Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

People changing the lede with no discussion

"On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta,[25]the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta,[26] and the U.N. called for a ceasefire.[22]" User:‎Sayerslle reverted an edit and insists on saying "the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta" and listed this article as the source. [1] I don't see where the source says anything about "the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta." I propose to delete this statement. It doesn't add anything to the understanding. ""On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta and the U.N. called for a ceasefire." USchick (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

12th para -"Speakers at Friday prayers at each of the mosques had been denouncing the poison gas attack in Syria's Ghouta region, which came as the Syrian military launched a major advance into eastern areas of the capital that it continued to shell on Friday." you don't see anything - that's true - well, that's not true , rather you are one of those people Malcolm Muggeridge spoke about who sees and hears only what they expect, and want, to see and hear - closed minds. Sayerslle (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Relax man! :-) I still don't think it adds anything because "On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta" well, they clashed. Both of them were shooting. USchick (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

your tone is , what the hell, its all the same , but it isn't all the same - so , like tonight again, - "Usual artillery booms in #Damascus but tonight also seen rockets fired with flat trajectory into rebel suburbs. Regime upping tempo of war" - that's 4 hours ago - (I find your asinine smiley symbols btw utterly inappropriate and disgusting) -- shelling rebel held suburbs and a Palestinian refugee camp which rose up against the regime. Sayerslle (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle discuss first, this article has been flagged, The neutrality of this article is disputed. lede edits need discussion and consensus. same warning to Sopher who is worse at it 23:28, Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick said she didnt see something in n article - but it was there - so that was the end of the discussion. I don't think you are in a position to say who is 'worse' because people don't all think the same - I regard your edits as amongst the 'worst' I've seen on the Syrian civil war , and your contributions utterly useless. its all subjective. Sayerslle (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, this is not a news article. It seems like you're way too close to the subject matter to edit objectively. If I read the lede and don't understand something, that means you didn't explain it well enough for someone who comes to read the article and is not following the story play by play, about who fired the last round. Any changes in the lede need to be discussed. Ok? Thanks! USchick (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I will admit this confuses me a bit. Are you saying that this should be an encyclopedia article about a recent event rather than reading like a news item? VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle Please refrain from being uncivil. Look up the protocols. Thank you. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Civility is not synonymous with uncritical reading of other editors contributions, very stupid to think they are synonymous, - the 'protocols' do mention npov I believe, but all you seem to do is push a pov, and you don't pass the test of a writer it is difficult to discern whose side he is on -Russian regime pov is just one pov, not the whole story obviously, and putin locks up pussy riot, so you know, its a tyrant pov he has, and it is a news article really uschick, what else can it be at the moment? Sayerslle (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be finally getting the point. If all sides are represented and its worded thus, its possible to be NPOV. When neutrality is absent because one side is getting too much space its POV. You have been resisting the adjustment in the article to NPOV status as the US POV is compromised in the media and refs become available. Then I read your pussy riot views. Oh dear do you have to drag that in here? What to say about pussy riot? Was it a psy op? I didnt raise this and the allegation Putin is a tyrant and anything I say further is off topic sadly. You are here as an editor and what you say says more about you and why you dont like non US views esp from Russia. Geo politics is deep involved and complex with many layers of false facades. I dont think I can help you son, its a steep learning curve to get above the US 101 'Putin is a tyrant, Russia is evil' mindset. Still: Very few can do this, but: If you can go to a totally fresh empty mindset, lose all previous beliefs bias etc, have no preconceptions at all and employ critical thinking and research, on everything, everything knowing there are reams of lies to filter out. Then you may get a totally different view on the US and Russia and the vast high stakes game that is the Syrian conflict. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No dont hide this, it appears solved but appearances cant be misleading. It is a discussion that relates directly to the tag on this article re neutrality. Due to time differences it will not have been read by all. Attempts to hide it are premature and of dubious benefit indeed will only perpetuate the Non POV problem. Do not obfuscate these matters with a hide, its coming across to me as a tactic and could be interpreted as disingenuous. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what specific improvements to the article do you want to discuss here? VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page thread which is attempting to create the atmosphere whereby editors can discuss NPOV edits and enact them. It is a precursor to such a positive result that any blockages like this 'Putin is a tyrant = all Russian input is bad' be laid bare and rejected. Thus its value lies in being widely read as a salient point on that which disturbs good NPOV writing. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not what the talk page is for. Please review WP:TPG and WP:SOAP. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I already know where it is, please review yourself. WP:TPG Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion. Keep that in mind maybe Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you finally read it. Now, in the interest of following the section you just quoted, what specific improvements to the article do you with to discuss in this section? VQuakr (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you may be acting in a passive aggressive manner? I mean 'Glad to hear you finally read it.' cmon srsly ! I didnt start this thread, BTW I merely replied, the fifth post then the ninth I think before you came in. Read the title, I cant see a proposal or specific improvement can you? I believe it started as an attempt to stop an edit war over shelling Ghouta refs, which if that was it, worked. Quite legitimate. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My specific request from the beginning was to point out that changes are being made to the lede without any discussion and for someone to explain the need for this statement "the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta" in the lede. The entire sentence is "On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta,[25]the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta,[26] and the U.N. called for a ceasefire.[22]" USchick (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The continued shelling (along with, of course the fact that it is a combat zone in general) has been identified as a factor that made investigation of the chem attack allegations more difficult. Multiple sources have claimed that Syria increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence. So, in the lede we have a balanced sentence that mentions the Syrian shelling but puts it in the context of the fact that there is a war on, and go into the specific contentious claims later in the article. It seems reasonable to me since the lede is meant to summarize. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr Where are the multiple claims, not from rebel sources, that Syria (specifically) increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence. Not conjecture, but specific claims from NPOV sources that exclude other reasons for the increased shelling if it occurred. I have been involved in a GA review and according to the senior editor the lead is for a summing up of parts the articlc. Its not therefore the place to attempt to sway the POV from get go. The lead is not the place to create a case. Thats done in the body. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if you subscribe to wacky conspiracy theories, I have to say that personally I think the context that Ghouta was under attack by the government before, during, and especially after (when shelling could have corrupted or destroyed evidence of a chemical attack) the sarin gas attacks is very important to understanding this event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again. Where are the multiple claims with reliable refs, not from rebel sources, that Syria (specifically) increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence. Not conjecture, but specific claims from NPOV sources that exclude other reasons for the increased shelling if it occurred. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

it was under attack before, during , after - "The regime has been throwing everything he has at the Ghouta, but it remained a thorn in its side." a Middle East based diplomat said.- huffington post [2] - the general picture is clear from RS, multiple sources depict this general scenario - Sayerslle (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats a weak ref, [3] - . It quotes ' a Middle East based diplomat said'. Who? . It says, 'diplomats and rebels interviewed by Reuters'. Who? Later a name crops up, 'said Moaz al-Shami, a prominent activist who witnessed fighting in Ghouta'. A rebel !!!! And this POV nonsense, 'To the West, in Mouadamiya, activists said at least 80 people were killed when the district was hit with nerve gas an hour after the attack on Irbin, Ain Tarma and Jobar' This is POV hearsay. Not good enough, please edit out the POV> Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

'The Syrian news agency, Sana, said the operation carried out in the early hours of Thursday was the largest launched since the civil war began. It said it aimed to clear the east of the capital and then pave the way for a push towards the Jordanian border, which remains bitterly contested by both sides.' [4]- what are you denying anyhow? that there were any attacks at all? what are you asserting? that it all went quiet on Thursday and Friday? Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Read more carefully. I am denying reliable refs exist to back up this blatant POV claim by VQuakr who did not reply could not reply? 'Multiple sources have claimed that Syria increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence.' BTW why not reply about your awful Huff post ref? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Really Blade, you couldn't just look this up yourself? Delay in allowing the UN inspectors access to the scene of the attacks, and heavy shelling before they were able to get there, appeared designed to destroy evidence. - here. You could also try here, here, here, here, and here. Of course, Blade as near as I can tell you only consider Russian state-controlled media reliable, though of course here I just said "multiple sources" so that should not be a factor in your response. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

undue amount of space given to fringe verbiage

the UN report said the attacks went in south south east direction from Qasioun?, regime territory , so in view of that shouldn't the US right wing fringe politicos assertions be done away with - they are undue prominent, the lunatic-al view of marginal figures , held for political convenience, pushed by their epigones here, to no good purpose for the article. Sayerslle (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle the rhetoric is not helping anyone. The UN report was careful not to assign blame to a party but stick to the objective facts. This means that analysis is needed to determine where the rockets probably came from, and that analysis needs to be published by others before we can use it per WP:SYN. Such analysis is probably already available from a variety of sources, though. Theories about underground weapons accidentally releasing in rebel territory appear to be contradicted by the UN report; does anyone disagree? VQuakr (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

accidental release is certainly contradicted, yes. Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The presence of stabilizers in the sarin analyzed and the manufactured nature of the rockets used for delivery rules out "home grown" manufacture of the sarin and delivery system as well. Furthermore, the use of multiple weapons systems makes the accidental use by Syria scenario less plausible - it would have required multiple, simultaneous mixups. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think some of that is in the Appendices? They wouldn't load for me, perhaps you or someone else could add those details. Podiaebba (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I gather you're annoyed, but still this, linking "fringe" to WP:FRINGE and "ridiculous" to WP:NPOV in the article, is quite going off the deep end. Can we talk about this? Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want to provide a link to policy in-article for a section that you believe violates policy, use the appropriate in-article tag. We do not Wikilink to our meta-content in the article text. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

rhetoric isn't helping, but overloading the article with fringe verbiage is? none of this stuff is ever discussed on channel 4 news or BBC News, except glancingly to mention briefly that putin blames the rebels, - its undue weight, makes the article look like a fringe theory home. Sayerslle (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There will no doubt need to be some changes based on today's UN report and the resulting published reactions and analysis. But there is no deadline, and making other editors feel steamrolled or violating our stylistic norms to make a point is not going to help. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there need to be changes based on the report, and we should really focus on those changes that need to be made, and leave other things that might be changed for later. I've started a UN Report subsection. A description of the report is an obvious place to start! Podiaebba (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not as far as I know a wikipedia article solely for the US /UK English speaking nations. But one could be excused for thinking that. This from Sayersville is disturbing. ' none of this stuff is ever discussed on channel 4 news or BBC News,'. The so called verbiage is actually in part the attempt to get NPOV 'in' the article in what is a continual struggle against the view held by some editors that the thrust of the article must reflect what they see on the news. sadly UK / USA TV newspaper western news is often strong POV. example. Russia, at the same time, said that the report is “very technical” and did not contain exact details or conclusions that would indicate the Assad regime was involved in the attack. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

did not contain exact details or conclusions that would indicate the Assad regime was involved in the attack. - other than the "military-grade" sarin with chemical stabilisers, the rocket types the opposition isn't known to have, and rocket trajectories from areas controlled by the government? Russia's response to the report may be significant, but we need to know exactly what they say after some time to digest it, since very early reactions and paraphrasing may be misleading. Podiaebba (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are the Russian opinion given so much weight

Why do we have this paragraph:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said ‘US intelligence on the Syrian gas attack is 'unconvincing'. He went on to say, ‘What we were shown before and what our American, British and French colleagues sent us more recently absolutely does not convince us’.[169] Russian President Vladimir Putin insists there's no proof, and added, he wants to see evidence that would make the determination ‘obvious’.[170]

For a rebuttal this is just plain weak. We don't need to counter everything a Westerner says with a Russian saying "oh, I don't believe you". That doesn't add balance or anything useful a person could analyze. Even in the Russian opinion of the ROKS Cheonan sinking where they basically blames the South Korean's for sinking there own ship, and they ignore the blatant evidence of an exploded North Korea torpedo, it has more substance than this paragraph. Have the Russian been correct on so many issues that their pure opinion is encyclopedic? --MarsRover (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is discussed in a section above (#Citing all relevant reports and preventing an omission); but it's from before the UN report, so things need updating anyway, once Russia responds to that. Podiaebba (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As to your general question: Russia is Syria's key ally, so whatever they claim to think matters, even if it's something silly. Podiaebba (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

even after the UN report has been delivered ;"Russia argued that the western powers had "jumped to conclusions" and said claims of rebel use against their own supporters to provoke foreign intervention "should not be shrugged off". " ! no-one could argue they have proved honest or reliable for decades I don't think - eastern Europe was treated disgracefully for decades, show trials, invasions, repression, - katyn was denied for years even, - its a cynical, degenerate political culture - but its views have to be mentioned of course.- I agree with what I read on Louis proyects blog - what is going on inside Syria should be the focus. - The article should try and keep its focus not on 'the great game' aspects, the side of the war Robert fisk and patrick Cockburn focus obseesively on, so that it becomes all about Russia and the US, but should focus on the attacks for what happened within Syria, what is known of what happened, the UN report section just started, - these should increase in size imo, - the opinions of KGB trained mindsetputin, lavrov, both soviet-era appartchicks, , their pre-determined positions, these should decrease. Sayerslle (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia's opinion is given much less prominence than the US's - which is as it should be since Russia hasn't provided any coherent position document that can be analysed, whereas the US has. Podiaebba (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It adds a phony balance to include even what you have. What evidence are the Russians providing? (answer: nothing) As for the UN report, I hope with the now obvious fact that it was Sarin gas and the Syrian government admittance of having stock piles of Sarin gas, we can remove a lot of obvious incorrect tone and weighting. Sarin needs to be in the lede sentence. Any text saying the rebels did this to themselves really need to be only included with actual evidence. (eg. did the rebels break in and steal the Sarin from the government then launch the rockets at themselves?) The burden of proof has shifted in my opinion. As for the Russian opinion, just for utility value, I would only include it if there were some ramifications. Have the Russian vetoed anything yet at that particular time they said those opinions? --MarsRover (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle Re Russia you say, 'no-one could argue they have proved honest or reliable for decades I don't think'. How POV I could say the same thing about the USA and find good refs. NSA / Iraq / Contra / Central America in general and on and on. Stay with NPOV please. Re UN latest report, the report does not say who those surface-to-surface rockets belonged to – rebels or government forces. Its not a fact if the US is convinced Assad did it. They were also convinced about Iraqs WMD. Look at Iraq today. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The UN report identified the launch azimuth, and third parties have plotted those azimuths back to Syrian territory. Yes, both Russia and the US have lied at times, and neither lies all the time. VQuakr (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses Blog provides some background on the munitions which suggests they belonged to the government.[5] I'm not sure what the UN report says as the Appendices didn't load for me yesterday and my time is now limited. Podiaebba (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. This article has become an example of the worst sort of WP:VALID. Every single evidence-based assertion by first the Syrian opposition, then the West, and now the UN doesn't need to be "balanced" by the Russians or Syrians saying "nuh-uh!" Unfortunately, the loyal cadre of pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin editors here insists on dutifully adding to the article every time a Russian or Syrian official reiterates their government's insistence that the attack was caused by malicious gremlins or whatever conspiracy-minded excuse they're peddling this week. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

the loyal cadre of pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin editors - these sorts of comments are extremely unnecessary. Is there any reason to describe people who believed the official US narrative from day one despite lack of published evidence as "loyal pro-Free Syrian Army/Syrian Liberation Front/Al Nusra/etc and pro-White House"?? Stop it. We now have the UN report - this is not vindication for those who were ready to believe poorly-evidenced US claims, it's an opportunity to move forward and improve the article. Podiaebba (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about you. I was referring to several other editors who have been active on a number of Syrian civil war articles consistently working to slant content in favor of the Syrian government and/or to discredit the Syrian opposition (which it's becoming increasingly apparent makes for a grotesquely oversimplified "umbrella term"). I think most editors who have been active on this page and others relating to this ongoing conflict are doing so in good faith; I think a minority (on both sides of the issue, but particularly in support of Assad) have not been doing so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Update on MintPress report: Military.com takes allegations seriously

The characterization of Mint Press News as a "Shia advocacy site" is inaccurate. The article that sentence references refers to it as an "advocacy journalism" website whose editor-in-chief is reportedly a Shia Muslim. The website itself appears to publish U.S. and world news from a progressive or left-libertarian perspective, and doesn't seem to involve anything about Shia Islam, much less advocate for it. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Another SPA - the PJ MEdia article is titled as it is titled and you cant deny it or censor it or shove it down a Stalinist memory hole. ' progressive or left-libertarian perspective' - where did you get that? - your own head? which RS describe it as that. OR is no use , and 'self stylings' of the MINt press are what they are. It looks like it wants to keep its backers hidden, whether they are 'left-libertarian' who knows. one rather doubts it. the story it is well known for was the one saying rebels gassed themselves in ghouta. that is not 'leftist' - it is what it is. Sayerslle (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The PJ Media post doesn't call it a "Shia advocacy site," it calls it a Shia "advocacy journalism" site -- with the quotations marks appearing as such, surrounding "advocacy journalism" but not 'Shia.' Based on the content of the article, it is clear that "advocacy journalism" comes from a self-description from Mint Press News interview, and "Shia" refers to what the article claims is the religious background of the editor-in-chief. Any attempt to link "Shia" to the word "advocacy" is clearly misleading. Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that claims to be factual while adopting a certain social or political purpose, and Mint Press News does not characterize itself as advocating anything related to Shia Islam. Instead, it says on its About Us page that it "covers national politics, foreign affairs, energy, the environment and civil liberties through the lens of social justice and human rights," and the PJ Media article cites no evidence that the website has "advocated" for Shia Islam, beyond the reported religious backgrounds of certain staff members. Moreover, allegations about the religious backgrounds and alleged views of the site's editor-in-chief have no bearing on the content of the article in question, which is by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

we can add as much about what is written about subjects of articles by others as what the subjects themselves say. indeed they are motivated to paint themselves in the best possible light are they not. self praise is no praise. the PJ media story is linked to, is relevant to the subject of the article, you are a single purpose account saying the ideology of people has no bearing on their activities - and if they are anti-Syrian rebel, that is not relevant but the GHouta story says it is relevant and has been commented on as such by PJ media. Sayerslle (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, not even the PJ Media post indicates that Mint Press News is a "Shia advocacy site." It indicates that it is a self-described "advocacy journalism" website with an editor-in-chief who apparently is a Shia Muslim. No matter how you spin it, the current wording is not factual. Beyond that, it remains unclear how the religious views of Mint Press News' editor-in-chief have anything to do with the content of reporting by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh (which, moreover, consisted of interviews that amount to hearsay; the article is not even the authors' personal claims) any more than the religious views of any other non-religious news outlets' editors-in-chief have any bearing on the content their respective organizations publish. That the interviews in the article, which was not written by Mint Press News' editor-in-chief, contain allegations that appear to be roughly in sync with the Assad regime's claims, in no way makes the entire website of Mint Press News a "Shia advocacy" organization; assertions to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Spotting such deceptive, erroneous information strikes this brand-new Wikipedia account's owner as as good of a reason to start an account and begin participating in Wikipedia editing as any. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

But who cares, it's just a blog, right? Well, no, it turns out that advisory board for military.com includes two former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and whose president is a retired U.S. Navy admiral. Furthermore, they spoke directly with Jordanian freelance journalist Yahya Ababneh, who along with the U.S. reporter (Dale Gavlak who has written for BBC, NPR, and for the Associated Press) did the investigative report. The Sept 10, 2013 article in military.com is here: [6] They quote Ababneh's responses to how the interviews were uncoached, but spontaneous, and: the rebels "did not prepare" their remarks but gave them off the cuff while "complaining" about the situation to him, etc. Military.com is not "vouching" for it being true, but with its hefty miltary background, the very fact it takes the reporting seriously is Noteworthy - certainly for our including the MintPress report in this entry but perhaps also to mention that Military.com interviewed Ababneh himself and are taking the report (which to those coming late, had interviewed local rebels in Ghouta say that they (accidentally) released the chemical attack) by Mintress, quite seriously. Harel (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's just re-reporting of the same unreliable source. I see no evidence for your characterization that they take the report seriously. VQuakr (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence for your characterization that they take the report seriously. - other than the fact they heard about the "widely circulated report" and made the effort to interview the journalist who did the actual interviews? Geez Louise, don't you realise how it sounds for you to respond like this? Podiaebba (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The report gives no indication that the mintpressnews might have any particular allegiances does it ? it does seem clearly written from a very pro regime pov,- or do you disagree ? you think it is a balanced piece of journalism? and does it really take the story further?Sayerslle (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Military.com doesn't have a pro-Syrian-regime POV (does it??) so their interest in the actual journalistic work done by this mintpressnews freelancer is relevant. Maybe military.com doesn't know about the mintpressnews background; maybe their judgement of it is that it's not enough to dismiss the report out of hand. Either way, it does add something, both in detail and in the fact of them taking the report seriously enough to interview the key author. Podiaebba (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What details does it add? I would agree that military.com is not particularly terrible as a source from a POV perpective; looking over their other news articles I would describe them as representing US military members and veterans from an anti-quagmire perspective. My issue with the presented article is that there is neither critical review of the plausibility of the information presented, not any attempt to independently verify the information. So, no increase in reliability. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

no increase in reliability - sorry, what? Since when do we demand that every secondary source does primary research verifying the first? The mere fact that a reliable secondary source reports the first is generally considered to carry some meaning. What meaning is debatable, but you seem to be tying yourself in knots to make that meaning be zero. Podiaebba (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the mintpress 'story' . the writer Bryant Jordan - In September he was tweeting - ‏'@BryantJordan 2 Sep UN official also saying now that rebel group, not Assad, behind sarin gas deaths.' -and he links to a may 2013 article. he has his views doesn't he. the blind leading the blind if you ask me.Sayerslle (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NEWSORG, though with your stated disdain for our guidelines I doubt you will give it any credence. The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. and 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. All military.com did was confirm that Ababneh did indeed contribute to the report, which as far as I know was not in question. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What defines a "rumour"? As so often, Wikipedia guidelines are a thing to be waved as a substitute for engaging with facts. So, to the facts: Bryant Jordan has been a journalist since 1979 [7]; military.com provides news, but it's not really clear what its status as a news source; the military.com article doesn't add much (if any - I haven't put them side by side) factual detail to the original Mint Press News article. So in sum, the military.com article can be added in as an extra ref, primarily to document that the mintpressnews report was "widely circulated", which helps justify mentioning it and the Brown Moses Blog response to it. I've done that. Podiaebba (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They did a little bit more than confirm he wrote the story...they asked for and got a little bit (not a huge amount but not irrelevant) in term of more details about the interviews and the context in which the rebels made the comments they did. That's the first point. Second point: it is still relevant that they have the military "heft" that they do (their President and Advisory Board), and that they take the report seriously. That a military site takes this seriously is more interesting. They are not some random website or blog. Third, responding to SAyerslle, as for the criticism of the writer, that " he has his views doesn't he?" It's not a bad thing to have views, especially if one bases it on evidence, facts, and logic. What else should one base one's opinions on? Or have no opinions at all? One bases them on logic (who was winning? who would gain?) and on facts, or "facts to the best that we can discern at this time based on lines of concrete evidnece" which is de facto facts, just like scientists do the same, based it on facts (many months of German secret monitoring: Assad always said no to chem weapons) and on facts (pro-rebel journalists both kidnapped, both hear rebel captor on phone say they, the rebels, carried out chemical attack, and did so to pin it on Assad) and on facts (reporting what Syrians in the area are telling you is one of the facts we want to have, which MintPress gave us) and so on, not basing opinions on "we want to overthrow the regime" or on "Assad=Hitler, Rebels=NiceAlQaedaGuysYoudWantYourSisterToDate" etc etc. I hope the humor helps....make the point...it's silly to criticize him for having opinions...if he based it on what a random blogger posted, that would be one thing, if he is basing it on real and multiple lines of evidence, that's not a bad thing. Even the Senators and Representatives in congress said, both Republicans and Democrats, said, "we looked at the 'classified' report...it is not stronger, it is weaker than the public statements, and even the classified report, says 'trust us!' but gives no data, no transcripts, no direct quotes, etc") Harel (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have little doubt that military.com is cited in numerous places on Wikipedia. It is managed by retired military higher-ups and writes with a focus on military matters, but it is certainly not official. This source still makes it clear that all information was gleaned from the same source, Ababneh, and it makes not attempt to critically assess the claim provided. Re your comment on the author's opinions, yes we want journalists to think - ie not base opinions on reports issued before the attack. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "t makes not attempt to critically assess the claim provided" on the contrary, the questions that they chose to include in their interview with Ababneh are exactly, "an attempt to critically assess" - as I said it is not as extensive, as I would have liked, but the couple of extra details Ababneh shared, by answering their questions, is exactly the result of Military.com "attempt[ing] to critically assess" the investigation by Ababneh with Gavak. Hence the info about the context of the interviews in which the confessions were made (in particular, their inquiry or implicitly question about why he is confident that his sources were straight with him, which he replies to in the military.com article, which is not part of the original MintPress article) which military.com has included, are very much, in response to Military.com "attempting to critically assess" That's the first point. Second point is that obviously one can not run the story, or one cadn run the story and say it is nonsense, or one can run the story and ask, hmm, "we wonder could this possibly be true?" or any number of places along a spectrum. Here Military.com is giving a fair amount of respect to it, including their choice of headline. But back to first point, yes, new information in response to an attempt to assess the strength of the evidence. I do not think it is worth a big, long addition, but a brief mention that military.com interviewed Ababneh and gave a few more details on the interviewed rebels, and a few more details on the context of the interviews and confessions, in its story "White House Mum on Rebel Chem Weapons Use" Harel (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, all that has been used from this source in the article is the "widely circulated report" citation, which is pretty uncontroversial and, given how much internet that report has gotten, wholly accurate. What specific additional changes to the article do you propose? VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Harel 'Assad always said no to chem weapons' - 'the facts we want to have, which MintPress gave us' - and then the mocking, 'Assad=Hitler, Rebels=NiceAlQaedaGuysYoudWantYourSisterToDate' - on the first, well, yes, in fact the regime didnt acknowledge having any did it, and on Saturday 14 sep, 'reports that an elite group fiercely loyal to President Bashar al-Assad known as Unit 450 has been dispersing his chemical weapons stockpile to as many as 50 different sites all across the country, just one day after the regime said it would join the Chemical Weapons Convention'[8] - on the second, mintpress, odeh muhawesh, check his facebook page a virulent pro-Assadist - its a propaganda rag - 3rd yes, great mockery, a position like that would lack sophistication, but then so would a pro-Iranian regime pov masquerading as critical and impartial editing - and tat journalist for military.com seemed confused about his dates even, maybe past his sell by date - Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Rebels=NiceAlQaedaGuysYoudWantYourSisterToDate" is more or less what the politicians and most of the mainstream reporting wants us to believe, and has been telling us, yes, and I stand by the point that we need to break out of that mold, for accuracy sake, on WP. As for muhawesh he was not co-author of the MintPress piece so I won't waste time looking him up, it was by Gavak and Ababneh. If you want to talk about bias by the way, try "pro-rebel" bias, that is what both Piccinin and Quirico had (confirmed by NY Times which had online piece stating Quirico having had past articles very sympathetic to rebels etc etc). So their sharing with the world the overhead conversation of rebel commander admitting rebels used chem weapons.["http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkc2ZtPvc8o] is yet another interview.

Fascinating to read "skcepticism about its real intentions was deepened by reports that..." Report by whom? From whom? and I kept reading that paragraphs and 3 others in the first 4 paragraphs for them to tell us where these "reports" came from...in vein...I guess that was not important enough to tell us. They are insulting your intelligence with such articles saying "reports that" and not telling you or us what the source is..

We in the west are in an environment drunk with fear or with ideology to the point we fail Logic 101. It would be the dumbest thing in the world for the government in Syria to have chemicals that rebels can use in a false flag...May I remind you that Saddam who used chem weapons in 1980s did not use them in 1991 when he was invaded even as his troops were slaughtered? Remember the Western media told us he is "mad, mad, insane, irratioanal! did we mention crazy?" but he was sane enough to know not to use chem weapons in 1991 when he had them.

Germany intelligence, that's not some unknown "reports" but very solid known source. We know they would be screaming from the rooftops if they had one iota of evidence pointing at Assad..they kept mum...until finally this leak that after many "months" of secret monitoring of the top Assad communication, he "always" [9] (and see similar by Guardian) always rejected use of chem weapons. They don't say what his commanders brought up...sarin? or white phosphorus that US and Israel used? Or tear gas, not legal in "war" but legal by police for "civil disturbance...they didn't say what his general brought up just that Assad "always" rejected it. That's BND, the German intelligence service...that's the facts..as for logic, no wonder..he knew he had everything to lose, and nothing to win, even someone who is badly losing (1991 Iraq, Saddam) knows it would be suicidal to use sarin etc...Someone who as report after report shows, was winning? Come on... No wonder the German intercepts show Assad "always" rejected use....even tear gas that the US would use in civil war, or white phosphorus, he probably knew would be used to drum up support for missile attack, so no wonder..

I think deep down in their heart, even those who want a US war on Syria, based on the above, deep down, people know that if they had to place a large financial bet on whether the rebels used it, given all the reasons and facts for Assad not to use it and all the many many reports by rebels, on top of Turkish police finding a cell trying to make Sarin, and the MintPress, and the Puccinin/Quirco....I can't be 100% sure some rogue army officer didn't use it, but it's very unlikely..but I would place a large personal bet that one or more rebel groups or dupes hired and paid by rebels to carry stuff for them (MintPress story) did use chem weapons, on purpose or by accident...that's just looking more and more extremely likely as more and more evidence comes out.... When will we honest with ourselves where the logic (who would benefit? who was winning the war) and where the facts and the evidence (not just MintPress but Carla Del Ponte and now Piccinin and Quirico) point very strongly...when will we be honest? Assad is not a nice guy, and from his father he inherited a brutal regime...Assad first actions in office was to free political prisoners, allow indep newspaper and radio and allow a private bank etc..if the west was interested no in controlling Syria and dominating, this former opthamologist Bashar could probably have been prodded, some pressure plus encouraged with a few positive reactions and carrots to have democratic elections but no, US would not control who got into power, so we're shredding the country to pieces, 100,000+ dead, and look how well it turned out when "we" funded extremist brutal jihadists in Afghanistan, it's not like that came back to bite us with Taliban and Al Qaeda and 9/11...and Iraq turned out "so well" too? And now this. Brilliant. Anyway, polite but frank exchange of views, now back to wikipedia.. Harel (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

the gramophone mind. mintpress is directed by muhawesh and his daughter, your lack of curiosity about who controls mintpress is a pov lack of curiosity- the suburbs where the rebels are in control are being shredded , - you don't mind Assad/Russia/Iran doing shredding of a country? ' with MIG’s firing S25 missiles, each carrying 400 pounds of TNT, into apartment buildings in Homs or Aleppo.

In the meantime, it is important to stress that it is the regime that is imposing a “military solution” on a massive scale';- just read that on Louis Proyects blog,- thought is relevant as you are going on about a US war on Syria. Sayerslle (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting information

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the UN report needs to lead to a restructuring of the article. It does not need to lead to edit-warring to try to remove views expressed before the report was published. We should focus on adding information; insisting on rushing to to remove information which remains undeniably part of the historical discussion is extremely counter-productive. The removal of information should be discussed before-hand, and I don't think it is a priority. Podiaebba (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 please stop blanking sections with no discussion. 1RR is still in force. Unless you self revert, I'm reporting you. USchick (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The section certainly can't remain in the article without major changes. Giving equal weight to the scant few governments and fringe commentators who appear to be arguing, at this point, against reality itself does a disservice to the people who read Wikipedia. I support the section's removal and the incorporation of some material -- most of it is duplicated elsewhere in the article already, if I'm not mistaken -- into the "Investigation" section (namely the Russian claim that the evidence is unconvincing/nonexistent/manufactured/bewitched). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on what? The ONLY thing that the UN report confirmed is that sarin was used. Nothing else has changed. USchick (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

They also confirmed it came from Syrian government areas. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could quote the part of the report that said that? Oh... you can't, because it didn't. They calculated azimuths from 2 of 5 rocket trajectories - the rest is interpretation by others. Podiaebba (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/17/still-doubt-assads-forces-were-behind-syrias-chemical-attack-look-at-this-map/ RS are now blatantly saying there is no doubt that regime did it. Sopher99 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is quoting someone's personal blog and then this statement, "This is not conclusive proof that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack." A better discussion would be about other similar attacks using the same weapons [10] on Aug 5. USchick (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not the UN which said that; HRW and NYT analysis independently does, following the azimuths back 10km to the Republican Guard 104th Brigade base on Mt Qasioun. [11]. [12] The trajectory evidence is very strong; but Russia isn't backing down so let's see if they do anything more than wave their hands. We don't need to overplay anything; just stating what evidence there now is is quite enough. Podiaebba (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The "motivation" section should remain for the time being: there are plenty of published resources on this, all of which demonstrate that motivation, either for the regime or other forces, remains important when understanding what happened at Ghouta. Also, while the UN report finds that the chemicals used were high grade, and finds that shells and probably shell trajectories are consistent with a government attack, government culpability isn't a finding of the UN. I know that reliable sources like the NYT draw conclusions and that's fine. Russian media are reporting a different story. Fundamentally however the UN report has changed attitudes regarding culpability for the attacks neither for major governments like Russia, the US, UK and France, nor for the reporting by media in those countries. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Pro USA POV group of editors needs to edit in a NPOV manner by stop putting in opinion and speculation without good research to find counter arguments that refute those views. Its just sloppy. And stop deleting and reverting and use reliable refs its getting silly whats being put in as fact. There is a way to avoid this low grade edit war, see sugestion below. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

'Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra in Syria may have significant amounts of sarin'

The US military have reportedly proved that sarin gas production is going on among some Sunni salafists in Iraq, and via Turkey, can reach Syrian rebels, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT, citing classified sources. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-rebels-have-sarin-980/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is not a reliable source, and Michael Maloof is not notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

says who? RT is ok for facts just like the NYTs which has its own bias. Check the reliable ref criteria. If you want to go on about notable then be thorough beause some of the pro USA POV refs are using names very un notable, like 'a diplomat' or this beauty 'rebel sources'. [13]-Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is absolutely, unambiguously considered less reliable than the NYT. This has been reviewed on the RSN. For example:

• Thus, it seems to me that this source has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. No source is banned from Wikipedia (well, aside from spam sites), but I would approach this source with extreme caution. I would tend to think that this source falls under WP:RS#Questionable_sources.
• There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera...

Adding the context that Russia has a great deal invested in defending Assad's regime makes it clear that RT cannot be taken seriously for claims of fact in Syrian civil war-related issues. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/u-s-military-confirms-rebels-had-sarin/] Here is a better article on what BotS mentioned since the RT one was a QnA session basically. Why would a reporter need to be notable to be cited? That makes absolutely no sense. — -dainomite   05:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He is not a reporter, he is the one presenting his opinion which means his opinion is only worth including if he is particularly significant. He is also somewhat infamous for misrepresenting his credentials. In the RT.com article he was presented as an "interviewee." WND.com is also wildly unreliable - I know them for their persistent Obama birther views. There are a number of RSN archives like this that document reviews of their reliability. VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen/used wnd before finding that article but if I see that same story on CNN/FOX/MSNBC in the near future will that article be a RS all of a sudden because it would be CNN/FOX/MSNBC publishing it? Just curious, — -dainomite   06:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'a reporter need to be notable to be cited?' Translation. This is becoming uncomfortable for the US POV.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/syrian-rebels-have-sarin-gas-official-1.1578968

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z201305

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html

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

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=102_1379447013&comments=1

Del Ponte told a Swiss-Italian TV station, “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report … which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.” Del Ponte added, “This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.” http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=61410Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your trying to prove with all these links. But Maloof was fired by the government 10 years ago or more[14]. And he works for a dodgy online newspaper. So, in his case he's is not a super reliable source. Why do we need this in the article? Also, the UN report says it was high quality sarin used in the attacks and not some home brew stuff. --MarsRover (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not uncomfortable. Just irritating that you and a handful of others insist on a phony "balance" because you just can't believe that good old Bashar al-Assad would gas his own people (after months and years of simply killing them via conventional means). As I said above, it's WP:VALID abuse. Maloof is not remotely credible, Del Ponte is well known as someone who shoots from the hip and makes wild allegations, RT and WND are uproariously unreliable sources, etc. There is simply no actual, credible evidence that clearly disputes the UN report and the preponderance of claims in U.S., UK, French, German, and Turkish intelligence reports. If the Russians have such evidence, it's incumbent upon them to present it; at some point, simply calling the international community's conclusions "baseless" and insisting that there's no proof the rebels didn't do it isn't notable enough to merit inclusion. This article makes the unwavering Russian position, which has been echoed by some fringe commentators in the U.S. and elsewhere, quite clear. But it's half past time for you to accept that the consensus view on this incident is 1) the consensus view and 2) in light of the evidence, most likely accurate. And if you can't bring yourself to accept that, nor can you bring yourself to contribute in such a way that you acknowledge the facts of the matter -- which isn't to say that you having your own opinion/perspective on this conflict is improper or unwelcome! -- maybe you should think about pulling back from editing on a subject about which you have such obvious and irremovable biases. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The disbelief about Assad using CW in Ghouta was quite prominent in a number of sources, because of the UN inspectors on the ground and the existing "red line" threat. Don't pretend it's because people reckon Assad is too nice, it's strategic calculation that causes the disbelief. Also, on evidence, prior to the UN report there were a number of mainstream reports about how weak the public and classified evidence was, and while the UN report massively shifts the balance of probabilities, it's not entirely definitive as to culpability either; it's strong circumstantial evidence. As to Russia engaging with evidence: disappointing, but then the US/UK never explained why they dismissed the Russian report into the Khan al-Assal attack either. Podiaebba (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup my point also, there is no clear cut proof Assad did it. The UN report is not definitive. Motive and consequence clearly favours the rebels doing it. The links above show circumstantial evidence the rebels may have done it at Ghouta, like this [[15]] Blade-of-the-South [User talk:Blade-of-the-South|talk] 03:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Maloof in the RT story seems to still think the Adana (Turkey) al-Nusra arrest in May involved actual sarin, but Turkish prosecutors now allege the al-Nusra-linked militants were trying to obtain ingredients for it. Not keeping up with that doesn't inspire confidence. Anyway, what about a separate article about Syrian opposition attempts to obtain chemical weapons (Syrian opposition and chemical weapons? Al Qaeda and chemical weapons?)? It would be easier to discuss that without the constant "well does that prove anything about the Ghouta attack" looming over it; and the basic topic is legitimate since eg the UK's JIC has conceded that some of the Syrian opposition are trying to get CW. Podiaebba (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a section in Al-Nusra Front on chem weapons that could be one candidate for expansion. The Syrian opposition is so fragmented that it is not particularly meaningful to refer to say that "the opposition" is acquiring something. VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Military-grade sarin

Right now it says in the article Third party analysis of the evidence reported by the UN showed that the sarin gas was military grade; but neither of the references used back that up. The NYT sources cites US/UK ambassadors saying Sellstrom told the UN the sarin was "high quality"; the other source doesn't address the issue. I've seen elsewhere (ref lost now) claims that the sarin included the chemical stabilisers permitting long-term storage. I can't find either of these issues (quality or stabilisers) mentioned in the UN report. This is unsatisfactory. Podiaebba (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The stabilizers are listed in the "other interesting chemicals" column of the last appendix of the UN report (lab reports). "This was not a chemical attack cooked up by opposition forces in some underground kitchen. It was a sophisticated attack involving military-grade sarin"[16]. Also [17], [18]. VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The stabilizers are listed in the "other interesting chemicals" column of the last appendix of the UN report (lab reports). - I thought those were byproducts or the result of decomposition. Which of the chemicals named in the lab reports are stabilisers? If the report explains that I missed it. Podiaebba (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are three columns in appendix 7 per lab. CW Agent (for reporting actual CW molecules detected), Degredation Products, and Other Interesting Chemical. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, yes, but which of the identified "other interesting chemical" is a stabiliser? Podiaebba (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Per the UN report, "other relevant chemicals, such as stabilizers, are indicated and discussed in Appendix 7." However, looking down the list I do not see anything that jumps out at me as a chemical stabilizer. Published analysis by a specialist chemist would be good here since I am by no means an expert and WP:OR, but I have not seen any rigorous third party coverage of this that analyzes the results to the level of detail of "chemical 23 is a stabilizer. It is commonly associated with weapons manufactured by country x..." which of course would be a great source. More analysis may come out later; until then we have stuff like this which can be included but is not as authoritative. I do see an RDX precursor in the list, which is interesting because RDX is not that common in military rockets, and its presence has been cited by Russia as evidence that the Khan al-Assal chemical attack was the work of rebels. Sources such as Brown Moses, however, that blame Khan al Assal on Syria believe that the attack was with the same 330mm rocket that was used in Ghouta. If the 330mm Syrian rocket does use RDX as a bursting charge, it could mean that the Russians accidentally implicated Syria in another attack as well. Could be good info for both articles if reliable sources pick up the link. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This is from the ref you supplied. 'Their mandate does not allow them to say who was responsible for the deadly barrage. But if you read between the lines, it isn't difficult to figure it out.' Oh OK read between the lines huh. wink wink. Peter Bouckaert, makes the conclusions in the first two refs. Is he a qualified military man? No. Hes in a human watch group making up theories. Lets talk to the scientists. Read on

Again no one can tell who made it.' Military grade sarin, for instance, would not contain chemical byproducts likely to be present in sarin made through other recipes. And traces of the impurities in home-brewed sarin would be detectable in soil. But different recipes for the home-brewed version will yield different byproducts, and investigators may have no way of knowing which ones to seek. Even if the byproducts were known, detectives would need to know the normal levels of those compounds in the soil to determine whether the amounts are elevated.

Likewise, examining tissues from victims would provide little help. Sarin kills by interfering with the action of a nervous system chemical in a way that ends up overstimulating muscles and paralyzing those around the lungs, impeding breathing. Physicians can detect signs of sarin in the tissues and in urine. Indeed, Secretary Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, "We have now learned that the hair and blood samples from first responders in east Damascus has tested positive for signatures of sarin." But investigators cannot discern the telltale impurities of the home-made nerve agent.

Military-grade sarin theory to determine who did it. FAIL. Case closed. Strong POV refs removed and replaced POV quote (Third party analysis of etc) with NPOV facts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-made-the-sarinBlade-of-the-South (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Scientific American article was published prior to the UN report, so it is clear the author is speaking in hypotheticals. I do not think anyone is claiming that the provenance of the sarin can be determined from tissue samples taken from the victims - we are talking about direct swabs of chemical from the weapons parts and soil samples. The UN took soil samples in the rocket impact sites and far away, so the SA author's concerns about background levels of chemicals in the soil has been addressed. The UN report is careful to stay neutral, but we of course are going to use expert analysis of the report and report their conclusions. FYI, adding FAIL to your reply does not make you more credible, and your conclusion that this SA article disproves or even conflicts with the reports I added to the article is blatantly wrong. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr Re 'The Scientific American article was published prior to the UN report, so it is clear the author is speaking in hypotheticals. Reference that. And I suggest you Re read what the scientists said, not some human rights zealot. Re 'The UN report is careful to stay neutral' Think on that. Its a fail because its a fail. If you disagree provide refs, of a standard to match mine. You cant. Fail. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You want me to provide a reference to show that September 3 comes before September 16? What are you even trying to say here? You are so busy denying everything that you are incoherent. Also, my replies specific to the SA article make it obvious I did read it. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The science is sound from The Scientific American article. There is nothing to refute it re the Ghouta samples. I looked. If you refute it please share the refs. I want you to stop digging in when what you write as fact can be scientifically disputed. You are coming across as a very pro USA POV editor. Can you rise above that? I dont know. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I already explained above that you are misquoting the Scientific American article. You have not addressed that yet. Writing "scientifically" before something to try to make it sound more valid is an improvement over writing "FAIL", but a rather marginal one. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think so. Bit nit picky. I fixed it anyway. BTW just below it you have misquoted where the rockets came from. Your refs are saying maybe, but you say for sure. Please reword the section or find correct refs (they dont exist...fail) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all nit picky. The SA article says tests on people exposed to sarin will not indicate if the sarin is military or homebrew. Agreed. The SA article says soil and swab samples require controls to eliminate background contamination. Agreed. The UN report pulled soil and swab samples, and used controls that tested negative for all relevant chemicals. Background contamination eliminated. The statement However Scientific America has stated analysis of samples collected from the site will be unable to determine who made the sarin. that you put in the article is explicitly, demonstrably false. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sellstrom

Apparently the description of the quality of the sarin comes from Sellstrom speaking to the UN, and saying the quality was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. (Reuters), The Cable. Would be nice to have more details and/or a direct statement by him rather than UK/US ambassadors repeating what he said... but it'll have to do, and seems to be the origin of the "military-grade" claim. Podiaebba (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if the chemical stabilisers aren't in the actual UN report, that too is from Sellstrom's briefing to the UN Security Council [19]. Podiaebba (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in the absence of a technical (as opposed to political) authority discussing the purity or provenance of the Sarin, this needs to be clearly attributed to Sellstrom. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

m-14 not bm-14

"The inspectors were able to identify several surface-to-surface rockets at the affected sites as 140mm BM-14 rockets" BM-14 is a rocket launcher, the inspectors identified m-14 rocket. 95.223.49.193 (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not quite as simple as it seems. Analysts have confirmed that the 140mm rocket casing is the type used in the BM-14 launcher, even noting the specific factory the motor was manufactured in in Soviet Russia. But no reliable sources that I have seen have positively confirmed that the warhead was the standard-issue MS-14 chemical round, since the warhead was not recovered. So we know the motor was from the M-14 series of rockets but it might be a violation of WP:SYN to call the weapon an MS-14 chemical round if no secondary sources have identified it as such? What do people think? I also need to re-read the HRW report from last two weeks ago, because it might have gone into a little more detail. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Attack was almost certainly performed by Syria

Secondary sources have now had time to review the UN's report, which contains much more detailed information than had previously been released to the public. Many sources mirror the analyses of the report stated here and here, that this was almost certainly an intentional chemical attack by the Syrian military. The key pieces of information include:

• Rocket trajectories originating from Syrian-controlled territory, specifically one Syrian military base associated with chemical weapons
• Use of large quantities of military-grade sarin
• Use of 140mm BM-14 and 330mm rockets, which are launched from bulky, vulnerable launchers and not associated with rebel forces.

I think this summary needs to be in the article, and the viewpoint of the article should present this as the mainstream POV, with the Russian/Iranian/Syrian version mentioned as a minor viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree for the reasons you stated. As more facts surrounding this incident are reported, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the mainstream perspective here, supported by the preponderance of available evidence, is that the Syrian government fired several rockets containing sarin gas into populated areas controlled or contested by rebel fighters, causing several hundred civilian deaths. This article far more than adequately presents the minority point of view that is skeptical of the official (UN-endorsed) version of events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the totality of evidence available from the UN and other sources needs to be brought together; as I said repeatedly before it came, the UN report changes everything. It would also be good to watch out for comments from some of the US commentators who suggested "false flag" possibilities (eg Ron/Rand Paul) as they might well change their minds now. To some extent, the entire article needs rewriting around the UN report. Podiaebba (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree that the UN report need to be the core of the article. A lot of opinion that contradicts without proof that report just needs to be purged. --MarsRover (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a swag at improving the UN report section and added a sentence to the lede. I think the "intelligence reports" sections should be pared down into a single section of two or three paragraphs, and the underinformed hypothesizing from both sides of the issue over the last few weeks should be reduced even more. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for developing the UN report section. I'm reluctant to simply lose pre-report content though - not least because it may lead to a lot of argument about what to lose and what to keep. Would it be possible to dump a lot of the suddenly-less-relevant early stuff into a separate article, like Early reports on the 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks? That would have the advantage of rapidly getting the content out of this article without deleting it, and making it easier to achieve a brief summary of it (subarticles help with that, I find). Podiaebba (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I support not dumping all previous information. The report does not claim who is responsible, so any information related to responsibility needs to stay. USchick (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

dis/misinformation you mean - still, you should be very happy "the affair has proved to be largely a sideshow in a conflict in which conventional weapons have killed and maimed vastly more people, and continue to do so. In one sense, Assad has gained the tacit go-ahead to prosecute the war, so long as he eschews nerve gas. In the wake of this dubious deal, the high tide of pressure for direct western action peaked, then subsided.' [20] Sayerslle (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

tacit go-ahead to prosecute the war, so long as he eschews nerve gas - that was always the (official) political and legal position. People all around the world have been and are being killed by conventional warfare, and mostly nobody does anything about it except write reports. Arms Trade Treaty, anyone? Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's not get personal. But stuff like this is the first paragraph The Syrian government and rebels have blamed each other for the attacks.[16] is just plain misleading. It's as if we have no information to figure it out. Or we have equal information each could be responsible. In reality we do have a ton of information that only Syrian government could only be responsible. --MarsRover (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that needs updating. Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not like this idea per WP:POVFORK. Either the information is germane to the Ghouta attacks, or it is not. I also disagree with USChick - clearly outdated information need not be kept. VQuakr (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It needn't be a POVfork, and it would be helpful for restructuring. If long-term it becomes a POVfork, it can be dumped then having served its purpose. Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If its function is just for convenience since navigating the history can be clunky, it should be saved in either the Talk: or User: space rather than article space. I have no objection to someone doing this if they find it useful. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A talk/user copy still forces a discussion now about what is kept in the article. A substantial part of the point is avoiding that, because deletion is avoided. Efforts are better spent elsewhere right now, and over time it'll become easier to delete and/or summarise those things. Podiaebba (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Better to just keep them in the article then, and address them individually and remove methodically. We are not under any mandate to react to news instantaneously. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that outdated information should be removed. However, BOTH sides are still blaming each other. To suggest that I should be happy about an attack is very mean and uncalled for. Considering that the US is the largest manufacturer of chemical weapons, you better check the label on those rockets Sayerslle. USchick (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant happy about the misinformation/disinformation campaign in creating a miasma.Sayerslle (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, [21] it was Britain. USchick (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The US does not manufacture chemical weapons, has signed the chemical weapons convention, and has nearly completed destruction of its legacy stocks. The 140mm rockets used in Ghouta were Russian. So far, the Russians and Syrians still blame the rebels but are notably short on backup for this claim - we do not need to provide equal coverage to their unsupported and minority viewpoint. Agree that it was uncalled for to imply anyone here was happy about this event. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sodim Flouride is in your toothpaste. The fact that Britian sold it in industrial quantitites to Syria may indeed be inexcusable, but you seem to be under the impression that this is somehow evidence that the Assad regime is not responsible for its chemical attacks? I would still personally assign criminal blame to the people who manufactured CW, and those that then used it in combat in areas populated with civilians. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Quite simply, you need fluoride to make sarin." [22] We wouldn't have so many terrorists if our government(s) didn't create them. USchick (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flouride salts are common chemicals with very, very broad legitimate usages. There are multiple synthesis pathways to manufacture sarin from other flouride compounds, making regulation of precursor chemicals a great challenge for the UN and related regulatory bodies. Are you now referring to the Assad regime (who was the ultimate recipient of these particular chemicals) as terrorist? What exactly is your point here and how does it relate to this article? VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I already made my point. Both sides are still blaming eachother. Do you have a reference for your comment that those are Russian rockets? USchick (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is already cited above and in the article. The 140mm rockets are BM-14's. Both sides are blaming each other, but that does not mean that their opinions are equally credible. VQuakr (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The ones that "can be fitted" with chemical agents? Don't forget to cite where the chemical agents came from. The other 330mm rockets "have been used rarely, and always by government forces." [23] Any one familiar with these? USchick (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite where the chemical agents came from. A Syrian-run manufacturing facility? Analysts have noted that the sarin used was of a military quality, implying its origin is manufacture by the Syrian government. What is your point here? The 330mm rockets had been noticed pre-Ghouta by some bloggers; the consensus seems to be that they are manufactured in Syria. I have not seen any particularly good sources discussing them in detail. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. USchick (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Rebels have such rockets and you dont need bulky launchers for them, you can actually launch them from your backyard or roof.( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZaJZOD2ZmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30VCUNoqEc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb8QI8Giwpg ).they captured many military bases, and hardware so military grade sarin means nothing.(here for example a scud facility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntOBy56tYU where are scuds there are cw. or they could have it from the captured chlorine factory on the outskirts of Aleppo) 95.223.49.193 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The UN report trumps this WP:OR. These are not even the same weapons as was positively identified. --MarsRover (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

and 'hard to explain how they managed to carry out the operation from several points inside regime territory'. Sayerslle (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

it is a fact that rebels use tunnels for weapon smuggling in Damascus, so smuggling rockets into the city is no problem for them(hamas is doing that for years).Setting up in a backyard and firing will take one minute, where is the problem? 95.223.49.193 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source states that it is plausible that the rebels tunneled several kilometers into Syrian territory and launched chemical rockets on themselves from possibly the most heavily fortified position in Syria, that may be worth including in the article. Multiple sources state that 140mm and 330mm rockets are not weapons the rebels are known to have used. We are not using youtube as a source here; please review WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

1)It is a speculation just like the theory that it is impossible to launch a rocket from government controlled territory(and they have the tunnels [24]) 2) they are they are either wrong or lying [25] ,

"The Free Syrian Army - as well as the Al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and other groups - have also been using increasingly potent captured artillery."from [26] 95.223.49.193 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Im in the Southern hemisphere so time differences mean, well lots go on while I sleep. But there are no reliable refs for NPOV objective evidence Syria 'did it'. Its opinion and conjecture, essentially more of the same POV (more later things to do) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could share what you would, hypothetically, personally accept as convincing, reliable evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the Ghouta attacks? I think very few neutral observers could possibly agree that there is no evidence or reliable references documenting that evidence. VQuakr (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

that's an invitation to a load more 'opinion and conjecture' -you might as well ask a Japanese Nationalist what it would take for him to accept the nanking massacre. only RS should be brought forth as a basis for discussion imo. What RS body forth, explain, the basis in the known world of reality, the Russian/regime/infowars.com/fansofodehmuhaweshmintopress hypothesis?Sayerslle (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr there is NO clear objective evidence who did it. Until there is (maybe never) we put all options on the table in NPOV style. This sums it up for me. '"We want the events of the 21st of August to be impartially, objectively, professionally investigated," Mr Lavrov said.' http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/russia-and-france-clash-chemical-weapons-blame/4964360. For what is worth to me its clear the rebels had everything to gain by framing Assad so the West attacked Assad. Game over for Assad. Thats powerful Motivation esp as they are losing lately. Assad had very weak short term gains if he did it and mid term long term a huge loss, game over in fact. Plus Syria would know that so it makes no sense Assad did it. So I think in time hopefully the truth will emerge based only on the motivation factor. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You quote Mr. Lavrov who regularly spouts opinion with zero evidence. And you give us your opinion the rebels gassed their own families with zero evidence. Yet we have the unbiased UN report that plain as day points to the government and you think we have NO evidence. You do seem a bit biased to be editing this article. --MarsRover (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

MarsRover Please follow the thread. I was asked by VQuakr this. 'Perhaps you could share what you would, hypothetically, personally accept as convincing.' I replied. Two other things you mentioned. 1/ Can you please supply the refs where the rebels own families were gassed at Ghouta. Which rebels and the breakdown of the dead into pro neutral and anti Govt. Thank you. 2/ Perhaps I read the wrong report. Can you show me the part, the hard evidence, where as you say 'UN report that plain as day points to the government'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Blade, Lavrov's response today is certainly relevant to the topic, and indeed included in the article. But it is, following a pattern consistent with the Russian response, a flat out denial without any explanation as to why the Russians would not interpret this as a Syrian attack - not evidence. You mention that you do not believe Syria had adequate motive to execute this attack, which particularly in hindsight seems to be the case. But a motive is not evidence of guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, as noted and cited in this section and in the article we have a plethora of reliable sources (if you believe the New York Times is not reliable please take it to WP:RSN and see what response you get) indicating that the information in the UN report points squarely at Syria (in the case of rocket trajectories, literally!). Making obviously false statements such as "there is NO clear objective evidence who did it" is unproductive could be interpreted as intentionally obstructive behavior worthy of a topic ban. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

a motive is not evidence of guilt or innocence - sure it is; presence or lack of motive is often a part of legal cases. It's not proof, but evidence of motive is often evidence of guilt, where motive is in dispute. Podiaebba (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Still not the same thing as evidence. Of course this is not a court of law, but even so a motive is an investigative tool to provide clues as to where to look for evidence. Lack of motive can never prove innocence, and even a very strong motive can never prove guilt. VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The HRW assertion that the insurgents did not have 140mm BM-14 rocket launchers is a mistake which went viral, and I know the organization was challenged on the error by journalists who relied upon the briefing (which came with a graphic). I know YouTube may not be the best but this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRH9nQFSda8 is a video of a BM-14 being used by persons other than the regime's forces. The insurgents have captured dozens of 140mm BM-14 launchers, they are very cheap and are ubiquitous in this conflict. I have one email from one of the major newspapers involved, to HRW querying the error. The HRW assertion in relation to 140mm launchers only being in the hands of the regime's forces was a mistake. It is one of the key reasons the Russians are able to maintain their present position. Tazia2890 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The video you linked is a smaller system than a BM-14 - among other things, it has the wrong number of launch tubes. I think it is a 107mm system but I am not sure. In any case, we would need publication in reliable sources that HRW was incorrect in their assessment before we could modify the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any BM-14 mentions that are relevant. The nearest thing is the Taliban having used BM-14s. [27]. Podiaebba (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

and "Russian sources also state that these missiles are still being used by the Afghanistan, Yemeni, and Egyptian armies, all nations where al Qaeda or terrorists groups linked to al Qaeda are active" [28] . Podiaebba (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

and Channel 4 News lists some rocket launchers used by Syrian opposition, including the more sophisticated BM-21s. [29] Podiaebba (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Type 63, yes, I think you are right. Any reliable reports for the regime driving around or using the 140mm launchers? Being a former owner of an antique rocket system, it is not quite the same thing. The insurgents must have every type of looted inventory. Tazia2890 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion from a non involved experienced editor

' I think the only way is where many suspect foul play, but none can prove it for sure, we should stick to "according to A this and according to B that", so that anyone, be he follower of A or B opinion or rejecting both A and B as false propaganda, can simply get the idea of what is going on by comparing the two reports.'

This may help stop many of the edits and reverts if the language was neutral and NPOV inclusive for views A and B.

BTW Sopher just wipes out 2000 -3000 characters. Not on. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, view "B" is "Assad is innocent despite all evidence, please believe us!". This is a minority viewpoint, and NPOV does not dictate equal time with the mainstream view that this was an attack by Syria. It is worth mention only because it is still the official line of Russia and Syria. You can help stop the reverts if you stop reverting, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He reverted and has been warned by an admin. I agree about listing the sources with no commentary such as pro-Castro or whatever, even it it's sourced. USchick (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good re Sopher.

VQuakr thats your POV. There are many refs which support this view that are dubious, like Mother Jones and many others which can be countered ie the military grade sarin issue. No one can prove conclusively Assad did it, there is some circumstantial evidence alone. View A is 'He did it, I just know it....look at this third party analysis. (reply Ah ahem hes a nobody) well its military grade sarin (reply. ah ahem no, that cant be proved see scientific American). Well I just know evil Assad did it and evil Russia too and the USA cant be wrong ...can it?' (reply Ah ahem...Iraq) yeah but...(just stop already)

Lets stop the silly refs and use both sides with good refs and this sort of language, "according to A this and according to B that" Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, please! USchick (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup its overdue, see suggestion on my talk page, last entry. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I find editing can actually be quite therapeutic, so now that I've collected myself more, I will reiterate this: WP:VALID, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:V. I apologize for assuming bad faith. But I would also repeat my admonishment above that if an editor cannot separate his or her personal biases from his or her contributions to Wikipedia, that editor might consider withdrawing. I hope we can find common ground here, but again, Wikipedia has guidelines for what sources should be used and how they should be used for very good reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your apology may be accepted more readily if you removed the struck thru rant. The common ground exists if NPOV is adhered to and better phrasing of conflicting referenced views are made. Are you thinking of withdrawing? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC) .

No. But I think you should consider whether your own bias precludes you from being able to contribute in a constructive way here. I hope you will decide that you can begin following NPOV yourself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and removing the eyesore. Now the suggestion above is a good one. Editors who have problems with it are hard to understand. Its quite a common solution to use. Why all the resistance? My bias has been reviewed. There are No hard facts yet for the USA stance. Id be interested in your views on Iraqs WMD> use a talk page. Interested? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has never been in better shape. Thank you everyone for cooperating. USchick (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since my opinion was quoted here as the "non-involved editor", I might as well state that at this point, I find the article looks as NPOV as it can get. I am sure there are people who feel all opinion contrary to theirs is fringe, invalid, etc, which is fine, but that Russia's officially accepted version should not even be stated because it is a "minority" view does not seem to be according to WP:VALID, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:V. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. Past incarnations of this article have sought to balance virtually every source that favors the mainstream narrative with a source that does not, and that is improper. I do think it is in much better shape now, and I'm glad to see some agreement here on that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoverfish believe it or not it actually is better, but I agree with you. But Kudzu1 you have been doing some heavy reverts and adds without consensus and got a warning as a result. Slow it down and talk about things. We have made improvements but slid back recently due to that. I think it detracts from an encyclopedia when a big player like Russia's officially accepted version should not even be stated because it is a "minority" view. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What a crazy coincidence that the "uninvolved administrator" (who is, of course, not actually an administrator at all) just happens to mention on her user pages, just as you do, her admiration of Maher Baba! And that she knew to place the same "community sanctions notice" on my page that you received recently (from an actual admin, natch) despite being an infrequent editor on Wikipedia! Oh, and just to make this clear to you, contributing to a page is not "edit warring". I followed WP:BOLD, and lo and behold, USchick and Hoverfish seem to think the article (which actually mentions the Syrian/Russian position more prominently in the lead now, if it matters) seem to think it looks pretty good now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "uninvolved administrator". Agree I know its not helpful. Dinner party talk led to Syria and Wiki...I think I know who is trying to help, but its not helpful. I'm surprised she managed so much lol and will have a word if she posts again. For the record though she is right you have broken the one revert per day rule blatantly. So an admin may ping you. BTW its Meher Baba. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence with this thoroughly unconvincing story. And please show me where I violated 1RR. I was the only person editing the page, to my knowledge, when I was checking through it and making some changes last night (most of which were for uniform style and readability), and I had not edited the page for more than 24 hours prior to that time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well this isnt the place to discuss your intelligence. You are in an edit war. I will put this back in soon that you removed without discussion. [30]. You have done a lot of edits without consensus. This article has tags about that. Here on the 19th you appear 21 times. [31] Quite a few cuts too. 7500 characters + Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to readd that section, it's within your right to do so; I felt the information contained within was adequately covered elsewhere. The mindset that every time somebody says something about these attacks and Russia calls them a bad name, Russia's objection has to be noted in a position of prominence in this article smacks of WP:VALID as well as WP:RECENTISM. But I followed WP:BOLD in making my changes, the scope of which I will not apologize for -- as I said, much of my work was organizing and rewriting parts of the article in a more readable (and hopefully more WP:NPOV) way without changing the meaning -- and I am happy to follow the tried-and-true WP:BRD process. So, if you think Russia's "nuh-uh" in response to the U.S. intelligence reports is notable and should be included, go ahead and make your case. I wouldn't think including the fact that Japan's prime minister said he agreed with the U.S. assessment is notable, either, for what it's worth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I tend to agree with you about the 'mindset'. The article is about as NPOV as it probably will get now, bar tweaking and watching new edits. The Russian view should not be overdone but it should be in there if the refs are good and the subject is notable. Japan is not to Syria as Russia is. Japan has no UN security council veto. I think the bit you cut out is both notable and well reffed, so Ill take up your offer and put it back. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the trajectory analysis

Someone added this non-RS questioning the trajectory analysis. However, the analysis is clearly laid out based on the UN report and should be directly verifiable from it. Ideally some credible source would judge the points made, but if none can be found, we could draw out these points from the UN report itself. Very briefly, the claim is that the Moadamiyah rocket trajectory can be questioned because the environmental samples were negative for sarin, while the Ain Tarma rocket trajectory can be questioned because the report didn't say the rocket contained chemical agent. Podiaebba (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:V applies here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article claims that there's no evidence that the rockets analized by the UN are the same rockets that delivered sarin. Considering that there was a lot of firepower before and after the event, that makes sense. This statement from the UN report: The inspectors cautioned that the five sites they investigated had been "well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the mission" gives credibility to the Russian position that the UN report is inconclusive. USchick (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR. What are reliable sources saying? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At first they described them as inconclusive. But following talks with Syria, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, condemned the report as “politicised, preconceived and one-sided”. [32] Russia is urging the United States to declassify all of its intelligence. [33] USchick (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The information is classified, so we only get to see what they want us to see. Russia is screaming, but they can't reveal classified information. Without that, who knows what actually happened. USchick (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Governments will always have some information that is classified. Hiding sources or information that leads to sources is normally classified. This would be a common situation is almost every article (Benghazi, Killing Bin Laden, etc) and doesn't signify anything unusually. Russian are just trying to add to the conspiracy angle since they have nothing to prove there version of events. --MarsRover (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

except the classified information that they have access to and we don't. USchick (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If the Russians perpetually claim they have watershed evidence on this but never release it, then their position is indistinguishable from bluster and should be given no weight. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

They can't release classified information from the US. See links above where they're asking the US to declassify it. USchick (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia has continuously claimed to have evidence that implicates rebels in Ghouta. Why not just publicize this evidence (which they control) rather than asking the US to release intel? The obvious answer is because they have no evidence, only bluster, and they are making a safe bet by asking the US to release more evidence since they can just deny whatever the US discloses as biased, or decry the secrecy if the US refuses. We do not need to give more space in the article to empty bluster. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll understand when we ask to see a source that disqualifies the questions as empty bluster. As soon as there's a source, I will personally remove the information myself. I promise! USchick (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is bluster until they back up their claims. The kvue article you link above is old (sept 2), and the economist article which you cite goes on to point out Russia's hypocrisy regarding the UN and Syria, as well as that "The UN itself issued an unusually blunt riposte, describing the results of its investigation as 'indisputable'." VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That source is propaganda, and makes a number of mischaracterizations in order to infer something that is not true. "At least one of the two rockets the UN commission assessed contained no chemical agent at all." No, fragments from both rockets analyzed in detail tested positive for Sarin or its decomposition products (specifically in appendix 7 see line items 2 & 3 for Moadamiyah and line items 14, 15, and 16 for Zamalka/Ein Tarma). Analysts have pointed out that the 330mm rocket, with a thin-walled chamber surrounding the payload and only a small "bursting" charge, is clearly a chemical warhead. If it had been high explosive, the rocket would have been disintegrated in the blast. The 140mm rocket warhead was not recovered, but the UN report and third party analysis notes the lack of high explosive or incendiary damage around the impact point - the same impact point that is contaminated with Sarin and decomposition products. Given that this article is clearly trying to discredit the UN report and subsequent mainstream analysis, I think it is safe to say it has no place in the article. USchick, I have not seen a single reliable source that analyzes the UN report and claims its findings are inconclusive. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, what you said about the weapons sounds just as reasonable to me, someone who knows nothing about weapons. Is there a secondary source about that besides the (primary) UN report? That would go a long way to clarify things in the article. Otherwise, it seems very much like the Iraq war where the US claims weapons of mass destruction used by someone they accuse, based on secret information that only they can see. USchick (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources supporting this are already in the article. The info on the lab results can be sourced directly from the UN report since there is no synthesis needed there (the UN identifies the sarin decomposition products). All of this info on trajectories is coming from the UN and third party analysts using open information, not the US government (though they also stated from the beginning that the rockets were fired from Syrian territory). VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly for the sake of clarity its much like the Iraq war and the trajectory data is in conclusive, and not rock solid. Confusing the matter are all the normal rockets that were fired from all over the place. Maybe thats why the rocket angle is not getting traction as a story by serious experts. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"not getting traction as a story by serious experts." Who are "serious experts" in this context? What reliable sources say that weapons experts are keeping quiet to avoid ruining their reputations? Why don't they just speak up and say the evidence is poor, rather than staying silent? VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the weapon discussion a bit too confusing to follow. The point that did make sense to me was the Moadamiyah site being negative for sarin in the environmental samples - if this is true (and I don't have time to figure out how to check that in the UN report), that would be a point against the solidity of the trajectory findings, because it makes it more plausible that the weapons could have been moved (the report does note some comings-and-goings of people, but gives various reasons why they think the tested weapons weren't). It would just be nice to have an actual expert review the solidity of the report findings in toto from a position of neutrality, and not from a position of "does it prove the government did it". Podiaebba (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is confusing. Until we know for sure what you say is sound re 'in toto from a position of neutrality, 'Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The question I have about the rockets is how can they tell these 2 rockets were launched the day of the attack? Not the day before and not the day after, especially when the Syrian army did "heavy shelling" the day after. Any sarin residue around the site and on the rockets would be from a different bombardment. The UN report does nothing to establish that these 2 rockets actually belong to the bombardment that carried sarin warheads. The two "independent" reports came from people who followed the trajectory angle, but those people did nothing to find out when the rockets were launched. This seems like a big gigantic question and I wonder why the weapons experts aren't asking that. Am I missing something? USchick (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, and I don't think you are, either. Hence the peril of WP:OR, and why Wikipedia has guidelines against it. I surmise -- in my amateur, completely unverifiable opinion -- that the inspectors believed those rockets were fired in the attack because they were mostly intact, apparently carried chemical payloads, and tested positive for sarin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No you are not missing anything. I saw an analysis about some branches missing from a tree they linked to a missile nearby to create trajectory. But what else could have damaged the tree in a battle zone. Another missile from the hundreds fired from all over, Tank fire, RPG, debris ? All these and more. The data is not definitive and should be in toto from a position of neutrality, Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm worried about, that the inspectors were so busy measuring the angle of the trajectory, no one bothered to ask if it was the right rocket. Surely this one blogger is not the only person asking this question. USchick (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. What else could have damaged the tree in a battle zone. Another missile from the hundreds fired from all over, Tank fire, RPG, debris ? Wheres the definitive report? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The UN team included actual weapons experts. They did not express any concerns that these were not examples of the weapons used. Appendix 5 of the report describes their methodology. They knew where to look for the munitions based on where casualties were located. They found where the 140mm munition had glanced off a building and the crater where it hit the ground. The damage to the building and crater was used to determine the trajectory. In Zamalka/Ein Tarma, two 330mm rockets were found. The warhead section of both of these rockets was retrieved - not something that would ever happen in a detonated high explosive rocket. In addition, the warhead design includes fill plugs - a feature unique to chemical munitions designed to be filled with volatile chemicals before use. Rockets with high explosive warheads are shredded when they detonate, while most of the damage to the motor sections of all three rockets appeared to be from hitting the ground. Popular mechanics wrote an article about the M-14 rocket, here. I think it should be added to the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that article, yes I agree it has info that should be added. This is what caught my attention from the article "The BM-14 is the farthest thing from a precision weapon." From another source "The trajectory includes the Republican Guard base, the presidential palace and grounds" [34]. Who in their right mind would fire a "non precision" weapon over the presidential palace? Even if he wasn't home at the time, whaaaaaattt????? The sources also can't seem to agree if the 330 was home made or not. “The 330 mm rocket appears to be a unique Syrian weapon so I have not the foggiest idea of its range,” Long wrote. No wonder Putin is screaming for a real investigation. smh USchick (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Key points. Who in their right mind would fire a "non precision" weapon over the presidential palace? and No wonder Putin is screaming for a real investigation Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick, the source you linked clearly agrees that analysis of the UN evidence implicates Assad. It would be misrepresenting the source to imply that the trajectory is evidence the attacks were not Syrian, and original research to claim that the reported trajectory caused implausible risk to the palace. Article improvements aside, rocket artillery does present a short round risk but is pretty reliable (globalresearch cites a 1:1000 chance of a round falling 1 km short). Non-precision in this case means a probable hit pattern on the scale of few city blocks, not 4/5ths the intended travel distance. All artillery carries some risk of rounds falling short, yet conventional Syrian pieces have been blazing away to the south right over the palace and other Damascus high-value regions. Putin was "screaming" for the UN report until the results implicated his ally. The sources are actually pretty consistent that the 330 is a domestically produced weapon designed to be launched from existing 333mm launch tubes such as the Falaq-2. You are probably right that no one has much clue as to its range or accuracy, other than "not very far" and "not very accurate." VQuakr (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Several flaws with the UN trajectory calculation and other conclusions are analyzed here. 84.228.72.133 (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Moadamiyah

Some more sources about the differences between Moadamiyah samples and Ayn Tarma/Zamalka samples. Robert Parry (journalist) [35] and some random blog with helpful screenshots from the UN report [36]. Parry also said "I was told by one intelligence source on Monday night that there continues to be skepticism among intelligence analysts about the White House claims and conclusions being drawn from the UN report." Podiaebba (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The blog source is terrible - it crops images from the report tables to draw emphasis away from the degredation products found at Moadamiyah, for example. The news source is more interesting though - Parry helped break the Iran/Contra scandal and I consider him alternative, not crazy. I wish he had made more effort to consider other possibilities besides the "no chemical attack in Moadamiyah", though. For example, the Moadamiyah rocket broke apart in midair and just the motor was recovered. Also, the 330mm rockets have a chemical payload on the order of 10-20x as much as a 140mm rocket (assuming its warhead was similar in size to the Russian chemical warhead for that rocket, which was not exported to Syria). Both of these factors would mean that the physical samples collected in Moadamiyah would have been more lightly contaminated, while the warhead components and dirt surrounding the impact at Ayn Tarma/Zamalka would have been literally soaked with sarin during the attack. He also makes no attempt to explain why he thinks the signature decomposition products found at Moadamiyah were "false positives" rather than, as the UN report concluded, indicators that the chemicals were used. The control samples used did not test positive for those chemicals, as they would if this was indeed a false positive.

That said, Parry is a well-known source with a reputation for breaking stories, and his observations merit a sentence in the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit unfair on the blog, which does note the degradation products mostly found by one lab; it says that could indicate other sources like insecticide. (I've no idea how plausible that is, and I suspect they don't either.) The headline summary they could have made but didn't quite is that there were 13 environmental samples from Moadamiyah, of which Sample 3 for some reason is split into two and tested twice. With 2 labs, that's 28 chances to find CW or degradation products. Not a one of those chances was taken for CW; only 8 were taken for degradation products - and of those 8, only 1 involves the 2 labs agreeing! Your point about payload differences is fair and probably far outweighs the slight time difference which is in Moadamiyah's favour (2 fewer days for sarin to degrade). But at the end of the day, the environmental results for Moadamiyah can only be described as very weak. Podiaebba (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I added something, but I couldn't remotely do justice to the issue in a sentence. I do so hate it when people write things like X criticised Y [ref]. Either the criticism is worth explaining enough that a reader can understand it and have some judgement of its relevance and meaning, or it isn't worth having at all. Podiaebba (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A great start, and I think a well-balanced contribution that fairly represents the source. Thanks for the contribution! I stand by my characterization of the blog post though. DIMP, for example, is a byproduct of sarin production, that is it. It does not occur naturally in the environment, and it is not associated with pesticides. They downplay the findings of relevant chemicals in Moadamiyah consistently, and the cropping of tables from the UN report is inexcusable. They also jump right from "we think the data from Moadamiyah is inconclusive" to "FAAAAKE!" immediately, which is a bit of a red flag that they already had decided the conclusion. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just added DIMP/IMPA to Sarin#Degradation_and_shelf_life - perhaps you could have a look because the recent media references are to IMPA as the first breakdown product, while the ATSDR has DIMP as the first, which then breaks down into IMPA. Both are apparently unique to sarin. It helps to be clear about this! Podiaebba (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this Consortiumnews.com blog is a reliable source. If Parry or someone else makes this argument in a reputable newspaper or journal, I can see a case for inclusion, but as it is now, I think it's given far too much weight for an article on a fringy-looking blog. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia holds its ground

Its pleasing to see more NPOV content and a more careful approach to wording. Russia is holding its stance, and thats very interesting. Hopefully reliable technical data will come out so their position can be referenced and the proven perpetrators are unveiled conclusively. I think in time it will.

“We have every grounds to believe that it was a provocation. Of course, it was adroit and smart, but, at the same time, primitive in terms of technical performance. They took an old Soviet-made missile, which was taken out of service in the Syrian army long ago. It was most important to have ‘made in the USSR’ written [on the missile],” Putin said at the Valday discussion forum on Thursday.

“No matter how difficult it might be, but if in the end we manage to answer the question… as to who committed that crime – and that was certainly a crime – the next step will follow. Then, together with our colleagues from the United Nations Security Council we will have to define the level of responsibility of those who committed the crime,” Putin said.

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk is cheap; the Khan-al-Assal report handed to the UN in July is still not published - and since it doesn't seem likely to rely substantially (or even at all) on sensitive sources it's hard to see why. The UN report has massively raised the bar for how sophisticated a "false flag" operation this would have had to have been. It's not quite impossible, but at this point, Russia needs to provide good evidence or it's just hand-waving to protect an ally. Skepticism was due to poorly-evidenced western intelligence reports - it's also due to unevidenced Russian claims. Podiaebba (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Still no evidence, but the developing Russian story seems to be that the weapons were Soviet-made and exported to Libya and converted to chemical weapons by Gaddafi, before getting to Syria in the post-Gaddafi chaos. [37]. Podiaebba (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Its now more complex yes. I was a little surprised to read this report and see Putin put his nation and reputation out there like that. Something will give eventually. Clearly Putin has made a decision and he has pretty much said it was a sophisticated operation.

This too is interesting to explain some of the mindset. ' The Russian leader is frustrated that Western states have no idea what they would do if, after their interference in the ongoing war, extremists came to power in Syria. “Would they drive them away with a newspaper?” Putin said. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Blade, the observation that the US's policy on Syria does not appear well thought through is attributable to not only Russia but international and US opinion sources as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Only the 140mm rocket is Soviet. Analysts have repeatedly noted that the 330mm is not a Soviet-era import, but appears to be a domestically-produced model made to be launched from 330mm-class launchers of similar rockets. The 140mm warhead and rocket body can be disconnected and stored separately, and since the warhead was not recovered there is no way for third parties to verify its provenance (as opposed to the rocket body, which is indeed quite old). Perhaps Jamil's comment that the sarin came from Libya actually indicates insider knowledge that could only be from the folks that launched it? The article actually says Syria says the rocket's history is USSR-Syria-Rebels-Libya-Rebels-False Flag Attack. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian POV is really a conspiracy thing. The more proof there is the more it proves the conspiracy. Hopefully this article can steer clear of that thought process. Btw, if you want to see what happens if you think bit of information is lie read the Russian version of this article. --MarsRover (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the warhead was never recovered, what makes you think it was a chemical warhead? This rocket was designed to carry all kinds of things, what evidence is there to say it was sarin? What makes you think this rocket wasn't launched before or after the sarin attack? (Not being a smart a**, just asking for clarification.) It's very obvious to me that none of us are watching the same news reports, so when we come here, we all have preconceived notions. That's why we clash. Just an observation. USchick (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are the key questions and no ones answering them. What does Russia know. Putin - They took an old Soviet-made missile, which was taken out of service in the Syrian army long ago. It was most important to have ‘made in the USSR’ written [on the missile],” Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick, an explosive rocket would have caused explosive damage and mangled the rocket motor. The evidence that the agent used was sarin was partly the proof of sarin exposure in the thousands of victims, and partly the fact that the motor was coated in sarin decomposition products. We do not and may never have quantitative analysis of concentrations on the rocket relative to the surrounding area, but the number of relevant chemicals found on and immediately around the impact sites are good evidence that the UN experts picked the correct munition. But seriously, if the folks on the ground from the UN are confident in what they found why are we questioning it here? VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand before I decide which version to believe. They all have ulterior motives and personal agendas, my heart goes out to the victims and refugees. I work with "experts" and if you talk to 100 experts, you will get 100 different opinions, and the only thing that makes you an experts is, you have to be from out of town. The UN weapons experts have experience with what kind of weapons? This particular kind? The kind manufactured in 1967 in the Soviet Union and have long been decommissioned? I doubt it. Certainly not the 330mm kind, because even the expert has no idea how far it can travel. Ad who would launch such a weapon over Assad's house? Probably not Assad! Sorry about the rant, but you asked. USchick (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: FWIW, Russia is claiming the Sellstrom team ignored evidence passed to them in Damascus [38]. Podiaebba (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw that. Interesting update Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Syrian authorities have conducted their own sampling and investigation, analysis in terms of possible evidence of the rebels being responsible for the tragic episodes both on August 21, but beyond that also on August 22, 23 and 24,” Sergey Ryabkov told RT's Maria Finoshina" - so the rebels gassed themselves 4 days running. fucking hell. Sayerslle (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, barring the sadly obscure munition-switch accident idea (raised by a UN weapons inspector, but zero followup), you're left with either a fairly sophisticated false flag operation, or a monumentally stupid decision by the Syrian government. (Monumentally stupid because the tactical advantage appears to be approximately nil - the targeted neighbourhoods are still rebel-controlled despite concurrent major conventional assault; and the strategic disadvantage is obvious, given the massive risk of Western intervention on the side of the rebels.) Pick your poison. Question worth asking though - only the Russian and Syrian govts seem to allege further attacks on August 22-24... which seems odd. Podiaebba (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the munition switch theory did not gain much traction because it is not plausible. The 330mm rockets have fill plugs and are significantly shorter than the high-explosive variant that has also been observed in Syria. Filling a 50 liter rocket with sarin would be a dangerous and excruciatingly deliberate act done shortly (within days) before launch (you do not want to stockpile sarin in what is essentially a garbage can with a weak seam) by a specialist team wearing full-body exposure suits. There is not really any way to do that and be confused about exactly what you are doing. Yes, you would think ongoing gas assaults would be widely reported through non-governemental information streams, as the Aug 21st ones were. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Mount Qasioun

I removed a sentence from the intro noting the trajectory of some of the rockets appeared to come from the area of Mount Qasioun while working on the page last night. Today, it's been readded. That's fine -- I don't object to the information, which is included elsewhere in the article as well (a statement I left alone), but doesn't it seem a bit detailed for the intro? I know we usually try to keep those concise, and it doesn't seem notable relative to the rest of the information in the lede. Again, not disputing the claim or the source, but I figured we should follow through with Step 3 of WP:BRD, since I boldly removed it and it was readded. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree the lead should not have such detail, but sum up the body Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How about we edit it for brevity instead by combining it with the previous sentence: Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, multiple analysts concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from Mount Qasioun, in well-defended Syrian territory.(refs) VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, provided we have the sources to support the notion that all rockets were launched from Mount Qasioun. I haven't seen that claimed, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I recall the sources already cited in the lede make that claim. Worth double checking before the edit is made, to be sure. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

its not like the article isn't about a specific subject, its not 'warfare' or 'Syrian civil war' , it can surely bear the weight of this detail in the lead - not surprised Blade wants it gone from the lead - RS details, even/especially in the lead, are a great weapon against humbug - if its combined, the combination arrived at should be checked that the new York times ref isn't used to support more than it says. - personally I think the sentence is perfectly fine as it stands and its removal was pointless . Sayerslle (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Locality names

I notice the locality names aren't linked (unless I missed it). From searching and looking at File:State Department map of Gouta chemical attack.svg I think Moadamiyah is Muadamiyat al-Sham in western Ghouta, south of Damascus. Ayn Tarma and Zamalka are next to Jobar in eastern Ghouta, east of Damascus; but they don't seem to have wikipedia articles - nor to be listed anyone as parts of a larger entity. Given the variant spellings it would be helpful to link them. Podiaebba (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Zamalka has an article too. That just leaves Ayn Tarma. Podiaebba (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis and original research

I'm seeing some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR examples in the "Motivation" section. While the debate over what the government's motives could have been to launch the attack is notable and merits inclusion, sections like this tend to lend themselves to this kind of unencyclopedic musing, in my experience, unless there's a concerted effort to keep to the sources.

• "Given previous US comments about the use of chemical weapons constituting a "red line" prompting intervention, the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line. The Syrian government, on the other hand, would more straightforwardly have the motivation to use chemical weapons as tactically required if it believed that the US threat was an empty one." There's not even a source for this. It's pure WP:OR.
• "Some have questioned the motive and timing behind the alleged Syrian government involvement in the Ghouta attacks" - This is both true and noteworthy. But it's a classic case of weasel words. Who is "some"? What makes "some" notable?
• "A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by opposition in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention. The reporter also questioned if the Army would use sarin gas just a few kilometers from the center of Damascus on what was a windy day.[81] However, 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.[102]" - These two sources are synthesized to make one appear to discredit the other. I think we can find a better presentation, or else determine that the CNN report (which is from early days) is inaccurate and/or misleading and should be cut.
• "Columnist and former IDF soldier Jeffrey Goldberg argued that Assad would use chemical weapons because nobody "will do a damn thing to stop him."[108] 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, like it did nothing about all the previous crimes."[86]" - Redundant and can be condensed. Not everyone who wrote a column need be name-checked in this article.

As I said -- the conversation about motive is definitely important, and I'm not suggesting we should cut it or tailor it toward any particular point of view. But right now, that section doesn't look very encyclopedic, and some of it is downright questionable. I would also bring up the guideline WP:NOTNEWS -- we neither can nor should include every news report on this, but should seek to present relevant and meaningful information based on verifiability, not truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 05 September 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Note that Sopher99 moved the page to 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks while this discussion was ongoing. Whack! --BDD (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks → Ghouta chemical attacks – We discussed this some at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Pre-discussion - title change?, and I think there is enough support there to merit a full discussion. I think the new name would be better because it matches the current title's neutrality, while adding a key descriptor (chemical) and removing an unnecessary disambiguation year. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per my page move nomination. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support but have a suggestion: Ghouta chemical attacks, plural, as multiple sites across Ghouta were targeted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding the plural to the nom since there are not other !votes. VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, I agree with summary in the nomination reason for the suggested change.--PLNR (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's nothing wrong with the current title. Don't rename things unnecessarily and especially don't spend time endlessly discussing it. I also think, for an article about an event, that it's better to have the year in the title - it's quite helpful as a key signifier eg in categories. If it's absolutely necessary to rename, then at least 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks. Podiaebba (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per VQs reasoning. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Support : Method of attack and which weapons are used, it is important for headline. See: 2013 North Korean nuclear test and most importantly Halabja chemical attack in Iraq. Besides, many resources available on this subject :United Nation, NATO, Organization of Islamic Cooperation and more... Maurice07 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support: as being descriptive and closer to common descriptions of the topic. Boud (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sub-proposal: singular 'attack' in the new name

The discussion section below seems to almost (but not quite) reach consensus for attack (singular) rather than attacks (plural). For that reason I'm posting a clarification with calls for support/opposition + short summary reason here - otherwise the person closing the request may end up unintentionally making a move to a name that is opposite to the de facto consensus. The sub-proposal is: attack (not attacks). Boud (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - (proposer) The majority of reasons below + I think the mainstream media usage of the singular is because the evidence so far is that the attack/attacks happened over no more than about an hour or two. In terms of the whole Syrian civil war, this is one "event", so one "attack". Boud (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As the original instigator of the discussion of the issue, I see nothing that changes my original argument. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• No objection to the singular if it is preferred by the team. Either one is equally acceptable to me. VQuakr (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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: [39] and [40]. 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) copied from above by VQuakr to concentrate discussion.

In my opinion, based on the scale of the attacks (spanning miles with a dozen separate areas with chemical casualties) and the preponderance of opinions from chemical weapons experts, the hypothesis that the Ghouta chemical poisonings were accidental is firmly in fringe territory and merits no mention in the title or lede. The antiwar source gets its info from the same disputed Gavlak/Mintpress source, and the IBT source was published the day of the attack - at which time the scale of incident was not well known. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no consensus for including this fringe theory in the lede. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who think it was some kind of accident that happened in multiplie location at the ~same time, should take a hard look at the map.--PLNR (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If we simply accept the U.S. allegations as true, then we 'know' that the scale of the 'attacks' was 'wide' and, of course, we can look at the U.S. State Department map. But until and unless an independent body, such as the UN inspection team, confirms or denies U.S. allegations, we can't put those allegations into an encyclopedia article as if they are truth. At a time when the estimated dead range from 281 to 1729, we 'know' little and the entry should allow any plausible hypothesis that hasn't been disproven by concrete, verifiable, public evidence.Haberstr (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple ways it could have been a government-perpetrated accident, even with multiple launches in multiple locations. In particular, the munitions could have been mislabelled, or it's been suggested that a mistake was made with the mixing, and the chemical was supposed to be relatively weak and it turned out not to be. Nobody really knows except those who did it. However, accident doesn't seem very likely, and if evidence to that effect turns up, the article name can always be revisited. Podiaebba (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Podiaebba's concern about having a year in the title, I do not see anything at WP:TITLE that would imply having the year is desirable unless it is necessary to disambiguate from a different Ghouta chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mint Press News smeared as "Shia advocacy site"

I posted this in a thread above but I think it merits a new section here. Not even the PJ Media post referenced indicates that Mint Press News is a "Shia advocacy site." It indicates that it is a self-described "advocacy journalism" website (whose About Us page indicates it advocates for "social justice and human rights", not anything relating to Shia Islam) with an editor-in-chief who apparently happens to be a Shia Muslim. No matter how you spin it, the current wording is not factual. Beyond that, the religious views of Mint Press News' editor-in-chief have nothing to do with the content of reporting by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh (which, moreover, consisted of interviews that amount to hearsay; the article is not even the authors' personal claims) any more than the religious views of any other non-religious news outlets' editors-in-chief have any bearing on the content their respective organizations publish. That the interviews in the article contain allegations that appear to be roughly in sync with the Assad regime's claims, in no way makes the entire website of Mint Press News a "Shia advocacy" organization; assertions to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

this is about a single sentence that is apparently annoying this SPA as it prevents the page becoming an entirely loving self-description from mintpressnews. it has backers - one of thm is the editors father in law - he is an avid 12 er shia - I have no idea what this is , but his views incude virulent anti-Syrian rebel views. other backers are hidden . it is well knwn for carrying a story that smeared the rebels - you don't mind the rebels getting smeared , but if anything, in the name of openness, has info about the ideology of the backers and editors you set up a right yawp - the ghouta story makes enquiries into the people behind this operation utterly legitimate - - to argue the views of an editor and backers are irrelevant to content is disingenuous in the extreme - there is no 'spinning' of the PJ story - its title is quoted word for word and a link provided to the article. - it is you who want to spin - its ok to smear rebels and carry story of them gassing themselves , that looks to be proven utter flapdoodle by the UN report, but if anyone dare provide a link with something to say about mintpress you go off on one. curious set of values. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the mintpress report has since been discredited, why don't we just remove it and take care of the issue that way? VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the article containing allegations of rebels carrying out the Syria attack has nothing to do with the religious views of the editor-in-chief of the website that published the interviews. Let's look at how distantly correlated these two things are. The claim that rebels carried out the chemical attack are made by Syrians interviewed by a Jordanian journalist, who co-wrote an article with a Jordanian-based American journalist who also writes for AP and NPR (Gavlak), who together published the article on a Minnesota-based news website founded by a Palestinian-American who apparently is a Shia Muslim. The father-in-law mentioned is not a "backer" but is called a "key adviser" in one article. His personal views do not belong anywhere besides a Wikipedia entry on him alone. Likewise for his daughter-in-law. Whether the article in question belongs in this entry in general is not my concern. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

to say, as this SPA account does 'the article containing allegations of rebels carrying out the Syria attack has nothing to do with the religious views of the editor-in-chief of the website that published the interviews' - of course it bloody does, its like saying a chain of cinema exhibitors has nothing to do with a film, they didn't make the film, - a perusal of odeh muhaweshs facebook page which I used to be able to read - keep getting an error message at he mement, carried absolutely intense, 100% copper bottomed pro assad regime propaganda - to call this irrelevant to the fact that a press he is involved with carried a notorious example of propaganda is not right imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I support removing all information that mentions Mint Press News. USchick (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In its own disreputable way though, it is part of the story - look at the role misinformation played in shaping some uninformed public opinion - i heard phone-ins when people shouted at the host that they knew the rebels had carried out the ghouta attacks - this kind of story is part of the story in the same way stories of the germans cutting up their dead and packaging them up to be reprocessed for lard or something was part of the first world war story of propaganda. Sayerslle (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News didn't claim Syrian rebels carried out the Ghouta attacks. People interviewed by Yahya Ababneh did. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting characterized the article as "honest about the limits of its knowledge." Philip Stained Glass (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

sophistries really. but, so what. mint press ran a story. comment was made in various sources about the people editing it, 'key advising' it. that's it. Sayerslle (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep the story for the time being, along with worthwhile criticism. Perhaps the "Shia advocacy" statement isn't worthwhile, but other criticism is fine. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PJ media noted it was Shia - the spa keeps saying its just the wildest coincidence that muhawesh, who happens to be an avid pro-Syrian regime bloke and is a key advisor - is aprt of an operation that promoted the rebels gassed themselves story - that is just his insistent pov, it is not strengthened by ite re-iteration over and over - PJ media mentioned the Shia side of things - they noted it - that is a fact - if the Shia thing is written of as irrelevant that is interfering with the PJ media ref and the way they chose to title and present the story on the provenance and publishing of that story - if it is annoying a certain pov to have this pointed out, - censoring it - that is inadmissible imo. Sayerslle (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the Ghouta chemical attacks, not about an obscure source that's been determined as non reputable, but we include it and then immediately discredit it. That's not how we do things. USchick (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Speculation in general

The section above is about how to neutrally communicate that a Mintpress article from early on was discussed broadly on the internet but ultimately discredited. More broadly, there has been a great deal of speculation about these attacks - by the media and by public officials of verious nationalities (ie Russian denials and American congressmen). Many of these speculations have been categorically discredited since. It sounds like this speculation has itself been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. I think the best thing to do with this "historical" speculation is to greatly collapse it and put it in its own section near the end of the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. However, commenting about the source is not appropriate. USchick (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to refer to published sources from the last three weeks as disproven speculation, we had better have a source for that! VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint is that this article makes negative comments about the source. Either the source is reliable and it should be used, or it's not reliable and shouldn't be used. Right now we use it, but then immediately discredit it. This article is not about the source, and all commentary about the source is inappropriate. I think the entire thing needs to be deleted. There's nothing here that can't be said by using a better source. USchick (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If a crappy source made incorrect statements about the attack; and that crappy report was picked up, retweeted, and influenced public opinion about the attack; and if the impact of the crappy speculation itself the topic of discussion by secondary sources then that is indeed a good topic to include in this article. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, however, the sources commenting about it are just as crappy. USchick (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well speaking of crappy sources hows about 'Mother Jones'. And third party analysis of the serious events by non experts jumping to conclusions is not good enough. See below to solve these issues Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have a concern about sources, you could take take it here or to WP:RSN rather than reverting. Or you could add a different source since the views I posted are by no means unique. The consensus at the RSN though seems pretty clear that they are considered reliable per this search. Context matters, so it is of course possible that the community would agree with you in this specific case. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So what about Mint Press? Do we have consensus to delete? Revise? What? USchick (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Mint Press article has been deemed as "discredited," it was not discredited because of its editor-in-chief's religion. It was most definitely not because Mint Press News is a "Shia advocacy site," because it is not a Shia advocacy site. That suggests something like a religious charity nonprofit group. That's not what it is. It's a for-profit media startup company in Minnesota. Most of its content appears to be about American news topics, and its writers appear to come from diverse backgrounds, some with ties to well-established credible publications. The only evidence being cited to suggest that the editor-in-chief's religious views, of all things, are somehow influencing what its reporters write, is that the Ghouta chemical weapons story it published -- but which was written by freelance journalists, one of whom also writes for AP and NPR, and neither whom even claimed that the allegations being made in interviews were necessarily anything beyond allegations -- happened to roughly align with the Assad regime's claims. I don't think this logic is legitimate. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

An editor made a suggestion, I include it below, for inclusive language for both views. We need to start doing it. Why? for NPOV. i.e. There is also an argument that many refs are anti Syrian regime and that the USA is also. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither Mintpress nor PJ are reliable sources, and as such, neither belong in this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a speculation section documenting what happened here. The Mint Press article was cited, recited, and I think for better or worse this incorrect report ultimately had a significant impact on the chronology of events. VQuakr (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

gavlak is distancing from the report - from Brown Moses BlogSpot [41] -20/9/2013 - "Dale Gavlak has now sent me the following statement about the article.

"Mint Press News incorrectly used my byline for an article it published on August 29, 2013 alleging chemical weapons usage by Syrian rebels. Despite my repeated requests, made directly and through legal counsel, they have not been willing to issue a retraction stating that I was not the author. Yahya Ababneh is the sole reporter and author of the Mint Press News piece. To date, Mint Press News has refused to act professionally or honestly in regards to disclosing the actual authorship and sources for this story.

I did not travel to Syria, have any discussions with Syrian rebels, or do any other reporting on which the article is based. The article is not based on my personal observations and should not be given credence based on my journalistic reputation. Also, it is false and misleading to attribute comments made in the story as if they were my own statements." was it Winnie Churchill? who said a lie gets half way round the world before the truth can get its boots on. plus ça change.Sayerslle (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Really nice work on that section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it adds nothing much really. Its kinda negative editing. Speculation, where does it end? Its coming across as a bit of a rant. where was the consensus? Better off to write NPOV with consensus that adds something better than this. In a review it will go for sure Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's valuable to express the initial uncertainty, dispute, and fog-of-war surrounding the circumstances of these attacks. But it is clear at this point that the consensus view, which follows from evidence that overwhelmingly supports this mainstream narrative, is that the attacks were almost certainly carried out by regime forces, from within regime territory, against opposition-held and contested territory, using rockets only the military is known to possess, using amounts of sarin only the government is known to possess. It simply no longer makes sense -- if it ever did -- to include WP:FRINGE and WP:OR claims that the rebels carried out the attacks alongside the mounting body of evidence (most recently bolstered by the UN report) that supports the mainstream conclusion, as if the claims have equal weight. They don't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's valuable to express the initial uncertainty, dispute, and fog-of-war surrounding the circumstances of these attacks. - I absolutely agree. The difficulty is clarification the best available knowledge now without losing that history. We should be able to do both if we try. Podiaebba (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think the creation of a "Speculation" section is a step in that direction. Perhaps it can be workshopped a bit further, but I think that's the right approach -- presenting claims like this with due weight and context. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree it could be valuable if its reworked into neutral language. There are also some interesting bits i.e. the hostage over hearing item. Perhaps more material of a better quality may turn up as well. I'll do a search. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User POV

After inserting this, the user then accuses me of "pov pushing" here and gives NO reason for why he feels that is POV. Kindly explain it here(Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)).

The syrian army and rebels fought in ghouta on the 23, thats a fact. Japan and south korea neither give support to the opposition nor recognize the opposition.

This stuff is also factual and belong in the lede as it is conclusive " The Mission "collected clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used in the Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Zalmalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus." The report's lead author, Åke Sellström, said that the quality of the sarin used in the attack was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. " Sopher99 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how yhthat is POV. If you read my summary I was saying to keep details out of the lead. That tthey fought one day at the location is not for the lead its for the article. Not sure what you mean by Japan and South Korea, they were not mentioned in either version.

Who made that quote? Its just a random line with no reason/contect. And the mission need mnot be capital M when used on itwns own. Its not a proper noun. Likewise HRW and NYT are partisan, they are notneutral . They are however notable so I don't agree with removing it altogether, but it is not for the lead that summarises general aspects of the article. Mind you , NONE of the content is for removal. I would keep it in the article just not the lead.

Although I will say the army is not Assad's oersonal fiefdom. It is that of the Syrian government. We don't see the armed forces of President obama!(Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)).

I think Sopher99's "pro-assad nun" edit (which he has since self-reverted) was POV. But I definitely take issue with your since-reverted changes to the lede (mostly removing necessary and appropriate content) and reorganization of sections, which I believe was contrary to WP:DUE. Intelligence reports by major countries are more notable than blog and alternative media speculation; this article structure at present reflects that while making note of early theories and ongoing skepticism from limited quarters to the generally accepted version of events. Sopher99 may push his POV, but that doesn't make it right for you to do the same. I appreciate your boldness, but those edits lack consensus and it's appropriate to discuss. Thanks BTW for starting this Talk section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why, exactly is "Mother Agnes" in the article? She is not a subject matter expert or an eyewitness, and her complaints about the veracity of the mainstream narrative of the attacks is due to her miscalculating time zones. The only sources that present her in a serious light are RT and similar state run media, who apparently think her religion somehow confers notability. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and the bare-URL ref is RT. Let's cut that non sequitur bit about Mother Agnes. Looks like mother superior jumped the gun. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Mother Agnes sentence. Her claims have nothing to do with timezones though - she claims parents from Latakia recognise abducted children from the videos, or something. Seems totally implausible, but either we explain the implausible claim, or don't mention it at all. Podiaebba (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I vote not at all. WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the US intelligence section is ridiculous. Complete ignorance of WP:DUE and horribly WP:POV. Surely we can condense those cherry-pickled skeptical statements. Right now, it's grotesquely imbalanced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to add statements that praise the US intelligence report as the best thing since sliced bread. What absolutely must not happen is boiling down the explanation of why people thought the report was poor into "some people didn't like it", as I vaguely fear will be attempted shortly. Whether you think the UN report vindicates the US/UK/France position or not, that takes nothing away from most of the criticism of the US intelligence report - on the strength of which, lest we forget, the US wanted to go to war. Podiaebba (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried out a new treatment. We have to condense some things, especially when multiple sources are repeating themselves; a lot of space was devoted to not-very-notable commentators espousing a minority view, with extended passages rather than concise paraphrasing and indirect quotation. Considering the tiny amount of room -- not even an adequate summary, honestly -- that was devoted to the actual U.S. government assessment in that section, relative to several paragraphs of assorted commentators (including some non-reliable sources, such as the Consortiumnews.com blog and Russia Today), it was clear that WP:DUE and WP:NPOV weren't being followed. What I have done is sought to consolidate criticism of the Western intelligence reports, expand them with information taken from the deleted section on Russia's response to the U.S. report (again, an entire section for Russia responding to the U.S. by saying "we don't believe it for reasons" is undue), and flesh out what the U.S. report actually said -- as well as the somewhat dismal results PM Cameron and President Obama got from their respective legislatures, which was given short shrift in the previous version of the Intelligence section. Happy to discuss my changes and any further tweaks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your recent changes at all, merging all the criticism into an undifferentiated morass. Podiaebba (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I merged all the criticism into a section for criticism. What specifically do you think should be done differently? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well specifically, in the general spirit of WP:CRITICISM, criticism should be integrated with the thing being criticised, and not artificially chopped out in order to more easily downplay it. Podiaebba (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are different approaches laid out on that page. If the will of the editors on this page is to do something different, then I'm open to discussing that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

All right -- I've redistributed the criticism as you appear to prefer it. My chief concern is that this opens the door to more of the WP:UNDUE nonsense that turned the previous version of the U.S. section particularly into a flaming mess. Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a place for indiscriminate information to pile up. Unless someone really, really significant -- not one of the "usual suspects" in the punditry, not a random legislator, not a random journalist or blogger, etc. -- comments, or something major breaks open in reliably sourced reporting (like the phone intercept being faked or something like that), we should be judicious. As I said -- not every commentary has to be cited on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also merged the duplicated "Intelligence reports" sections, as it was redundant to have both, and broken the section out of the "Evidence" bit -- it seems inappropriate to have statements by foreign powers, especially ones involved in the civil war to some degree, considered "evidence". -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've found a way to make a messy situation worse. The fact is that intelligence-based evidence like the phone calls is evidence and the packaging up of intelligence-based evidence with other publicly-available evidence isn't. Between what you've done to the criticism, the intelligence, and the Speculation section, you've not just ignored WP:NPOV, you've buried it in an unmarked grave. Podiaebba (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're hysterical. I'm not the only editor here. If you don't like something, change it. If somebody doesn't like that, they can revert and we'll discuss. And would you knock it off with the pointy vandalism? That's hardly constructive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bold editing has its pros sure. The trouble is with a one revert rule its hard to get rid of several Bold edits if its POV stuff or they are not consensus edits. Consensus is needed before edits that need discussion, that would help solve these issues. Im pretty sure that why the article got a one revert rule. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Facebook as a reliable ref

In the lead theres this [42]. Then theres this. 'SOHR has been accused of selective reporting, covering only violent acts of the government forces against the opposition for the first two years of its existence. Although critics concede that its newsgathering has become less partial, the perception is it "continues to defend Islamic extremists to avoid losing support among rebel forces". [43]

And this here ' Most information about these massacres and about the violence perpetrated by the regime comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), an organisation set up by Syrian rebels in exile. From here [44]

Its looking like a very dodgy ref. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. SOHR has been fairly widely cited by reliable sources: [45] [46] [47] [48]. I'd go with what WP:RS is doing rather than substituting our own judgment; that's not our role as Wikipedia editors. But I wouldn't link directly to a Facebook page on Wikipedia. And I don't think placing SOHR in (reasonable and judicious) context would go amiss; I'd err more on the side of "the United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-government group" rather than "the United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a rebel activist group that has been criticized for defending Islamic terrorism", for example. Give readers the gist; they can click through to the article to learn the details about them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, upon reflection, it's undue weight to have SOHR in the intro. I don't want to scrub the entire article of references to that group, but Facebook page refs seem like a bridge too far except under extraordinary circumstances, and nothing really makes an SOHR death toll more notable than a death toll from any other group or agency with an on-the-ground presence or reliable contacts in the area. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

When I tried to visit the Facebook page it showed the page and then it was covered by a message that I should log in. This is not proper, readers shouldn't be required to have a FB account to read the refs. Hoverfish Talk 22:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's not that different from having a paywall for, say, Foreign Policy or The Kyiv Post. All the same, social media really isn't WP:RS. In the case of the SOHR statement on the sarin attacks last month, CNN and other media outlets picked it up and quoted from it, and that's RS. But if a person posts on Facebook and no reliable source is there to quote it, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't make a sound... -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013-09-18

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attacks → Ghouta chemical attack – In several places, the article refers to this as a single event:

"[...] a chemical weapons rocket bombardment that occurred on Wednesday, 21 August 2013. The [...] event took place over a short span of time [...] the incident [...] The attack [...] the incident [...]"

Much as the firing of multiple shells in a battle does not turn it into battles, and one person shooting another with multiple bullets would not be called shootings, this could accurately be described as one event. —rybec 00:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• No objection to proposed move per below. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• No objection Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Whatever. Singular is probably more accurate. Podiaebba (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Meh. I've argued in favor of the plural, as I think the attacks on multiple sites throughout a fairly diffuse area from different launch sites (per azimuth analysis) are, well, attacks. One thing I would suggest before executing yet another article move (would be the third this week, I believe) is determining if there is a WP:COMMON mode of reference -- whether most RS tend to use the plural or the singular. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• No objection. yeah slight improvement. Let me know when we can change "chemical" to "sarin" and I'll get more excited. --MarsRover (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we don't do that now. The UN has confirmed sarin use and no-one disputes it anymore AFAIK. Better sort it now than have another move discussion in a few days. Podiaebba (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

As nominator for the previous recently closed move, I have no objection to this proposed title. Both options seem technically correct and adequately descriptive of the incident. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

oh yes please, let's spend more time talking about renaming the article. rolls eyes. Podiaebba (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is very helpful. VQuakr (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I did immediately after support(ish) the proposal. I just find this such a low priority, I'm annoyed it's taking up discussion bandwidth (as was clear, I guess). And we're now talking about my annoyance! Well done, me. Podiaebba (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• In response to Kudzu1's comment in the survey, about WP:COMMONNAME, I did a Google News search for "ghouta", glanced at the stories that came up on the first page of results, and found nearly an even split:

• [49] singular
• [50] both singular and plural
• [51] plural
• [52] different story in same source, plural
• [53] second IBTimes story, also singular
• [54] third IBTimes story, also singular
• [55] fourth IBTimes story, also singular
• [56] "massacre"
• [57] "attack", "crimes" and "violation"
• [58] singular
• [59] singular
• [60] related story has plural in headline
• [61] related story has singular in headline
• [62] plural
• [63] plural
• [64] plural
• [65] singular
• [66] singular —rybec 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. Well, I'm not going to kick and scream if folks want to move the article, but my tendency is to say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Allies," POV

I've removed a couple instances where Russia and Iran were qualified as "Assad's strongest international allies."

There are a couple POV issues here. One of which was discussed above, when it was removed but apparently later restored: If we're to refer to countries like Russia and Iran as allies of the Syrian government then we would also have to have to refer to countries like the US, France, UK, Turkey, other NATO countries, and the Gulf States as allies of the rebels, since the governments of these countries support the rebels both materially and diplomatically, have called for regime change, etc.

It's also not NPOV to refer to allies of the Syrian government as "Assad's" allies, as this places undo emphasis on the individual. For example, during the US Civil War we wouldn't typcially refer to a foreign power such as Russia allied with the Union as "Lincoln's ally," but as an ally of the US government. -Helvetica (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Japan and South Korea are not the rebel's "allies" yet they condemn the government. Many countries that are not the rebel's allies condemn the syrian government. Like Botswana [67]. Calling iran and Russia the Syrian government's allies is perfectly neutral. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

arnt we meant to reflect the language in RS .- it is routine to find such material as this "Russia has been Assad's most important international ally throughout the civil war, supplying his troops with arms and resisting pressure at the UN for tighter sanctions on Damascus."" that's from guardian 26 aug , but instances are obviously numberless - its not for us to decide a new vocabulary to describe relations I don't think. Sayerslle (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Helvetica you make a valid point. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate how. Sopher99 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont need to, as to me at least, his argument is self contained. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Helvetica in that the allies should be mentioned as those of a state and not of a person. I agree that IF we mention allies of the Syrian government we should also mention the aid given to the rebels by the western powers. This is required by NPOV, although a full list of the positions of all the countries around the world may not be necessary here. My opinion is that if we remove all information about allies, we offer less information that would help the reader get a fuller picture about the topic. I would rather see the most influential allies mentioned rather than removed. Without these external influences from both sides, the situation may never have escalated to its present form, after all. Hoverfish Talk 03:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In the background section, this article should briefly explain that Russia and Iran have been providing material and political support for Syria, and that the US, Turkey, and Western European countries have been providing material and political support for elements of the opposition. This understanding is absolutely essential in order for the reader to understand why UK/France/US were immediately gung-ho about dropping bombs, and why Russia/Iran have consistently denied any possibility that Syria could be responsible. This article is about the Ghouta attack, so the section should be brief but of course neutral. I agree with Helvetica on the "Russia vs Assad" thing. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hoverfish and VQuakr. The intro may not be the place for it, but it should definitely be mentioned in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well. This has been a longstanding argument on this page, but am glad to see there's a consensus to add the larger political context now. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The proper place for it seems to be a small paragraph at the end of "background", possibly in the style of "It should be noted that ..." or similar. Hoverfish Talk 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the placement, though we should wordsmith different phrasing per WP:NOTED. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you for the link. Hoverfish Talk 01:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

POV push in UN report section

It is sad how biased this section becomes. On one hand we have a lot of info (even in the lede) about some "study" of a homegrown "expert" crossing two lines on Mount Qasioun. On the other, all pieces which raise question about the reliability of UN inspectors' findings are being actively purged from the article.

Particularly, I mean these reverts:

• [68]
• [69]
• [70]

The al-Akhbar piece is quite well sourced, quoting CW experts. It points to important discrepancies within the report, and it raises questions about the influence of opposition forces on the work of inspectors within the rebel-held areas.

Can someone put this back into the article? --Emesik (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It also raises bizzare speculation by an unnammed "expert" that Saudi Arabia launched the attack. This is not a reliable source (note that is is in a "blog/sandbox" path of al-Akhbar. Multiple organizations independently performed the Mount Qasioun analysis. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I had wanted to walk away from this article, after getting very frustrated with what I shall try not to call attempted censorship, but it's getting just too extreme to ignore. For example, the repeatedly removed al-Akhbar piece cites an expert saying that the environmental/biological sample discrepancy is a real concern: I think that it is strange that the environmental and human samples don’t match up. This could be because there have been lots of people trampling through the area and moving things. Unless the patients were brought in from other areas. There doesn’t seem another plausible explanation. This expert (Bretton-Gordon) is already cited in the article on another issue on another source, so can we decide whether his opinion matters or not? And pretending that Robert Parry (journalist)'s work is just deletable (against prior talkpage discussion, AFAIR)? No. So I'm back. (Don't all cheer at once.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bretton-Gordon is fine; let's find a secondary source that doesn't quote them adjacent to obviously unreliable material. This blog has no business being in a neutral article. The source they are printed in matters. Do they agree with the conclusions drawn in the blog? Were they quoted in context? I do not trust this author to present them in an accurate context. Welcome back, BTW. "Attempted censorship" is silly; one editor is trying to push a certain POV using unreliable sources, and other editors are rightly saying no. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

other than Bretton Gordon she cites dan Kaszeta and I noticed a recent tweet of his - -

"Dan Kaszeta ‏@DanKaszeta 11h I do not share @snarwani 's opinion regarding #Sarin at Moadamiyah, due to samples 1,2,3,9, and 12 from part 7.1 of UN Report". Sayerslle (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaszeta is talking about the samples which show IMPA and/or DIMP at Moadamiyah, which are unique breakdown products or byproducts of sarin. It could of course be argued (and some have) that since in only 1 of those 5 cases do the two labs agree, that it's just one sample that's really supportive. (Though whether that matters depends a bit on whether you can conceive of rebels deliberately contaminating a site with sarin for inspectors to find.) Podiaebba (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sharmine Narwani isn't some random blogger. [71] I see no reason not to use the piece, aside from the "sandbox" label which is a bit odd. (If it's really sandbox it shouldn't be public.) Podiaebba (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But here, she is misrepresenting sources and making very bold claims based on unnamed sources, which is much more relevant than her having a paragraph bio on huffpo. Quit re-adding material that has been contested and is under discussion - that is edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources? Do explain. having a paragraph bio on huffpo - was it really too much to expect you to *read* the bio in question? Podiaebba (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I read it. The explanation is already discussed in this section. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If the explanation for the "misrepresenting sources" claim is in this section, I can't find it. Podiaebba (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing the material is edit-warring too. And perhaps such removal should be brought up for discussion beforehand? Not by the person who had introduced it and saw it removed twice?--Emesik (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please review WP:BRD. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Another tweet from Dan kOszeta which looks like he is not happy - " Dan Kaszeta ‏@DanKaszeta 16h

− @MothraAttack However, article doesn't point out my observation that the environmental samples are clear and damning" if Im following this right one of the people she spoke to is not at all happy with the way she wrote up her blog. what do you know about her podiaeebba? does she have a particular view of the scw? would she be likely to push one view unreasonably over the other? is she for example, very pro-Iran regime by any chance? Sayerslle (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

is she for example, very pro-Iran regime by any chance? - I don't know. I do know that no-one asks these questions about sources that support the mainstream view. Podiaebba (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Exceptional claims are going to be carefully scrutinized. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Narwani article says In a report on Thursday, American CW expert Dan Kaszeta raised further questions. While concluding that Sarin was used in Ghouta based on “environmental and medical evidence” produced by the UN team, Kaszeta notes that... And whilst Kaszeta's paper says "the environmental samples, detailed in Appendix 7 are fairly conclusive and damning evidence of use of Sarin" it doesn't address the issue by site, so his view on Moadamiyah can be deduced but isn't explicit there. And the bulk of the paper is about the medical evidence, and it's that which Narwani draws on. The significance of the IMPA needs evaluating, but the article is already quite long. Podiaebba (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

trying to find out abut her predilections - found this from Max Blumenthal - [72]

"I recently learned of a major exodus of key staffers at Al Akhbar caused at least in part by disagreements with the newspaper leadership’s pro-Assad tendency. The revelation helps explain why Al Akhbar English now prominently features the malevolent propaganda of Amal Saad Ghorayeb and the dillentantish quasi-analysis of Sharmine Narwani When I joined the fledgling Al Akhbar English website last fall, I was excited to contribute my writing on the Israel-Palestine situation and US foreign policy to a paper that I considered one of the most courageous publications in the Arab world. At the time, the Syrian uprising had just begun, and apparently, so had the debates inside Al Akhbar, which reflected the discussions within the wider Lebanese Left. Almost a year later, the results of the debate have become clear on the pages of the paper, where despite the presence of a few dissident voices, the apologia for Assad and his crimes has reached unbearable levels."

- your willful desire not to know of any bias that may be present in her blog is not good imo - you are shoving her blog on the article. Sayerslle (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

your willful desire not to know of any bias - I must ask you to desist from this kind of entirely unwarranted accusation. Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to make sure everybody understands and agrees with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Hoverfish Talk 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "bias" was the wrong word above. "Unreliability" is the correct one - an example of a source where the underlying bias is severe enough that the author is misrepresenting sources. This is what makes the source unusable. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources - you continue to repeat this claim without backing it up, even when asked. You do realise that this is a recognised propaganda technique? Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is already discussed in this section. No further explanation should be needed. Taking out-of-context statements by an expert and using them to support a theory not supported by that expert is unethical and frequently performed by conspiracy theorists. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a serious disagreement about this, there is always Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where a decision can be taken by uninvolved participants. Hoverfish Talk 01:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how many times do I have to link WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE before people will stop devoting massive paragraphs to extraordinary claims in recent blog posts? Here's another one: WP:COATRACK. This section needs to be condensed, and non-notable commentators' thoughts -- if it's even necessary to include them, and some of these folks I highly doubt are worth citing at all -- should be presented concisely, rather than quoted at length in a flimsy attempt to counterbalance the "bias" of the section being about what the section is supposed to be about. The sections on Parry (via sketchy-looking blog consortiumnews.com), Al Akhbar, etc., are way too long. We can summarize their salient points, consolidate redundant arguments, and cut verbose quotations and produce a much more encyclopedic and informative and fair article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well let's see. WP:INDISCRIMINATE warns against 1. Summary-only descriptions of fictional works. 2. Lyrics databases. 3. Excessive listings of statistics. I can't see any of those being an issue here, can you? On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS warns against 1. first-hand (unsourced) eyewitness-type claims: first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that... 2. including "routine" news and over-emphasising "breaking" news: routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. 3. concluding that all individuals in a notable event are notable: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. 4. turning biographies into diaries: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.... Again, I struggle to see how any of that is an issue here. I suggest that if you're going to repeatedly cite policy as a reason for doing what you want, you should actually read the policy in question. WP:POLICYSHORTCUTSARENOTASUBSTITUTEFORREADINGANDAPPLYINGTHEACTUALPOLICY. Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

On substance: Robert Parry (journalist) has an amazing track record, and his consortiumnews.com has been around since 1995 and is an established alternative news service. His contribution is certainly worth including on an explicit "X says" basis. As for Al Akhbar - most of that is citing experts or points easily verifiable from primary sources, and the author, Sharmine Narwani, is serious enough to be an Academic Visitor (a position formerly called Senior Associate Member) at an Oxford college.[73] Nor are the claims particularly "extraordinary" - we're not talking about "oats are actually baby Martians" or something, we're talking about "maybe some fighters in a civil war tried to make an attack look worse than it was in order to gain international support". The possibility of site manipulation is right there in the UN report, for God's sake! Podiaebba (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And what I am saying is Wikipedia is not a place to post lengthy paragraphs about or from blog articles as a substitute for writing and maintaining encyclopedic content. There is no earthly reason why Al Akhbar should take up more than a couple sentences, as opposed to more than a paragraph. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is "no earthly reason" why you wouldn't look at the actual content instead of making sweeping remarks about Al Akhbar taking up space. One small paragraph is citing expert Dan Kaszeta's report; if it so offends you to point out that Al Akhbar cited that report, we can use it directly and pretend they didn't. That leaves 103 words from Al Akhbar, of which 48 are direct quotation from acknowledged CW expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. Your implication that much space is given Al Akhbar's opinion is wrong. Podiaebba (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So I'm assuming you wouldn't wail and scream about "POV-pushing!" were someone to quote at length all the "acknowledged CW experts" who agree with the mainstream version of events and add several new paragraphs attesting to its correctness? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of more information; you're vaguely implying you might want to add padding. Feel free to add though, and if it genuinely doesn't seem useful, we can talk about it. Podiaebba (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WhoGhouta Blog

WP:SPAM

Hello, I lead the WhoGhouta Blog, which is probably the most sophisticated collaborative effort to determine the source of the attack. It is still work in progress, but so far the evidence and analysis there is far more advanced than any of the sources currently used in this article. I do not want to edit the article directly as for me it's original research, but I thought to let everyone know that in its current state it is full of mistakes and false evidence. Specifically, the trajectories in the UN reports are wrong, the launch locations are probably in rebel held territory, the sarin is of low quality, and the rockets were not originally designed to be chemical weapons. I highly recommend anyone editing this article to examine the evidence and keep following up on new developments. We'll do our best to continue providing high quality verifiable data. Thank you. Whoghouta (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) That's nice, but Wikipedia is not a blog and is based on verifiability, not truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Interesting, but unless you can persuade some moderately good source to report your conclusions, it's not really helpful. You might try approaching some media people who might plausibly be interested in actual debate. Podiaebba (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) My intention was not to get you to change the article. Just to give advance warning that the evidence used in the article is faulty. I assume the research will be published in quotable media sources soon. Whoghouta (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC) BTW on the chemical analysis, including interesting comments, I don't know what the what (I'm no chemist), but note Sellstrom did apparently say that chemical stabilisers were detected (though it's not in the UN report). I hope Kaszeta does the review of the UN's chemical analysis he promised. Podiaebba (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I am not aware of any claim about stabilizers being made, please share. I suggest you read my post titled "UN Report". There is no mistaking that it intentionally uses ambiguous language to make the reader draw conclusions (a finding that really disappointed me, btw). Whoghouta (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC) The stabiliser claim's in the article, under "UN Report". Podiaebba (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

what is spam

The above has been collapsed with reference to WP:SPAM. So let's visit it. We find There are three types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Highlighting a useful website on a talkpage that is genuinely about the article's topic and isn't even something for-profit is not covered. Nor is there any suggestion that such "spam" should be collapsed even when an existing contributor is having a conversation about actual content. I would complain to someone, but I wouldn't know where. I just think this is appallingly rude behaviour. I intend to go read http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk some more when I get the time, and I urge anyone who isn't sticking their fingers in their ears as a defence against actual factual debate to go visit http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk as well! >:( (Not that I think the blog is overly correct in its conclusions, but it's just as interesting as Brown Moses Blog in actually engaging with the issues). Podiaebba (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOBLECAUSE. Promotion is often not-for-profit, especially when somebody has a case of The Truth™. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I take your general point - though neither of those links is exactly on the nose either (they're focussed on articles, not talkpages), at least referencing those as part of the hiding of the conversation wouldn't have seemed quite as rude and inappropriate. (I still see no hint of a sign that this collapsing is an appropriate action, BTW, even if the initial posting is defined as promotional and not good faith.) Podiaebba (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses Blog

I'm surprised this hasn't been raised before (unless I missed something), but what exactly makes Brown Moses (a BlogSpot site) notable and reliable when many other self-published sites (consortiumnews.com having been cut, justly IMO, most recently) and blogs are dismissed? I think we need to apply our policies consistently. As with SOHR above, if reliable sources cite Brown Moses, I think we can use that -- but I don't think a self-published blog should be considered RS on its own. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, there is that - but he is considered highly isn't he ? and cited quite frequently by RS. in the meantime, I'll revert the last edit I made to the articleSayerslle (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses' claims are often found in mainstream media when they fit the mainstream narrative. Admissions that he doesn't actually know the range of the UMLACA aren't. I guess the obvious thing to do is to quote BM when he supports the mainstream narrative, and ignore when he doesn't, since that's basically the Official Policy here. Podiaebba (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF. This particular blog has been referenced repeatedly in mainstream news sources, which have also identified him as an expert. I think the most honest thing here is to attribute claims to him in-text and wikilink the author in the first instance. If you have any specific concerns about claims attributed to him, particularly if they have not been picked up by secondary sources, feel free to bring them up here or WP:RSN for a more in-context examination. VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The prominence of this nobody (and others like him) is just another testament to how critical journalism has been thrown out the window during this war. We should only mention his claims when reliable sources do so. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parry

There is a discussion thread at the reliable sources noticeboard which may be of interest to the editors here. The link is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Parry. Podiaebba (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Rewritten by VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) to minimize drama content.

Mazzeh military hospital

AP reported U.N. experts, who had been collecting tissue and other samples from victims in Ghouta, also visited the Mazzeh military hospital in Damascus, taking samples from injured soldier there.[74]. Did I miss this sampling appearing in the UN report?? Podiaebba (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the UN Mission's visit to Mazzeh on Aug 30 was widely reported. Maybe the report writers determined that the personnel they took samples from there were not germane to the Aug 21 attack? VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're straying into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably. I searched and did not see any articles discussing this Aug 30 visit that were published after the UN report came out. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We could speculate any number of reasons why the reported sampling didn't make it into the report, but that's not really helpful unless it helps us find sources to back that up. Right now I'm just asking the question: AP reports sampling, the results of which would have been surely as relevant as any others. I've not yet had any chance to try to follow that up (or even double-check there's no mention in the UN report, though I'm pretty sure of that from memory, I've read it pretty thoroughly), but if there's no follow-up to be had, I think the AP report on this has to be included without comment. Podiaebba (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the edit would be adding ", and Mazzeh military hospital." to the places visited in the UN Report section? sure, whatever. In a vacuum is seems barely worth mentioning, though. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Podiaebba (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News report as Russian disinformation?

Interesting article in the CSM here. The author seems to think that the discredited Mint Press article was actually planted by Russia, and seems to think that the listed coauthor who is claimed to have actually performed the interviews in Syria (Yahya Ababneh) may not exist (at least not as described). Do people think it is worth including in the speculation section? VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant if true, but I don't think the evidence is there to judge conclusively. Then again, that's basically the definition of "speculation", and it's pretty clear something fishy was going on with that Mintpress business, so I don't know. I'm agnostic on this one. I've also heard rumors that Yahya Ababneh is the pseudonym of a Jordanian writer named Yan Barakat, but I haven't seen anything to corroborate that yet, either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The CSM article mentions that. Two paragraph quote is below.

Quote from Dan Murphy, CSM

Whitaker also found a reader comment made on an Aug. 26 article about Syria, three days before the Mint Press story, in the UK's Mail on Sunday by a "Yan Barakat" who told a very similar story about Prince Bandar and chemical weapons to the one that would appear three days later. "Barakat" wrote that he came by the story from "some old men" who'd "arrived in Damascus" from Russia. One of the men from Russia "told me they have evidence that they have evidence that it was the rebels who used the weapons." A little more internet sleuthing from Whitaker found a Facebook page for Yan Barakat and photos of the man, who described himself as a Jordanian journalist. The pictures appear to be of the same man pictured in the deleted Linkedin profile for Ababneh. There is also a profile page on the Russian social media site VK (much like Facebook) under the name "Yahya Barakat" that contains pictures of a man that looks both like the Yan Barakat and Yayheh Ababneh pictures. The profile says the man's hometown is St. Petersburg, Russia.

Of course, even if every word were verified it still is a degree separated from the subject of the article. I guess we table this one unless it gets more coverage? VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is covered in detail in the Mint Press News article. NB the MPN claim was implausible; probably about as implausible as the idea that Russian disinfo would produce something so weak and unconvincing. Fog of war (rumours in a war-torn city) quite adequately explains the origin of this story - part of which (Saudi supply of arms to the rebels) is after all well established, so the rumour only needs to cover the step from conventional to CW weapons in the context of a recent CW attack. Podiaebba (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for adding the source to the MPN article; I have not been following that one as closely. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Info for discussion

Russia asserts. The main conclusion is that the type of sarin used in that incident was homemade. We also have evidence to assert that the type of sarin used on August 21 was the same, only of higher concentration.”

No hysterics please. Yes yes and yes better refs may be required to satisfy some,. Give it a few days it will spread to refs you can live with. Though lets be honest, some below are fine. This is a discussion. A start, right. Thats all.

1. http://indian.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_10/Rebels-used-chemical-weapons-in-Syria-say-Russian-experts-164
2. http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-un-resolution-356/
3. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130917/183522104/Russia-Calls-UN-Report-on-Syria-Chemical-Attacks-Incomplete.html

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of these refs are from July. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

True, one was I removed it. One didnt stick. Minor issue, it will get traction. Actually the two stories tie in. Do you ever sleep :) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There's another one that looks like it's from July too (judging from the URL), but the link is broken. The other two are media outlets controlled by the Russian government and are thus not reliable sources. If we can get an RS reporting on this claim, I'm all for including it -- I mean, it would be really cool if Moscow would actually put forward actual evidence, but that seems to be a lot to ask -- but right now, it doesn't pass muster, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO muster will be ok in time as its picked up and discussed. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait and see. Can't see why another completely unsupported Russian claim wouldn't get some play in international media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing each of the sources:

1 was 404 for me; can you please verify the link?

2 is a new source, but the same old unsupported denials that we get almost daily from Lavrov. It cites "The reports by the journalists who visited the sites, who talked to the combatants, combatants telling the journalists that they were given some unusual rockets and munitions by some foreign country" (discredited Gavlak report); "evidence from the nuns" (Mother Agnes); and "an open letter sent to President Obama by former operatives of the CIA and the Pentagon" (VIPS letter based on discredited Gavlak report). Nothing particularly new or surprising here, and certainly nothing worth adding to the article.

3 is old news from the day after the report, and has been mentioned before as problematic since it criticizes the UN Mission for not violating its charter.

There ya go; hysterics-free! Out of curiosity, why did you include the old articles in your post? VQuakr (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For background, ie same sarin used earlier by rebels stronger dose used later idea. Give it time, it took years for the Iraq WMD deception to come out. IMO this will be quicker if this turns out to be another false flag op. Imagine if the proof came out it was the rebels. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Another? Iraq was faulty/fraudulent intelligence conclusions stemming from having justification for the invasion being a foregone conclusion by the Bush administration. There was no false flag. Coming back to here, we agree then that nothing you posted is suitable to addition to the article? VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. Another yes, didnt say which one. But you are right Iraq was fraudulent intel. Back here, IMO you're too keen to close this down. Its a slow process. Calm. I'm a trained researcher actually. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10335869/Russia-claims-it-has-evidence-sarin-gas-was-home-made.html Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to close anything down. I am just confused as to why you are bringing up more of the same unsupported Lavrov quotes when Russia's official stance is already in the article. If you were not talking about Iraq, then I do not understand what you were saying by "if this turns out to be another false flag op" above. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong but this is new isn't it? Re another false flag op. Iraq? Dont mind that, many were confused, I still am confused just how they managed to get it so wrong. FF? Dont know. But [75] its quite common. Takes ages to come out though. Lots of time, lets not be hasty, time will tell, maybe maybe not. Moving on. Did you see the Guardian link?

Heres a quote from another site, ' copy and google. 'Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with a US newspaper (Washington Post) published Thursday that homemade sarin nerve agent was used in a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on August 21, an attack that the United States maintains was carried out by the Syrian regime'.

'Lavrov gave an interview to The Washington Post on Tuesday after a meeting with his US counterpart John Kerry. Lavrov said he had used the meeting to hand over evidence proving Russia’s contention that chemical weapons were used by Syrian rebel groups in the controversial August 21 attack.

Now lets stay cool, early days, but it may be pivotal info this 'evidence' handed to Kerry. [User:Blade-of-the-South|Blade-of-the-South]] (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you meant "another", in the sense that it would not have been the first FF attack, ever, anywhere? Not trying to dwell, just not understanding what you are trying to say. Lots of what Lavrov has said would be very significant if actually substantiated. None has been so far though, so perhaps you will pardon the very limited extent to which my breath is bated. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it is a waiting game. There have been plenty of 'others' on that wiki link I posted. But if the rebels did do it it would be a false flag operation I would imagine. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

'Russian Foreign Minister told David Ignatius of The Washington Post that he has presented U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with evidence that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons on August 21 in the East Ghouta suburb of Damascus, adding that the information is "available on the Internet." [76] - blimey - and brown moses tweeted earlier; 'Lavrov cites mystery reporter Ababneh. Russian "evidence" includes Mint Press article' - According to another report; -'(Yan Barakat) another name for Yahya Barkat has commented on Facebook before publishing his article. the comment saying that he met with Russian officials in Damascus who informed him with information about the chemical attack on Eastern Ghouta. This meeting was not mentioned in Yahya mint press report.[77] -ababneh is currently unavailable for comment, a friend says he is 'traveling at the moment'. Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well sure, you could rely on a third-hand report translated from English into Arabic and English again. Or you could look at the original al-bab source here, as linked from Mint Press News. The detail that the Russian contact was an "official" is not in the original, still less that there was more than one. (Of course the story is almost as interesting without that detail.) Podiaebba (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"probably about as implausible as the idea that Russian disinfo would produce something so weak and unconvincing. Fog of war (rumours in a war-torn city) quite adequately explains the origin of this story " - but Lavrov seems to have taken it quite seriously -[78] - and you were keen on its importance early on weren't you - still, it served its purpose very well - influenced uninformed public opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"keen on its importance"? I wanted to include it, but I never thought that type of accident very plausible as a sole explanation. I vaguely recall pointing out something about the tunnels aspect making it even less likely that it would cause such widespread contamination. I agree though that Lavrov seems happy to throw everything at the wall and sees what sticks, which doesn't inspire confidence that he has really convincing evidence that it actually was the rebels. Podiaebba (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Time may provide data with refs, but it may take some time. As Western news outlets are fallible and biased also as evidenced by this; 'The New York Times, BBC and the usual Western media mouthpieces for imperialist propaganda dutifully facilitated Kerry and his US state terrorism with bombastic, important-sounding headlines. “Kerry lays out evidence against Syria”. There was hardly a critical question raised, even though there are grounds for dozens such questions.'

What I found interesting is the role social media played in exposing quickly what used to be accepted. Continuing. 'Years ago, that kind of herd-think might have been enough to buy the US warmongers enough time to launch a war – but not any more. Within minutes of Kerry’s supposedly definitive condemnation, statements, articles, tweets and blogs were pulling the charade asunder, showing that apart from Western-media-amplified bombast, Kerry was not saying anything of value.' http://nsnbc.me/2013/09/01/usa-no-1-threat-to-world-peace-security-and-freedom/

Why is this relevant? Well people are not as gullible it seems. After the Iraq WMD fiasco they just dont buy the old 'trust me stories'. So we must ensure we write to reflect growing public awareness of such things by doing NPOV well. Otherwise we are just reflecting the fallibility of some western news outlets to not ask hard questions. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

I wondered who removed all this... and it turns out it was removed in one fell swoop. It was User:Kudzu1 who removed

1. Evidence about the US intelligence report being released by the White House, and the significance thereof
2. AP's statement that the US had refused to release satellite imagery, and the significance thereof (previous willingness to release "copious" imagery)
3. Kenneth R. Timmerman's report about the critical intra-Syrian phone call
4. Alan Grayson's complaint that the US classified report he read didn't provide enough evidence to judge whether Timmerman's report was accurate.

And the edit summary for these dramatic excisions? "reorganize, add, condense to reflect WP:NPOV and WP:DUE". I think this speaks for itself. Podiaebba (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is long; removal of content is defensible, particularly if it is outdated. If you disagree with removals, please discuss here while assuming good faith and attempting to minimize drama, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Zoinks! You got me! You caught me in the act of cutting WP:FRINGE claims and consolidating the AP and IPS reports on how the U.S. is not releasing more information, condensing Alan Grayson's reaction to the intelligence with that of other unimpressed members of Congress, and making other such changes to 1) make the article more encyclopedic and 2) make the section on the U.S. report actually on the report instead of being a coatrack of bloggers' claims about the attacks. Would you like to shoot me here, or wait 'til you get home? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Zoinks! indeed. You know what you did. 1. The IPS comments about the report being released by the White House, not the Director of National Intelligence, are important - you deleted them. 2. AP's statement about the White House refusal to release its satellite imagery, despite this being cited as key corroborative evidence and its previous willingness to release "copious" amounts of satellite imagery, is important - and you did even worse than delete it, you edited it to discredit it. You made it appear AP wanted "more information" which was classified (with the strong implication that the refusal to declassify was to protect sources; maybe the satellite imagery is technically classified, but it's hardly to protect sources). The transformation is astounding enough to quote in full your text: Some commentators also decried the Obama administration's decision not to declassify all of its intelligence, with the Associated Press and Inter Press Service reporting that media requests for more information were denied. And BTW who were these unnamed "some" commentators who demanded that all the intelligence be declassified - a demand that sounds prima facie unreasonable if you know anything at all about intelligence? You cite Timothy Naftali, who wants the phone intercepts declassified, AP which wants the satellite imagery released, and IPS who only asks for explanations about publication process. Zoinks indeed. 4. Rep. Grayson's editorial was in the NYT, and one of the few public characterisations of the classified evidence available that gives anything resembling specifics. It links critically with the report in point 3, which Grayson described as "widely read" and was the only specific example Grayson gave as to why he felt the classified report was incomplete. All of that is deeply important, and very far from "fringe" (Timmerman has a long career as a reporter, and even if he didn't, Grayson's citation of the report would be too important to ignore). In short, many, many "Zoinks". Podiaebba (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba good points. Im not sure why there is so much trouble getting and keeping important notable stuff in. Its like a trigger is pulled, wham, out it goes. Why is it so important to keep anything NPOV out that makes Barry look bad? We are not involved in this fight in Syria. Just supposed to be recording it NPOV and balanced. Am I missing something? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

After this removal, the article is still on the long side, around 140k. Do we really need quotes from the AP saying the satellite photos were not released, or can we just summarize the critical reception to the White House's published reasoning? As it stands, Ghouta chemical attack#United States is about half criticism which seems qualitatively about right. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need quotes from the AP saying the satellite photos were not released? No, why would we? Just because the satellite imagery is given a particular role in the US report and AP complains that the US had previously released "copious" satellite imagery for previous attacks, no, that's not worth explaining at all. Information is such a waste of space in an encyclopedia, eh. Podiaebba (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your outbursts and little tantrums don't really bolster your case, Podiaebba, and your insistence on assuming bad faith toward me and certain other editors is growing tiresome. If you are unhappy with the wording, then by god, change the wording. I'm not perfect, and the way I summarized these points -- which needed summarizing, BTW, as VQuakr has pointed out as well -- very well might not have been the best way they could have possibly been summarized. But I don't see what's noteworthy enough about Grayson's comments to include them independently; he basically said "I don't know what I think about this" and indicated the evidence didn't convince him. And as for Timmerman, the man is best known to me as a failed congressional candidate from Maryland, and his reporting is not widely cited. If being a journalist automatically inferred notability, I would love that, but it really doesn't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, Kudzu1. But you and others are making it such hard work to continue assuming good faith. I mean Jesus H. Christ, you've posted the above about 10 hours ago, but not fixed your egregious error I complained about? I specifically left it for you to do to prove your good faith - and it would only take a minute using the link to the original version near the top of this section. Hum. I think I'll leave it just to see how long you're willing to leave this egregious error unfixed. Podiaebba (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Grayson said as much as he could without getting into legal trouble - read the editorial (again, I hope). Timmerman's status I've already said is irrelevant given Grayson's use of him, so I guess I can save my breath talking about Timmerman's experience or debating the RS'ness of the Daily Caller. Let me spell it out as carefully as I can: the US wanted to go to war based on the classified summary. The summary is well, classified, so I (and I assume you) don't know what's in it. What on God's green earth makes you so utterly uninterested in providing what information we have about that classified summary? Do you have it in your back pocket and know it's amazing, so any criticism seems like bullshit to you? What is the reason for your antipathy to information that is critical of the US intelligence summary?? Podiaebba (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering I was the one who updated the article with President Obama's admission that he wasn't confident Congress would support strikes, and considering the international reactions from countries like Brazil and Ukraine that have avoided pinning the attacks on Assad that I've added to the IR section/page, and considering the statements from Russian officials that I've put in the article, I have no idea what the hell you're on about. To me, it seems like you're all pissed off because I removed your Daily Caller and RT stuff and trimmed down the section (which you seem to be taking waaaay too personally). If you want to regard that as an "egregious error", well, I really don't give a damn. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You grossly misrepresented sources, and when this was pointed out to you, you repeatedly declined to fix the problem before evading the issue and stating you "really don't give a damn"? Are you sure you wouldn't like to rethink your position? Podiaebba (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what are you referring to? And BTW, I applaud your initiative in breaking details out into a separate article, where they belong. That being said, I think a summary of Obama's desire to strike Syria and lawmakers' reactions is notable enough to merit inclusion in the section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I explained the misrepresentation above at 00:55 26 Sep. I'm pleasantly surprised at your applause, but still expect someone to attempt to destroy the separate article. But hey, if it's not you, good for you. Podiaebba (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, my main interest is in an encyclopedic (not necessarily comprehensive), objective, and readable Wikipedia. I felt that having a "US intelligence assessment" section (you'll notice I changed the section title a few days ago, partly in deference to your argument that the administration releasing the report and calling it a "government assessment" was significant) that was 80% criticism was undue weight, so I moved to cut some of the claims from unreliable sources and condense political and media criticisms. As I said above, I don't claim infallibility. I did edit the section last night to add more nuance to the "more information" sentence. If you still feel it is problematic, I'm open to wordsmithing it more on the Talk page, although I may not be able to contribute to it until tonight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it wasn't my argument, but yes, thanks for that. And I see now you did try to improve that issue (not very successfully) so I will try and fix it. Podiaebba (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

done. Podiaebba (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I continue to think the salient points could be distilled using either paraphrasing or less extensive quotation. And I think the Slate commentary is valuable as a representative piece of the pundit wing that has argued for declassification. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I've let Timmerman, Grayson, and the significance of how the report was released (White House, not DNI) go - but you're still not satisfied, because my version is 50-odd words longer? Tell you what, pick a wordcount that you want the report coverage expanded by to "buy" those 50 words: 150? 250? 500? I'll do it, though I can't promise it'll be useful. As to Slate - I don't see the point of editorial when we have strong news sourcing. It's only a ref, doesn't add to the main body wordcount, so whatever, but I don't see it as useful. Podiaebba (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW Obama not convincing Congress? That was just admitting the inevitable. Russian officials' unevidenced claims? So what? International reaction from Brazil and Ukraine? Who actually cares?? Do you really not see that adding such opinion in no way balances removal of critical information reflecting negatively on the certainty of the US case? Podiaebba (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I was thinking:

Several news articles suggested the U.S. military and intelligence communities were not unified behind the report put forward by the White House. The Inter Press Service questioned why the report was released by the White House as a "government assessment", quoting former intelligence officials who said it was "evidently an administration document" and suggested evidence was "cherry-picked" to support the conclusion that the Syrian government carried out the attacks,[IPSporter] while the Associated Press quoted unnamed former intelligence officials cautioning that the intelligence was "not a slam dunk".[APnoslamdunk] Some commentators also decried the Obama administration's decision not to declassify more of its intelligence or release more documents to support the government assessment,[slate] and both the AP and the IPS reported that requests for more information on the intelligence were denied.[IPSporter][APdoubts]

This would be in addition to readding the summary of lawmakers' reactions and the AUMF's failure to launch, wikilinking the articles you created in the process. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. That's only about 15 words shorter than my version, and it's much, much worse. Losing the specific critical phrasing of the AP quote in favour of weak paraphrasing which doesn't even convey the same specific information is just ... worse. Why are you even spending time on rewriting this? What about this is supposed to be better? And why, why, why do you not see that the AP's specific claims about the satellite imagery (not released, but had been released in "copious" amounts for previous attacks) is essential? Can you please understand that lumping that under requests for more intelligence to be released being denied is deeply misleading? Why try to assert "some commentators" backed up by just one editorial which isn't even all that prominent (slate)? How about just leaving well alone, Kudzu1? Podiaebba (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not "well enough", and extensive quoting looks sloppy, especially when it can be -- indeed, has been, in my version -- easily paraphrased. The AP's specific claims about the satellite imagery are not "essential", and it's not "misleading" to consider that -- like the IPS request -- more information sought by media (and, I might add, I fully support maximum disclosure of evidence myself). How is that "misleading", other than that you desperately want every little detail included in a section that is a summary of the U.S. position? If somebody wants to read the AP article for more detail, why, that's why we link to our Web sources. Why are you so hellbent on cramming in as much specific detail as possible? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh do what the hell you like. I reserve judgement on whether you're actually stupid enough not to understand the significance of AP's complaint that the US refuses to release one of the few pieces of evidence that would corroborate its claims without any risk of endangering sources (satellite imagery), even though the US has been happy to release "copious" satellite imagery for previous attacks. Equally, you may genuinely be too stupid, even after it's been repeatedly explained, to understand that lumping satellite imagery in with generic demands for more information (easily defensible as "might endanger sources") is deeply misleading. On the other hand, maybe it's just your job to wear people down until they give up and you can do what you want - in which case, congratulations, you've earned your paycheck. Podiaebba (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I wish I got paid to edit Wikipedia. Alas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Implying people are stupid is not nice, and I'd have to say Kudzu would not be the most obvious contender for that here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Al-Akhbar

I've removed the al-akhbar blog stuff because on the brown moses BlogSpot dan kaszeta seems to be saying that the awful narwani misrepresented him -[79] - if this material doesn't make it to what are genrerally regarded as RS - I think all the FRinge stuff misrepresents the balnce of informed, impartial, opinion Sayerslle (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

dan kaszeta seems to be saying that the awful narwani misrepresented him - reading comprehension EPIC FAIL. Kaszeta vigorously disagrees with Narwani's conclusion that the Moadamiyah rocket had no sarin in it, but at no point does he say or imply that she misrepresented him. He says things like a misleading half-truth that “cherry picks” from the UN report for the claim "not a single environmental sample in Moadamiyah that tested positive for Sarin", because although this is perfectly true, as a CW expert he knows the significance of the degradation products detected, and apparently believes that Narwani must know it too. But no misrepresentation of Kaszeta, none. And BTW Kaszeta implicitly discounts any possibility of the scene being set up; his analysis rests on that assumption. But if the point is to establish culpability, that's rather assuming your conclusion. Podiaebba (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

to cherry pick - is to kind of misrepresent , no? your obsession against 'mainstream' is not really the point of wp anyhow imo - isn't wp meant to be led by mainstream RS - don't want the tail wagging the dog , and getting overwhelmed with fringe-y stuff. look at mintpresstv -load of garbage wasn't it?Sayerslle (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

to cherry pick - is to kind of misrepresent - true, but of the UN report, not Kaszeta's statements, and it assumes knowledge not proven. Absent that knowledge, it's simply a mistake. Podiaebba (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you cool it already with the "EPIC FAIL" stuff? Hardly constructive, is it? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, giving you irrelevancies to complain about is not constructive. With just two words I've managed to distract you from the key point that people keep alleging Narwani "misrepresented sources", which (a) isn't true of Kaszeta as a source and (b) is only true of the UN report if you assume she has certain CW tech knowledge about sarin degradation. Incidentally, if people spent a fraction of the effort on the sarin article about how sarin degradation works (I added the critical chemicals, which weren't even mentioned!), rather than constantly removing every sodding source here they don't like the smell of, we'd all be a damned sight better off. Podiaebba (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

well, I should have said Kaszeta is not impressed by her article - full stop - and she cherry picked from the UN report- otherwise your defence of this writer is that she can't be assumed to have knowledge about what she is writing about doesn't it? and I maintain that you are still downplaying the 'political' side of what she writes - what max Blumenthal indicated- Al Akhbar English now prominently features the malevolent propaganda of Amal Saad Ghorayeb and the dillentantish quasi-analysis of Sharmine Narwani , the apologia for Assad and his crimes has reached unbearable levels."

Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

She's a political analyst, not a CW expert; it's not reasonable to assume that she did know CW tech details and chose to ignore them. As to the political, well I've expanded on that in Al Akhbar (Lebanon) and Max Blumenthal, but, yeah, other than that, I'm totally ignoring it. Podiaebba (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lol at Sayersllslsls "awful" editorialising. At least she is from the region, unlike all the ridiculous western journalists stationed in Beirut and Tel Aviv, Skyping with FSA-PR folks. Not that the "heroic" western mercenary journalists embedded in caves with Salafists are much better. They all have in common that they don't speak Arabic, and are clueless about the background of the conflict and the players. Al-Akhbar is significant as one of the few English language Arabic media outlets that aren't owned by Gulf princes, so their views are important to reflect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

being from the region - so what? Goebbels was 'from the region' he spoke about - didn't mean it wasn't propaganda coming out his mouth. Sayerslle (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, great analogy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that violations of Godwin's law are unlikely to be productive in this context. That doesn't make Funk's reasoning any more valid, though. The author blatantly twists expert opinions into a conclusion that the experts do not support, ergo, the source is not usable. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Since this section also seems to be about using al-Akhbar in general, my comments were meant to address that, rather than individual articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Probably makes to look at articles on a case-by-case basis since context matters. This is a pretty standard practice for Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They all have in common that they don't speak Arabic - with the honorary exception of Robert Fisk (and maybe some others, I'm not sure; but you're right in general). Podiaebba (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And bizarrely enough, folks like Sayerslsls would discount him for being stationed in regime-held areas, regardless of his credentials. Anyone who isn't a cheerleader for Islamic rebellion is "awful". But just maybe, those who know the region the best are those the Western govenrments should listen to? Or am I missing something? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

anyone who isn't a cheerleader for Assad propaganda is discounted as a 'mercenary' like Ian Pannell, is he a 'mercenary' because he reported on the napalming of the school near Aleppo - how much Arabic do you need to understand that? its a bit much being told one discounts Robert Fisk, -which I don't anyhow, I read the independent, cant avoid him, - by someone who discounts al-bayda massacre. Sayerslle (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I feel the need to do my policy thing and link WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. We clearly have some ideological differences on the Syrian conflict here, and this isn't the place to debate them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

more like moral differences. but you're right NOTFORUM.Sayerslle (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Morals are not part of it, bombing people by plane is not less morally right than bombing by suicide. Who do you think you're fooling? Most people here aren't morons. To get back to the point, al-Akhbar should not be dismissed in general, since it is the only widely read English language outlet for Arab Leftists. And again, pretty much everything else is owned by Gulf princes. And funny that Sayerslslslse mentions he doesn't read articles that are critical of the opposition. If you don't examine and understand the arguments of both sides, you're bound to fail at Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I did read Robert fisk funkmonkwkrakrer. Its you that dismisses and ignores and (lamely) mocks at everything that doesn't suit your particular prejudices or pre-formed narratives Sayerslle (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know which sources you find reliable when it comes to this conflict. And please, no Twitter, Sopher already failed with that one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)