. Lebanon's minister is not Adana Mansour but Adnan Mansour
7. "though the UN has not been allowed into Ghouta yet" remove this from Sweden as they have gone in there
8. "Obama's ambassador to the UN" is not Obamas personal fiefdom, she is the US ambassador to the UN, so one can just say Ambassador to the UN.
9. Also per pov "American and Israeli officials stated they intercepted communications from Syrian officials that Assad was responsible for the attack" should read the officials claim to have communications
10. Responses are sorted by order of importance. hence fo r the holy see the popes comments should come before that of the UN ambassador
11. "US missile strikes would be launched without the approval " Is written as gospel fact. Who claimed this? It hasn't happened and we cant know for sure that's what will happen. There is also no caveat for who said the quoted statement. If its just media, then that clearly POVv and should be removed.(Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).
12. Some links: [87][88][89][90][91][92]

Threat of missile strikes, legality

I propose the following edit to the Threat of missile strikes section. The sentence "According to Russia, this action would be a 'very grave violation of international law.'" should be changed to "According to legal scholars, this action would be a violation of international law." with the following source: [93]. On the question of legality, the opinion of legal scholars seems more important than that of Russia. --JFH (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

should be changed to - " (Washington post story) ' some U.N. officials and other experts, including former Republican and Democratic State Department lawyers, argue that the use of force against the Syrian regime, without a U.N. Security Council resolution, would be illegal' - the 'legal scholars' was used with regard to a 'Kosovo precedent' or something. has Putin/Russia condemned the use of napalm-like bombs on civilian targets on school in Aleppo, like the BBC reported on ? Sayerslle (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing name of Threat of Missile strkes

The section name should be renamed to International retaliation. Sopher99 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not international, since at this point the United States is the only country able to threaten Syria with strikes. Also, "retaliation" is a loaded word, as it supposes that the U.S. government would be bombing in retaliation against strikes that we don't even know were ordered by the Syrian government. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in lede

How can the inspectors be in Damascus and "carrying out their mission" at the same time, if that mission was to determine a matter of fact in a place they were denied access to? Text in lede should clarify or refer to body of article where it is. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See that Ghouta is suburban/close to Damascus, and that that's the probable explanation, proximity issue might be made more explicit in the lede. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

CNN report of sniper fire against UN vehicles deleted

A recent edit deleted a CNN report of UN vehicles on their way to the site of chemical attack coming under fire from Syrian snipers. Should this be restored? Tkuvho (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it has been reported by reliable sources, so I certainly think so. When restored, it should be noted that it is NOT known who had fired the sniper shots. I will go as far as to not even specify them as "syrian snipers", but rather just snipers. CNN reports -- http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/ -- that the UN vehicle was shot multiple times by an unknown sniper. Wisdomthatiswoe (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you honestly seriously consider CNN to be a 'reliable source' then you are honestly seriously retarded. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Watch your tone. We expect contributors to be civil. CNN is as reliable as the other crap sources we are having to utilise at the moment. Its called the Media, whether it be RT or the BBC or the Guardian or Isvestia or the JP. When academic books are published on the history of this event, then we will have RS. Get real. Irondome (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia editors here only accept western mass media sources (with religious fanaticism), which are clearly not objective in the context of this article. Example: "It would not make any sense. The rebels don't have the technological capabilities to launch chemical weapons.--FutureTrillionaire" under the section titled "POV lead", which is a line quoted straight from Washington bureaucrats. The only sources that seem to be allowed here are ones that ask "how high?" when Washington says "jump". In this case the line peddled by the US government and western media seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmPoMT1ZV18 for Putin's response to get some idea why. You get real. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Twitter

Just because an official said something on Twitter, does not make it an official statement, even if it was reported by a news agency. If this is a UN official, thy need to say it at the UN, in an official meeting. USchick (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the electronic media age, it becomes an official statement by default. I doubt if she just pecked it out while sitting on the toilet. She would be well aware of the gravity of her utterances, irrespective of the media platform used. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Until UN meetings are held on toilet seats with Twitter accounts, we'll just have to wait. USchick (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me these are quasi-official utterances by the US rep to the UN, not the UN itself. Further Twitter is a RS and her remarks were picked up by the HP. Please give reasons for removal. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Quasi-official utterances by low level officials do not accurately represent a US reaction and certainly don't belong in a section titled "International Reaction." Cheers! USchick (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The US ambassador to the UN is hardly a "low level official". An odd statement. This is her official twitter account. It is therefore an official US govt outlet. "Quasi" as a term here is meant to reflect the fast moving and changing status of E media. I take it to be official. I would like to see other editorial input here. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed tweets from the US ambassador to the UN certainly do merit mention in the "international reactions" section. The source, of course, should be mentioned in the article to make it clear that these are tweets, not formal meeting minutes or something. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If the UN had a reaction that would be one thing, but one member on a Tweet does not create a "reaction." USchick (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing is it was the US ambassador to the UN tweeting on her official account. This could fairly be described then as an official US reaction re the context of the UNSC, and was noteworthy enough to be picked up by the Huff. It merits inclusion. Cheers Irondome (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored this reaction; USchick is the only editor arguing for its exclusion, and has yet to come up with a policy-based reason per WP:CONSENSUS. Just repeating "it's not an official statement" is not adequate reason to exclude. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a policy that prevents one member from representing all of the UN and all of the US. She is an ambassador with no official authority. Consensus does not mean "majority editor's opinion" and it does not trump common sense. USchick (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As written in the article, we identify who (Samantha Power) said what, and where. No reasonable person could read that and think it represented "all of the UN"; it is written in the "United States" subsection. The reader is free to decide if they with to give less credence to the statement because it was on Twitter; WP:WEIGHT is not being violated. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain how her Twitter comment is relevant as an international opinion from the US or from the UN? USchick (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You need someone to explain why the opinion of the US ambassador to the UN is relevant to a section about the US reaction? VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that it was directed to the UN? It could simply be a musing on Twitter. Again, the UN does not make policy based on Twitter. Claiming that it does is OR. Yes, quasi-official utterances are undue WP:WEIGHT. USchick (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Any reference to opinions or official stance of the UN in this context is a straw man; the information in the article is in the US section and quotes the US ambassador. If you want to get more editors involved feel free to open a RfC, but since you are the only one arguing for its exclusion I think otherwise we are done here. VQuakr (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote: Samantha Power, said on Twitter that "Assad has used [chemical weapons] against civilians in violation of [international] norm." WP:SPECULATION She has no way of knowing who is responsible for the attacks. Unsubstantiated claim, needs to be removed. USchick (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That clearly is not what is covered in WP:SPECULATION. You have little credibility left with me with regard to your inability to contribute neutrally on this subject. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

She claims that "Assad has used [chemical weapons] against civilians in violation of [international] norm." That's a direct quote. It has not been established who is responsible for using chemical weapons. How does she know that? That's speculation. Reading comprehension is important here, not your opinion of me. USchick (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a quote, from a person whose opinion is very relevant to US foreign policy. The reader is welcomed to judge her as not credible if they so choose. Your concerns are already addressed by clearly presenting who made the statement, as opposed to making it a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice (as we would, for example, for a non contentious fact such as the diameter of the Earth). VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that her false statement in an unofficial Twitter quote somehow represents the International Reaction of the US? How? USchick (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that a statement from the ambassador's official Twitter account merits mention in the "US Response" subsection. Your repeated attempts to portray the ambassador as a "minor official", the statement as "false", suggest that a quote represents misrepresentation by Wikipedia, and to straw-man the statement into an official position by the UN are childishly transparent. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Using one's political position of power to spread lies is called Propaganda and has no place on Wikipedia, something that has been mentioned previously today. USchick (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And using one's position of power as an editor on Wikipedia to exclude notable statements we don't like is called abusing editor privileges. It also has no place on Wikipedia. Look, not to brag or nothin', but I know a thing or two about presenting things with due weight. The statement was made on Twitter (which is increasingly an acceptable forum for major statements by prominent individuals), and that was duly noted when I added it to the reactions. I deemed it notable because it represented an evolution of the U.S. position from "we believe Assad used chemical weapons" to "Assad used chemical weapons" -- to say nothing of Power's own history of advocating very tough responses to what she sees as rogue regimes on the international stage. If you disagree with Power, that's great. I disagree with some of the international reactions -- including many of those I personally added to this article -- as well. But that doesn't give you license to try to find a way to get it removed, and claiming Twitter isn't a legitimate forum for making such a statement just isn't going to cut it. Sorry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedians to decide whether being an ambassador makes a difference to one's tweets. It is coverage by third-party sources that determine whether it should be mentioned on Wikipedia; in this case, such coverage exists and is referenced by the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't even at the meeting, [94] how can she have a reaction? She has zero credibility [95] "Samantha Power's skills better suited to classroom than UN" USchick (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Her credibility is irrelevant. Her holding of an extremely powerful U.S Govt post is. United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Therefore her tweets notability emanate from the authority of her office. If you doubt the profile of the role of the office, check out Adlai Stevenson II who had the famous and dramatic "Cuba confrontation" in the UNGA in October 1962. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why is the Syrian UN ambassador considered as "fringe" by the editors here? USchick (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I would oppose that as strongly. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering, please join the discussion below: Removal of Motives section Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks#Removal of Motives section USchick (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Auto-archival

Are there any objections to adding auto-archival to this page to move the older threads and keep the length lower? I suggest a seven day archival period until things slow down. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, nobody objected! Boud (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please fix broken reference

Since this is protected, I cannot do it. "Venezuela’s Maduro Warns against U.S. Intervention in Syria", Venezuela Analysis, Published August 26 2013; Accessed August 27 2013 should link to [96] rather than to Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, don't see how that could be controversial. Monty₈₄₅ 04:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please fill in details for reference 51 (Foreign Policy), and replace reference 50 (The Independent) with reference 44 (WSJ), as the Independent is merely echoing the WSJ and Foreign Policy. It should also be clarified (per Independent/WSJ) that the communications were intercepted by the Israelis and "verified" by the CIA, not intercepted by the CIA. Podiaebba (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

Adding "former IDF soldier" to Jeff Goldberg. Pinocchio3000 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Caveat adds context. Otherwise hes not a notable on his own.(Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

No...? He's a fairly well-known commentator on the Middle East. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove "alleged" from the first sentence of this article

There is no doubt whatsoever that the attacks are chemical attacks, as acknowledged by most countries (including Russia and Iran) and organizations. The theory that the symptoms and videos were staged really are conspiracy theories. Lerichard (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Even Syria acknowledged there WERE attacks. The controversiy is WHO did it not that it happened.(Lihaas (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

THis is totally Mumbo Jumbo. For example the representation given to Mr HAns Blix statement is totally wrong. His main statement was that any attack withou UNSC resolution is a crime. So why do you lock this shit up!½

Stefan Lindgren, red@nyhetsbanken.se 213.112.51.237 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Community sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

I would like to note that from now on, Syrian civil war topic articles are coming under community restrictions based on 1RR rule, as a result of motion from July 2013 [97] and a consequent WP:AN discussion over imposing sanctions [98] on articles of the Syrian civil war topic.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Media

This section needs a new title, since it's not about Media or Media reaction.

• The United States' intelligence assessment does not belong in the Media section.
• User:Sopher99 Calling a media source "Pro-Castro" is POV USchick (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The source says in Spanish its pro castro. It is about media's reaction too, as everything there is speculation. Sopher99 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Either it's a RS or not, calling it Pro-Castro is POV. If you're going to list Media under International Reaction, then the neutral thing to do is to list international media opinions. I see not one Arabic media source. Why is that? USchick (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I would remove it - but everyone here has a 1 revert limit. We shouldn't have any source here that isn't in english - cause how do we know that the wiki explanation the user gives is correct? Sopher99 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of Arabic sources in English and there are plenty of editors who are bilingual. USchick (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you like you can replace cubadebate with this source regarding NATO http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/30/nato-chief-says-alliance-has-no-plan-to-intervene-in-syria-despite-alleged/ . I don't like fox news either but its classified as a reliable source by wikipedia. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We have two issues here. Since the CubaDebate thing is kind of a separate issue, I am starting a subsection below. I agree that the media section is not well-titled; I would have expected to see meta-news items here about how the media response has been great/terrible/mediocre, whatever. You see that sort of thing a lot in sensational trials, etc. USchick, what did you have in mind for a different section title? VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This section started out as "Motives." Sopher99 removed entire sections w/o discussion and named it Media. He is way past his one revert allowance. This section needs to be restored as Motives or completely rewritten to include international media reactions including Arabic sources. USchick (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't move it or change the name, I re-organized/altered its sections. How does "Political commentary" sound? Sopher99 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Political Commentary or Media Reaction needs to include commentary and reaction from ARABIC sources. USchick (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

UN claims/evidence that Rebels commited the attack.

I have read a few sites mention that an UN Member of Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, Carla Del Ponte has mentioned that testimonies from many of the victims and even rebel fighters themselves point to the chemical attack being carried out by rebels, was wondering was is it not included (it's included on her page though)and why no one is even talking about putting it up?

I will post the links and hopefully it will be material that is good enough to be put up and ensure the neutrality of the article.

Carla Del Ponte's interviews:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

And there's a report from Reuters that an US Offcial has mention that there is no proof that Al-Assad used CW. This is made after Carla's interviews & after Obama claiming that the US will strike Syria no matter who used CW because the UN inquiry team (the one on the chemical attack and not Carla's team) is only there to test if CW were used and not who used them.

Site of US offcial's claim:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97S0YB20130829

And a few other websites on the same topic which I am not very sure if they can make it on the list:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/#1

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

For WND, the 2nd video is very convincing, at least for me, because I do know a thing or two about artilleries and that they munition they were using looks a lot like a home-made/improvised chemical shell.

58.182.49.64 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The news website http://www.mintpressnews.com/ is currently under denial-of-service attacks, so this link may not currently work: http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ "Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack, Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group" by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh. A webcache of it exists on google. Briefly, the report details several eyewitness accounts from Ghouta that claim the chemical weapons were supplied by Saudi Arabian agents and then stored in Ghouta by some local fighters who, in ignorance of how to use them or even of what their true nature was, accidentally set off an explosion that released the toxins that killed so many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

what is mintpressnews? is it an RS? from mintpressnews it says, 'Clarification: Dale Gavlak assisted in the research and writing process of this article, but was not on the ground in Syria.' 'This report is not an Associated Press article; rather it is exclusive to MintPress News -' do you think wp should wait to see if RS pick this up? Sayerslle (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "RS". An important thing is that its authors are named individuals with, for Gavlak anyway, a substantial professional history. The source website seems accessible at the moment - it is not a copypaste from other sources site so it must commissions or accept original articles, and it has been running since at least January 2012 based on its archive. One would expect, under normal circumstances, to at least see its authors trying to sell their story to bigger outlets, but these are not normal circumstances and off-message reports will get surpressed, and it might also depend on the degree of exclusivity there is for mintpressnews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

RS means 'Reliable Source'. the UN inspectors spoke to people in Ghouta and will report in 2-3 weeks I believe. i don't see how 'off-message' reports will get suppressed in free societies, - and if this story has its roots in reality rather than in regime propaganda it will get picked up by RS imo. Its either a great revelation or a load of rubbish, really, isn't it?Sayerslle (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should be included, plenty of the sources are reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Rebels have incentive to use chemical weapons: The Washington Times [99] World Tribune [100] FoxNews [101] Washington Post [102] USchick (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is already outlined in the article as it is. What, exactly, are you unhappy with? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As i have mentioned, Mintpress is under the list of sites wich is ALSO SKEPTICAL FOR USE for me. So instead of just picking on a single website & debating over it, the MAIN QUESTION is: are the other sites good enough for this news to be included in the article? If yes can someone help me include it in because i am not too good at this either. Thank you in advance.Tarentius (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Try editting but it's lock down, any idea how to add this part into the article?Tarentius (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Motives section

What happened to the entire section on Motives? User:Sopher99 has removed entire sections without any discussion and now it's called Media. USchick (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

that section seemed imo to be departing from the subject of the article - I think the article would benefit from attempts to stick more scrupulously to the subject title at the top of the page and favour reportage of facts rather than endless, invariably pro-regime tinged, speculations Sayerslle (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the section's removal and reapportionment of material, but I was starting to notice problems with WP:SYNTHESIS in that section particularly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain or provide an example? USchick (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

imo this stuff - "The Wall Street Journal reported that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia has been financing the Syrian rebels in an effort to undermine the Syrian government. Together with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, Bandar bin Sultan is trying to instigate a war in order to expand the U.S. role in Syria and ultimately in Iran.[75] Bandar offered financial incentives for the Russian government to stop supporting Syrian President Assad. If Russia refused, Bandar hinted at potential terrorist attacks at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.[76]" - how is this directly related to the subject of the article - is it mentioned in RS as directly pertaining to the Ghouta attacks? its a load of old pov persiflage imoSayerslle (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that is classic WP:SYN and has no place in the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This source [103] explains it all in one place. Not Synth. Please restore. USchick (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That source does not connect Saudis to the gas attack. In fact, it seems to contradict your synthesis: "the horrifying videos of children and elderly people suffering from a chemical attack which emerged online last week would have been extremely difficult for rebel forces to fabricate and analysts do not believe they have the ability to fire chemical weapons themselves." Perhaps you could post a draft of what you specifically want to add to the article, with appropriate sources so we can look at this in less general terms? VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

the article linked to meanders a bit , but it doesn't 'explain it all in one place' - and does not connect Saudis to the Ghouta attacks. desperate stuff imo Sayerslle (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Wall Street Journal reported that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia has been financing the Syrian rebels in an effort to undermine the Syrian government. Together with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, Bandar bin Sultan is trying to instigate a war in order to expand the U.S. role in Syria and ultimately in Iran.[75] Bandar offered financial incentives for the Russian government to stop supporting Syrian President Assad. If Russia refused, Bandar hinted at potential terrorist attacks at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.[76]"

Sources:

• WSJ article
• [104] Provides a balance account "In a gripping insight into the real politick behind the scenes of the Syria crisis, it emerged that Saudi Arabia tried to offer Russia a game-changing oil agreement in return for Vladimir Putin's pledge to drop his support for the Assad regime in Syria." And "It is also understood to have offered a guarantee that no Chechen terrorists would strike the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia."
• [105] Saudi Prince Bandar behind chemical attack in Syria
• International Business Times [106] USchick (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• [107] Fars News: Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accused Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaeda linked rebel group.

Hmmmm... unrelated Saudi diplomacy, Iranian state news, and Galvak giving his two cents despite making a disclaimer that he didn't even go to Syria? Gee what a compelling case. Sopher99 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, quoting more sources parroting the same fringe source material does not make it more reliable. VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you will like this source? [108] USchick (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the issue: it just isn't particularly relevant. I know the radical fringe is trying hard to cobble together an explanation for these chemical attacks that ignores the overwhelming probability that it was carried out by the Assad government against neighborhoods seen as sympathetic to the opposition, but WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SYNTH apply here. We have documented the Russian and Syrian position, echoed by some Iranian officials as well and by Syria's ALBA allies, that the rebels or their supporters somehow coordinated, engineered, and executed a brilliant false-flag attack to (quite possibly unsuccessfully) lure the terminally indecisive Western powers into the conflict. Those claims, which seem to lack much in the way of factual backing, are presented with due weight. The appropriate balance exists. We don't need to turn the rest of the article into a conspiracy blog. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to provide a source to support your view that it's a radical fringe explanation? Syria's U.N. ambassador doesn't agree. [109]

Syria's UN ambassador is a Syrian government official, of course he doesn't agree. However Syria's former ambassador agrees... [110] Sopher99 (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So basically, we only include opinions the US agrees with. That's nice. Syria's UN ambassador is fringe, but the US ambassador who was absent is qualified to have an international reaction. Why is that? USchick (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian Ambassador and the US Ambassadors utterances should have equal weight. I am totally aware that the Syrian Ambassador has no independent domestic power whatever, and can be recalled and shot if he pisses Assad off. But it is the importance of the office under UN law which should decide. The uttances are irrelevant. That is Neutral and NPOV imo Irondome (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So basically, we only include opinions the US agrees with. No, the article already makes it clear that the Syrian government has denied responsibility for the attacks. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the part about Saudi Arabia funding the rebels and giving them chemical weapons? Why is this part being repeatedly removed? USchick (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is a link to a RS article that says the ghouta attacks were effected with Saudi chemical weapons used by the rebels? this article is about the ghouta attacks. you moaning about pov pushers is a sodding joke imo.Sayerslle (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[111] [112] [113] USchick (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You really need to stop giving us iranian state media and quotes from mintpress. Sopher99 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes the sources I provided unreliable? There's also the Wall Street Journal. Just because you can'r see it, doesn't mean it's not there. There's no policy against using it. There's also the voice of Russia. [114] USchick (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We will have to start taking these sources to the RS board. Its no problem USchick, it just verifies if the community accepts them as RS for use. Some may already have been decided on already there. Mintpress may be new and maybe should be checked out by the community. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

VoR and those Iranian news papers are all state owned and directed. All they do is blab about their fringe theories. The Iranian and Russian governments are a partisan parties here. The WSJ source you gave does not link the Saudis to the 2013 Ghouta attacks. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Weekly (last paragraph) [115] Here and Now [116] UK International Business Times [117] The Wall Street Journal talks about the "Recent Attacks." which attacks happened recently? No, it doesn't say Ghouta, but there's no question about which attacks they were meeting about "this weekend". USchick (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

the first one is voice of Russia again - it says Egyptian chemical weapons now, it was Israeli a minute ago - why not just just add 'Russian and Iranian sources purport to have copper-bottomed assurances from ghouta residents that saudi operators using Egyptian/Israeli chemical weapons , in concert with AQ , and Chechens , used these very chemical weapons to attack ghouta on 21 august 2013 ' - and then add all your Russian and Iranian sources - the U.N investigators spoke to residents - maybe their report will make things clearer , Sayerslle (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Independent [118] USchick (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That source only gives more insight into the antagonism between saudi arabia and syria. Nothing about a conspiracy that saudi arabia is linked to the chemical attacks. Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - it has zero to tell us about the attacks and doesn't claim to have. Sayerslle (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it again. I provided a quote below. USchick (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you hear crickets chirping? Please restore the section, so I'm not accused of edit warring. Thanks! :) USchick (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are editors so quick to edit war but so slow to cooperate? Now do we have consensus? USchick (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No we most certainly do not. The independent piece in one single sentence just says how Saudi arabia's reaction to the ghouta attacks underscores the antagonism between the regime and the saudis. No where in the article does it go anywhere near saying the Saudi have any responsibility whatsoever in the chemical attacks. As for the lack of responses, its 8-11pm in the US but it is the middle of the night in Europe, Africa, and the ME. People are sleeping. Sopher99 (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Damn! You waited barely half an hour before suggesting you had consensus just because nobody had responded to you yet. Rule of thumb is unless you have a solid reason to believe there is consensus, you wait at least 24 hours to give everyone time to weigh in before assuming you have consensus. And 24 hours is pretty stingy, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Article from the Independent

Source [119] Quote: Prince Bandar has reportedly for months been focused exclusively on garnering international support, including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad.

It is a long-term Saudi goal, that in the past several days has been subsumed by the more immediate crisis over the purported use of chemical weapons by Damascus, which, according to Riyadh, must be met by a stern response. That message is being delivered to President Barack Obama by the current Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, who is a Bandar protégé. (end of quote)USchick (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

that isn't saying anything about the source of the Ghouta attacks is it. "It is a long-term Saudi goal, that in the past several days has been subsumed by the more immediate crisis over the purported use of chemical weapons by Damascus, " - that means its discussing something that has been overtaken by this more immediate crisis - that's how I read it anyhowSayerslle (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the crisis of the use of chemical weapons by Damascus USchick (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mention above, all thats says is that this underscores the antagonism between the regime and the saudis. No where in the article does it go anywhere near saying the Saudi have any responsibility whatsoever in the chemical attacks. Sopher99 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No one claims that The Saudis are responsible for the attack. This is the statement supported by the sources: "The Wall Street Journal reported that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia has been financing the Syrian rebels in an effort to undermine the Syrian government. Together with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, Bandar bin Sultan is trying to instigate a war in order to expand the U.S. role in Syria and ultimately in Iran. Bandar offered financial incentives for the Russian government to stop supporting Syrian President Assad. If Russia refused, Bandar hinted at potential terrorist attacks at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi." USchick (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the 2013 Ghouta attacks??? Sopher99 (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ghouta attacks are also the Damascus attacks. Please see the quote at the top of this section reported by the Independent. USchick (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The independent doesn't say that the Saudis had anything to do with the Damascus/Ghouta attacks. You can't say "oh look recent news and old news mentioned on the same page" and say that proves your argument. Sopher99 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is dated MONDAY 26 AUGUST 2013. What attacks to you think they're talking about hen they say chemical weapons by Damascus ? What other chemical weapon attacks happened by Damascus? USchick (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Where in the whole article does it say once that the Saudi arabians were involved with the chemical attack? Where? Sopher99 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not claiming that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the attack, we claim that they provided support "including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad." USchick (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, everyone knows that. What does it have to do with the 2013 Ghouta attacks (ie the Damascus attacks)? Sopher99 (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It provides Saudi Arabia with motive to displace the Syrian government. And to threaten Russia. This section was under Motives, if you remember. USchick (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

USchick, coverage of Saudi support for rebel factions belongs in the Syria war article, not here. Based on the sources you have provided, reliable secondary sources are not connecting Saudi support with the Ghouta attacks so per WP:SYN this is not going to be included. I do not know how to make this any more clear to you. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pure WP:SYNTH. I can't believe we're still having this discussion. As I said above -- this is not a conspiracy blog. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

CubaDebate

I do not see how calling this source "pro-Castro" is POV if the source describes itself as such in their own About Us page. I view it as similar to identifying a news source as "state run media"; this is important information for the reader to know if we are quoting a source's opinion. Sopher99, non-English sources are definitely ok. We prefer English sources if there are comparable English and non-English options (for example, there would rarely be any need to use a Chinese-language source for weather information), but in an international reactions section it would be unsurprising that some of the sources do not have English editions. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If they describe themselves as Pro-Castro, then it's a biased source and by definition not RS. USchick (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Op ed pieces like this always have an underlying bias. Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern here is about notability. Websites taking an editorial position one way or the other on this are a dime a dozen. What's next -- reactions from random people on Reddit or Twitter? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point amd it's not just confined to "news" items. Throughout Wikipedia you see many instances of relatively minor academic work, sometimes obscure and ony available on journal susbscription, presented as paradigms of the entire academic community. I've just been editing at Femininity, where there were several examples of that tendency and at least one the work of a very notable editor who really ought to have known better.

However merely because this source is "pro-Castro" doesn't mean it's not notable and worth recording, but I suggest that it might be appropiate to conside a form of words such as "The pro-Castro newspaper ... said that ...". Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally I for one happen to believe that Wikipedia should develop markup so tht social media reaction can be recorded Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely a bare minimum for making the mere opinion of a source worth talking about and possibly including in an article is that it has its own Wikipedia article? Cubadebate doesn't. Podiaebba (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, I would go along with that in general, but note that Cubadebate does have some 40 citations in Wikipedia when you search on it. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Attack self inflicted by rebels?

Are we including references of allegations that the attack was purposefully staged to initiate an international response? These arguments highlight the timing of the attack and audaciously close distance to resident UN inspectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.175.149 (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

^~~This is complete conjecture with zero basis in fact beyond the press release of the Assad regime.

If you read the article CNN, The Telegraph and some others have voiced some doubts about the timing, so its not just Assad. EkoGraf (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Very impossible militarily,firstly the attacks where launch by ground to ground missiles,which only assad has,they were launched from mount Qasioun ,which is a important Assad stronghold,the attack occurred at night,and if the rebels don't have advance weaponry,then how they would have chemicals weapons,only Assad has chemical weapons,and who says rebels have chemical weapons,then they are out their mind,and how Sunni rebels would attack a sunni population,it is possible an alawite army can attack a Sunni population.Alhanuty (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You dumb alhnuty......Western military send rocket launcher for destroys mi-24 hind.......And the rebels are know for massacre and says after that the regime is the cuprilt ; so you're are a pro-rebels!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.214.103 (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not,this is based of the reports from the article some people make full investigations,and definitely there will be doubts,but most proves goes with that Assad commited it,realized that Assad media firstly denied it,then said rebels did it,even Iranian president rouhani said he was sad for the victims,even alot of people,pro-Assad ones know that Assad made a huge mistake,he brought it on himself,he know when U.S says that is a red line,that is a red line.Alhanuty (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And you better stop launching personal attacks on me,and spreading rumors that there is a conflict between me and Eco,he is a neutral user,and I admire his neutrality,sometimes we might disagree,but there is no conflict .Alhanuty (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (U

Id you made again a rebel propaganda and try to deform my words you going to be ban.....And EkoGraf is nothing more but a rebel's loyal maid.....

Assad involvement is proven by expert,even tho doubts continue,and stop launching personal attacks against me and EkoGrak,or else i will report you for harassing me and EkoGrak.Alhanuty (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

NO conclusions yet.Very likely the attack was from the rebel side as many media and experts now doubt that the army was the one which did the attack(check out expert opinion on CNN Telegraph and others..)Chemical agent is confirmed not to be Sarin which everyone talked about it seems to be another sort of nerve agent.Probably a false flag for intervention by the west.79.126.220.94 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC) The attack is very likely done by Assad,due he is refusing UN investigators to enter the areas bombed and investigate,and the opposition in the ghouta agreed to allow UN to investigate.Alhanuty (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

New report today that the rebels cann't agree among themselves to the ceasefire to let the investigators in. EkoGraf (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) In the end ,a truce was reached and the UN inspectors were allowed in.Alhanuty (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See discussion below about Motives. Reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal explain why the rebel forces are likely responsible for the attack. USchick (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The investigators were at work today all the same. Sayerslle (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

From http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_30/Syrian-rebels-take-responsibility-for-the-chemical-attack-admitting-the-weapons-were-provided-by-Saudis-1203/?from=menu "In an interview with Dale Gavlak, a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press and Mint Press News, Syrian rebels tacitly implied that they were responsible for last week’s chemical attack. From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them." 203.129.23.146 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Israeli role

Two notable people talking about Israel's role: Lawrence Wilkerson (former chief-of-staff to Colin Powell) on the attacks being possibly an Israeli "false flag" [120] and Craig Murray (former British Ambassador) on Israel's alleged interception of the damning Syrian phone call probably being faked [121]. Not great sources, but I think their opinions are significant. (NB I don't like going in this direction because of the sort of people who accuse Israel and/or Jews of X Y and Z, but nonetheless, having come across these opinions, I think they're significant, and it's not like Israel is any less capable of dodgy action than Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia.) Podiaebba (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The source that quotes Wilkerson starts its third paragraph with "Since Israel and its neocon agents attacked the US on 9/11...". I think we can safely drop is as an unreliable source. The Murray blog source is not much better; it is a self published, primary source that basically says that any Israeli intelligence that is not verified by British SIGINT must be false. Unless that viewpoint is mirrored in reliable, secondary source I do not think it is reliable enough to merit inclusion. Have mainstream sources even reported that the US is getting this particular Syria intel from Israel? VQuakr (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of the first source isn't the issue - there's a youtube video (embedded there) of Wilkerson saying it. So the question is only about the significance of Wilkerson's opinion. The second is self-published blog, yes, but Murray's opinion is significant particularly because he was stationed in Cyprus when he worked for the Foreign Office and knows UK surveillance capability there as a result: and his point is that it is extremely unlikely that the Israelis would have intercepted those phone calls without the UK also doing so (and if they had, the JIC would surely have said so). And whilst his blog, even given his background, isn't reliable for stating that claim as fact, it is certainly enough to source his opinion on the matter, and I believe his opinion is relevant and significant. As to your question: yes, mainstream sources have confirmed that these phone calls came from Israel's 8200 unit. I believe it was in a WSJ article, for instance, but also others. I don't have time now to follow that up, but I'm sure of it. Podiaebba (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Guardian source on 8200 unit role: Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack' Podiaebba (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The first "source" is a conspiracy rag with a strong anti-semitic flavour. The second may be less creepy, but has seperate issues apart from conspiracy and racist POV bias. The whole point of the JIC report last week was that it said it had information tying Assad to the attack, but obviously it could not reveal its sources. These sources were probably the intercepted Syrian military traffic and 8200 and NSA confirming they had also picked it up. And the French in all likelihood. For you to expect that intelligence organs would reveal their sources in actuality is rather niave. The whole argument is daft imo. Israel wants stability. The collapse of the Assad regime is not in Israels' vital interests. Quite the reverse. This argument is getting rather desperate. Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who sounds "desperate" for ignoring that the sources are not the issue, the people (Wilkerson/Murray) are, and whether their opinions are significant. I think they are, regardless of the probability of their opinions being correct. On the specific point of the JIC report: Murray undoubtedly read it, and concluded that they didn't have access to the intercepts themselves via Cyprus - and I think his opinion on the matter is worth a deal more than yours. Finally, "Israel wants"? Israel is X million people, and if you think they and all elements in their government all have the same ideas, interests and objectives maybe you should examine the racist beam in your own eye. Podiaebba (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The JIC report all four pages of it, was waved about by numerous commentators on BBC. Its downloadable I believe. Re Murray. "Who" didnt have access to the intercepts themselves via Cyprus? Your "point" there is totally garbled. How long has this Murray been out of the game? His opinions are as valid as mine at this point. By israel, I mean the government. Rather a pathetic red herring, as is your apparant accusation of racism which I take seriously. I expect a retraction. As I said, certainly by you deploying that "argument", desperate. Irondome (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're sounding increasingly confused - maybe your bedtime (like mine?). eg I didn't accuse you of racism, there's an if in that sentence. As to "who" - Murray's point is that if the phone conversation had actually happened, it would have been intercepted in Cyprus and available to JIC, and he believes (surely on reading the report) that it wasn't available to them from that Cyprus source, and concludes therefore that the conversation never took place. (if it's still not clear, read the source!) As to "out of the game"? Unless you're trying to argue that UK interception capability in Cyprus has gone massively downhill since Murray was there (which you know but Murray doesn't!), then that is indeed, to use your phrase, a "red herring". Podiaebba (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is Murray DOES NOT KNOW WHAT WAS AVAILABLE. He does not know anything about the sensitive intelligence or its sources. And yes, intelligence-gathering capabilities are moving at lighting speed technologically. He knows as much as me or you, i.e zero. Can you not grasp that? Irondome (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what Murray does or doesn't know; and you've not even attempted to explain how the UK Cyprus base would get worse over time at intercepting Middle Eastern intelligence. Bottom line: even if Murray is talking out of his hat, it's an opinion that's significant, I think. I mean how often do former UK ambassadors with relevant experience make claims like these?? Podiaebba (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusion: Wilkerson was talking about the May attacks [122] though he's also skeptical about the recent ones [123]. Podiaebba (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Green is asked for his opinion loads- get bored of hearing it - though Craig Murray, strangely, never, to my knowledge. It seems the BBC, Channel 4, papers et al are indifferent to his insights. Sayerslle (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A place to meditate.

Everyone should periodically visit Occams razor. The conspiracy theorists' best friend. (Not). Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always easy to dismiss anything with elements of secrecy as "conspiracy theory", but it's pretty damned foolish. Even mainstream histories are a chock-a-bloc full of - gulp - governments of all stripes engaging in conspiracies. It's a pretty foolish fool indeed who thinks that there's some kind of magic dividing line between history (full of conspiracies) and the present. So what we generally end up with is people more or less claiming either (a) only enemy or undemocratic governments get up to shenanigans these days or (b) well of course shenanigans happen all the time in general, but for this particular case (and this, and this, and this) it's absolutely ludicrous to even consider looking at evidence that falls outside the mainstream media narrative. Now maybe in this particular Syrian case I'm coming at this coloured by the machinations of the Ergenekon organization in Turkey (which I've made various contributions to on WP, all from mainstream sources), but Turkey is a neighbour of Syria... Anyway, your remark was general, and my point is as well. Being skeptical includes being skeptical of the mainstream media as well as of alternative sources, and trying to make up your own mind, and not unnecessarily labelling people who come to different conclusions than you have. Podiaebba (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Unduly combative remark self-reverted. Irondome (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously starting to wonder about your ability to grasp hypotheticals. If you can kick a ball like David Beckham, you'd be pretty damned foolish not to try and get paid for doing so. (Please note that the preceding sentence is not accusing you of being able to play football like David Beckham.) Podiaebba (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sod hypotheticals at this point. We are supposed to be co-operating on getting a RSed article in shape. So lets drop this. I assume that was an apology of sorts? re racism. I accept it. Now lets just get on with it. Irondome (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You started a very general section, which isn't really going anywhere, but I thought I responded to quite helpfully, from a different perspective. Anyway, if it suits you to imagine an apology for an imagined insult, so be it, if it draws a line under it. There is actual concrete discussion to be had, which might actually be useful! Podiaebba (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It was not meant to go anywhere. It was meant as a thought tool. You decided to deploy the conspiracy position. And you accused me of racism. It was not imaginary. See previous section. Irondome (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(a) I didn't "deploy the conspiracy position", I made a general point that conspiracies happen but that many people (myself included) find the world a lot easier to understand if we ignore the possibility that well-established historical conspiratorial actions didn't suddenly, magically cease at some point in the past. And once again, I would refer you to Ergenekon and the related Susurluk scandal in Turkey for why I'm more open to possibilities on this topic, at this time - an intertwining of multiple interconnected criminal, personal and quasi-official conspiracies. Having worked on that, I find it quite easy to imagine all manner of machinations done by (elements in the states of) Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Qatar - all of which are players in this topic. (b) I didn't accuse you of racism, I said that if you held a certain position that (in effect) you should reflect on the racism inherent in that position. I rather you assumed you didn't hold that ludicrous position, and you haven't said that you do. Podiaebba (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo

This image File:Ghouta massacre1.JPG violates policy WP:IUP. It infringes on victim's privacy rights by showing identifiable people with no release from family members. It does not add to the understanding of the article. USchick (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to bring it up on commons where the image is hosted. I do not see any portion of IUP that is blatantly violated; can you quote the section you are seeing? VQuakr (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire section on Privacy rights. The victims faces are clearly identifiable, photo taken in a private place (a morgue), unverifiable source. See Moral issues, Legal issues, Examples that require consent under the same policy. USchick (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You want permission from dead people? Good luck with that. These kinds of photos are all over the web. Whether or not Wikipedia uses them doesn't make any difference. Besides, the photos are needed to illustrate the lack of exterior wounds.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Its the RELATIVES. We are not Youtube. And yes it does make a difference. We have quite clear guidelines on what is acceptable or not. In any case, covering the faces does not affect the no wounds issue.Irondome (talk)

I would support that as a privacy, and common decency issue. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We do tend to err on the side of privacy during discussion, so in the spirit of minor protection I suppose Irondome is right that we should take it down until the matter is resolved. The question of morgue photos must have come up before, what would be the best forum to bring this before a wider and more image-specialist audience? VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

the privacy in pics issue has come up before, but it was a deeply trivial (by comparison) issue of semi-naked women photographed at the Rio Mardi Gras. I cant remember exactly where the discussion took place.User:Kudpung is a fount of knowledge and a deeply repected admin. I would suggest approaching that chap. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Most images that illustrate Wikipedia articles are hosted at Commons including the one that is mentioned here. I suggest starting a discussion there regarding its ultimate fate. In the meantime, if local en.Wiki consensus is for, it could be removed from any en.Wiki articles where it is used. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. Irondome (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Photos from a morgue require release from family members before they can be published. Grabbing screen shots from unidentified YouTube videos is not a reliable source and in this case, illegal. Even if you have consensus here, you're still in violation of policy HERE. USchick (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the image. Faces are now covered. Problem solved. Let's end this unnecessary drama.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not done, please review the policy mentioned above. The source is unidentifiable, the place in question is a morgue, people have identifiable markings on their bodies, no consent to use these photos. The policy is very clear if you would take the time to review it. USchick (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe they are Arabic numerals to identify individuals, i.e 1,2. But I must say this is not a trivial point. DRAMA is usually editor ego massaging crap. This is pics of people, whose relatives could be viewing WP right now. Its a different league morally. Irondome (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In this article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev at one time there was a photo of a dead body (one) taken in a morgue by a family member and released to the media. Do you still see the photo anywhere? No. If you need to see the discussions, feel free to follow them in that article. In this photo, there are several dead bodies, with clearly identifiable markings, taken in a private place (morgue), not by family members, not released, uploaded by an unknown source, against policy. USchick (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And that seems to be a reasonable argument to BRD remove the photo, rather than wait for a local consensus for the removal. Final deletion would be a Commons issue to be discussed there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus to remove photo. Not sure what BRD is. USchick (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss. An essay describing an editing philosphy. VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) One controversy down many more to go. USchick (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The real issue here is verifiability. We cannot use unverified controversial images in an article like this. If the video is discussed by reliable sources, fine, but until then, it is not ok to use it here. FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The video from which the still was taken has been the subject of multiple articles from various mainstream news outlets. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Like what? This is not the widely circulated video of the alleged aftermath of the attack, this is a random video on Youtube showing dead people. Please show a reliable source that discusses this exact video, and confirms its content. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you applying the same rules here as other massacres like My Lai massacre and Halabja poison gas attack? It seem you're making more requirements each time some tries to fix a previous requirement. So, if we find a CNN newscast where they show a YouTube video is that good enough to include a still from the video or do you need more than that? --MarsRover (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The photos in other articles were taken by the US military and they are in the public domain. USchick (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The YouTube video has a Creative Commons license. The photo is in Commons without complaint. Not sure copyright permissions is an issue here. Can someone explain a valid issue with including the photo? --MarsRover (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason is explained above, please read the comments. USchick (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I read them. The privacy issue was answered by FutureTrillionaire. Not sure why that good faith compromise was derided. As for your consensus I don't see any. --MarsRover (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can read it again. Someone (not me) got an administrator involved who determined that using that particular photo in this article is against policy. Unless you have a new photo, that's the consensus. USchick (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It was me, and would not hesitate to again. that is indeed the consensus. This section has been stable for several days, despite the wide viewing it must have had by eds qualified to intervene, as well as involved users. That supports tacit consensus existing. And it appears to coincide with WP policy. Irondome (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Irondome, I didn't know that was you - respect! :) USchick (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: Here's the link: File:Ghouta massacre1.JPG. But seriously, I don't have time to debate about this. I have more important things to do. I think the article can survive without a photo. Let's focus on improving the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that would be acceptable to me personally. It was on non-WP grounds mostly, my objections. I think you get my drift. But I dont think the article needs it. We can see it everywhere. The map is useful. Lets push on yeah. Cheers

To clarify, the admin was looking at the blocked out version when the decision was made. USchick (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It will not be used anyway. FT cant be arsed to push it, neither can I . We need to use energy to advance the article. The map is better than just one more of the images awash out there. Im sure we all agree on that people :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Map

I just noticed this map of the Ghouta attacks. IMO its more informative then the current map, providing scale, noting the effected areas by name, and providing information on area of influences. while its a White House release I couldn't glimpse any POV issues. iirc, white house press information released without any copyright, if so please update the article with this map. Otherwise if possible please update our map a little bit.--PLNR (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nice find. I agree it's a better map and there shouldn't be copyright problems since it's a US government source and I believe it's public domain (can someone confirm and clarify).

But it's not a trivial job to upload files (deletionists note). If I see more support for the idea here I'm prepared to do it myself myself eventually, but if someone else more geared up for the job can take it on meanwhile that would be great. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Having gone to all the trouble to upload it to Commons here, I find the map is in the "Attacks" section anyway and the infobox map is in many ways nicer, so I'll leave it. I will cite the US Government report in the map caption. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. I too think that the infobox map is prettier, but I prefer this one since its more informational.--PLNR (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

America is responsible for the attacks

America launched the chemical attaccks as an excuse to blame Assad and invade, here is the proof. http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/syria-false-flag.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs)

That is not "proof", and would not be even if ATS was a reliable source. The date in the image is also from eight months ago. If a "false flag" conspiracy theory has gained enough attention to get mention in reliable, secondary sources that it could rate mention in this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. ATS is a highly reliable source. It can be relied on to falsely claim that anything one cares to imagine is a false-flag conspiracy. :-/ Getheren (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I quote you on your phrase "If a "false flag" conspiracy theory..." etc. A false flag operation is not a "conspiracy theory", it is an actual tactic in military literature, credibly proven and occurring throughout history. There is no need for parentheses, and a lot more need for rationale and historical observance.

While AboveTopSecret has endeavored to hold the US to account for its own chemical and biological weapons testing, among many other things, it is true that this might not be a false flag operation. More likely it is an all-out lie, just as with Iraq's WMD. What's relevant to the article is, there is as much evidence that it was a false flag operation, as that it even happened in the first place. In other words, the opening paragraph of this article cannot say "this was a chemical weapons bombardment by the Assad government", simply because it, too, has no credible evidence for having happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.74.56 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has deleted the original article, meaning they didn't want anyone to find out about it. This article is a screenshot capture of the original. Also what does it matter if the article is a day old or 8 months old? The point is America has been caught accepting a plan to launch a chemical attack on Syria and blaming it on Assad thus giving them an excuse to invade.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If the Daily Mail "didn't want anyone to find out about it," they probably should not have published the article in the first place, no? Nothing is ever really deleted from the internet, so if they really did publish that article at some point there would be readily available web archives as opposed to an easily faked jpg on ATS. The CIA also mulled false flag terrorist attacks to justify military action against Cuba; this does not constitute "proof" that any particular terrorist attack was a false flag conspiracy. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than let's spread conspiracy theories and FUD, let's leave this article be until confirmation from a body such as the UN or from a major newspaper with a good tract record surfaces. That okay? Phew. Hollyperidol (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The emails were fabricated, proven in a court of law. The Daily Mail used a dodgy Infowars story as it's source. “Daily Mail in £110k libel payout over Syrian chemical weapons story” “The Daily Mail has been forced to pay more than £100,000 in damages and apologise for a story linking a UK defence company with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The paper has agreed to pat £110,000 plus legal costs and carry an apology on its website after it had falsely suggested that Britam Defence and two of its directors had been willing to sell chemical weapons to rebels fighting President Assad.”[124] --Diamonddavej (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html --Collingwood26 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As of today, no independent sources have supported the existence of such a chemical attack

And in the light of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction".... ....THAT MATTERS.

Thus, the opening sentence has to sum up the content, in which it is clearly stated that it is the US government who is alleging this. And I sincerely hope that the author isn't waiting for confirmation from the fascist, Iraq WMD-selling, British Government state propaganda, the BBC. So here is the rewrite:

"The 2013 Ghouta attack was AN ALLEGED chemical warfare bombardment that THE US GOVERNMENT CLAIM occurred on Wednesday, 21 August 2013, simultaneously hitting areas in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.74.56 (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Multiple unrelated sources have confirmed that this was indeed a chemical attack, and this assessment is shared by apolicital humanitarian organizations on the ground as well as sovereign states with no reason to back up the USA and no history of doing so (ie Iran). It does not need to be qualified by "alleged." VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

number of dead

USA Today is linking to an intelligence report released by the White House: https://plus.google.com/+USATODAY/posts/RL9edsVBJgh

The report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/164272081/Intelligence-report-on-Syria-chemical-weapons-attacks?sf16673111=1

"A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children"

This should be added to the article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winampman (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article already states: Opposition and medical sources gave a death toll of 322[1] to 1,729. Humanitarian sources and Doctors Without Borders have already provided estimates. It's not clear how a new report from the White House adds any new information. This event happened in Syria which does not involve the US in any way. USchick (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim should be added to the infobox, in the same manner as all the others. Sopher99 (talk)

What all others? What new information needs to be added? USchick (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"322 killed (SOHR claim)[1]
355 killed (MSF claim)[2]
494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[3]
588 killed (VDC claim)[4]
635 killed (SRGC claim)[5]
1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6]
1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7]
1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8]
1,729 killed (FSA claim)[9]" Sopher99 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox only? agreed. USchick (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And to US reaction in int reaction section. Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an assessment, not a reaction. To make the US reaction much bigger than other international reactions is Undue Weight. USchick (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment is not supported by the policy to which you allude. If there has been more secondary coverage of the United State's reaction than of the reactions of some other nation, there is no reason to artificially try to make every nation's reaction the same length. See WP:BALASPS. You have a point though that these particular assessments would probably make more sense editorially in an "Intelligence" section or something, rather than in the list of reactions. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of 196 other countries, the US reaction is not the most covered or the most important. Perhaps sources from the regions affected should be used instead of using sources from the one region that hasn't been affected at all. USchick (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey user:Nick-D, can you add the US government estimate of the death toll to the infobox and the lede? Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No consensus for the lede, only Infobox. Thanks! USchick (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox seems fine. US figures can be put in US reactions section for now? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just added this to the infobox. As calling the results of analysis of the intelligence available to the US government a "claim" seems rather POV, I've used "assessment" (noting that, of course, an "assessment" isn't necessarily a "fact", or vice-versa). However, does the word "claim" really need to be after every figure in the infobox? Given that there seems to have been a trend where the estimate of fatalities has been revised up over time (presumably as more/better evidence is collected), I'm also somewhat skeptical about whether the initial assessments should be in the infobox - are these still the views of those organisations? Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think the earlier assesments should be removed, after checking if their relevant outlets have revised figures or not. Irondome (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The US is a highly partian authority and has ZERO evidence for its claim. Please keep out of lead/infobox and leadve it to the raction section(Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

There is a big problem with the estimates listed above. Many were initial estimates given very close to the event and other are partial. For example the "355 killed (MSF claim)" - doesn't says that 355 were killed in the Ghouta attacks, it says that in the 3 hospitals they operate, from the 3600 patience which they received in the 3 hour window following the attack, 355 died. iirc there at least 6 hospitals and presumably not everyone reached a hospital. --PLNR (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally there is an issue of WP:SYN in the intelligence report section: - "although they reported widely varying death tolls, from 281 according to French intelligence to 1,429 in U.S. reports.';".

First the reference near the French attribute 280 death to another chemical attacks, "in the towns of Saraqib and Jobar in April ". I suspect that 281 is based on this[125] more recent report. Which states "Video evidence alone showed that at least 281 people died in the attack but the real figure was more likely around 1,500, it said." the 1,500 is similar to the US estimate. So in the article we mix the 'confirmed in video' and 'total estimated' death toll reports.--PLNR (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

More death count information from ABC News:

Doctors Without Borders:355 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/wide-range-death-tolls-alleged-syria-gassing-20126838 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.151.4 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

German Intelligence Assessment

Yesterday the German newspapers were full with the news, that the German Bundesnachrichtendienst has concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack. One of the key sources for them are phone calls intercepted by their SIGINT/ELINT gathering boat Oker in the eastern Mediterranean: The only English source so far that I could find talking about this is Russia Today... [126] (but out of at least two intercepted calls, Russia Today makes it seem that it was only one intercepted call.) As for German sources - to list a few: Der Spiegel, Stern, Rheinische Post, Handelsblatt, etc. noclador (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

These is not the first time those calls are mentioned and confirmed, there are several sources from few days back saying the same. --PLNR (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

These are different phone calls. Spiegel reports (the others echo it) that the BND intercepted a call between a member of the Lebanese Hizbollah and the Iranian embassy (in Lebanon, I suppose, it's not entirely clear), with the Hizbollah member saying it was a mistake for Assad to order the attacks. Previous calls were between a Syrian defence unit and the Syrian defence ministry. Podiaebba (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected.--PLNR (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :). I added it to the article. Podiaebba (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reaction section scope

What should be the Reaction section scope? Because right now it seem to accumulate offtopic reactions to 'possible intervention', which is a reaction to the actual event. Additionally there are the 'Potential military response' and 'Allied military deployment'. IMO If you think that this relevant to the topic at hand, start a new aftermath section and put it all there, including reports of Assad regime troop movements etc.--PLNR (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now the reaction section has becoming an article on it self:

5.2.3 Potential military response

5.2.4 Public opinion on intervention

5.2.5 Allied military deployment

5.2.6 Syrian conflict peace proposals

unless someone have a good reason why it should be here in the article on the Ghouta attack. I'll start cutting.--PLNR (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"False flag" claim

I see that the "false flag" edit has been reverted.

There are twe issues here I can discern 1 the original edit may be in bad faith POV pushing, but we don't know that, and in any case even if it were these people who indulge it are extremely difficult to cope with and especially so if they are polite and reasonable (as people otherwise entire hampers short of a full picnic quite often are) 2 It is actually notable that people like Ron Paul hold these views - providing the citations stand up I think they should be recorded.

Another problem is that quite a likely scenario for the resolution of the civil war in Syria is that the Russian eventually decide Assad is an expendable asset and dump shit loads of Sarin on his villas in the name of Al-Qaeda. Pesumably one would want to allow false flag claims in that scenario?

So I'm going to revert back, if it hasn't already been by the time I return :). Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

do you think it should mention these people are isolationists ?Sayerslle (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a source :). Seriously I'll have a go later this evening. I want to resaearch what was actually said here and archive it. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[127] Sayerslle (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll see if I can work that in if I do edit (later this evening, busy right now), but I suspect I'll be quite justifiably accused of POV pushing myself. I shall consult the dark arts ... ;) Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the "media" section, was previously known as the "motivations" section, or the POV drop any fringe idea you can find section. Ok.--PLNR (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but I agree there's something not quite right with the structure of the article. Also, is there really no article on the previous attacks which the UN was there to investigate? Podiaebba (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't construe PLNR's remark either. Can't see there's anything wrong with the structure of the article. Editors doing good work here IMO. Be careful of what you wish for here, Podiaebba. There will be folk out there who think any kind of "reaction" is out of place in an article like this: "the facts, the facts, the facts, just give me the goddamn facts (as I like them)". Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My point that this has been a long time POV section, that has been discussed before. I thought it was dealt with, but apparently someone just renamed and hidden it at the back. so let see how much support it gets with little updates --PLNR (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for that. I'm going to have a good read through the section tonight and I'll post any pertinent observations I have to make, but it looks fine to me off hand. As I say I think the editors are doing a good job here. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not fringe when false flag is standard military strategy [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] Censoring this information is against policy WP:CENSORED. USchick (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh god not the c word. Just bleeding Тиреллом it USchick and stop patronising us. We do get the Russian line. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there something objectionable about the sources? USchick (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can see offhand. Why do you ask? But as it happens I was familiar with Kim Sengupta's piece and he questions the "false flag" scenario there. In your response, should you make one and by no means necessarily feel obliged to, I would be grateful if you should apologise for your c slur, which was entirely against our etiquette and equally unwarranted, or one rather simply won't notice you. As hoping you understand. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

the first source has nothing specific to add to the ghouta attacks, the next two re-iterate Russia and Assad regime assertions that it was rebels who did it, which assertions are already covered in the article, the fourth speaks of the JIC report and its shortcomings, but does it have anything to say about false-flag -not really -it does include the line 'The Saudis have been accused as being responsible by regime supporters, without any evidence to back it up.' - I don't see what your sources are adding to the article, besides adding over and over, Assad and Russia blame the rebels Sayerslle (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

They don't simply blame the rebels, they claim a false flag covert operation. Big difference. USchick (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So you want to add ' Vladimir Putin and lavrov etc etc and Ron paul have said the evidence is that the Ghouta atrocity was a false-flag'. Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@'UShick: No, it's not a big difference. Of course it's understood that if the rebels did this it would be one of these so-called 'false flag' ops your're creaming yourself over. Are you going to apologise for the 'censor' slur or not? It really is a big no-no in Wikipedia etiquette and you're the first to use it here. Incidentally the Forbes source you cite isn't acceptable as that's an op-ed not reliable for statement of fact per WP:NEWSORG Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Only US and France are pushing for military intervention, the rest of the world recognizes is as a false flag operation. It seems that the US opinion is the minority and fringe. USchick (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a fairly breathtaking statement USc. Irondome (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention "accurate." USchick (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Only breathtaking. Irondome (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No USchick the only people who think its a false flag are Iran-Russia-and the "Chavistan" governments of several latin American countries. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If a representative of a government acting in their offical capacity makes a false flag claim, we can mention that in the appropriate international or domestic reactions section. Otherwise, this is a very clear WP:FRINGE claim and we are not going to mention it in the article just because a few individuals are making yahoo claims on their blogs. Exceptional claim, exceptional evidence, etc, etc. Since most governments are not making false flag accusations, USchick's novel opinion is entertaining but demonstrably false. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

With your "exceptional claim/evidence" remark you're confusing opinion and fact. Yes, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to be considered factual: but they don't necessarily need extraordinary evidence to be reported as opinions held by certain people, if those people are well-known and their opinions matter. There are various official and non-official claims that the rebels were responsible, not all of which use the term "false flag", but enough that they merit collecting together, not least in order to present whatever evidence for and against those claims. And if there's no evidence to support those claims, that's worth saying too. Seriously, these opinions are widespread enough that they should not be ignored; if you like, consider it documenting in order to rebut them. Podiaebba (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Official statements by nations are bright-line; we can decide that any official novel position by a country is worthy of mention in the article and move on. "Well known" people is more debatable. Who exactly is "well known" and making the claim that Israel/US/Saudi Arabia/some other foreign entity staged a false flag operation (as opposed to the "the rebels did it" theory stated by Syria and others)? VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would assume "well-known" would be individuals who are currently office holders of internationally recognised positions. All else is speculation. There is no hierarchy of speculation, so private individuals, irrespective of notability, should be disregarded. Cheers Irondome (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich: Obama risks impeachment if he acts alone on Syria [133] When the media reports that "US stands alone" [134][135][136] and "may go solo" [137][138] taking "unilateral action"[139] [140], it's a minority and fringe view against the rest of the world. USchick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing editorial and journalistic outpourings with national governments. The vast majority tacitly accept the US stance on the whole issue, including the usage of CW. The issue is military action, of which most nations do not have the capacity to participate in anyway. Irondome (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source for that opinion? The section is called "Media" that's where journalistic outpourings go. USchick (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Podiaebba here. I'm afraid I really don't think VQuakr's views are very usefu. We're not talking "fringe theories" here, and there's nothing novel, let alone entertaining, about USchick's assertions. It probabably reflects accurately the view of most Russian citizens, many of whom after all suspect their own president of having conducted one or two false flag operations of his own. I should think very many in the UK think exactly the same, "Gorgeous" George, MP for Bradford West for a start. Ultimately, when this article becomes history, readers will want to know why the West was slow to act militarily against Assad; why the UK opted out altogether; why President Obama thought it expedient to seek the views of Congress. Mostly it's war sickness no doubt, but there's also real doubt about whether Assad was responsible. That ought to be recorded. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

USchick, you said, "the rest of the world recognizes is as a false flag operation." You then provided sources that indicate that US military action may be unilateral. These are not even remotely the same statement. Care to try again? VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Elissa Rubria Honoria Indeed. I think it may be profitable to have a new section. It would serve to corral these points in a single place. I dont think people in the UK are in the majority thinking it was some conspiracy, but those nopt wanting another war for entirely digfferent reasons are. There is a difference between fringe theories and genuine Western war weariness expressed in various assemblies. "The Iraq factor" may be a working title. Its obviously 2003 causing disquiet. We are in uncharted waters here in terms of political opinion and the immense impact of the internet and social media. In time it probably deserves a whole article. Irondome (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I said that the US holds a minority fringe view and then provided sources to support that. A follow up section may be a good place for that. USchick (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided support for that. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A minority view is one not supported by others. USchick (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your odd arguments are getting increasingly tiresome. A minority view is one that is in the minority (ie less than 50%). The fringe claim that rebels did it is an extreme minority view. Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Minority viewpoints and fringe theories have different definitions, both on Wikipedia and in the real world. The view that Ghouta was a false flag operation perpetrated by an outside organization is a fringe theory; the view that Ghouta was perpetrated by rebels is a minority viewpoint held by Syria, Russia, and several other nations. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources reporting this incident as a possible false flag [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146]. Unilateral action not supported by other nations makes the US opinion a minority fringe view and grounds for impeachment according to one politician Dennis Kucinich. USchick (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguing about whether US opinion is "a minority fringe view" seems unhelpful. I think it should be clear by now that "the rebels did it" is a significant opinion which should be documented with appropriate evidence, if any. Podiaebba (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Euronews and Thehindu are only reporting that assad claims its a false flag. The Indepdentent is not saying its a false flag, rather just collecting any doubts intel has gave all in one piece. Indypendent? regardless that source too, is only reporting on the syrian government's accusation. Kucinich is the george galloway of the US congress. Please read up on the war powers act if you personally are going to advocate "impeachment" (which means to charge an official with a crime) Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

One important issue here is an attempt above to completely separate the "false flag" claims from the "the rebels did it" claims. Since these were attacks on rebel-held areas, if the rebels did it it was either an accident or a deliberate "false flag" operation - I see no other possibilities (am I missing some?). I'm not aware of anyone claiming the rebels did it by accident. (There are suggestions the Syrians did it by accident, at least partially, eg by misloading weapons from old stock or using full-strength CW instead of a diluted mix.) Anyway, the broad heading for the issue should be "the rebels did it", describing who claims that and any evidence. Under that heading, specific claims of "false flag", and specific claims of accidental use, if any. Make sense? Podiaebba (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No because all so far have been fringe. Media is fine. Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And I mean WP:FRINGE when I say this. Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "rebels did it by accident" claim has been made (if you can think of it, the claim has probably been made by someone at this point). VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

When RS report it as a possible false flag, it doesn't matter who claims it. USchick (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

guardian 3 sep report ; "The US, Britain and France are in broad agreement that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in an attack near Damascus last month. Syria has blamed rebels for the attack, and Russia says it has 'a good degree of confidence' that it was an 'opposition provocation' – although neither Moscow nor Damascus have publicly produced any evidence to support their claims. "[147] the French intelligence says the attack was tactical and aimed at regaining territory - names Unit 450 of the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre as responsible for replenishing and guarding chemical weapons stocks ' - Putin has declared it is impossible Assad regime is responsible, whatever the U.N says , whatever any evidence points to - Putin and Galloway - these are ideological warriors - they've got 'beyond it all'. Sayerslle (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Good, that's helpful to have as a definite statement. Podiaebba (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no proof on either side, that's why both sides blame each other. USA Today: MOSCOW (AP) — Western nations that are calling for military action against Syria have no proof the Syrian government is behind the alleged chemical weapons attack. [148] USchick (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As promised above when I began this thread, I've revised the "false flag" edit to set it within its US Foreign Policy context, archiving Pat Buchanan's contribution. Regarding the subsequent debate I do think it's too extreme to dismiss false flagism as fringe theoryism (that's two outrageous neologisms - USchick woud approve and I don't even speak Russian). The "Media" section does strike me as an adequate repository to sweep all this stuff away. Once again I call on USchick to apologise for her "censorship" slur. We are all trying to do our best here. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as RS report it as a possible "false flag" and you are not making WP:OR. Also on unrelated note, I can't believe you guys still want to keep this POV trash bin section, for any opinion on the topic, that doesn't fit anywhere else. --PLNR (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see where you're coming from there :). There are things about the Media section I don't like. When you read a sentence starting "Some have questioned the timing and motive behind the alleged Syrian government involvement ..." then alarm bells ought to be going off I suggest. But Wikipedia readers are fairly savvy these days, we do all know the problems. So long as its within the parameters decided by the community, let's keep it there as a record. It will all get sifted through in the end. Of course this kind of record keeping is also been done in many other places, the special thing about Wikipedia is that it's been done now and anyone can take part in it - well with a thick enough skin anyway :). It's a good article I think, Wikipedia does get better. I don't think we would have seen this even a couple of years ago. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You did good here Irondome (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• If it is reported by reliable media, we include it, case closed. Our own interpretations of what "fringe" is are irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By this logic, we would be required to use every opinion article ever as a source. In reality, we as editors must look at (among other things) the source, whether the person having the opinion is important enough to merit mention, and whether it is editorially favorable to include the opinion in the article. We make these decisions while keeping our policies including WP:NPOV and WP:V in mind. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You intentionally misinterpret my comment. The point is this view is presented by many reliable sources, therefore the view shall be represented here. FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

First, please review WP:AGF since you are in violation. Second, you saying something does not make it so, and you are neither dictator nor gatekeeper of this article. VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-discussion - title change?

Let's concentrate discussion at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there now a near consensus from the sources that these were chemical weapons attacks? If yes, then it's probably time to propose a title change. I recommend using Template:Requested move in order to have a clear discussion/decision process - instructions are there. Boud (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I think there is a fair consensus that there was some kind of chemical weapon attack, yes (though not on the specific weapon used). I'm not sure that requires spending time discussing a title change though. Podiaebba (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I agree.--PLNR (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I would agree that there is broad agreement that chemical weapons were used, based on the preponderance of the sources. What did you have in mind for the new name? Ghouta chemical attack? VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I don't have a good suggestion - I was just raising the question and thought maybe someone else would have a good idea. Just for the record, since the name history is not a guide to what the name should be, here's the name history that I could find: August 2013 Ghouta incident (old name bolded in the text) August 2013 Ghouta attacks August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack Ghouta chemical attack Ghouta chemical attack claims 2013 Ghouta attacks People seemed quite eager to change the title earlier - maybe noone is in a hurry now... The present title is the shortest of any so far, and since other 2013 Ghouta attacks are less well known (not yet notable enough for individual en.Wikipedia articles), it's unambiguous. These are both arguments that this is a good title (at least for the moment). Boud (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I strongly disagree and think the Ghouta incident may have been an accident. Credible sources have claimed this, including the actual victims. See these sources: [149] and [150]. The best title IMHO in the face of uncertainty is "Ghouta chemical weapons incident." Frankly, not having the phrase "chemical weapons" or similar in the title is very odd.Haberstr (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News

The Mint Press News report (EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack) has been picked up by ABC [151], Rue 89 [152], Voice of Russia [153] and Press TV [154] among others. I make that news sources in four countries. Are we allowed to acknowledged its existence in the WP article yet? Podiaebba (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The first 2 sources are dated Feb and March, so the stories are about previous attacks, not this one. The Russian source clearly states "Some information could not immediately be independently verified." and no other RS are reporting that story. Press TV is government owned and somehow their brand of propaganda is less credible than the monopoly that owns the US news. Go figure. USchick (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're getting mdy/dmy date formats confused. The sources are all about the recent attacks. Podiaebba (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is September 2, then I would say it's a good source. [155]. Rue 89 is a news website, but it has editorial content, so it may be ok as well. USchick (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that article and read it long before the usual vultures that like such things (Press TV, RT) jumped on it. Have you noticed that the supposed AP writer Dale Gavlak is actually a Jordan based freelancer and not employed or associated with the AP, but still they all call her "veteran AP reporter" or a "a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press"... even though the AP already issued a clarification that this is not the case? Also: Dale Gavlak never left Jordan. She hasn't been to Syria at all - supposedly her co-writer Yahya Ababneh has been there... However Global Research - that site you like - writes: "Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak" [156]... Also there is nothing I could find about Yahya Ababneh... it seems also weird that low level rebels in Ghouta would be in the loop as to what Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi intelligence is up to,... that seems a bit far-fetched. Also why would the Al-Nusra front let some young rebels carry such highly problematic weapon? And they can take at a lot of these weapons to his dad? Really? Is Al-Nusra so incompetent? Also there are a lot of other inconsistencies in the article (Chemical weapons don't explode, the rebels supposedly mishandled 11 of this weapons at the same time in different locations,... and so on). In short: this is also a piece of BS... whose most interesting aspect is that it totally follows the Syrian government line, that a) Saudis gave the gas weapons to the rebels b) who are actually al-Qaida c) who stored these weapons in tunnels (where the regime claims some of its soldiers died trying to retrieve these weapons... ) d) who released the gas into the 11 neighbourhoods (the government doesn't at least say the mishandled gas grenades simultaneously...). In short bollocks! noclador (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I just looked at the ABC site... they also write it as if Dale Gavlak was in Syria... and have the same claims that some boy comes to´his dad with a bunch of chemical weapons... because al-Nursa doesn't have any security at all when it comes to extremely sensitive material... and then again this BS that at the same time in different locations various rebels mishandled the weapons... which ten exploded... whoever wrote that original piece of crap, does NEITHER know how chemical weapons work, NOR how intelligence agencies work (rule 1: don't give hyper-sensitive material to the first amateurs that come along!!). noclador (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, first off, Gavlak is certainly associated with AP, although not employed by them [157]. Second, Mint Press seems to have added a clarification that Gavlak wasn't on the ground in Syria, it was the other co-author [158]. Third, so what if the reporting coincides with the Syrian government version? Is it actually impossible for the Syrian government version to be true? Surely not - nothing is proven at this point. Fourth, the ambiguity about who was on the ground in Syria has led some sources picking up the story to make a mistake there; is this supposed to prove something about the significance of the story or of these picking it up? Remember, nobody's arguing that this article should be used as Proof of The Absolute And Gospel Truth - only that it should be mentioned in the article as a significant claim. Podiaebba (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And I suppose I should make the effort to reject your spurious and unwarranted claim that globalresearch.ca is "a site I like". I specifically said, in discussing Bodansky's article published there, that the issue was his credibility, not that of the site he published it on. Podiaebba (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

the U.N inspectors spoke to residents in ghouta - i'd rather read their report than listen to this 'yahya ababneh' - why isn't his story picked up by proper RS? Sayerslle (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

i'd rather read their report - me too, but that's not really the issue here. (And I trust that when available we won't get bogged down arguing about whether the report conclusions are worth including.) Podiaebba (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When I see the term "Admitted" in an article It usually a conspiracy crap. They like to pretend they uncovering some secrets that mainstream media is hiding from everyone, to give meaning to their existence. Anyway just to make sure you guys know, this is already mentioned in the article in the investigation section. Also I agree it that it seems like crap(btw in a poor ventilated tunnel most incendiary devices will cause issues) but most of the arguments raised aren't policy based. Btw I suspect the article may have used some weasel statements referring to "chemicals".--PLNR (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

found this about mintpress , [159] - Shia ('it has investors, “retired businesspeople” whom [the editor] will not name — unfortunate for a journalism operation fighting alongside people seeking transparency') - perfectly fine that , but there is a tendency in this issue for people to follow the 'line' of their 'side'[160] rather than adhering to scrupulosity about stories- like Orwell said abut Communist journalists slagging off Trotskyists in the Spanish civil war- wrote endless lies and nonsense.. Sayerslle (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In Journalism, the presence of an Editorial board distinguishes an independent news source from propaganda. The lack of an editorial board on Mint Press News and the admission that "Muhawesh does not claim objectivity" is enough to disqualify this source from journalism. Perhaps in time, they will get it together, but at the moment, their server crashed again, probably because we generated so much traffic. ;) USchick (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In Journalism, the presence of an Editorial board distinguishes an independent news source from propaganda. - that's absurd. The presence or absence of a formal editorial board is a factor in evaluating the seriousness of a source, yes. But the absence of one doesn't define a news source as propaganda, or the presence of one define the news source as immune to being a propaganda tool. Podiaebba (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the Mint Press News doesn't seem to have an editorial board, which would put it in the same category as a blog. USchick (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

'Brown Moses' - chemical weapons specialists on claims the rebels did it - [161] Sayerslle (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

From the list of professional journalists and editors working for Mint Press News - whether or not they list an "editorial board" on their site - MPN is not comparable to the "Brown Moses Blog." I also wouldn't compare the expressed opinion of a former UK "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense Forces commander" with those of journalists. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press describes Yahya Ababneh as a “Jordanian freelance journalist…currently working on a master’s degree in journalism" - MntPress news seems to be run by Shia interests, - if this is the editors father-in-law, [162], with a virulent line in anti-rebel propaganda, -and it just happens to find a scoop that exactly fits a regime friendly narrative. I wish his story was picked up by RS and he was talked to about his scoop. Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

None of this actually addresses the key point: how widely does a claim editors consider spurious need to be reported before it should be included in the article as a significant claim, with whatever appropriate clarification about sourcing, contradictory evidence, etc etc? Podiaebba (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

i would answer that an extraordinary claim should have to show some evidence of being able to break out of its ideological ghetto -mintopressnews - press tv-voice of Russia-- round and round- mintpressnews is run by admirers of press TV, press tv pick up the mintpressnewsreport etc - its moving in a very narrow circle - if it can get beyond that - then I would say it deserves looking at Sayerslle (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How about independent (ie, not coming directly or indirectly from Gavlak and Ababneh) coverage? As noted at WP:NEWSORG, Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source. VQuakr (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. So in other words the Mint Press story could be front page news on every newspaper on the planet and we'd still pretend it didn't exist? Fuck. Me. Podiaebba (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that ABC and Rue 89 were Russian/Iranian/dismissable. You learn something new every day. Podiaebba (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Icing on the cake - PLNR has now deleted the entire thing with a misleading edit summary (if the only problem is "not Intelligence reports" then it should be moved to the media section). Podiaebba (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said. - Why oh why oh why oh why oh why isn't this news on every newspaper on the front page of very paper in the world. Only Russianand Iran seem able to grasp what is going on. Mint press news are heroes for bringing this to peoples attention. thank goodness there are some politicians who aren't utter cynics like Putin who vcare about the truth and this news should not be removed from the article. I think the mintpressnews revelations should be included witin the lead. why are some pretending this report doesn't exist. wht utter tossers. Sayerslle (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So what is the consensus re mint press news. Is it bollocks or is it cool? Minty cool. I do like its title. It should start a trend. Thyme Times, the peppermint post etc etc Irondome (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We appear quite split. I know I am too involved in the article for my assessment of consensus to be taken seriously by all editors, as are most of the other people who participated in this discussion probably. I recommend we kick it to WP:RSN and reference this section. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Irondome (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably has not been broadly picked up because it is so dubious and has not been confirmed. The claim that rebel forces simultaneously accidentally released poison gas at a dozen locations in an area over 10km across is exceptional, and needs more than one source to be considered reliable. VQuakr (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that rebel forces simultaneously accidentally released poison gas at a dozen locations in an area over 10km across hasn't been made. The Mint Press article stating accidental release by militants not realising what they were dealing with strongly implies a single location and incident (though it doesn't explicitly say so, multiple incidents would surely have been stated). The real problem is how such an accidental release at (or even below, given reference to tunnels) ground level could have had led to dispersal across such a wide area. I for one would rather have the (quite widely circulated on the internet) claim in the article and allow people to judge for themselves with appropriate context. Podiaebba (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Accepting poor sources as reason for excluding information

Amid much debate about sourcing, this sticks out like a sore thumb. A translation by a website called cyplive.com of a website called vz.ru citing the Turkish Ambassador to Russia is taken not just as fact (no need to describe the sourcing in the text, just a footnote is enough), but as sufficient fact to exclude even mentioning a claim widely reported. The widely reported claim is that Al-Nusra militants were arrested with 2kg of sarin gas [163]. The Adana governor's contention that there was no sarin is also well-documented. Yet how can these subsequent denials (one of them very poorly sourced, and I've not been able to find a better source) be enough to remove any mention of the initial claim? How are we accepting Turkish official statements as gospel (even though Turkey is involved in supporting the rebels, including Al-Nusra itself [164])? Podiaebba (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that mentioning the issue while stating up front that the identity is contested is a good first step. In the mean time perhaps you should take the cyplive.com source to the RSN. I also saw an opinion piece that picked this up. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 Ghouta attacks. Regardless of verifiability of the "2 kg of sarin", we would also need a source that connected the May intercept with the August attacks (not saying this is not available, but it is a reason why the linked section in the diff should have been removed or improved). VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A good source explicitly connecting it would be nice, but it's really not necessary. A key claim (explicitly made by the JIC) for holding the Syrian government responsible is the claim that the rebels simply lack the capability. The possibility that Nusra people may have been arrested with sarin some months early is obviously relevant! Incidentally, having worked on Ergenekon, I find it quite plausible to imagine one Turkish law enforcement agency arresting militants trying to do a bombing like Reyhanli, only to be told in no uncertain terms by other agencies that the militants have government support and that the materials found were harmless. Adding to the mystery about the affair is that I can't find any followup details about the incident from the usual good Turkish sources; this was obviously a high-profile incident and either continued prosecution for attempted bombing and possession of sarin or revelation that it wasn't sarin (but still attempted bombing) should have been reported. Podiaebba (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you find an RS explicitly connecting it, then there will be policy based argument to be made. But as it is, its a non specific report from non RS, claiming that some foreign language newspapers said Sarin was apprehended in one incident(no context). While same day RS clarification from an official denying the media reports about Sarin, adding that the substance was just sent for testing and most involved was already released. There is nothing more to this, certainly not the "capability" your seeking. "I find it quite plausible to imagine..." - and I call it unsubstantiated POV and remove it. --PLNR (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the only reliable source here is the Turkish source denial, while your claim of "widely reported" is attributed only to the initial claim saying "opposition got Sarin" which was indeed widely picked by many conspiracy blogs and some Russian outlets. Regardless, there is no debate about the topic of this article, that none of the source mention it, or adds anything to its background, its only purpose here is an attempt to imply some Turkish cover up and opposition capability. This will not work here, but you can try on the Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Incidents, adding it to the complete list.--PLNR (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Al-Nusra arrested with sarin" was widely reported in Turkish and international media; I can find a dozen good sources in not much time I'm sure. But when you have absolutely nothing to say about your willingness to rely on cyplive.com's translation of vz.ru as a source sufficiently excellent to remove all mention of an important claim about al-Nusra's possible capabilities and intentions - and moreover when that source is relying on a government official from a government which supports the group in question, well I think any neutral observer can see that the issue is no longer sourcing, it's gatekeeping by Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure that I find this surprising, but I do find it depressing. Podiaebba (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what was reported in Turkish sites. If it was sarin or some substance suspected as sarin and who made the claim. What we have is a source from www.todayszaman.com which I goggled and found in infowars, several blogs and russian sites. What we have is RS from an offical report that states "Cos said unknown chemical materials were found during the raids and sent away for investigation". He denied media reports that a small amount of the nerve agent sarin had been uncovered. There is no more than that to this. --PLNR (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Describing your research process is very revealing: if X reports something and it gets picked up by conspiracy sites, that proves X is not reliable (yet somehow this doesn't apply to AP, Reuters etc etc which are routinely picked up as well). You don't need to Google Today's Zaman, there's a perfectly good WP article, and yes it's a Reliable Source. You still have nothing to say about either (a) using a questionable source for a claim or (b) the fact that the claim comes from a source with an obvious interest in denying that sarin was found or (c) how any of this justifies excluding the original widely-reported claim. Here's proof it was "widely reported": Radikal [165]; "several Turkish newspapers" according to Reuters [166]; Akşam, [167]; Milliyet [168]; soL [169] Vatan [170]; Sabah [171]... need I go on? Podiaebba (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that is revealing is your previous post where you spoke of 'possibilities', of what you 'find plausible to imagine', mysteries etc. Other than that, what I had is a report not explicitly connected to the topic, claiming that some foreign language newspapers said Sarin was apprehended in another country at one incident(no context), and same day RS official clarification denying previous media reports about Sarin, that the substance was just sent for testing and most involved was already released. There is nothing more to it.

I am not certain what the point of the links provided here but those I checked are in Turkish.--PLNR (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The links are in Turkish because they are Turkish-language newspapers; if you don't read Turkish you can get the gist via Google Translate, and Today's Zaman has the story in English. Now, are you really, actually, truly going to pretend that Al-Nusra being apprehended with sarin in a neighbour of Syria which supports Al-Nusra and others in Syria is irrelevant to the topic of an alleged sarin attack in Syria? Apparently you are going to pretend that an official denial from that neighbour is sufficient to make any mention of the issue unacceptable. Why, oh wise one, is an official statement from the Turkish government in line with its foreign policy interests completely and utterly accepted at face value without question, yet statements from other governments doing the same (Russia, Syria, Iran) are not merely untrusted but virtually taken as proof that the opposite of the statement is true? Does this cognitive dissonance not do your head in? (In case you're wondering, I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them, which is why I want to present all the relevant claims and let readers make up their own minds.) Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take note that this is not a forum. Your synthesis, speculation and or who you trust have no interest to me. so unless you have something policy based to add, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned.--PLNR (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain my thinking, and asking you a question about your thinking, which you have ignored. And it's hardly purposeless speculation, it's precisely on the key issue of the evaluation of different sources. Particularly given the cyplive.com / vz.ru, some attempt to explain your thinking rather than to evade all discussion of it would be potentially quite helpful. Podiaebba (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely we are not going to connect the two incidents. A reliable source must make the connection, we are not allowed to do so ourselves per WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's synthesis - it's not making any conclusions to put the incident, together with official denials, in the background. But I really don't think PLNR should be allowed to get away with not even addressing the cyplive.com / vz.ru / Turkish ambassador sourcing issue. Given the willingness to exclude even claims repeated in reliable sources (the Mint Press News story covered in the Spanish ABC newspaper), I find the willingness to rely so completely (to the point of excluding the original, mainstream-media reported claims!) on this questionable source mindboggling. Podiaebba (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is classic synthesis to connect the arrest of militants/rebels/terrorists in Turkey with possible chemicals to the Ghouta attacks; whether you think it is or not is not relevant. I do want to be clear though that with as much commentary as there has been on everything related to Ghouta, it is very plausible that this connection has already been made in independent sources. As for the veracity of the Turkey claims, what do the more recent reports say? Initial news stories may not have add all the information. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So far I could only find PressTV as a remotely significant source making the (extremely obvious to anyone thinking about the possibility of rebel culpability and aware of the Adana incident...) connection. PressTV even cited a local Adana politician saying the Ghouta attacks were carried out by the same group with chemicals going through Adana, where the 2kg sarin was allegedly found [172]. I didn't bother mentioning it because I assumed that this would not be permissible. (In fact, if NYT reports the same now, mention of it will probably be banned on the grounds that it was in Press TV first... seems to be the sort of logic that wins here.) Podiaebba (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)