This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I find the one-revert restriction fairly intolerable, and as a result am trying to only edit the article once a day in case what I'm doing counts as a revert. Question: doesn't deleting things someone else has added count as a "revert"? [1][2]. What on earth defines the distinction between an edit and a "revert"? Almost anything can be considered a "revert" as far as I can see. (Unrelated issue: are we now rejecting non-English sources, as this implies?) Podiaebba (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverts are not edits, the rule is there so that people avoid editing warring and to adhere to the BRD rule. Not force people stack up changes into one edit. So a good indication would be if you keep reediting something. Other than that you might want to check the help desk. As for non-English sources, this is English Wikipedia and they are not verifiable.--PLNR (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I added a citation needed tag to the Media section with the reason "Needs sources noting the commentators' isolationist or non-interventionist views without violating the policy against synthesis", but this argument was stripped, possibly semi-automatically, when another editor formatted a reference elsewhere in the article; as a result, when Sopher99 saw the tag and added a reference a few revisions later, there was no reminder of the policy against synthesis, and the inclusion of the now-referenced claim breaches that policy. Please note that references to commentators' views must be specifically linked the subject by reliable sources; see the examples at Wikipedia:Synthesis to see what to avoid. I have added a {{synthesis-inline}} tag to the claim to notify readers and editors. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In this case I think I would suggest removing the "isolationist" characterization altogether as unnecessary. Are there any objections to removing the description, source, and tag? VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I support this move. Along the same lines, descriptions like pro-Castro or pro anything are unnecessary. USchick (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Joshua. I added 'isolationist' and 'interventionist' to the edit. The history of the edit was that it was originally contributed by USchick along with many other edits of the same sort valorising the Russian position on these attacks Podiaebba, reverted by Sopher99 on the grounds it was fringe, and restored by me essentially because it was nevertheless notable as posted by me above. A contributor remarked whether it was OK to note that Ron Paul was an isolationist and I replied laconically yes if you could find a source and it would probably require an application of the dark arts to get it through ... and so Joshua Issac here we are: "A road is a thoroughfare, route, or way on land between two places, which has been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or motor vehicle." [citation needed]
It's not 'synthesis' to describe the Pauls as isolationists and Buchanan as non-interventionist. These are their publically acknowledged foreign policy postions noted everywhere, not to mention their BLP's (Buchanan has a whole article on his positions). And the edit (this is the dark arts bit) was not about Buchananan and the Pauls but about isolationists and non-intervenionists. That's what makes it notable and woprth recording, that there are people in the US with these positions making this kind of observation about the attacks. That's what worth recording. The Pauls and Buchanan are simply cited as examples.
I'm deleting your tags and will move directly to a resolution process if they are restored.
(UShick: are you going to apologise to the community for your censorship slur or not? You do need to respond. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Basen on this explanation, all US media is pro-Israel, should we include that as well? USchick (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not 'synthesis' to describe the Pauls as isolationists and Buchanan as non-interventionist. These are their publically acknowledged foreign policy postions noted everywhere, not to mention their BLP's (Buchanan has a whole article on his positions).
Even if there were a whole article called Isolationism of the Pauls and non-interventionism of Buchanan, the disputed content would still be synthesis because it matches the definition of what the policy forbids—it is a textbook case. The policy page has examples which show what is allowed, and what is not. I recommend that you have a look at those.
And the edit (this is the dark arts bit) was not about Buchananan and the Pauls but about isolationists and non-intervenionists. That's what makes it notable and woprth recording, that there are people in the US with these positions making this kind of observation about the attacks. That's what worth recording.
Observation about isolationists and non-interventionists does not belong in the article unless it is referenced to a reliable source which connects it to the subject, i.e., without violating the policy against synthesis. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
The Pauls and Buchanan are simply cited as examples.
Examples that are referenced to reliable sources that explicitly connect them to the subject. That's what a claim needs for satisfying the policy requirement.
I'm deleting your tags and will move directly to a resolution process if they are restored.
Please move to the resolution process that you had in mind.
What about the problem of UNDUE - why should we give a flying **** what these 3 (cherry-picked) politicals /commentators say and not hundreds of others? if anything they are less interesting than many others because so utterly predictable. Sayerslle (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If you can cite more notable examples by all means do. But of course the Pauls and Buchananan are very notable even if you don't give a mile high for them yourself (which reminds me I have a plane to catch myself). Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Joshua. I've requested a third opinion here. The request was "Is it synthesis to assert that a number of US commentators with known isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy positions have raised the possibility of a "false flag" in the ongoing Syria chemical attacks story, citing Ron Paul, his son, and Pat Buchananan?". Please note that I shall be away for a number of days. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
These politicians are not important at all, it was a feeble attempt to discredit the false flag idea by linking it to a fringe political view in the "Media" section. USchick (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing of the sort, USchick. If you're thinking of the Tea Party movement, then that only displays a somewhat tenuous grasp of US politics. These commentators could not be more main stream. When are you going to apologise to us for your censorship slur? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Since these are mainstream views from mainstream commentators, they should be included in the main part of the article, not buried in the Motives/Media/Miscellaneous section. USchick (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's progress you finally concede something USchick. Yes indeed they're main stream ,but they were also merely commenting on the situation, so the media dump is where they should be. I'm sensing that you're not going to apologise to us for your censorship slur, that you don't even think it's an issue? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is that one fringe view not supported by the rest of the world is getting all the attention, while every other opinion is being censored. USchick (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
@Sayerslle: If reliable, third-party sources cover the fact that someone has a pet theory on who used chemical weapons, then add it to the article. Obviously, the amount added should be proportional to how extensively it is covered by sources, per the policy you linked to. Predictability has nothing with it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Instead of listing all the countries for and against in the lede, I propose replacing it with a statement that the attack is a possible false flag. USchick (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is something of a new topic; how about breaking it into a new discussion section? VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I won't agree to that. The claim that it is a false flag lacks sufficient evidence and weight to be presented in the lede. It would be like mentioning the fringe theory that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" in the lede of September 11 attacks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
false flag is never mentioned on the TV news I see , or papers I look at - I know I live in the unfree west which doesn't enjoy the freedom of iran or Russia but still, - it seems very fringe to mention in the lead . one way or another its kind of covered anyhow in the lead saying the regime, Russia and iran accuse the rebels - it amounts to an accusation of false flag doesn't it?Sayerslle (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Flipping the channel once in a while would solve that problem. USchick (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: It has been removed because there are at least 4-5 editors involved in this dispute and 3O is only for disputes with exactly two editors. If content dispute resolution is still needed, consider making a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Having said that, it really looks like you're all making progress here, if slowly, and I'd recommend that you just keep working it out. Remember that all that dispute resolution can do is to try to help you to do that and, perhaps, offer some evaluations from a neutral point of view, but at the end of the day it's still up to you to come to consensus. Another avenue to help form consensus would be to seek the input of the larger Wikipedia community through a 30-day request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as 3O volunteer) 13:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this. TransporterMan. It was at the time just a two-person thing, but I accept others have joined. If Joshua would like to consider some other resolution, I would be happy to take part. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
False flag reports
Considering that 3 US politicians claim the attacks to be a possible false flag, reported by the media [3][4][5][6][7] and considering that at least one editor thinks this is mainstream (thank you Elissa Rubria Honoria) and at least one other editor is willing to discuss it (thank you VQuakr), I propose to include this information in its rightful place in the lede. USchick (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Fuck No: To clarify my position; yes I do think it's 'mainstream' (without bothering to loook that word up I mean I don't think it's 'fringe') and yes I think it should be in the lead. This is an international encyclopaedia and a view held by at least 1.5 billion people on our planet (accepting that is this the view of the Russian and Chinese people as expressed by their leaders, a reasonable if possibly naive assumption) is not 'fringe'. But that's a personal view amongst many editing here and until USchick apologises for his censorship slur, he can go piss relieve himelf in the wind backwards as far as getting support from me is concerned. And for the avoidance of doubt I also happen to think that you would have to be jerking lying comatose 24/24 7/7 under a duvet in a moon-crater not to understand that this was an attack by the Syrian government - but that's not the point. HTH. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll sidestep the personal feud between the two of you -- although I might suggest mediation? -- and question the assertion that Beijing's position is that this is a "false flag" attack. A Google search turns up only a PressTV article that claims China "agreed" with Russia on the attack being a false flag, and Russian officials have offered muddled and often contradictory explanations (or non-explanations) of what they believe happened. I don't think this is a mainstream idea; the likes of Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich are gadflies who command loyal but rather small followings, and they haven't presented a whole lot of evidence to support their claims, which seem to rest on the time-tested argument, "Can't trust no gub'mint!" A small section in the article under "Responses" seems appropriate, but including this rather improbable theory in the lede doesn't square with WP:DUE, as far as I am concerned. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No personal feud, rest assured. But we do indeed know each other rather well. Your point about China well taken, but Putin certainly has made it clear he considers it a false flag op, although he nuances his position: "That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin told journalists in Vladivostok" (Guardian 31 August 2013). The lead presently states "officials from Russia and Iran, Syria's closest allies, state it was the opposition" so I'm not really sure why we're depeleting carbon resources talking about this. Incidentally, Joshua, isn't that 'closest allies' bit what you call "synthesis"? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No per above. We don't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories in the lede of September 11 attacks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you even look at the sources? The fact that you're comparing this attack to an unrelated attack in another country, shows that you're unable to assess this situation clearly. USchick (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary report from the UN investigation does not rule out false flag attacks. [8]USchick (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
that story isn't about GHouta and doesn't mention false flag. IT was Russian though, so its probably true. bollox. Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Quote from the article: "The hype around the alleged attack on the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta showed “apparent attempts to cast a veil over the incidents of gas poisoning of Syrian army soldiers on August 22, 24 and 25,” the ministry said, adding that all the respective evidence was handed to the UN by Syria." RT is not the same as Pravda, this is an independent source. USchick (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
RT is an independent source like water is chocolate. Consistent pro-Kremlin editorializing plus the fact that it's news media in Russia, a country with an unfree press, plus its constant penchant for conspiracy theories that usually involve digs at the West. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We already effectively mention this by including Russian/Iranian/Syrian claims in the lede that the attack was carried out by rebels. USchick, can you be more specific about what would be in the revised lede? VQuakr (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The section: Officials from the United States, France, Israel, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Canada, and the Arab League stated that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack; officials from Russia and Iran stated that the perpetrators were the rebels.
Would be replaced with: The attacks are a possible false flag operation carried out by Syrian rebel forces in an attempt to topple the Syrian government. (with lots of sources) USchick (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I suspected I would not agree, but wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying first. Definitely not per WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not just Russia saying something, US politicians are claiming it as well. The international community and ALL neighboring countries support this view. USchick (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
ALL neighbouring countries support the regimes view? and the international community? What channels do you watch? I havent got a map but aren't Turkey and Jordan neighbouring cntries anyhow. and Iraq is split in its views no doubt, on sectarian lines unfortunately. why not give this a break til the U.N reports? Sayerslle (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
They don't support the regime's view, they understand the unstable nature of the region and fund both sides, the government and the rebels, then they sit back and wait for foreign military intervention to see how they can benefit. [9] Even Putin is playing both sides now [10]. His vote at the UN is the deciding one, so if his demands are met, he may change his vote. Notice how he's inviting the US to come over and talk about it. USchick (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So we've debunked the idea that "all neighboring countries" swallow the regime's tripe on these attacks, and now you're saying not even Russia supports the regime's view? We've really shrunk down from "everybody except the U.S.", haven't we? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. USchick (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
USchick, I don't think the lead is the place for this. Right now the lead doesn't even say the regime carried out the attacks. It simply states that officials from some countries have said one party is responsible, and officials from other countries, the other party.
Describing newspaper reports (Russian or otherwise) that talk about scenarios besides those presented by the U.S. administration is best done in the body of the article. -Darouet (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with 9/11, but is more like Iraq. Credible sources are stating it could be false flag by the rebels. So of course it should be in the lead. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Public opinion as POV pushing?
There have been a great multitude of articles written on U.S. public opinion and the possibility of U.S. intervention in Syria. There have also been a number of articles written on French and British public opinion regarding possible intervention. I added this material to the lead alongside official government responses, but Sopher99 removed it as "Undue weight and pov pushing."
The idea that two sentences on public opinion would be "POV pushing," for countries whose officials are considering military action and whose statements to that effect are already described, is at the very least wrong, possibly offensive, and perhaps ironic as well. In what context would simply noting the opinions of 445 million people regarding the policies of their governments, described here, be "POV pushing?" If an editor objects to noting public opinion, described by many reliable sources, they should think about how they could possibly maintain neutrality since, in their mind, it requires that the opinion of 445 million people can't even be written for others to look at.
Lastly, Sopher99's edit changed this language, "though [Arab League] members Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria oppose intervention," to "though several [Arab League] members express reservation," which contradicts the source provided. Al Jazeera writes, "However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention." -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Darouet , I did not remove the content, I moved it down to the media section. Check for yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
You deleted my contribution, added something quite different to one of the last paragraphs of the article, and introduced a factual error into the lead. You have furthermore broken a 1RR restriction to this page. Lastly, your addition to the "media" section is a woefully inadequate summary of public opinion polls in the United States and emphasizes, using a blog post, that Americans don't know where Syria is (which I suppose means that their opinions don't matter? Or it's not clear why you've added this). -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't delete your contribution, I moved it down to the media section and added several other polls. The fact that most Americans don't anything about syria signifies the depth of these polls. I self reverted anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Sopher. Also, I hadn't seen the reports that "sarin" found in Turkey turned out to be antifreeze, so thanks for that too. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
...though it looks like you've "self reverted" your self revert... -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I re-added your content, and placed it to the potential military strikes. Reverts are deletion of content. Now your polls have two places in the article - the potential military response and the media section. Thats fine with me, so long as it is not the lede. Polls don't belong in lede because thats undue weight. Not to mention the article is about the chemical attacks - the military response is only a small fraction of the article and probably deserves its own page rather than here. Sopher99 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that polls should be listed in the body, but they should also be listed alongside US, UK, and French attitudes in the lead (it would be insincere and selective to note official support for intervention in the lead, but not popular opposition). -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We can remove opinions altogether from the lede, and just say "the united states is contemplating a military response, which has generated international controversy." No support no against no bad or good. Just that sentence. Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We can also note the public position, alongside that of the Obama Administration, which would be the balanced thing to do, and also requires no value judgements. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We can note public position in media and proposed military strikes - as we already did. The supports by countries are international decisions. Please keep in mind by the way the polls are samples of 700 people. America's opinion should only be 5% of any poll section if we really wanted it to be due weight. Anyway, I am all in favor of removing the statements in the lede of countries in support of military intervention and moving it to the proposed military strike section. You want me to move it now? Sopher99 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I actually think that the threat of U.S. military intervention, alongside U.S. public opinion, both merit mention in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Your addition of "polls show... generally do not support... unless its [sic] cruise missiles" adds a lot of bloat to an otherwise tight section, and is dubious factually: only one poll, the ABC poll from August 30th, shows what you write here, whereas that statement isn't supported by the HuffPost-YouGov polls, the NBC poll, the Pew Poll, or the most recent Post-ABC and Reuters-Ipsos polls. -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Then that wiould be due to the questions the individual polls asked. It would be interesting to see the individual poll's methodology and questioning.I think that is valid, if it was made clear it was a specific question. Irondome (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Well if you'd like to do a careful analysis of exactly what question was asked in the case of each poll, you are free to do so, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Right now the poll is described in the body of the article, but giving it priority in the lead would be the definition of undue weight. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, adding polling data of public opinion in regard to possible intervention to the lead is undue.--PLNR (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There's been substantial coverage in the mainstream press in the U.S. and globally, and some of that finds expression in our article. On what basis do you find public opinion in the lead undue? -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
"Attack" or "Attacks"?
The article is vague about this point. The terms are both used in mainspace. The actual description of attack section in mainspace or refs appear to shed no light. the timing would suggest one major rocket-borne chemical attack. There is no support for a series of attacks spread over several hours. There is certainly no evidence from medical team witness statements to suggest waves of casualties presenting themselves at different times which would justify an impression of a series of descrete bombardments. I suggest we use the singular term. Irondome (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that moadamiya al sham is 10km or so away from ghouta makes it minimum 2 attacks, plus most likely more due to wide range of ghouta. Sopher99 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I really do not get your reasoning here. This was a professional army using chemical units in a bombardment role. An army can hit several targets at the same time obviously in the course of a single fire mission. This was a single attack simultaneously hitting various target areas. This was not a piecemeal series of attacks over time. It was a single large CW strike. The distance is irrelevant. I think we should use singular until evidence to the contrary emerges. Irondome (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If the distance is irrelevant, what if the chemical attack also occurred in Aleppo? I am sure you would call it attacks then. Whats the difference in semantics for 100km than 10km? Sopher99 (talk)
But it didnt. And it would depend on the delivery method. A MLRS could certainly strike both targets in a single attack, with the new guided munitions, if theoritically loaded with CW. Distance has nothing do do with it. You hit a series of targets in a single attack. Thats what all armies artillery are trained to do. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This should rely on sourcing, not our own analysis. The sources appear split on whether this is considered one attack or multiple attacks. I do not really have a strong opinion either way, though I agree that it makes sense to be consistent in the article (outside of quotes, etc). VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the calm tone. My thoughts on this are based on a few sourced points. Certainly point one. There are mixed RSS out there in terms of point two in terms of a recognised military formation with a well understood Soviet-style artilery doctrine. Point three attempts a sumnation.
Almost all the MSM articles we are deploying in mainspace speak of the "attack" in article titles, not attacks.
One specific named artillery unit was responsible for the bombardment according to US intelligence. I think it is the 55th artillery rocket regiment. It is in our mainspace sources. This would indicate an area barrage with specific targets hit in a narrow timeframe. There is no evidence from sources presented so far that there were chronologically seperate attacks. This is in the nature of an artillery attack delivered by a national military, moreover influenced by Russian artillery docctrines. Several clusters of affected areas accords well with a fairly large unit being given different grids to attack in a large district at the same moment. But this is one attack, not several.
The term "attacks" may mislead our readers, and maybe percieved by some to be POV, in that attacks sounds somehow worse, if that could be possible. This was a single short but intense barrage with several targets apparently aimed at almost simultaneously, thus blanketing the district. I do hope for consensus on this by fellow eds. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
My preference is for the plural, as I believe the range of areas hit by chemical weapons is broad enough to suggest multiple attacks, as in attacks on multiple neighborhoods, but if you can show a preponderance of reliable secondary sources in favor of the singular, I will defer. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The US government, for example, refers to this as "attacks." VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The Anadolu Agency report I've just added to the article cites unnamed sourcing saying that there were missile launches from two separate locations, by two different Syrian army units. If correct that would slightly tilt it towards a plural... although it could be considered a single "coordinated attack". Really, given that this was only one single incident, with chemicals apparently employed in a rather narrow time-frame, I think singular makes more sense for the title. Podiaebba (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Time to update the intro: see news.google.com (UN confirms claim) 173.14.238.118 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary paper
There's a really detailed paper on the history of chemical weapons in Syria up to June, here. It could be a source itself, but it's basically a lengthy summary from lots of sources, so they can be used directly. Overall, it makes a more persuasive case than I've seen elsewhere that Syrian government has been using CW in a low-level tactical way to avoid excessive international outcry. There is no specific article on Syria and chemical weapons; there is Syrian_civil_war#Chemical_weapons and Syria and weapons of mass destruction#Syrian civil war; maybe it would be helpful to make one - Syria and chemical weapons perhaps. This would resolve some of the tensions of the "Background" section here, which is perhaps trying to do too much. The paper would be an excellent basis for such an article. Podiaebba (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree - splitting out chemical, bio and nuclear from the "country WMD" articles would make things clearer and encourage relevant expansion and restructuring. At present that's not how it works, but I think it would be better. Is there somewhere to discuss that more generally than for Syria? Podiaebba (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I really do not see a great place to hold a general discussion; you could ask at WP:HD to see if they had any other suggestions. Whether on the Mil history talk page or an article talk page, a RfC could be good to help get better and more general participation. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have additional info on the Syria CW, please expand the relevant section in Syria WMD article(pretty standard). If at some point there will be enough info to warrant a separate article, this is certainly not the place to discuss this. Also keep in mind that the background section here is for this incident. If you planing to make persuasive cases about Syria motivation, the place for it would be at the Syria Civil war article, and only a summary here. Also that new article you linked to the section Khan al-Assal chemical attack, to which you are the sole contributor is one huge POV statement.--PLNR (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect statement added to lead: most people in France and Britain would not support cruise missile strikes
User:Sopher99 added the following line to the lead, "Polls indicate that most people in the United States, Britain, and France oppose military intervention in Syria unless the intervention is limited to cruise missiles," with a series of references that clearly contradict that statement. No polls have suggested anything of the kind in Britain or France, and of the many polls from the United States, all except one show majorities, sometimes substantial ones, against military action.
Only one ABC poll found that "50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take "military action" in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should... Asked their opinion about a mission "limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks," 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not."
Here are titles from relevant articles describing different U.S. polls:
September 4th: Poll: U.S. public opposes Syria intervention as Obama presses Congress. [11]
September 3rd: On Syria, Obama faces a skeptical public. [12]
September 3rd: Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes. [13]
September 3rd: The American People Really Don't Want To Bomb Syria (POLLS). [14]
August 30th: Americans Don't Want to Attack Syria, but Could Support Limited Action That Did Not Risk American Lives. [15]
August 28th: Syria Poll Finds Little American Support For Air Strikes. [16]
There are two other polls that Sopher99 found, an NBC and a Rasmussen poll, that show what the majority listed above indicate: most Americans don't support military intervention in Syria. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The polling info on the intervention in the lead of this attack, is undue and possible POV issue, considering that I can't find any mention of the reaction to the attack(all the condemnations).--PLNR (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
We reference the condemnations in the lead, and also the threats of military action by the governments of some countries, but not the public opinions of those official positions. What are your POV concerns? -Darouet (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Western Propaganda
Wikipedia must says that people of America and France are oppose to a military intervention, in contrast of their government ; and not only says about Russian people their opinion (who is no more than western propaganda and lies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.163.124.216 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead presently gives details of public opinion polls in the UK, America and France, which indeed oppose military intervention.
I haven't read throught this article in detail, so I'm not sure what the level of sophistication is concerning the recording of public reaction. However when assessing US opposition it would be a very grave mistake indeed to suppose that militarism itself is being necessarily opposed. On the contrary the reason for the greater part of Republican opposition to a limited strike is precisely becasue it is 'limited'. What they want is an operation that significantly degrades the government's military strength, and President Obama is moving to accommodate those views. Paradoxically the opposition in the US has thus served to strengthen the proposed strike, and you don't have to be a Jane's defense analyst to know that the current US build-up in the Mediterrranean and the Red Sea is for a much larger strike than a strictly limited one.
I doubt these observations could presently be recorded in the article given the scale and degree of wikilawyering that is presently going on. At some point when all this is history I shall return and incorporate the relevant edits. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
your idea that 'the greater part of republican opposition to a limited strike', is because it is limited, with regard ordinary Republicans, and tea party Republicans, is highly dubious I think. I saw McCain on newsnight last night, in Arizona, talking to his people, practically every voice was raised against his stance, and the reasoning was very much more of the isolationist style than you are saying. as in Britain, if the foreign intervention isn't Russian, they disapprove. Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Not "my" idea, Sayerslle and the McCain meeting was a town hall meeting such as you do tend to get in societies not so democratic as Russia and Iran and where tempers regrettably tend to flare. But you're quite right to notice the libertarain isolationst tendency in the Republican rank and file. Nevertheless I was accurately expressing McCain's point of view, a Republican presidential cnadidate but one, and most Republican congressmen have yet to express a point of view. The proof of the pudding will be when they finally vote. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
An "incident" and/or an "alleged attack" till we get UN inspectors' report
I've never tried to edit an 'on-going event' on Wikipedia before, but is it usual that we accept allegations by one side when that side has not allowed the public to look at its evidence? "The map," for example, is from a non-documented pro-war brief produced by "we want to bomb Syria" U.S. State Department. And, where do confident "this is _definitely_ a fact" statements like "This was a single short but intense barrage with several targets apparently aimed at almost simultaneously, thus blanketing the district" come from? An encyclopedia article should distinguish judiciously among allegations by interested parties, reports by independent experts, and facts established by evidence made available to the public... Can we wait for the UN inspectors' report, please!?Haberstr (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I think we should be more cautious about accepting claims as fact - and bit less willing to exclude everything that contradicts the Western government narrative. Podiaebba (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The specific quotes that you are showing in your post here may need reviewing. Western, Russian, Syrian, and Iranian official standpoints all agree that the were chemical attacks (the disagree on the "by whom" part), so there is no reason to use "alleged" or the weaselly "incident". VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, - the team of UN chemical weapons experts that managed to gain access to the sites near Damascus on 26 August, five days after the attack occurred, and 'For four days, they spoke to survivors, nurses and doctors and took blood and urine samples from the districts affected' - will report and hopefully this will be useful - but that an attack/s occurred, not even Russia and the regime deny this - though I think the regime did initially, and continued shelling for daysSayerslle (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Russia has not stated they know there was an attack from what I've read, what is your source for that? Factually speaking, there are conflicting accounts from eyewitnesses and that is all we have at this point. Russia, or Iran, or China or whoever has not collected facts on the ground, and I'd be surprised if any of them characterized 'as fact' what exactly happened. We're obviously at the hypothesis stage, unless someone has seen the classified evidence. What some countries like Russia sometimes point out is that there has been no solid evidence presented for the U.S. and other Western countries' allegations against the Syrian government. Everyone without access to 'secret evidence' is operating on blind assertions citing to hidden evidence that may or may not exist..Haberstr (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the UN report really going to be the final word? It seems like certain editors just keep raising the bar here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No, the UN has already said that its report will not indicate who perpetrated the attacks. We could be surprised, but it likely will not say much that is not already known. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's characterization of the 'evidence' so far presented by the U.S. (paragraphing deleted): "THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. ... On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.” ... The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. ... Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public." I hope all here are getting a grip on the lack of 'factuality' in U.S. documents. Writing as if one side's allegations, including its maps, are 'the true facts' and that alternative hypotheses are "fringe" is a gigantic FAIL for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry.Haberstr (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
the article says the Russians and Iranians are supporting a regime narrative , 'the rebels staged a provocation' or whatever, - and that France, Britain and U.S have offered their intelligence assessments - what do you want exactly to add, what exact sentences? - do you want the article to say 'there probably was no attacks, but if there were, they were rebels staging a provocation.ref: Putin at G20 [but has he offered evidence for this?] - this is the truth as we in Moscow and Teheran understand it. western reports have attempted to hoodwink people that rebel controlled areas were attacked with chemical weapons by the regime - weapons the regime has promised to never use on Syrians, - though it will napalm them - [17] ' - what do you want? Sayerslle (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding Grayson's complaints about the quality of the evidence provided to Congress prior to the vote would be an easy and obvious thing to do. More generally, there should be less attempt to talk up the US government "we know what happened" narrative, and more willingness to make clear the doubts and weaknesses and alternative possibilities. Grayson's complaint (and he has access to the classified report!) ought to be a warning siren for those here who seem to reckon not only that they know what happened but that the case is already iron-clad and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a loon or a stoodge and either way should sod off and stop bothering them. Podiaebba (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Accident
This has come up a few times before but never been the core subject of a thread that I can see. Based on what is known now, I do not see how anyone could really think this was an accidental release of chemical weapons or "nonlethal" agents. I think some editors disagree, however, so let's discuss. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
the IB times article, from very soon after the attacks, has the title that it was 'an accident caused by the FSA' - and then has an interview with an expert who seems to have been speaking quite generally and then speculates 'It is not impossible that some faction in the Free Syrian Army did it to get attention or maybe it was an accident by an inexperienced operator who may have not realised what he was doing.' - so from that they took the 'some faction in the Free Syrian Army did it' ? - seems a bit disreputable to me -Sayerslle (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Unusually sloppy work from the IBT, and certainly superseded by information that has come to light since the incident, such as the wide diffusion of sites where gas was released across the Ghouta region. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It is speculation but we are at the speculative stage here, and to pretend otherwise is POV.. The exceptionally sparse actual facts, of course excluding the U.S. and Western allegations based on non-released 'evidence', is entirely consistent with some sort of accidental release of chemical agents, either independent of or (more likely IMHO) caused by the intense bombardment of Ghouta area with conventional weaponry.Haberstr (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: let's (finally) remove the weaselly "not independently confirmed" from the lead now?
We have had "The attack has not been independently confirmed so far," in the lead of the article for a long time now. I removed it once, and it returned. It seems very weaselly to me. What does "independent confirmation" mean? It seems to me to be a euphemism for "Western mainstream media/governments don't yet have enough evidence through a chain of people/organisations that they trust". I seem to remember that we already had sourced reports from doctors and at least one lawyer and from local media, none of whom had sourced direct links to the FSA or non-FSA opposition groups (e.g. al-Nusra) at the time that I removed it. These had convinced Western-based/centred NGOs like MSF, Human Rights Watch, by 24 August or so.
In any case, even if we insist that "independent" means "an opinion of the Western mainstream media/governments" what is the phrase supposed to mean now? Who (notable person/organisation) is still claiming that the attacks did not occur? Are these significant enough to be part of a minority opinion not already summarised in the lead? The ongoing UN chemical analysis cannot confirm whether or not an attack occurred, only whether or not chemical weapons were used.
I propose removing the phrase from the lead, since it does not summarise any content of the article. It also looks ridiculous given the rest of that paragraph of the lead. Boud (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree.Irondome (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree31.6.15.210 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC) the editor formerly known as Elissa Rubria Honoria: I've retired, just couldn't take the heat :)
I hereby independently confirm that I have done this. Boud (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Independent confirmation would require someone else's testimony, and I provide it as necessary. -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Lead obsession with "delay" of "formal request"
The lead currently obsesses over the U.N.'s "delay" in issuing a "formal request" to the Syrian government to give permission for an investigation; before I deleted one of the sentences there were three dedicated to this issue. Can anybody think of a reason why this should even be mentioned at all, alongside the fact that the attack occurred, the deaths, the civilians targeted, the investigation more broadly, and the international reactions? -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Because its good summary of the UN investigation? That the UN delegate which was several miles from the incident had to sit on its hands 5 days until Syria stopped bombarding the effected zones, and even then they got half a tour, without gaining access to the actual site.--PLNR (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
the regime carried on shelling for days so the delay is significant - how relevant this 'formal request' business is is questionable, - the main point is surely that it was 5 days before the UN inspectors got access Sayerslle (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
As reliable sources point out, U.N. investigators were present in the country after months of negotiation with the Syrian government, which remains a sovereign body, and gave its permission. The terms of their presence in the country were limited to investigations of a certain kind and to specific sites. Maybe it seems obvious to you that investigators should have been brought into the middle of the war zone immediately, but the U.N.'s own press releases don't indicate this. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something but UN indicated on day one that they want immediate access. I am not certain what the formal red type means but I do know that they gained access only after Assad forces declared case fire five days later. --PLNR (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing two RS, one of which, The Wall Street Journal, says the UN requested access on Saturday, August 24,[18] and the other, Foreign Policy, says permission was granted on Sunday, August 25 [19]. I will make changes based on these two reliable sources.Haberstr (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the "formal request" that was mentioned by Darouet, after it was granted they sat another day on their hands. Check out the UN investigation section.--PLNR (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would be worthwhile to do a systematic review of what reliable sources say (I tried this earlier on the talk page [20] and there's even more information now in the article body). If reliable sources as a whole (and not officials of various governments, etc.) state that the Assad government "refused" to allow investigators in, I'd believe it. It's simply my impression, right now, that they don't write this. I can kick-start this process below:
Refusing or Blocking
[21]: "President Bashar al-Assad’s government says it did no wrong – but it won’t let them take a look."
[22]: "United Nations inspectors in Damascus were denied access for a second day to the affected areas of the capital – only seven-10 miles from their hotel."
Otherwise
[23]: "[Mr. Eliasson] added that the UN investigation team is 'in place' and that he and Mr. Ban hope the Syrian Government will give its consent so that the probe can be carried out."
[24]: "'The Secretary-General’s team, headed by Dr. Sellstrom, is currently in Syria,' Pillay said. 'I urge the Government and opposition forces to enable them to examine the site of the alleged attacks without any delay or obfuscation... I understand shelling and fighting have continued today,' Pillay said. 'I call on all parties to halt the fighting immediately and allow access to humanitarian aid and essential medical supplies, in order to prevent more needless deaths.'"
[25]: "Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is asking the Syrian Government to allow a team of United Nations experts to investigate the latest allegations regarding the use of chemical weapons and is sending one of his senior officials to Damascus in this regard. Mr. Ban is requesting that the team, led by Swedish scientist Åke Sellström, be granted permission and access to 'swiftly' investigate the incident which occurred on the morning of 21 August 2013."
[26]: "Mr. Ban stressed that 'there is no time to waste' given the alarming humanitarian situation, and repeated his call to all parties to come to the negotiating table. 'The time has clearly come for the parties to stop shooting, and start talking. I am determined to do everything I can to assist the victims and move towards a political solution. That is the only way this crisis will be resolved.'"
[27]: "Following talks with United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane, the Syrian Government has affirmed it will grant access to UN inspectors, beginning tomorrow, to sites in the suburbs of Damascus where chemical weapons were allegedly used last week."
[28]: "United Nations inspectors are already in Damascus, just a short drive away from the attack, after arriving Sunday to investigate previous claims about chemical weapons. Heavy fighting in the eastern suburbs has made it impossible for them to examine the new allegations, even as the passage of time renders the forensic evidence less valuable."
[29]: "A team of UN inspectors is seeking access to an area near Damascus where the opposition says the chemical attack occurred, Mr Eliasson told reporters... Amid fighting between government and rebel forces, 'the security situation right now does not allow such access,' he said, calling for a 'cessation of hostilities' by government and opposition forces."
[30]: "Any expanded U.N. inquiry would require approval of the Syrian government. Some kind of safe passage would have to be arranged for U.N. inspectors to enter what are heavily contested war zones."
[31]: "The team of 20 specialists is stuck at the Four Seasons Hotel in the Syrian capital, just 12 miles from the site of one of the attacks, waiting for permission to gain access... A formal request to the Syrian government to allow UN inspectors to investigate the latest alleged gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus was sent last night, according to a statement from the office of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon... Eliasson insisted in New York that the 'security situation does not permit' visits to the area for the time being. He also stressed that doing so would need the explicit consent of the regime and this might take time as it would require a change to the mandate under which the inspectors were allowed into Syria."
[32]: "A team of UN inspectors was only recently granted access to Syria to investigate previous alleged chemical attacks. It arrived in Syria on Sunday but needs permission to extend its work beyond the sites it is looking at."
[33]: "After four months of negotiations the Syrian government had allowed the inspection team, led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, to enter the country earlier this month to investigate earlier alleged chemical weapons allegations, but under strict constraints."
[34]: "It took months of negotiations between the U.N. and Damascus before an agreement was struck to allow the 20-member team into Syria to investigate. Its mandate is limited to those three sites, however, and it is only charged with determining whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them."
I hope others will find articles that are relevant: I can't find more describing the Syrian government as blocking or refusing access, and so as far as I can tell that's still the language of editors here, but not that of sources. -Darouet (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
What phrasing do you suggest? --PLNR (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest we keep all of this loaded or editorial language out (that attempts to legitimize a pro-Assad or pro-rebel perspective), and stick to concise facts: the U.N. was granted access on this date, they conducted their investigation during these times, and then left. For every phrase someone can think up to make it "look bad" or "look good" for the Syrian government, someone else can think up another phrase doing just the opposite... and unfortunately the article has descended to that level. People aren't coming to the lead to find out our opinions: they want to know what happened. I agree with your statement below that things are totally out of hand.
I propose that we write, "The Syrian government granted the U.N. access to the attack sites on 25 August, and investigators worked from the 26th until their departure from Syria on 31 August."
If people REALLY want to include information about international governments calling for earlier access, which I think would be undue in a short summary (since this was a negotiation between the U.N. and the Syrian regime), we could write something like, "International governments demanded that Syria allow U.N. investigators immediate access to the attach sites; access was granted on 25 August, following a formal U.N. request on the 24th."
Writing "International governments demanded that Syria allow U.N. investigators immediate access to the attach sites; access was not granted until 25 August, following a formal U.N. request on the 24th," would already begin to introduce editorializing regarding time. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
New additions
Honestly its annoying that users keep make edits to this part of the lead on daily basis, without gaining consent, when we had no changes to the article on this topic for quite some time.
The recent addition adds that "The U.N. stated that immediate access was not needed for detection as chemical agents such as sarin "can be detected in biomedical samples for months after its use" - IMO its weaselish statement, quoted out of context. While the UN can detect sarin samples in "biomedical samples"(from people and autopsies) for months. This is not the only thing they are testing. Its important to test the impact site to determine whether there the impact,blast pastern and soil samples around are consistent with rocket type found, means of dispersal, chemicals/quantities, and look for any nearby sources that could provide additional parameters. All to rule out various scenarios and all requires access as close as possible to the incident. Obviously delay and Shelling of the area will reduce the effectiveness of the investigation.--PLNR (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi PLNR: I agree, and think that this paragraph (and everything in the lead) should be kept to a bare minimum. Every word that's added about the Syrian government "blocking" access or about "delay tactics," or on the other hand about "immediate access not required" or the like, adds value judgements, amounts to editorializing, and turns the lead into a war zone. If a simple statement of what's happened isn't sufficient for people, they shouldn't be editing this article. I hope you'll help me keep the lead concise and neutral. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead shouldn't be a bare minimum, but reflect what is said in the article. I am just asking that we reach consensus what it is and avoid the endless back and forth.--PLNR (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it should be a concise summary. The problem with the back-and-forth is that it's mostly over contested and clearly inflammatory material. You probably know Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." I think that should be our objective for every paragraph here. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Assad not personally responsible
I think it's important to make this distinction. RS claim that the attack was not ordered by Assad [35][36][37] "The United States said Wednesday it holds Syrian President Bashar al-Assad directly responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks against his people, even though he may not have issued orders himself." [38]. USchick (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I would not have strong objections to this being intelligently included in mainspace. This is a terrifying possibility. If Assad has lost authority over certain specialised units, including CW and the long range SCUD battalions, then the possibility of "unauthorised" strategic CW strikes in retaliation to any attacks begins to loom large. If a barrage of Sarin loaded SCUDS were fired at Israeli population centres, and even one managed to evade the Arrow (Israeli missile) defences, and Gouta-scale casualties result, then an Israeli response could be devastating. And legal under international law.Article 51. If a strike was made on Turkey, then NATO mutual defence obligations would become effective. This would be an unprecidented position for the UK, in terms of the recent commons vote. This all would appear to make the case for "degrading" Syrian CW and missile capabilites all the more urgent. Irondome (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we need to make a distinction? Because as far as I seen Assad doesn't actually named, its 'Syrian Government' or 'Syria'. Do you have a specific example in mind? Also I in the sources I read Assad brother, commander of the 4th Division, was suggested as the other culprit, trying to force his bother hand.--PLNR (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it relevant under international law anyway? I thought the recognised holder of the position of head of state in an executive sense, is responsible personally for the actions of his or her organs of state, including the military. Irondome (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
We're not qualified to assess the legal implications of this, but I agree with Irondome when they write that this could be highly significant as far as the military conflict is concerned, and I believe everyone here is thinking about culpability to at least some extent. In any event I just saw a half dozen articles on the subject and think we should include some information on it. -Darouet (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Darouet. I think any inclusion should be done in a consensual fashion, and with thought. The possibility should be included. it is supported by German intelligence intercepts certainly. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule though I wouldn't write what an intelligence agency's actual assessment is, unless the sources were declassified documents 35 years after the fact. Intelligence agencies keep things secret for a reason, and a publicly available description of an assessment - as we learned in 2003, for instance - may have little resemblance to various internal analyses. Best to write, "Unidentified German security sources told Bild am Sonntag that intercepted Syrian communications suggest...." etc. -Darouet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Propose: Officials from the United States, France, Israel, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Canada, the Arab League and European Union, state that the Syrian government is responsible even if President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order the attacks. Officials from Russia and Iran blame the opposition. USchick (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Would suggest bild am sonntag ref after ..."did not personally order the attack". We still need to get a consensual wording here. ps, I am very happy to be working with other eds who have dropped various sticks, me included, and are working well on probably the most challenging developing story article in WPs history. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
working well? - its full of the pushing of vile misinformation, and tendentious editing. its in danger of becoming a total pile of pov crap at every moment imo. its like editors want to make wp articles like Press TV and voice of Russia the whole time.Sayerslle (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on. Its a damn sight better than this time ten days ago when we had a total editorial lock down. Edit warring has all but stop and every issue is at least being discussed. I have and continue to be totally NPOV on this. Yes some sources are suspect, but I do not hesitate to support suggestions from all shades of editorial opinion, if the points made further the quality of the article. I have had no problems with any eds here, after a bumpy start. I lean towards a "Western" view, but I do see an improvemrnt in ed conduct. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with something along that line. But this: "On September 8, 2013, Germany's Bild newspaper, citing "high-level national security sources," reported that Bashar Assad had not ordered the chemical weapons attack and had rejected their use when his military commanders broached the possibility, and that other elements of the Assad regime were responsible for the attack" - Which was pushed into the lead, is undue, and should be moved to the media section.--PLNR (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes its definitely undue, so I moved it down to intel reports. Why would german intel reports go in the lede, but not the USA's, France, and Kerry's? Sopher99 (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Scope of the Article
Following this revert [39] I am asking again, what is the scope of the article? Because currently the Reactions section has boil over taking more than half of the article.
How is some meeting between US and Russian officials that got postponed is WP:DUE?
How is listing of ships sailing destination is relevant to the article about the attack that occurred in Ghoutas?
How is public opinion polls are about possible intervention are relevant and WP:DUE?
I can see why reaction sub section concerning a military response is in order, but there are some unnecessary details and repetition with main section.--PLNR (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying here. However at the moment, I think involved eds have their hands full just keeping up. At a later date I would support seperate articles, which could be really interesting. Hopefully reliable scholarly sources will soon appear. Irondome (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
How about an Aftermath section? USchick (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Right now it seems like people are hording on info, in an anticipation of an intervention(the ship log is simply ridicules). I have no problem with separating it into an Aftermath section.--PLNR (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
At some point the intervention stuff could be spun off into another article, whether or not it actually takes place. Splitting sooner rather than later might keep things more manageable. Podiaebba (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
A new development[40] that might be worth mentioning in the intervention section. If it works, it would be one of the corner pieces of an aftermath section.--PLNR (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Request for edit
Can someone please CE. the "Physical arguments section" the first paragraph is huge mess of repetition. --PLNR (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
nm, done. Does anyone has any ideas for the Symptoms/Physical arguments/Video sections which seem to share/repeat the same content? --PLNR (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
German newspapers
Why bilds's propaganda for the western propaganda is accept and the other German's newspapers who revealed the truth (rebels launch chemical attack by accident)is not writen???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.163.43.46 (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
which germans newspapers who revealed the truth is not written? Sayerslle (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
UN's formal request was on 22 August - not 24 August
The exact wording is, "A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the Government of Syria." The formal request was made by Angela Kane, who delivered it on the 24th, which is why the WSJ uses that date. This is covered in two posts above. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
when on the 22 September there were reports, like in the independent , that 'a formal request was sent to the Syrian govt tonight according to a statement from the office of the sec gen banki-moon' - was that report wrong then? - also on the 22 a Syrian foreign ministry spokesman said discussions had been had with the UN , anxious to be taken to ghouta, but the regime had 'logistical and security issues' - (removing stuff maybe) - the section covering the delay is presented in a regime friendly way imo - its fatuous to pretend otherwise -Sayerslle (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The source Sopher linked above is titled "Ban sending official request," and the article repeats the same wording in the body.
I was able to find the Independent article you refer to: [41]. I'm not sure why the Wall Street Journal article says something different.
This article from TIME backs up the WSJ's account: [42].
On 23 August the U.N. states, "Yesterday, Mr. Ban called on the Syrian Government to extend its full cooperation so that the team, led by Swedish scientist Åke Sellström, can swiftly investigate the incident, which occurred on the morning of 21 August. Mr. Ban has also instructed the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, to travel to Damascus." [43]
Should we add, "U.N. Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane arrived in Damascus on 24 August and negotiated access for the U.N. investigator team." ? -Darouet (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
imo it should say 'on the 22nd UN sec gen Ban ki moon/a formal request called on the govt to extend etc.. - but the regime delayed citing 'logistical and security issues' - and that would cover events for the 22nd - why jump ahead to the 24th - Sayerslle (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
next is the Friday , the 23rd - "on the 23 the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta - U.N inspectors were denied access for a second day to the affected areas of the capital" - [44]Sayerslle (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
[45] - on the 22 a Foreign ministry spokesman said discussions were held with the U.N team but the regime had 'logistical and security issues' - and on the 23 the regime was busy shelling ghouta - youtube vids are one thing - reality is another. Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, newspapers and U.N. officials cited security concerns every day between the Ghouta attacks and the first day of inspections, and on that first day, the U.N. vehicle was destroyed by sniper fire (by the regime, or by rebels, or some other party: who knows). The U.N. also repeatedly calls on both parties to stop fighting. And one source says that the U.N. formally requested on the 22nd, two say they formally requested on the 24th, while U.N. sources themselves are unclear, but it's obvious that Angela Kane arrived to negotiate access and did so successfully.
Your proposed text doesn't communicate any of this but states that the regime was obfuscating and trying to prevent inspectors from arriving. I agree with you that the Syrian government didn't allow inspections until the 26th, and that international bodies including the U.N. and Russia were calling on the government to give access before it did so. But unlike you I don't assume that the government was obliged to allow immediate access after carefully negotiating inspectors presence over a few months preceding this attack (though I'm glad inspectors got it), and most importantly, I think readers can make up their minds if we present facts impartially, without having you force your opinion down their throats. If you want to go down the edit war road of having editorially and emotionally charged language in the article, you can try, but it will just be worse for everyone. -Darouet (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the article should add what is revealed day by day 21-25 by RS thats all. if RSources conflict over a day of a formal request, just say so, - What emotionally and editorially charged language are you accusing me of using? I only added that on Friday Ghouta continued to be shelled and inspectors denied access - is that the source of your accusation? - well I believe my edits were culled from RS - if you think this approach 'will just be worse for everyone' I can't agree - what is worse for everyone I believe is the elision and slurring over of events in that section - did the foreign ministry say it had 'logistical and security' issues about allowing access on the Thursday? are you saying that's a lie. Its in RS. did it continue to shell ghouta on Friday. its in RS. forcing my opinion down peoples throats? rubbish, I hardly edit the article at all - my opinion is that we follow RS as scrupulously as possible. you know there is a crowd that reacts like this - a massacre in Houla? rebels. A gas attack in Ghouta? Rebels. A bomb in Reyhanli? rebels. I believe in sticking to RS as the events are looked at. Sayerslle (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sopher's recent addition [46] is helpful and makes clear that the UN was requesting access (however we classify their request) as of the 22nd. -Darouet (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Lead death toll
I think that "Opposition and medical sources have provided death tolls ranging from" should be changed to "Reported death tolls vary", to reflect that the estimates include more than just opposition and medical sources.
Next the "some sources reported that none of the victims displayed physical wounds" phrasing is weird, I think we can agree that most sources and video evidence showed victims that didn't displayed physical wounds.
Lastly the last sentence should include that: "If the death toll is confirmed, the attack [it would make it as one of the deadliest incidents of the entire Civil war] and deadliest use of chemical weapons..."
Thanks for your ideas. Since I made many of those changes, let me respond:
1. I agree and will change it.
2. The sources report on what they have seen. They have presumably seen some and not all of the victims. Has anyone seen all the victims? If you'll look at one of the sources -- a doctor stating that from 120 (?) victims he saw, 50 had died of poisoning (and presumably 70 from 'normal' bombardment) -- this indicates that it would be extremely surprising if none of the victims of what was allegedly a mixed conventional and chemical gas bombardment showed signs of both 'conventional' bombardment and 'chemical gas' bombardment.
3. I think your last suggestion is loading too much information into the lead section. The most common observation is that this would be the chemical gas 'attack' with the largest number of victims since the Iran-Iraq War, so that's why that one 'biggest since' choice is made.Haberstr (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for for making the adjustments and discussing. Regarding point 3, if you think that its too much maybe we should focus only on the Syrian civil war, since it isn't only one of the deadliest incidents in it, but also a huge escalation(regardless of who is responsible) and might be the cause of an external intervention.
Also do you have an opinion on the death toll(355 to 1,729), I think it's misleading and WP:SYNish, since the 355 count is confirmed death from three hospitals in the areas, while higher counts such as the US 1,429 are estimates concerning the whole incident?--PLNR (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Third paragraph of lead
I'd like to propose that we strike the clause, "one day after having received the formal request of access," from the third paragraph of the lead, keep out repeated efforts to introduce loaded and editorial content on "delay tactics" or "immateriality of investigation timing," and keep it simple. I don't like seeing this portion of the lead look like a war zone, with everyone trying to add material that is contested, but frankly unnecessary for readers in the lead.
If there's additional information that you think is critical about the investigation, please put it in the "investigation" section of the article first. It would also be great if changes to the third paragraph would be proposed here first, especially if those changes have editorial implications. -Darouet (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree!Haberstr (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Dead children on the videos were rebels' prisoners?
This article says that people from Alawite villages, assaulted by jihadists two weeks ago, recognized their own children on the videos depicting victims of alleged chemical attack. There are other doubts expressed about the authenticity of videos: e.g. some of them were released just after the morning event, but the light suggests they have been shot in midday light. --Emesik (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
just googled Voltairenet - says its the baby of Thierry Meyssan - and the wp article delivers up this sentence : "Meyssan is currently living in Damascus, Syria. He is a journalist for the Russian weekly magazine Odnako (Однако)." - - if the story has its roots in reality it will surely make it to RS - but these sources , like mintpress news imo, are constantly posturing as 'independent' and alternatve but they are usually in the service merely of different masters. Is this voltairenet RS or another arm of Russian propaganda?Sayerslle (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are people so reluctant to refer to WP articles for little-known sources? Such articles are one of the more useful things WP does, IMO, because finding info about a source by internet searching tends to be drowned out by info from it. Anyway, Voltaire Network gives more info, it's not just Meyssan. Nonetheless, Voltaire Network isn't going to be acceptable as a Reliable Source, and Thierry Meyssan isn't either. Podiaebba (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It is based in France, but who the hell knows what people are behind it? Really, what is not a propaganda in the eve of likely outbreak of WW3? Let's wait a bit. If the case is true, it must break into mainstream media. --Emesik (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If the case is true, it must break into mainstream media. - words fail me. OK, maybe they don't: even given your evident faith in mainstream media, the difficulty in verifying such a story under civil war conditions, even if an intrepid mainstream war reporter wants to try, makes it pretty unlikely that a mainstream source would actually publish it. And no war reporter is likely to bother trying - it sounds too implausible and impractical even if you think the attack was or may have been staged by rebels. Podiaebba (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Not just the nun, the videos may have been uploaded the day before [47] Reported from Turkey [48]USchick (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The 20/21 Aug Youtube discrepancy is down to timezones. Podiaebba (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
1RR
Does 1RR apply to Wikimedia Commons also? USchick (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably not. But you are clearly in the wrong to be repeatedly adding speedy tags. If they are contested, take it to deletion discussions, just like here. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I like how you assume good faith. That makes you so right! :-) USchick (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh? No faith, good or otherwise, was assumed here. VQuakr (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yossef Bodansky
If one ready the piece by Yossef Bodansky carefully and looks for any mentioning of sources, there are none... He says there are "numerous sources" and "sources consulted", but fails to name any of them; not even giving nationality, or function or anything! Therefore there is no possibility to asses if his sources are even near the area of events. He fakes a statement from médecins sans frontières claiming that "even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries", even though MSF stressed very much they did NOT test the patients, but just treat their symptoms. And in the next sentence Bodansky claims that "According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides." although MSF never said anything like this... Further down he cites Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, "which has been fighting the Syrian Government", when in fact the Kurdish Democratic Union Party has NOT been fighting the Syrian government, but is in an alliance with the Syrian government! The Kurdish Democratic Union Party is even a member of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change headquartered in Damascus and under Syrian government control... Then there is 0 sources for his claim of the Beirut/Man/Hospital story... He comes up with a number of 1000 tons of material delivered to the opposition, when everyone else (and he too) mentions a delivery of 400 tons... In short the piece is not valid as a source as it is not near any kind of journalistic level that would be expected from a reputable source. noclador (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
First off, here's the deleted text in the article. Second, Yossef Bodansky isn't just anybody; I've not heard of him before but his WP bio suggests not dismissing out of hand. Third, governments aren't falling over themselves to give their sources either - for reasons that may well apply here! As to the facts: OK that needs further investigation, which I don't have time for right now, but let's focus on those for a minute. The Party in question is Democratic Union Party (Syria) and its leader Salih Muslim; I don't immediately see that either are definitely "in alliance" with the government, though there are some accusations. Yes, it's a member of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change which as far as I can see is not obviously (not proven to be) under Syrian government control. Overall, the civil war is messy and complicated enough that I don't see any need to jump to conclusions there. More research needed, I think. Podiaebba (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe it was reverted due to Globalresearch being non RS. (basically this). This the problem with media(previously motivations) section, it gives stage to everyone to speculate about motivations/undercurrents of this event as part of the war. Specifically the fringe conspirators and propagandizing sort. Which is given voice until someone bothered to address it.--PLNR (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that this falls too far into the fringe to report unless a RS picks it up. I think we need a section for nonSovereign reactions and analysis somewhere; if nothing else, this section functions to attract the BS into one concentrated location (making it easier to clean). VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
reverted due to Globalresearch being non RS - not this again. Bodansky is a reliable source for what Bodansky says, regardless of which website he chooses to publish it on. A fraction more concern about facts and less about where something has been published (which can always be argued about later) would be really nice. Podiaebba (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Bodansky is a reliable source for what Bodansky says", true - but what Bodansky says is bollocks, which he in no way substantiates. You see anyone can publish anything on the net... that doesn't make it true, worthwhile to mention, etc. Bodansky doesn't even adhere to the basic principle of journalism for citing sources - if you can not give his name, then at least position, affiliation and location. He doesn't even do that! That's like me saying: a multitude of my sources told me rebels got a secret CIA tornado machine and Saudi Arabia has been delivering sharks... so: as long as basic standards are not met, Bodanskys piece has to be treated as what it is: private speculation. noclador (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh please, on topics like this vague sourcing is rife in government public documents and mainstream media alike. What do you think we're reporting here, the local football game? Get back to the point: reputation. Bodansky looks at first blush like a credible person to take seriously, and his claims are by no means outrageous or bizarre - they're totally in keeping with what other sources, including mainstream media, have been saying about intelligence services supporting rebels etc. Podiaebba (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Along with the concern listed above by Noclador, the source still matters for reporting "what Bodansky says". An example (Above Top Secret) already exists on this page where an unreliable source republished a known falsification. Similarly, a source could quote Bodansky out of context, attribute previous statements to the current crisis, or in some other way cause their unreliability to leak into the primary source. Finally, Wikipedia is not the place to promote rumors. At some point, these unsubstantiated claims drift from editorial opinions into rumor territory, although that boundary is not really a bright-line. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Except that this isn't a source reporting Bodansky, it's an article by Bodansky. Podiaebba (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As a point of contrast, this edit removes a globalresearch-published claim from a related article, and I agree with that because the author (Marat Musin) does not, as far as I can tell, have a significant track record. Podiaebba (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
david kenner , in his article, 'how assad won the propaganda war and wooed the American Right' - "Bodansky is an ally of Bashar's uncle, Rifaat al-Assad -- he pushed him as a potential leader of Syria in 2005. Rifaat is the black sheep of the Assad family: He spearheaded the Syrian regime's brutal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but then was forced into exile after he tried to seize power from his brother, President Hafez al-Assad, in 1983. Despite his ouster, however, Rifaat is just as hostile to a Sunni Islamist takeover as other members of the Assad family -- a position Bodansky appears to share. Ending Alawite rule in Syria, Bodansky wrote on another pro-Assad website, "will cause cataclysmic upheaval throughout the greater Middle East." Sayerslle (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting but implausible claims there. Given Bodansky's background and the timing (the year after he left his position in Congress, at a time when the US was making efforts to get people into neighbouring Iraq who would be friendly towards it) it's far more reasonable to believe he was (unofficially) pursuing Rifaat on behalf of some US body than that he thought Rifaat was a great guy. And that quote is totally shrugworthy; if that's the most damning part-of-a-sentence quote Kenner can find... Podiaebba (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Gavlak's conspiracy theory has already been discussed here. The consensus was not to add per WP:FRINGE as I recall. Spamming the same links over again borders on trolling. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE says to not allow such sources undue weight. It does no mandate exclusion from an article. 173.14.238.118 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr You sure know how to make friends, not. I resent your insinuation about spamming over and over again, as if its one person doing it. Im new here. Its a relevant point to consider the item mentioned in light of recent developments. You have heard of cold case I presume?Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Blade, I doubt it will surprise you to hear me say this, but making friends is not one of the premier reasons why I edit Wikipedia. That said, I acknowledge that WP:CIVIL is both important and mandatory, and I apologize for my terse reply above and my unwarranted accusation of "spamming." To reboot, I think the issues that were raised before still apply - Gavlak does not have first-hand knowledge of the events because he is not in Syria, and the source lacks credibility and has not been verified. Third-party analysis have also publicly commented on the report, noting the implausibility of the claim - an accidental release would not have caused such widespread effects, it is unlikely that a covert supplier would have provided so much chemical material with no training, and Saudi Arabia is not known to have or suspected of having a chemical weapons program. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That third party analysis would be worth having, assuming it's a credible source. Podiaebba (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not great, honestly. I went back to see where I had read the responses, and found twoblogs. The Brown Moses one gets some interesting people to chime in, but I do not think it reaches WP:PARITY with the mintpress source. VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The second source is interesting (especially in the comments) but basically an unsubstantiated blogger's opinion, as far as I can tell. Brown Moses cites apparent direct interviews with experts, including one already quoted in the WP article from a mainstream source; I think that can and should be used, unless there's any reason to doubt that the interviews are genuine. The "rebel accident" theory is weak as an explanation for the Ghouta attacks, and here we have experts explaining why, so let's use it. I'll try and research Brown Moses a bit more. NB I'm not entirely sure what WP:PARITY is trying to say, but as far as I can see, it implies we should be more willing to use sources that are not so good in order to criticise other sources that are not so good, if that's all there is available. Podiaebba (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This source [49] talks about a proposed solution to the crisis and mentions the attack as August 21 gas attack, so it's not synth. We did have agreement to create an Aftermath section. It's time. USchick (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
its very fluid at the moment , isn't it? the Russians have cancelled a meeting tonight and they're not happy that perpetrators of the gas attack might be hauled before an International Court or something. cant see why that should bother them, as they say it was AQ. still, everyone has their reasons Sayerslle (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well the US is hardly in a position to be on its high horse about the ICC, is it? And it appears that the US/French are insisting on the Security Council resolution declaring the Ghouta attacks to be the work of the Syrian government, even though the UN has yet to report back and this is hardly necessary to get a CW handover/destruction process sorted... which is tres interessant, n'est pas?. Podiaebba (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, still we need an aftermath section.--PLNR (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We really need to move on to an Aftermath of the 2013 Ghouta attacks article or similar. It's all very fluid, but we should really start documenting the messy negotiation process over the CW handover idea, as well as the basic issue of the feasibility and timescale (eg [50]). Podiaebba (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of the recent separation of Intelligence reports into UK/US/French/German subsections? This only created unnecessary repetition of what everyone agree on, with various details such as the phone-calls shoveled to other sections or in between them. As such we don't have a good summary of the reports, nor an accurate reflection of each individual report(which we can't do without more unnecessary repetition, and this article is not about the reports). If sub sectioning is necessary then it should follow the evidentiary topics covered in the reports. Why the change? --PLNR (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The change began with separating out the US one, because there's enough debate about that that a subsection is helpful. That prompted additional subsections for the others. I think this is more helpful than an undifferentiated mix of intelligence reports, which is what we had before. I take your point that there are potential problems with duplication with the Evidence section, but we actually have remarkably little duplication right now. An attempt to merge the reports with the Evidence section would lose the sense of how different governments have attempted to package evidence and how people have responded to that. As far as I'm concerned, the "intelligence reports" section can focus on that, and the Evidence section on evidence, and on current form, that works fine with little duplication. Podiaebba (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I should have guessed you changed it. Breaking up the Intelligence assessments and what evidence they provide, so you can focus on criticism of what it means. The US sub section which was your motivation, can't be called 'intelligence reports' since it provide only one sentence of actual intelligence, while focusing on 3 paragraphs of highlighting skepticism and Criticism. I find this whole change POV motivated to create "sense of how different governments have attempted to package evidence", those multiple bold edits should be reverted, and if you want a sub section for your "US intel", call it 'criticism', and leave your POV out of it.--PLNR (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a massive distinction between evidence obtained by "intelligence means" (most obviously the phone call intercepts) and the creation of intelligence summaries by different governments, reliant primarily on undisclosed evidence and publicly available evidence. The former belongs under "Evidence", the latter doesn't. Perhaps the distinction would be clearer if the section "intelligence reports" was renamed "intelligence summaries". It might or might not be helpful to expand greatly on the contents of the intelligence summaries, and that might or might not lead to problems of duplication with the Evidence section - but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now the article is much, much clearer than it was before. Personally, I think the priority is to try and clarify the US/UK/French claims of 14-odd previous government chemical attacks, since that seems a significant part of the argument. Podiaebba (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You have no problem to relay on RS, which don't disclose their sources or provide you information on how they came to their expert assessments. In fact based on our previous discussion, you can't care less if there are evidence, or if they are reliable, only that they say what you want to hear.
If you'd suggested to separating the intelligence final assessments from the evidence they provide, I might have inclined to agree, but as it I have nothing to add to what I said in my initial post about your bold change.--PLNR (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know what you're saying here, other than that you're accusing me of something or other. But since your complaint certainly includes sourcing, I think it's time to say again: cyplive.com translating vz.ru citing the Turkish Ambassador relying on unnamed Russian sources. Feel free to defend your willingness to rely on this sourcing to exclude information reported in multiple mainstream media in the appropriate section (#Accepting_poor_sources_as_reason_for_excluding_information) any time. Podiaebba (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Stephen Starr on the rebels' contradicting themselves on the chronology of events.
Not sure if anyone has noticed this material.[51] Starr is a mainstream freelance reporter whose writings have appeared in "The Los Angeles Times, The Irish Times, USA Today, Global Post, The Times, The Globe & Mail, Foreign Policy, The Washington Post and The Sunday Times." See more at the Amazon page for his Syria book[52]. Anyway, again, I may insert some of this material, but feel free to use it yourself or yourselves!Haberstr (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't make head or tail of that, other than fog of war makes much confusion. One thing jumped out at me though: a blogger's claim that "Though rebel forces rely heavily on DIY weaponry, so too have government forces..." as the Russian evidence in the Khan al-Assal chemical attack, pointing at the rebels, was partly based on the non-standard nature of the munition. Podiaebba (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see any issue with the author or source, thanks for the ref. What in particular were you thinking of using, and in what context? There is a lot of reporting of rumorlike information in that article. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of using his common sense observation that people should look with skepticism on eyewitness reports offered by partisans of one side or another in this incident.Haberstr (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Im not sure how freelance his is, hes done work for Al Jazerra, a biased outlet re Syria in this climate. He also wrote this, 'There are zero good options for anyone living in Syria at the moment - Sunni or minority. But the regime's brutality has ensured this revolt will overcome. The question for Syria's minorities today remains this: when will they grab hold of reality and begin to shape their own futures?' Hes in an anti Assad camp imho. maybe an agent of the West, possiblyBlade-of-the-South (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There is, of course, no requirement or expectation that we use only sources from freelance authors that have never expressed an opinion on the relevant topic. In a case such as this, context matters. "An agent of the West" seems a bit melodramatic. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Yup. Unsupported suggestion should be called out accordingly. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion, discussion, possibilities is the function of the talk page Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
NB Starr published a book on the Syrian civil war that seems to have been well-received, which is some argument for him not being just Some Guy in Damascus. [53]Podiaebba (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Lead Proposal
The lead currently states that the government continued shelling Ghouta on 23 August [54], but doesn't mention that the rebels were also fighting with government forces at that time [55], or that Ban Ki-Moon was calling on both parties to cease fighting at the same time [56].
When I tried to include information on Ban's call alongside information on shelling, Sayerslle deleted the contribution twice [57][58], and when I removed information on government shelling that appears without information on Ban's call or clashes by both sides, Sayerslle reverted these as well [59].
The reason for including both information, or none, is clear from the perspective of neutrality: selectively including information on government shelling while omitting the fighting on both sides implies, in the lead, that the government was fighting to block UN inspectors. If the reverse were done, and the lead stated that rebels continued their fighting against government forces but didn't state that the government was fighting as well, the lead would imply that an investigation was impossible because of rebel activity.
So, I'd like the third paragraph of the lead to either include information on fighting by both sides, or neither. My preference is to include neither, because there's a war happening, we all know that fighting is occurring every day, and for the sake of keeping the lead a concise summary of the article, I think information on fighting can safely be kept in the article body. But if other editors really want to include information about fighting in the lead, we should point out that both sides were fighting on the 23rd. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
the UN quote - ban ki moon is saying (paraphrasing)'the time has come in the entire war for both sides ..etc - its not saying , 'in ghouta ..both sides etc -' - the msn ref states 'As the government pursued its offensive on the rebel-held eastern suburbs for a third day' - its like you have a story to tell in your head and an idea of neutrality, whereby every sentence has to be dipped into your personal acid pool if you decide its too alkali - be led by RS - scrupulously - if the RS, like today, say 8 massacres have been committed by assad regime in last 18 months and 1 by rebels, that's what RS say - if RS say 'assad regime plane drops napalm on children ' that's what they say;- I feel like you'll say ' that's not neutral - we have to say 'while rebels continued to fight it is claimed a plane might have fired on children in Aleppo playground but it is also widely reported in globalresearchmintopressvoiceofputin that it was a western plane ' etc - I don't think you should have the story you think we should convey in your head, and then write - read RS , intelligently, check that ban ki moon quote you're mis-using for example, and let RS, not your idea of what is neutral, lead the way. that's my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, the lead currently states that the UN requested that investigators be granted access to Ghouta on 22/24 August, which isn't strictly true: on 22/24 August, the UN requested that investigators be granted access to the attack sites. Perhaps one way of simplifying this would be to write, "As of 22 August, the U.N. called for investigations of the attack sites," or something like that. It's ambiguous enough that it doesn't contradict any of our sources (which contradict each other), but accurately describes what UN news statements say. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment It's unrealistic to single out one attack in an ongoing civil war with a history that goes back to the guy's father, and then expect to have this one attack make sense. If you insist on taking this approach, then focus on the attack and ignore the rest. You can't have it both ways. USchick (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, the exact wording of the MSN article, which is quoted in the body of our wiki article here, is "Syrian troops and opposition fighters have clashed during fierce battles in suburbs of the Syrian capital where the opposition claims a chemical weapons attack this week killed more than 130 people." In this case, where refers to Ghouta. Perhaps we should "scrupulously follow RS" and quote that directly?
Also, in the UN article Ban is specifically referring to launching an investigation in Ghouta (the whole UN News Centre article is about this, and in that context is explicitly calling on both sides to stop fighting). -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also frustrating to try to contribute to this article constructively when you continuously [60] and [61] blatantly [62] violate [63] the 1RR sanctions. -Darouet (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Its also frustrating if there is a RS reffed ,straightforward, sentence 'friday23 regime continued to shell ghouta.' full stop, its , sourced, reliable, a fact, relevant very much to the subject of the attacks on ghouta. its clear. if you have something to add , start a new sentence , RS ref it, bring in what ban ki moon said, or that the rebels fired back etc. - what annoys me is you want to get into the midst of that straightforward sentence and say 'hold on , hold on , if they are shelling ghouta, we have to say the rebels in ghouta were firing out of that area and back at the regime' - but the ref from the guardian doesn't say that, so don't shove it in that sentence and make it blah blah synth type sentence. start a new sentence, RS ref it , keep it relevant etc. that's how I feel and i'll shutup now, I feel i'm getting a bit too caught up on this , but the frustration cuts both ways. 'blatantly violate'! - one sodding sentence that you keep wanting to interfere with , ffs. - just leave it alone and if you think it unbalances your world, can you please balance it with a new sentence and leave the guardian reffed fact alone. 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sayerslle - I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that your specific concern is leaving that sentence intact in its present form. While I think that including information on clashes would fit well in the sentence for brevity's sake, I'm happy for your sake to keep your sentence there. Yes, it's true that it's a strictly factual statement. -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Are there any objections to my proposal to change the description of the date? -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Do the changes, engage Sayerslle I have your back, he is alone and wrong Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd already made the edit based on Sayerslle's suggestions, but remember this isn't a battle... so I hope you mean "engage with" in a constructive sense! -Darouet (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
'engage sayerslle'!? -blimey, if this is a battle i'm glad I've got the Right enemies. Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
sigh. -Darouet (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Engage def: involve somebody, or become involved: to involve somebody in an activity, or become involved or take part in an activity (shakes head, sighs): Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Pierre Piccinin da Prata
hm. I await with baited breath the reasons this can't be mentioned in the WP article. Podiaebba (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, would you mind to explain what exactly you want to mention and at what capacity? --PLNR (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Podiaebba, I can't see any evidence in the article history that you added this material, only to see it removed. If you're able to make a short and reasonable contribution on the basis of this article please do so: if there's a problem then we can all discuss it here afterwards. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I really want to see a "short and reasonable" contribution. That says what those guys claim they overheard, and keep in mind what they said:
"I do not know if this is true but nothing tells me it is,"
"I have no evidence to confirm this theory and I do not know who these people were or if they are reliable,"
"It is impossible for me to say if this conversation was based on real events or on rumours and hearsay. It is not my habit to hold true conversations overheard through a door."
I can think of a one word reasonable summary, maybe you can top that.--PLNR (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't tried to add it, but based on recent experience, I wasn't feeling optimistic. Here an attempt now. It's as short as I can make it whilst covering all the necessary information. It needs putting under an "Other" heading because the structure of the article is basically one of a prosecution case trying to argue that Assad carried out a chemical attack, instead of being an overview of what is known about the incident. (I've put off complaining about this because the UN report, when it comes, may change everything.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@podiebba - you want only 'what is known about the incident' - - so you add this? and why? - because it suits your 'outlook' doesn't it - and all the while you make snidy remarks implying others are dead set on twisting things - while you are holier than thou. are you agf? no - makes me sick. Sayerslle (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you like me to quote some of your helpful remarks you've made on this page? If I'm expressing my frustration, it's because of the demonstrated willingness of people to exclude information, and to dump everything that doesn't fit their view into a shapeless "Media" section (as if everything else wasn't reported via media as well). As for my "outlook" - well whenever I start talking about it people tend to stick their fingers in their ears, but nonetheless: I don't trust any of the actors here as far as I could throw them. Assad is a dictatorial shit and a lot of the rebels are pretty bloodthirsty Islamist types, and there's all manner of outside agencies pursuing outside agendas with boatloads of money and weapons (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to name three). As far as I'm concerned the fog of war should preclude judgement until the nearest thing we have to a neutral party, the UN, reports, and excluding things that don't fit the US narrative (and shaping the whole article around it to the detriment of clear structure and balance) is not only POV but just generally unhelpful to the reader who's willing to actually spend the time to read what we've collectively written. Podiaebba (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed your addition. This is nothing more than tabloid quality and going into details about an incident where some guys can't confirm if its "based on real events or on rumors and hearsay", or who said it or if they are reliable, is undue.
Also honestly @Podiaebba I am soo sick and tired of your walls of text about everyone being biased and your feelings of persecution. Make good arguments, offer constructive suggestions and base them on RS and policy, and see how everyone experience improve. --PLNR (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of you making claims about what I'm saying: "everyone being biased" and "feelings of persecution"?? And every time you offer such misleading comments and unconstructive replies, I'm going to say to you: cyplive.com translating vz.ru reporting the Turkish Ambassador citing unnamed Russian sources. I haven't forgotten your willingness to rely on questionable sources as sufficient reason to remove mainstream media reports, and neither should anyone who thinks you're a goodfaith editor. Podiaebba (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
La Repubblica is Italy's largest and most reputable newspaper, just FYI. PLNR, if you simply and wholly remove content from a newspaper like that and justify yourself by writing "removed unreliable rumor," how can other editors accept your good faith or competence? -Darouet (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Good edit. It may be a RS, but the material it imparts is useless in this case. A conversation heard in another room. even the copy itself is cautious as to its reliability. It has no place in the article on content grounds, imo. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This useless material originally published by La Stampa[64] concerns culpability for the Ghouta attacks (the subject of this article), and has been picked up by AFP [65], Le Soir[66], La Repubblica[67], Corriere della Sera[68], the Kansas City Star [69], VOR [70], and a host of smaller news outlets. So obviously this is notable. The articles don't repeat Piccinin's surmisings as fact and our text should reflect that. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
So what is the point of including dubious material which just happens to have been picked up by RS which appear themselves to reflect skepticism? It just takes up important mainspace bytes. It does not belong and has no utility to the progress of the article. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well it's first hand witness testimony; while I'm skeptical I can't say it's any less convincing that classified intelligence reports that nobody's allowed to look at. There's already a bunch of material on the "false flag" attack theory, and adding a sentence or two about Piccinin won't harm, but will probably improve the article. We don't have to endorse the story (we shouldn't).
On that note, since it was mentioned above, the "Media" section of this article is a disaster and has little to do with media. We should probably created sections for relevant material. That could also give people incentive to actually edit the material carefully, rather than dumping everything there... just a thought anyway. -Darouet (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree the media section is a train crash. Would suggest pro assad media reaction, pro uprising media reaction, pro assad media reaction (international) and pro uprising media reaction (international) or some structure which somehow differentiates the "media" flood of good stuff and bollocks. The reader can decide where the preponderence lies. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That's because it was never a Media section to begin with. US intelligence assessment and Motives are included there and those are not media. Perhaps if we moved some of that information to other places where it belongs, things would be much clearer. USchick (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, it seems like you are arguing for the sake of the argument. Lets try something more constructive, take a look at the article again. There are no mentions of "false flag" there, and while it is a "first hand witness testimony" the question is of what. ALL it says that "Assad didn't use any gas in Ghouta". In the article we have dozens of experts that analysed relevant material who says that some kind of chemical substance was used in Ghouta, so where do think its appropriate to add a hearsay of two journalist who overheard someone speaking with someone else, saying something that they are not certain if its real or reliable?! and how writing a whole paragraph about that incident here is not the definition of WP:UNDUE?! --PLNR (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's just stop and point out the takeaway from this episode: a number of rebels appear to believe that Assad was not responsible for the Ghouta attacks. This is factual, because no-one doubts that the hostages heard what they heard, or that the individuals were rebels; and this fact was widely reported in mainstream media in many countries. No matter how you dress it up in equivocation about not knowing who the individuals are or why they believe this, that fact is significant and worth putting in the article. And the choice is then between putting it into the article in some one-sentence form that makes the point bolded in the previous sentence, or a paragraph which describes the context and lack of information of who and why. Podiaebba (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
adding to my previous post, i'd be ashamed to even suggest adding anything based on that article, regardless of what they claim to overhear. My only take away that this is POV pushing, and that anyone supporting it, his contributions on this topic should be triple checked.(p.s. it say there isn't official confirmation on who their captors were or why they were released.)--PLNR (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
cyplive.com translating vz.ru reporting the Turkish Ambassador citing unnamed Russian sources. Feel free to explain your willingness to rely on this sourcing to exclude mainstream media reports any time. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Unless you have any reason to support this inclusion, I think that this discussion is over. Keep inmind this is not a forum and I don't care for your reasoning dissonance. If you would like to provide some policy based argument on some other topic, please use the appropriate section.--PLNR (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason for inclusion is self-evident and has been explained above as well. On "the other topic", #Accepting poor sources as reason for excluding information is just up this page, if you'd like to explain yourself in the appropriate place. Podiaebba (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason is that culpability is an important issue, and some of the more important papers in Europe have published on it. I'll propose a few sentences when I have time. I've still not seen an argument for omitting the information, besides, "I don't believe it." That's too bad, because reliable sources think it's important, whatever any editor's opinions may be. -Darouet (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Like I said from the start, if you can come up with something that isn't completely useless, that is WP:DUE please do.--PLNR (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
has the writer denied he said it? theres a story on foreignpolicy about how assad wooed the American right and won the Syria propaganda war' says he denied saying it - [71] - imo in a way this article and talk are a kind of echo of what the story is saying - (its Quirico who says its mad to say they could know who attacked Ghouta with CW) - Sayerslle (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That source mentions neither Piccinin nor Quirico. Are you in the right section? Podiaebba (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
blimey, it doesn't mention them by name but it mentions the story - but now pro-Assad media outlets have found a new way to influence the American debate. Assad supporters' claims have repeatedly been republished unquestioningly by right-wing commentators in the United States, and their epigones right here I guess -
and Here is the bit about the writers The website contains an editorial by the editor-in-chief lauding Hezbollah, and another article reports that a kidnapped European writer said that the rebels launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack (the writer has denied making such claims).Sayerslle (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, not mentioned by name, so difficult to identify quickly. Piccinin's claims were reported by mainstream media; maybe he's backtracking a bit over his professed belief of the veracity of what he heard in light of Quirico's position, but both are clear about what they heard, and pretending otherwise, as well as pretending that these claims weren't reported in mainstream media, definitely casts the blog and its author in a bad light. Propaganda isn't just going in one direction here.... Podiaebba (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
from you it is though. if something can't be 'identified quickly' does your mind explode or something. Sayerslle (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have to do undergo training to be this rude and obnoxious, or does it come naturally? I was about to go out and skimmed your source quickly, and then with Find in Page couldn't find either hostage name - a very reasonable expectation in the circumstances. Podiaebba (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any new arguments brought up why it should be add, nor a consensus to add it and yet it has been re-added.--PLNR (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be added because a significant number of mainstream sources in multiple countries have reported an obviously significant significant claim. In these circumstances consensus should be required to deny readers information, especially when prior to removing it you wear your POV on your sleeve by pretending that there is some doubt about whether these people were actually held hostage. [72]Podiaebba (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
How much it was mentioned is meaningless, since the problem is with how "it" is relevant to this article i.e. being useless information, since they can't substantiate it as more than a rumor, and reporting the whole incident is WP:UNDUE. Certainly in the way you phrased it(hiding the fact that nothing in that statement is reliable) when you sneaked that edit the other day and after that, which I consider as edit warring.--PLNR (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've not hidden anything - right from the start I was careful to be as clear as possible about the hostages' caveats. The fact remains that the conversation they overhead is significant and has been reported by multiple mainstream media. Your personal opinion about the veracity of what the hostages heard is entirely irrelevant, and in no way, shape or form justification for removal of the facts about what was heard. Podiaebba (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Again it doesn't matter how much it was mentioned their release was mentioned in RS, no one disputed that. The issue is with the reliability of what their hearsay, considering what i highlighted in the second post here and overall that the details of the paragraph you try to add is completely WP:UNDUE. Both issues that I haven't seen you address. @Darouet offered to provide some phrasing that will address those issues, which is constructive suggestion. You on the other hand decided to skip this and just re-add your variant to the article on your own volition.--PLNR (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hearsay? You appear to be under the mistaken impression that this is a court of law and that the prosecution is using this evidence to try to prove that the rebels did it. It isn't a court of law, and the only fact the evidence tells us with a high degree of certainty is that some rebels believe the attacks were carried out by rebels. So in insisting that this is WP:UNDUE to the point that it cannot be included in the article, you are claiming that this fact is insignificant. With all due respect, no neutral observer could possibly think that. Also, allow me to doubt that if the people overhead claiming their side was responsible for the attacks had been Syrian government jailers that you'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep the report of the overheard conversation out of the article. Think on that, perhaps. Podiaebba (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has added this content to the article. I do not see consensus here for that addition. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I propose, based on the sources:
"On 9 September, journalist Pierre Piccinin, recently freed from captivity in Syria, told La Stampa that prior to his release he overheard conversations among rebel soldiers implicating rebel forces in the attack on Ghouta.[73][74] Journalist Domenico Quirico, who had been imprisoned with Piccinin, cautioned that they were not even sure who the interlocutors were, and could not verify the story: " they were saying that the gas operation in two suburbs of Damascus was carried out by rebels as a provocation to force the West to intervene militarily... I am absolutely not able to say if this conversation was based on real facts or on hearsay.[75][76]
More could be added, but I think that's perfectly sufficient, and lets the readers follow the links if they want to learn more. -Darouet (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your version is 106 words; my version is 205. Mine gives important details (like the conversation being in English), and gives space to Quirico's emphatic "we don't know". I can cut down my version to 130 words like this:
On 9 September two hostages who had been held captive by the rebel Farouq Brigade for five months were released. Belgian writer Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quirico said that they had overheard their captors saying that the Assad government was not responsible for the Ghouta attacks, and that it had been carried out by rebels as a provocation to precipitate Western involvement. The hostages, who heard the conversation through a half-closed door, described it as a Skype conversation in English involving three individuals, one of whom had previously introduced himself as a general in the Syrian Liberation Army. The hostages were however unable to identify any of the individuals, and Quirico stressed that he had no confirmatory evidence or knowledge as to the reliability of the individuals overheard.
That would be nearly as short as yours, but much clearer as to the facts. Podiaebba (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Podiaebba - that all looks fine. -Darouet (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That edit was quick attempt to show you why your edit was unbalanced. Here is more preferable variant:
On 9 September two European hostages who claim to had been held captive by the opposition were released, said that they had overheard their captors saying that the Assad government hasn't used any gas in Ghouta. The hostages, claim to overheard the Skype conversation through door, described it as a Skype conversation, between three individuals, one of whom had identified himself as FSA general. However, the hostages didn't "know who these people were or if they are reliable", or if the conversation was "based on real events or on rumors", additionally no official details have been released on who was holding them or how they were released.
I removed most undue detail about this incident like their time spent in captivity. I even removed their names, since they are not making expert opinion, though I put "European hostages". Added "claim" before "held by opposition" because there is "no official details...on who was holding them"(a statement which I added at the bottom). Removed the opposition provocation part, which I couldn't find in the source provided[77] and added their reservations as direct quotes to avoid vagueness. --PLNR (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing preferable about your variant. Here, in no particular order and probably incomplete, is a list of the problems your version introduces
Loss of names, making it harder for readers to link the crucial "who" with reports they might read elsewhere (these are hardly the only European hostages ever taken in Syria
Loss of fact that one of the hostages is a journalist (actually a veteran war correspondent, but I guess that's not essential to have), which ought to dispel any doubts about the claims the hostages make as to what happened and what they heard
"claim" because there's no official confirmation? These people are not tourists, and should know well enough who had them captive.
Loss of time held captive and who by, which gives instant sense of context
Loss of fact that Skype conversation was in English
Wasting space with direct quotes. If we're trying to minimise the wordcount, that's not necessary.
On the upside, you made me notice a problem: IB Times has the alleged general as "Free Syrian Army" [78] while La Stampa and La Repubblica have "Syrian Liberation Army" [79][80]; since Quirico works for La Stampa I went with that. Except that the Syrian Liberation Army supposedly dropped that name in mid-2012 [81] and the Farouq Brigades affiliation of the Abu Ammar Brigade anyway makes the Syrian Liberation Front a more likely connection. On the other hand, the Le Soir report says the pair were kidnapped by the Free Syrian Army and handed over after 2 days,[82] so maybe IB Times is actually correct. If we can't resolve this, we can just drop that part of the sentence. Podiaebba (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Reading both proposals, I actually think that Podiaebba's is more useful: his paragraph relates exactly what the journalists said alongside their own uncertainty, whereas I think the second paragraph has an editorial presence that just isn't necessary. Nobody who reads Podiaebba's paragraph will become convinced, based on Piccinin's account, that the rebels used gas. But adding extra layers of doubt - not mentioning the hostage names or professions - "claim" they were captives - "claim" they overheard - this only begins to obfuscate the story. The Wikipedia manual of style (see WP:CLAIM) specifically cautions against using the word "claim" because it is a synonym for "said" that casts editorial doubt on the saying.
One thing that PLNR's statement does, however, is point out that the knowledge of the captors may itself have been limited. A way of introducing this into Podiaebba's paragraph would be to change the last sentence to "The hostages were however unable to identify any of the individuals, and Quirico stressed that he had no confirmatory evidence as to the reliability or knowledge of the individuals overheard." -Darouet (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was confused for a moment with your suggestion, but then I saw that it involves adding or knowledge to the final sentence of my version after "reliability", which makes good sense. Podiaebba (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm considering using the following quote from a Rod Barton essay[83] published on 26 August 2013. Rod Barton was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He is the author of The Weapons Detective: The Inside Story of Australia's Top Weapons Inspector. The essay is published by the Lowy Institute for International Policy website. Lowy is ranked as Australia's top think tank. I want to use the material below to support putting the widely discussed 'accident hypothesis' into this Wikipedia entry. If Rod Barton finds it one of the plausible possibilities, it is not a 'fringe' theory.
... "While the use by a rogue chemical corps commander is a clear possibility, it would be a daring officer who would conduct the recent attack when the country is under close international scrutiny with a UN chemical weapons inspection team just a few kilometres away.
"Perhaps a more likely scenario is that the recent attacks were an 'accident'. It has been widely reported that. Because of early rebel advances in other parts of the country, chemical weapons have been moved from several storage sites for safe-keeping. It is possible that, in the to and fro of battle, some chemical weapons became mixed up with conventional munitions. Occasionally this occurred in Iraq during the chaos of the Iraq-Iran War.
"Although chemical weapons would have distinctive markings, the meaning of such markings would, for security reasons, only be known to chemical corps personnel. Since the munitions themselves would otherwise be indistinguishable from high explosive rounds, they may have been used by the regular army by mistake.
"The confusion of conventional munitions with chemical ones would also explain some reports that high explosive rounds were used at the same time as chemical rounds, a practice which would be unusual because it would reduce the effectiveness of the chemical. But it may also be argued that the use of high explosives was intended to break windows and cause disruption, thereby exposing more people to the effect of the chemical."
I do not see any problem with using this source. We should of course make clear, as the source does, that this is speculation by a think tank (ie, there is no actual evidence that this occurred). VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, definitely worth using. The fact that mixups actually happened in the Iran-Iraq war is particularly helpful in making it a possibility worth talking about. Only problem I see is where to put it, since the entire article is structured on a "can we prove it was the Syrian government doing it on purpose? yes, no, maybe..." basis. Podiaebba (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is biased in favor of the claims by Western powers, who just happen to be allies in an effort to overthrow Assad. The article needs to be condensed and completely revised, possibly along the lines of Khan al-Assal chemical attack. That article begins (emphasis added), "The Khan al-Assal chemical attack was an alleged chemical attack in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, Syria, on 19 March 2013, which resulted in at least 26 fatalities including 16 government soldiers and 10 civilians, and more than 86 injuries. Immediately after the incident the Syrian government and opposition accused each other of carrying out the attack, but neither side presented clear documentation. ..."Haberstr (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
is it condidered in RS - I don't mean amongst uninformed public opinion and pro-regime loyalists - I mean in the consensus of informed RS - is it considered 50/50 who was responsible? what do you reckon? Sayerslle (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Haberstr, there is no serious debate about whether the Ghouta incident was a chemical attack. As such, "alleged" is unnecessary. I do not think there is consensus that the article is biased in favor of the claims by Western powers either, which should be obtained before attempting to rewrite the article from a Syrian/Russian/Iranian POV. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is biased in favour of the claims by Western powers. While gas was used sure, no one can prove who fired the shells. There is a whole thread above about bias. There is no mention of who would gain most, Rebels, if its allegded Assad did it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr, my plan (remember the Wikipedia instruction to assume others' intentions are honorable) was to rewrite the entry so that the strong 'pro-Western/pro-rebels' POV is reduced and hopefully, eliminated. I.e., NPOV is the goal. Also, the quote from Barton, an expert, indicates that there is a serious debate regarding whether or not the incident was an attack or an accident. There is certainly disagreement over whether to take the 'accident hypothesis' seriously, and that point of view should be included when the accident hypothesis is discussed.Haberstr (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is not serious debate regarding whether the incident was an attack, there is some speculation that Syria might have fired chemical shells by accident. Does the article state as fact the "Western" (Japan is western?) POV anywhere? Because that would probably violate NPOV at this stage. What specific sections need to be rewritten in your view, and how? VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is not serious debate regarding whether the incident was an attack - indeed there isn't as of now, but I have sneaking suspicion that with the current diplomacy efforts the possibility might suddenly gain some prominence. It's not just that it makes sense of so many different claims about the attacks, but it would make it easier to accept a Syrian disarmament plan if it was agreed it was an accident... Podiaebba (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added this now, in the Motivation section as I couldn't see where else to put it. Podiaebba (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia
Interesting. Any reporting in sources that would meet our reliability requirements? Otherwise, there isn't much point in bringing them here. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Theres likely an entire bought press corp determined to keep it buried. The point is to start to challenge the idea that the article has the right slant. I would lay money on 'The rebels did it' and if me and Putin are right, time will prove that we are correct. But as for the 'our reliability requirements', the 'our part' thats subjective is a worry. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"Ours", as in "Wikipedia's". They are laid out at WP:RS. Feel free to raise the issue at WP:RSN if you feel the sources are not getting a fair shake here. Please forgive me for being uninterested in your "everyone is bought off" conspiracy theories. If presstv claims the UN HRC said something, then please link to it on the UN HRC web site. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr can you show me where you said I said quote, "everyone is bought off", my eyes must be failing me. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Not your eyes. Immediately above. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The PressTV report is nonsense, it's just Russia telling the UN that videos and photos were fake - there's certainly no official UN agreement with that claim. As for the "kidnapped children" claim - this seems only to have been made by questionable sources, and seems entirely implausible: why would rebels do that as part of staging an attack, when it would obviously massively increase the risk of detection? Are there not enough civilians in Damascus to kill?? Podiaebba (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It is also implausible for other reasons. What about the thousands of injured treated at area hospitals? Were they kidnapped too? How will they be kept quiet? VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
well without pausing to think deeply two rational possibilities emerge. 1/ the rebels used sarin but had pre empted their video library for quick release of high impact footage with children they kidnapped, gassed and filmed. Yes they are nasty, they have also done Cannibalism. Remember that? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You didn't actually answer my question, but you did manage to make yourself look even sillier. Somehow it is the saintly Syrian government that is getting called out on the majority of human rights abuses by the UN. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
it is crystal clar that blade of the south is a pov warrior who is here to push a certain view, set in stone, impervious to RS - is wp the right place for this sort of moronic spewing out of 'views' on the events and invented scenarios. bring RS or sod off that's my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that you've just been rather rude (again), allow me to point out that the internet is full of this kind of speculation and fringe sourcing - and that consequently, Wikipedia does more of a source for its entire readership (including quite a few people exposed to that) if it at least attempts to engage with that. A good example is finding the Brown Moses Blog responses to the "Saudi tunnel accident" report: having both is more helpful than having neither, especially to people who've only heard the much-repeated Saudi tunnel tale and not responses to it. So please let's not imagine that the best possible service to readers is photocopying the New York Times. Podiaebba (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Associated Press summary
I'm not entirely sure what to do with this AP summary, but the heading and subhead are Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility: The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence produced by U.S. intelligence - no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications - connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.. At the very least, editors here should read it. Podiaebba (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
What a great article. I think there's material there that could be added into almost every section. The AP reporters must become frustrated repeatedly querying everyone and getting no response...-Darouet (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Im not keen on 'Reactions' as a subtitle in the article, bit limiting, but this could go there. A fallout / resolution / consequences section may be an improvement.
“Syria is handing over its chemical weapons under international supervision because of Russia,” Assad said in an interview with state-run news channel Rossiya-24. “The US threats did not influence the decision.”
As noted in previous version, "he U.N. made its request to visit al
Ghouta on August 24[20][21][22] and the Syrian government agreed to
allow UN investigators to visit attack sites on 25
August.[23][24][25]"
Sopher99 has deleted this and asserted U.N. made its request on August
22, apparently not reading the three references cited for the
(correct) date of August 24, and giving as reference
[84]
asserting August 22. As noted in the three references provided, the UN
later clarified that its official request was given to Syria on August
24. It is not surprising that the reference given by Sopher99 states
that the UN "is asking the Syrian Government" which was indeed, a
press conference telling the public what the UN was in the process of
doing. A press conference announcement what the UN "is" in the process
of doing, is not the same as making the official request.
Diplomatic protocol works though official requests, not through a statement made at a press conference.
No one would be impressed for example, if Syria's government gave
a press conference saying "ok with us" if Syria did nothing
diplomatic, to actually back up their press conference "ok with us" to
legally and officially ok the visit, after all. Well, countries
give formal legal diplomatic responses in response to formal legal
diplomatic requests, and that official request came on the 24th.
This is what a UN representative clarified, admitted (squirming just
a tad) but fully conceding: press statement on
22nd that the UN's formal request "is being sent" (sent on its way)
and that request arrived, was actually made, on the 24th, Had makes
those two statements, and dates, clear) if you like, that is exactly
the date on which the diplomatic step was carried out. As noted the
previous version has 3 references but for those who have not taken the
time to look at them, here is a key part of the later statement by the
U.N. clarifying in response to a reporter's question
[85] which
includes a video of the exchange with Haq (U.N. rep):
Reporter Matthew R. Lee asked: "On Syria I wanted to ask you, the Syrian Foreign Minister held a press conference he said that the U.N. only asked for access to Ghoutta on Saturday [August 24] that's what he said, I wanted to know when the U.N. team actually asked for access? [plus second question on how much samples they are collecting]"
U.N. Representative Haq: "regarding your initial question, I just want to read to you a paragraph from a statement that we put out and
gave to all of you [the press] on the 22nd of August..which says the following 'The Secretary General now calls for the mission presently in Damascus to be granted permission...A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the government of Syria..' That was issued on the 22nd of August."
MRL: But as the Secretary General himself sometimes says: "there's public statements, and there's actually receiving it, "so, I just wonder, can you say when, formally, legally, the request to go to Ghoutta was made?
Haq: Well, I just read you that request, which..was issues on Thursday (22nd), Angela Kane was immediately dispatched
and then she arrived a in in Damascus on Saturday (24th)..but, but [sic], as you see, we made that request on--
MRL: The Press Statement is the [same as the] Request?
Haq: It's not just a request..as the statement makes very clear, a formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the government
or Syria in this regard--
MRL: And it arrived on Saturday, in the form of Angela Kane, I just wanted you to respond to that?
Haq: It's, it's, that's basically a question of sematics.
But Haq admits the formal request was delivered by Kane on Saturday
the 24th, while Aug 22 was a press statement that a request "is being
sent"
Incidentally, this whole exercise (by Kerry, inter alia) to pretend
the request was delivered on the 22nd is kind of silly at this point,
since it was part of a "the Syrian government waited too long, now
it's too late to detect" narrative, a scientifically false statement
which the United Nations did shoot down decisively stating that
chemical agents such as sarin "can be detected in biomedical samples
for months" after their the use of the
weapon[86][http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/in-rush-to-strike\
-syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe/]
so the exercise of pretending it was on the 22nd rather than 24th when
the official request was actually given to Syria, is a bit of a silly
exercise really, for politicians at this point, since that throws any
"too late" (or "deliberate delays so we that the chem weapons can't be
detected") arguments completely out the window (not to mention Syria
often the one first initiating the request that UN
investigate[87])
-- however -- be that as it may, wikipedia should be accurate - as the
Secretary General himself has observed in the past, "there's a
difference between a press statement, versus actually receiving the
official request" - and as the U.N's rep admitted reluctantly (it's
understandable given all the heat given to the UN to not look like it
was it's fault for taking that long to actually make the legal request
-- countries give formal legal diplomatic responses in response to
formal legal diplomatic requests) that the acurate answer is: the
official request (not the press statement) was diplomatically given to
Syria on August 24..[1][2][3]Harel (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
a RS for the 22nd delivers this - 'A formal request to the Syrian government to allow UN inspectors to investigate the latest alleged gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus was sent tonight, according to a statement from the office of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.' - if that was wrong - cite RS that say it was wrong - whatever, on the 22 it also reports, a Syrian foreign ministry official was talking with members of the inspectors team and saying the regime had 'logistical and security issues' with allowing access - so practically, it made no difference, - access would have not been allowed - on Friday Ghouta was shelled by the regime - that's facts , no? - and it also says in the indy article for the 22 -'munitions used to carry out the attacks could be removed' -( Human rights Watch : two types of projectiles were used to spread the nerve agent in attacks on eastern and western Ghouta. The first was a 330mm rocket "that appears to have a warhead designed to be loaded with and deliver a large payload of liquid chemical agent - the other type, used in the western Ghouta attack, was a Soviet-produced 140mm rocket that can deliver three possible warheads, one of them specifically designed to carry 2.2kg of sarin -Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weapons in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack or their associated launchers," Bouckaert (HRW) said ' -) whatever, - your 'bureaucratic' explanations of things reminds me of the 22nd report in the independent - permission to gain access is being 'delayed by realpolitik and bureaucracy' - RS should find a way to express the events of these days - though why use Xinhua - if I see a passage supported by Xinhua, press tv, Russian stuff, I just cant stand it - maybe i'm in a minority - but some political cultures are more degraded and corrupt and totalitarian than others. just my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
OT comment Sorry for butting in, but the "140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack" part caught my eye. It is an interesting piece of info, that iirc we don't have in the article, if its came from an RS source i'd love to see this addition, which present us with first specific details on the rockets that I seen.--PLNR (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Todays Guardian ,its reporting a Human Rights Watch assessment [88]- the ref is in the lead for the moment, but only to mention HRW think regime the likely perpetrators. Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sayerslle, you asked for a reliable source that says what I said. The answer is: the United Nations representative Mr. Haq himself, is the reliable source. By the way if you read your own sentence, carefully, it gives a clue: it was "sent" on the 22nd, not "delivered" and not "arrived". I can send you an envelope today but you receive it several days later. With legal documents that is critical.
The InnerCityPress web page includes a link to a video showing the U.N. representative himself stating it. I typed a partial transcript above (and took forever to get the formatting right..I hope someone read it?) in from that video of what the official U.N. representative Mr. Farhan Haq said, but if that's not good enough, I gave the url, so you can watch it with your own eyes..the link again: go to [89] and click "play" on the video if you wish. Yes, folks, the United Nations is a "reliable source", particularly about matters concerning itself. He says per the transcript, there was a press statement on 22nd and yes it was "sent" on its way on the 22nd and, yes, he confirms (reluctantly) yes it arrived on the 24th, it was delivered to the Syrian government on, the 24th. That's the first date when Syria received it. As I said, governments can't respond to press statements. Just like we would NOT be impressed if Syria just made a press conference saying "ok, inspect us" we demand Syria give official diplomatic legal "ok" and to do that it must receive the official legal diplomatic request. Again you can skim the partial transcript of click "play" in the embedded video at the ICP web page I just included a few sentences ago here..clear now :-) Harel (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Postscript: I noted earlier, since the information (send on 22nd, delivered on 24th) is said in a video by the UN itself, there is not contested, so should not need "consensus" but I will add: if there ever was a need for consensus, the person who now against deleted it, is the one who should have gotten it. It did not change a 22 to 24. No, the version I edited said "got ok on 25th" and nothing else. I then added info that was not in that version, I added "request arrived on 24 and got ok on 25" but without any consensus, someone changed the new number I introduced, 24 to the (completely false - as acknowledged by Haq) claim of "delivery on the 22" Harel (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Harel, in this modern post-snail-mail world in which we live, isn't it unlikely that something sent on August 22 would not be received until August 24? Isn't an alternative possibility that one proposal was sent on the 22nd and Syria rejected it, possibly because it was too broad-based and intrusive (we've seen this before from the UN). Then perhaps the UN talked things over with Syria and made a new more limited request on August 24. Anyway, "made a request on the 22nd or 24th, or on both dates" (all of whihc is non-speculative and is confirmed by RS) is my rough idea for how to modify things. Trying to find a compromise that works for everyone and stabilizes the lead.Haberstr (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Access for investigators, in the context of a war, and months of preceding negotiations, isn't as simple as opening an email or responding to it. In this case the U.N. sent representative Angela Kane to negotiate access, which she did successfully upon her arrival in Damascus. This issue has been covered a dozen times above. -Darouet (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Haberstr, no, in this "modern post-snail-mail world" the United Nations does not make a formal request by email. And honestly, speculating like you do about "Isn't an alternative possibility" isn't our job. But, obviously, you Haq in that exchange (I hope that by now you have read the transcript above if not watched the video) Haq does not say "it was initially rejected" but tells us exactly what happened, namely that the press statement was made on the 22nd and also "Angela Kane was immediately dispatched" and then "then she arrived a in in Damascus on Saturday (24th).." We have to report what we know. What we know if the official request was delivered to the country on the 24th. I'm not sure why the U.N. didn't get here there in 24 hours, but again, I'm not going to speculate since in this case we have the date given by Haq, who tells us that although she was "immediately" dispatched after the August 22 press statement that a formal legal request "is being sent" (is in the process of being send) he tells us she "Arrived on Saturday" the 24th.
As an aside, because we should focus on the facts: press statement on 22nd, and "dispatched" to Syria, and "arrived on the 24th" -- but this whole thing was created when Obama said it's "too late" for inspectors now, trying to get the inspectors not to come, for reasons that are obvious and I will not state, concerning what the White House intended to do -- but the U.N.'s own same representative Farhan Haq said that's not true, adding[90] that "“the passage of such few days does not affect the opportunities to collect valuable samples,” among other things, "sarin can be detected in biomedical samples for months after its use." Now we all try not to comment on fellow editor's "point of view" so I will not comment on intent, but on effect - the effect here is to mislead readers, that's the effect - in parallel to the fact that Washington was misinforming the public claiming it was "too late". So as far as that false statement it doesn't matter whether it was delivered on 22nd or 24th, on that narrow issue, the UN getting the OK from Syria on the 25th means there was and is plenty of time. But regardless, our job at Wikipedia is to give readers the correct facts (not just not to end up misleading) so to those who will say "no, it's not misleading the very easy reply is: putting aside issue of misleading, just looking at the issue of factual accuracy, there is a video recording of the UN's own official representative Haq saying the UN's rep arrived to deliver the official diplomatic request on the 24th so there it is...so we need to be factually correct and not say "22nd" when it is in fact the 24th"
just to bend over backwards to accommodate, I put in an edit stating there was a press statement and sending off of the UN's rep, on teh 22nd" as well as saying, it was delivered on teh 24th. For my blood pressure's sake I'm going to look tomorrow not tonight at what the page says, but if anyone keeps changing the date of the request being delivered to the Syrian government from 24 to 22 despite the video recording of the UN rep saying it arrived on the 24, they should be reported to the noticeboard, and I will do so if others have not. Harel (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
RS - for part of the picture on the 22nd "Officials in Damascus have continued to strongly deny that the regime was responsible for the use of a weapon of mass destruction, claiming that video footage of dead and dying men, women and children was “terrorist propaganda”. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said discussions had been held for the UN team to be taken to Ghouta, but he could not say when this would take place as there were “logistical and security issues”. you want to prioritise a youtube video it seems to me but there are exact contemporary RS that should be used to fend off a Stalinist-Putinist-Iranian- re-writing of what happened - the regime was in no doubt the UN inspectors wanted access as soon as possible- a definite picture emerges of access wanted as soon as pssible from RS from the days 22, 23, 24 - your tone of wanting to report people to the police if they don't submit for the sake of a TEheran world view and your blood pressure, is totalitarian -minded imo, and it is a portrait of a pro-TEheran pov rather than a great scrupulous care for all RS that emerges imo. Unless you are saying the foreign ministry spokesperson quoted on the 22 is fictional, it is clear the regime was resistant on the 22, so the 'formal' nature of a request was not the problem anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
this guardian article for the 22 , [91]has something of the role played by the totalitarian terrible twins Russia and China in maybe buggering up the swift absolute formal request - "On Wednesday, the security council expressed "strong concern" and called for more "clarity" on the use of chemical weapons, but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach backed by the US, UK, France and 32 other governments that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access to the site of the attack, and to be granted greater latitude by the Syrian government to carry out their enquiries.[92] - so if yu are right that an absolute 100% formal request was not delivered til 24 - and printRS are better than a youtube video surely, - I expect you will fully detail also the prevaricating tactics of the russia/china axis as revealed by this RS also - scrupulosity - RS - not just 'the view from Moscow-teheran' is needed in the lead. Sayerslle (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, see my note below. Your addition of "Russia and China prevaricating," i.e. acting evasively, essentially accuses them of a deceitful foreign policy... in the lead of an encyclopedia article. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, 1. You seem repeatedly to not understand several basic points, including your repeatedly asking for "RS" when in fact, the MOST RS possible is the one I gave..yet you ask for "RS are better than a youtube video surely" Are you kidding? This is not a youtube video of me, it is not a youtube video of you, is it not a youtube video of a random blogger, etc -- it is a video taped recording of the official United Nations representative, Farhan Haq, saying the quoted words, it is the most primary source you can get: directly from the source itself. It trumps, easily, any newspaper report *about* what the U.N. says. It trumps what the NY Times says about what the UN says, it trumps what any newspaper says about "what the UN says" because it is directly a video of the UN representative saying the words themselves. It is not only a RS it is stronger RS.
2. You also seem to be confused about a second issue. You are trying to "prove" that Syria knew on August 22 that people wanted to visit the site. First, my own text says that a Press Statement was made of course Syria knew. Second, Syria (of course!) knew even earlier, on August 21, as soon as it saw the attacks, of course the officials realized that the UN would want to look into it, that would have been obvious to them. That's not relevant, that they knew, 2 minutes after that attack, on 21st that "UN will want to visit" and for the same reason it doesn't change a thing that you have a source talking about the next day, the 22nd, and I myself had the source talk about the 22, that we all agree, that Syria knew on the 22nd that the UN wanted to visit. None of that is relevant to when ((Syria gives official legal diplomatic "ok")) this thing in ((parentheses)) can only happen *after* Syria ((receives official legal diplomatic request)). It can't give official legal "yes" until it first gets official legal request. This is simple enough (but you seem to think this has to do with "we didn't know anyone wanted to visit" which was *never* what I or anyone else said).
3. My "bloodpressure" comment was exactly anticipating more comments like yours about you saying you are working to "fend off a Stalinist-Putinist-Iranian-" etc. I and others have avoided calling your work as "Stalinist-Fascist-Pro-Al-Qaeda-Rebels" so perhaps you could do the same courtesy and avoid such characterizations of disagreements?
4. That Russia and China wanted to "water down" according the blank-check-to-bomb that the US asked for, has this much relevance to the discussion here about what date the official legal diplomatic request was delivered: none, zero (I'm sure if it is proven that rebels did this, that you, and Washington/UK, will strongly call for arming Assad or for the US bombing the rebels, or for US bombing the countries who funded the rebels who did the chem attack, right? Right? Yes? - but that too is not relevant to the discussion of dates) Harel (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
innercitypress.org , accuracy.org
are these RS? Sayerslle (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Only if they carry RT articles :) USchick (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The first is Inner City Press and the second Institute for Public Accuracy. The former is perhaps not "RS" in the sense you mean ("X is true" - footnote to RS proving it), but potentially worth using as an "X says" type source. The second, I've no idea, but it doesn't look promising. Podiaebba (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Folks. I know we're all busy but the links are there, as I said, to the UN press conference itself. Therefore, the issue is not relevant whether ICP is itself a RS because the innercitypress.org is not asking you to trust it; the ICP web page includes a link to a video showing the U.N. representative himself stating it. I typed a partial transcript (and took forever to get the formatting right..I hope someone read my transcript above?) in from that video. But go to [93] yourself and click "play" on the video if you wish. Yes, folks, the United Nations is a "reliable source", particularly about matters concerning itself. He says per the transcript, there was a press statement on 22nd and yes it was "sent" on its way on the 22nd and, yes, he confirms (reluctantly) yes it arrived on the 24th. That's the first date when Syria received it. As I said, governments can't repond to repss statements. Just like we would NOT be impressed if Syria just made a press conference saying "ok, inspect us" we demand Syria give official diplomatic legal "ok" and to do that it must receive the official legal diplomatic request. Again you can skim the partial transcript of click "play" in the embedded video at the ICP web page I just included a few sentences ago here..clear at least? :-) Harel (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be much better if we could get a written transcript direct from the UN. Don't they normally provide them of press conferences? Podiaebba (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As I explained above, several times, but will repeat again: you don't need to trust my transcript, and you don't need a U.N. transcript, because you know how to "click" on the "play" button, to watch a video, yes? good, then you can do that to see the embedded youtube video in the innerCityPress reference, repeated yet again here: [94]Harel (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
POV tag attached because of pro-rebel bias
I have tagged the article POV[95] because it is written 80-90% as an accusatory brief against the Syrian government and by the rebels' allies, and yet it never mentions that the accusations and 'intelligence' (if it really exists, but we can't allow RS skepticism into the article) that damn the Syrian government are entirely the product, as of today, of the rebels' allies. In fact, the article doesn't even mention that the rebels have allies, or that that status might bias the work product of their intelligence and propaganda services. Finally, as I've said in various locations, we need to be much more tentative and much less accusatory, because the independent report by UN experts has not been produced yet, and the public has not been allowed to see or hear any of the evidence that pro-rebel states say underlies the accusations against the government.Haberstr (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
80-90%? Let's start at the beginning. What specific phrases and sentences do you find non-neutral in the lead? VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I take issue with this edit, since the term "bombardment" does not rule out the possibility as some analysts have hypothesized, that this was an accidental use of chemical weapons by Syria due to poor ordinance inventory management. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
For the time being I agree, and I'm fine if that is changed.Haberstr (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It has been a contentious fight to make the lead section somewhat non-POV. After that you walk into the "anti-Assad brief zone."Haberstr (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Relevance? That article discusses the March attack. VQuakr (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
One arguing point of the 'govt did it' hypothesis is that the rebels did not have access to sufficient chemical weapons. Circumstantial evidence that they did have such access is indicated by the discovery by Turkish authorities of sarin gas in rebel-occupied sites.Haberstr (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for clarifying, but that would be a violation of WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not a violation of WP:SYN since there are RS that express the entire contention.Haberstr (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We should be careful not to interpret WP:SYN in a way that forces us to exclude facts from an article just because they contradict what some sources state and no source has explicitly linked the facts and the statements. (If we did interpret WP:SYN that way, then WP:NPOV would surely require us to exclude both the facts and the statements.) Podiaebba (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We should be careful to give undue weight to incidents. It's already one of the three articles linked at the background section. In which we only know that USA/RUSSIA accuse each other, and there is nothing conclusive about it, including in the recent UN report. It is also one of several reported incidents, of alleged chemical weapons use, so please little bit NPOV. Just because you think that based on this incident the opposition have capability to deploy an attack on such scale, which is ten times stronger than all other alleged attack combined and probably the worst attack in decades. You shouldn't get that in the way of RS experts who are aware of this and more, when you edit.--PLNR (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because you think that based on this incident the opposition have capability to deploy an attack on such scale - I love it when you tell me what I think, but whenever I try and tell you what I actually think, you give some variation of "yadda yadda your opinion doesn't matter". Well here's another yadda yadda opportunity: I actually think the "accidental launch" theory an expert suggested as a possibility above fits the best: fits the reports about the multiple non-exploding rockets, fits with the panicked phone call intercept, fits "why would they do it with UN inspectors and the world watching", fits lack of evidence of rebel capability, fits claims of previous but small-scale use which particularly with French support I give credence to. Fact remains though that whilst the JIC mentioned that rebel groups are trying to get CW capability but don't have capability for attacks on this scale, there's remarkably little mainstream willingness to consider what capabilities the rebels do have or what they might get in future. (Some exceptions exist, eg Telegraph, April.) Chaos produced by bombing or even threats of bombing also makes it more likely that CW falls into the hands of Al-Qaeda-linked groups like Al-Nusra. OK, I'm done: yadda yadda away and don't forget to repeat at every opportunity that I think the rebels did it. Podiaebba (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed I don't care about your theories, because they pop in every discussion where you lack policy based arguments. I am sorry my post was unintentionally misleading, the second part was directed to @Haberstr, previous comment trying to provide example which would explain why its WP:SYN.--PLNR (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have specific issues, please voice them out. As it is, I see many partisan edits and various reoccurring issues we have discussed before which are reinserted into the article. Many of those are supported by dubious sources and seem to have little value outside of presenting Anti Opposition POV.(case and point your recent Intel break down)
I just noticed that you tagged the whole article, I have to insist that unless you provide more specific examples which we can address(as opposed to never endless accusation of POV), this tag should be removed. For example your comment about the 'rebels allies', iirc it was removed from the to avoid noting the Syrian Russian backers.(maybe even by you?)--PLNR (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you have your facts backward. I may have removed the 'govt allies' characterization in order to balance the fact that the U.S. and so on have so far never been characterized as the 'rebel allies'. Don't you think it is a good NPOV rule either to talk about who the allies are of both sides, or to not talk about it?Haberstr (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Background section
(Let's start the specifics with the first subsection.) I have repaired the first paragraph, I think; the pro-rebel may begin in paragraph 2, but definitely begins by paragraph 3 and continues to the end. In addition, Paragraph 3 to the end offers material that likely should be either deleted or moved (if it is not duplicative) to a different subsection.
Paragraph 2 implies that the suspected 'four incidents' were by the government.
Paragraph 3 is about prior circumstantial evidence regarding use of chemical weapons in the war. It is 90% accusatory toward the Syrian government and almost entirely from the viewpoint of rebel-allied countries explicitly in favor of regime change. The final two sentences make no sense, connecting disconnected events, using "however" to raise suspicion of government actions, and for no apparent reason characterizing a Syrian government action as "unusually requested."
Paragraph 4 is okay, but note that the circumstantial case against the rebels has been skipped: we have jumped from the 'government did it' to the 'not clear who did it' point of view.
Paragraph 5 is more circumstantial evidence for the 'government did it' case.
Paragraph 6: Sentences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are more circumstantial evidence for the 'government did it' case, while sentences 6 and 7 are a rebuttal. Sentence 8, by the way, is not 'Background', since it is a Sept. 9 report on the Ghouta 'attacks'.Haberstr (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, lets compare notes. We agree, no issue with paragraph 1 as it stands now. Paragraph 2 assigns no blame to either side, so no changes needed there. Para 3 could use work, since it focuses almost exclusively on US reports (which fairly could be characterized as either anti-Syria or anti-everyone). Para 4 looks fine once para 3 is fixed. Para 5 is eyewitness accounts by reporters, not in any way circumstantial. Editorially, it might be merged into a longer paragraph, but from a NPOV standpoint we have attribution and it is very relevant. Paragraph 6 does not cite evidence - it cites reports and rebuttals by the US, Russia and France. The source of the opinions are clearly identified. So, we agree that paragraph 3 needs work and disagree on paragraphs 2, 5, and 6. Do we agree on where we disagree? VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Attack
Paragraph 1: Note the specific and confident assertions here, despite the tremendous fog of war, which even the pro-rebel U.S. intelligence brief map[96] recognizes. That map states: "Note: Reports of chemical attacks originating from some locations may reflect the movement of patients exposed in one neighborhood to field hospitals and medical facilities in the surrounding area. They may also reflect confusion and panic triggered by the ongoing artillery and rocket barrage, and reports of chemical use in other neighborhoods." Despite that very wise RS advice, we have this in our article: "The attacks had affected" -- [Not allegedly affected, "had affected"] -- "two separate opposition-controlled districts in Damascus Suburbs, located 16 kilometers apart." The two sentences that follow also disappear the uncertainty about where the missiles struck and when. This confusion is well-stated by journalist Stephen Starr (paragraphing removed): "According to a preliminary report carried out by the opposition Syrian National Coalition, the first chemical-armed rockets were launched ... towards Eastern Ghouta shortly after 2.30 am, and on Modamiyeh southwest of Damascus several hours later from the same position. But testimonies from activists and residents on the ground when the attacks took place differ from the National Coalition’s report. Mohammed Saeed of the Local Coordinating Committees—a grassroots activist network—said six rockets struck Douma at 3 am on August 21. He believes over 1,000 people died in the attack on the town, located five kilometers northeast of Zamalka, the perceived central target of the attack on Eastern Ghouta. ... Activists in Modamiyeh say the chemical attack started on the town an hour after Eastern Ghouta was struck."Haberstr (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC
Timing
This section should be incorporated into the preceding paragraph. A consolidation should make clear that there is significant uncertainty, varying reports, about the timing (and location) of the 'attacks'.Haberstr (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Motivation
Two sentences? This is a major factor in the 'govt didn't do it' side of the case. Countless experts and analysts have found it implausible that the government, which most RS accept was winning the war, would do the only thing (U.S. entry into the war) that would cause it to lose. The experts should be in this section, along with the pro-rebel perspective, that for some reason the government had a motive to use chemical weapons a few days after the UN inspectors had entered the country.Haberstr (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Government attack and Rebel attack
First of all, what are these two sections exactly? If they are supposed to be the case against one side or another, then the 'Government attack' section is a very confusing mishmash. Anyway, 'Government attack' is 650 words, while 'Rebel attack' is 238 words, which is straightforwardly biased weight given to the pro-rebel argument.
Delivery method
Paragraph 1 misquotes the Guardian: "the remains of 20 rockets [thought to have been carrying neurotoxic gas were] found in the affected areas. Many [remained] mostly intact ..." The actual quote (bold added): "The remains of 20 such rockets have been found in the affected areas, activists and local residents say. Many remain mostly intact ..."Haberstr (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 has analysts speculating that conventional shelling may have hit stockpiles of chemical weapons. Why is this plausible speculation buried here, in 'Delivery method'?Haberstr (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph 4 reads like a brief for the 'govt did it' case. That speculation should be balanced by speculation from the 'rebels did it' and/or 'it was an accident' perspectives.Haberstr (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph 5: more anti-government allegations from a pro-rebel source. HRW has no independent investigative capacity. It alleges certain projectiles were used, but this is based on the trusted (by HRW) videos and statements of the rebels, not on any HRW or other independent investigator on the ground seeing that weaponry. (Such independent investigators are called "the UN.") Finally, where's the response to HRW's contentions by a pro-government source?Haberstr (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph 6: more anti-government allegations from a pro-rebel source. Where's the response by a pro-government source?Haberstr (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Motivation
Two sentences? This is a major factor in the 'govt didn't do it' side of the case. Countless experts and analysts have found it implausible that the government, which most RS accept was winning the war, would do the only thing (U.S. entry into the war) that would cause it to lose. The experts should be in this section, along with the pro-rebel perspective, that for some reason the government had a motive to use chemical weapons a few days after the UN inspectors had entered the country.Haberstr (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Government attack and Rebel attack
First of all, what are these two sections exactly? If they are supposed to be the case against one side or another, then the 'Government attack' section is a very confusing mishmash. Anyway, 'Government attack' is 650 words, while 'Rebel attack' is 238 words, which is straightforwardly biased weight given to the pro-rebel argument.
Video
Not POV, just strange. First of all, the title is completely mystifying. What video? In any case, this section is part of the vastly over-belabored 'case' for sarin gas. Neither side in the information battle now questions that sarin gas was likely used. Couldn't we put all of this, after it has been greatly condensed, into a 'type of gas' section?Haberstr (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Intelligence
Another odd title and odd section. This entire section should be moved, to the "Intelligence reports" subsection. None of the alleged 'intelligence' in this section has been released to the public. So, what intelligence? That these tapes and recordings exist is entirely based on whether you trust the pro-rebel intelligence services are telling the truth. At the very least we need some balance. Russia has blasted these reports, and many prominent individuals have pointed out that none of the alleged intel has been released to the public.Haberstr (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Other
"Other"?? Why not 'Accidental release'? And why cite one reporter and not the other? Another odd section, apparently an attempt to bury an on-the-ground report in which alleged eyewitnesses state the release of toxic gas was a result of rebel mishandling of chemical weapons materials. And, over half the subsection is devoted to a non-RS source attacking the credibility of mintnews.com in a sometimes bizarre fashion. Haberstr (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
UN investigation
In brief, this POV section is riddled with accusations -- paragraph 1: "U.N inspectors were denied access for a second day" before they had made a formal request to visit the Ghouta area; paragraph 3: the government ordered out investigators after 90 minutes with no mention of the likely explanation, which likely was related to their investigations being delayed by gunfire for 4 hours; -- by the rebel-sympathetic sources that the government attempted to slow or stop UN investigators from doing their jobs. Where is the balance? For example, should it be noted somewhere that the UN has not made any such complaint? I'd say yes.Haberstr (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The final paragraph reports without counterbalance an allegation that RS have shown is nonsense.Haberstr (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Intelligence reports
This section is gigantic, 1,513 words, but no where will you see reference to the fact that the "intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom,[134] Israel,[135] United States,[91] France,[136] Turkey,[137] and Germany[138]" are all very strong allies of the rebels, and all have, since 2011, called for the ouster of Assad. In addition, there is little or no time in these 1,513 words to point out that none of the direct 'intelligence' has been released to the public, and that what has been released is entirely circumstantial and based on statements or videos by pro-rebel sources or by the rebels themselves. In any case, this section needs to be greatly condensed and some prominence, perhaps a subsection, needs to be given to the numerous RS who are skeptical of the evidence provided by the pro-rebel intel services for the reasons outlined above.Haberstr (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with all the issues on that list or that its a complete list. However, I very much appreciate the effort in compiling it, its good to work with some one who can make constructive comments. Note that there are several discussion already concerning those issues.--PLNR (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!Haberstr (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well done. Strong NPOV in your edits. I am against Wiki being used as it stands in the article, it degrades the encyclopedia to be sneeringly POV political. There is no hard evidence Syria did it. If you want to go political POV have at it and then I would see more on Prince Bandars role as well. Better to just make it fair, NPOV, dont you think? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
bias
Here is my problem with POV claims, for example this edit by @Haberstr, was intended to fix allegedly "very POV unbalance toward 'govt attack' hypothesis", todo so you copy&pasted this paragraph from an article :
The “rebels” are known to have acquired stocks of sarin gas. They used a chemical weapons compound in a home-made missile attack on a military outpost at Khan Al-Assal in March this year that killed dozens of soldiers and civilians. In May, Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that investigators had evidence that the “rebels” had used sarin gas. Also in May, Turkish police seized sarin gas along with handguns, grenades, ammunition and unspecified documents from apartments where rebel Al-Nusra Front members were living in Adana and Mersin. Early in June, the Syrian military seized two barrels of sarin gas from a “rebel” hideout in Hama.
You didn't bother to put imply, or alleged as you said above that other biased edits use. Nor did you care that it's not factual i.e. the UN issued a clarification about "Carla del Ponte" statement, saying that they "has not reached conclusive findings", which what their final reports said. Nor that the media report about Sarin in Turkey, was dismissed on the same day, with most involved released. iirc Nor that that the last thing was a report posted by Syrian national news and wasn't confirmed by anyone.
You just placed the whole paragraph in quotation marks, as if its a direct quote and nominated the writer of the article to the position of expert [97] and when I removed the false info about Carla, specifically noting its false in the edit summary, instead of discussion, you just ignore it and "repaired" your experts section.
So I would like to note that only because some section doesn't seems balanced to you, its not a violation of NPOV, in this case it only present how both hypothesis reflects in Reliable Sources. So I would appreciate everyone (including my friend @Podiaebba) to avoid "making up for" by unearthing and shoveling unreliable claims and half truths, due to misguided idea of NPOV. Also please fix that. --PLNR (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that Jeremy Salt is an actual expert (something you apparently didn't bother to check), being an academic with relevant books like this published by University of California Press. Salt's remarks about Carla del Ponte's comments are perfectly accurate - she talked about "evidence", it was later stressed that it wasn't conclusive, but it wasn't dismissed or denied or anything else that would make citing the original remarks false or misleading. The many media reports about Al-Nusra being caught with sarin in Turkey were, as you know very well, dismissed by Turkish officials. Turkey supports Al-Nusra in the Syrian civil war, so a hurried official denial means very little, and certainly doesn't outweigh the widely reported information which must have come from police sources in the first place (it's not like the Al-Nusra members were arrested by journalists, and it's not like Turkish media sources from a wide range of political perspectives are in the habit of all getting together and inventing the same claims). Podiaebba (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Additionally this edit by @Haberstr should be reinstated, with reworded text. The edit summary says "word-for-word copy" sentence, which didn't stop @Haberstr from copying a full paragraph in the above edit, when it suited him, but its a reason for deletion when it doesn't. The second claims in the edit-summary about Damascus is incorrect, in fact it seems that all the effected hoods in this attack was clash points in the last year, which are both individually named and shown on the map, which is also stated in the first source.--PLNR (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
PLNR there is POV bias in the article, get onboard fixing it or do better refuting all of @Haberstr points (if you cant he should enact them) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous POV biases in favor of the White House..I just haven't had time to address them all. One I am right now addressing is the false statement that the request was delivered on the 22nd when I have a video recording of Farhan Haq saying a press statement/press conference announcement, and the "immediate dispatch" of the UN rep took place on 22nd and she (the UN rep) arrived on the 24th. I will take that to noticeboard if it keeps falsely claiming that it was delivered on the 22nd, see this page at section [98] But that's not even the most major issue. Other places (2 or 3 of them) falsely say that the German intelligence said that "Syrian Army, but against Assad's orders" carried out the attack, that's just false, the German intelligence said one thing is certain, namely, over the months and months of monitoring with our ships off the coast, Assad always rejected chemical weapons use any time the issue was brought up by his commanders (the articles I've seen do not say what 'chemical weapons are' - it would be Sarin, it could be white phospherus which the US and Israel have used, it could be Tear Gas which is legal in most countries for use by police, illegal under CWC for "war", here we have both) be that as it may, whatever the generals brought up in conversation, the one certain fact the German intelligence units said, is that Assad always (in all calls over those months) rejected using them. Then, the article and/or German intelligence speculate and the Guardian for example uses a phrase like they said it "lends credence to" or some such language, to the possibility that it was the Army (but without Assad's ok) well, if you want to quote someone saying it "lends credence" fine, but we should not falsely say that "German intelligence says the Syrian Army did it but without Assad's ok" that's NOT what they said, they just said, all the times it was brought up, he said don't use it. The articles I've seen, which is more than a few, none of them, give any evidence that the Syrian army used it. We know (like Israel) Syria has chem weapons (including milder like tear gas) so it's not a surprise it was brought up. Let's not lie to readers and say "Germany says the Syrian Army did it, but just against Assad's orders" no, "Germany says Assad always rejected use whenever it came up" is what the intelligence said and maybe, maybe, if you make a good case for it, might add "some analysts think this lends credence to maybe it was Army rather than rebels" etc. Lots of other examples
The case of Pierre Piccinin and Domenico Quirico is another. No we should not say it "proves" the rebels did it, but the constant efforts to either delete, or undermine or downplay evidence that rebels were behind it, is remarkable. My time is limited at the moment but I hope the following information will be useful to the voices of sanity here, and that they can work to have the full information included
a Skype phone conversation in which an FSA rebel commander spoke about having launched a chemical attack and that it was on purpose to get the U.S. to attack the Syrian government, that is, to pin it on Assad's government.
Both former hostages heard the same thing, and both reported the same thing, about this conversation by their captors. There have been some extraordinarily misleading media reports that Quirico "could not confirm" what Piccinin said. In fact, Quirico had the same account:
"During our kidnapping [by FSA rebels], we were kept completely in the dark about what was going on in Syria, including the gas attacks in Damascus", Quirico said. "But one day, we heard a Skype conversation in English between three people whose names I do not know. We heard the conversation from the room in which we were being held captive, through a half-closed door. One of them had previously presented himself to us as a general of the Syrian Liberation Army. The other two we had never seen and knew nothing about".
"During the Skype conversation, they said that the gas attack on the two neighborhoods in Damascus [Ghouta] had been carried out by rebels as a provocation, to push the West towards a military intervention. They also said they believed the death toll had been exaggerated," Quirico said in his statement.
The western media have bent over backwards to say that Quirico "can't confirm" or has a "sharply" different interpretation, etc, misleading people to think that Quirico does not agree, but in fact, the above quotes are from Quirico himself. Quirico was responding to something else Piccinin said which is "it's my moral duty" to tell the world that Assad did not carry out the attack. Well, Quirico is correct that we can't be 100% sure about what they heard, one can even hypothesize, "maybe both rebels AND government forces used it" etc etc, so no, we're not 100% sure, so if Quirico wanted to say it would be "madness" to say we're sure that Assad, that's his right to have that commentary, just like it's Piccinin's right to comment that "[definitely] Assad did not do it" and that it's his "moral duty" (he had been "firecely" pro-rebel before, in case anyone's missed the story) But we're risking losing the forest for the trees:
Both Quirico and Piccinin: 1) were held by rebels, kidnapped by FSA and 2) both agree they overheard through a half open door a skype conversation in English 3) both agree one of the people speaking was someone they already knew was not just FSA but a commander and 4) Both former hostages heard him tel others that gas attacks had been carried out by rebels - not "we're planning to carry them out" but "had been" carried out and 5) they both heard him say that it was done to provoke the west into attacking the Syrian government
This is what we know, and this is what we should report, in addition to reporting as NYTimes online did that previous reporting by Quirco had been "symapthetic" to the rebels so both hostages used to be sympathetic. If the Italian paper wants to act like Pravda and bury the above two paragraphs (quoted directly from their paper) in the middle of a 6 paragraph story two thirds of which are statements they made or quote Quirico about "you never know" and "I can't be totally sure" and "it's madness" to be 100% certain that Assad didn't do it and on for two thirds of the article, the middle two paragraphs of which actually tell us what both hostages heard, and what both agree upon, that's the paper's right to do, it doesn't affect that wikipedia's job is to report what both hostages agree they both heard, period.
Can you imagine it two formerly pro-Syrian government hostages both heard their Syrian Army captors say the analogous thing? We would not water down that, or put 100 disclaimers, we'd report the facts (above paragraph in bold) and that's what we should do (some might also take it 100 steps further to say it "proves" the government did it - which we shouldn't do, and likewise, we should not use the word "proved" about the rebels having done it, just report what the two former hostages incidate they both heard)
From RT and IBT: Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene. "In this conversation, they said that the gas attack on two neighborhoods of Damascus was launched by the rebels as a provocation to lead the West to intervene militarily," Quirico told Italy's La Stampa. "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."
As for Piccinin: "we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army.." reports IBT adding "Piccinin said the captives became desperate when they heard that the US was planning to launch a punitive attack against the regime over the gas attack in the Damascus suburb. 'We were prisoners, stuck with this information and unable to report it,' " because they were still captive [99]
Even though they became desperate about the prospect of a US strike when they knew what they had heard, they still didn't have all the details, of the exact chermical weapons attack that did happen exactly at Ghouta, until they were released: "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus." [100] See also [101] All the time I have for now. I haven't even quoted what both now say about the madness of the west supporting the revolution - actually Quirico who is more reserved about not knowing 100% sure that it as rebels not Assad, he is actually using stronger terms about what the "rebels" and "Revolution" today are, jihadists and bandits, but that's for another time, the main focus is, what they heard, and the background, items in paragraph in bold above..all the time I have for now, hope others will focus on these facts and can use these extra links, and add Harel (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This section is pretty long - perhaps you could split your remarks about Piccinin/Quirico out and move them to the section above about that subject? (If you do, you can just delete this comment suggesting the split.) Podiaebba (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Harel thanks for all the hard work. I will go over it later today. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Blade-of-the-South, glad my work gathering up these links is appreciated and much more importantly, that they will be useful to you for updates. Podiaebba, please feel free to copy/paste from my comments to that section yourself - or just the three links in the paragraph just above, plus the La Stampa link a bit further above those. Each of us has limited time, by working together and splitting up work helps.
Final note: I hope someone can or did correct the false summary of German intelligence in the article (not lede)? German intel decisively stated without ambiguity that Assad always said no to chem weapons, but did not make any (in any of the several articles I saw) anything clear cut about Army did Ghoutta attack, absolutely not..just "analysis/speculation" that "well, Army did "bring up the subject of chem weapons" (again, they don't even say what those are? white phosphorus? sarin? tear gas?) and that "lends support" to the possibility that Army did Ghout attack, is the most that could be said, and is the most any article summarizing German intel ever did say. Regards, Harel (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Russia and China "prevaricating"
User:Sayerslle has made this edit [102] to the lead, adding the phrase "with Russia and China prevaricating to a degree" as further detail to the UN's call for an investigation, citing this Guardian article as a source [103] and explaining his edit by writing "role of Russia in muddying waters."
Google says that to "prevaricate" is to "speak or act in an evasive way." The Guardian source actually writes, "On Wednesday, the security council expressed "strong concern" and called for more "clarity" on the use of chemical weapons, but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach backed by the US, UK, France and 32 other governments that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access to the site of the attack, and to be granted greater latitude by the Syrian government to carry out their enquiries... Moscow and Beijing have consistently backed Assad throughout the civil war, and the Russian foreign ministry on Wednesday accused rebels of staging the massacre to trigger intervention. China issued a statement saying it opposed the use of chemical weapons but called for the UN team to "fully consult with the Syrian government and maintain an objective, impartial and professional stance, to ascertain what really happened"."
Writing that Russia and China are speaking/acting evasively is a very bold editorial decision, but it's not neutral language, and certainly not supported by the source provided. -Darouet (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
well, - 'but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach [-] that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access to the site of the attack', - is great, - 'prevaricated' was a perhaps too inexact way of seeking to précis Sayerslle (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also Sayerslle, this section of the lead is basically describing calls - by Ban Ki-Moon - for access to the Ghouta sites. It's not dealing with resolutions proposed by the U.S., U.K., France, or other countries. Perhaps the appropriate place for this would be in the article body, where such resolutions are proposed (and changed by Russia/China).
Otherwise, In the end, we might put the entire article into the third paragraph of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree - I don't think the details of that early diplomatic wrangling really needs to go into the lead. But I really think that it needs to be explained properly in the body, so we can say exactly what it is that US/France etc wanted and what Russia and China wanted, and then introduce a summary in the lead if necessary. The Guardian source isn't specific enough, more info is needed. Podiaebba (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
fine , I am all for specific info - its why I like to see a day to day unfolding , supported byRS, in the lead ideally, summarized and précis-ed - its the slurrings over, the disinformation and misinformation landslides - so evident elsewhere in the article I fear, - that I most detest. Sayerslle (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, it seems that the information you're adding refers not to Ban's calls for access - what was in the lead beforehand - and instead to security council resolutions. Is this what you mean to put there?
As far as I can tell, there's no consensus to place that specific information in the lead right now. -Darouet (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
my edit wasnt zeroing in on ban ki moon 's calls no, it was about the Russian and Chinese attitude, though there is a ref dated 22 isn't there that says he wanted access for the inspectors - i'll go and check - is there consensus for anything - is there consensus for that 'motivation' bit that reads quite biased to me, - focuses unduly on fringe stuff, Sayerslle (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
the latest from ban ki moon _ report will be released on Monday probably - reuters
'UN chief Ban says expects UN experts' report will confirm use of chemical weapons in #Syria & Assad committed many crimes against humanity' Sayerslle (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed. Its not lede material. A good Lede is broad and sets things up, not POV detail interpretation like this journos article quoted. Mention and expand in body in a NPOV manner if at all. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't the time at the moment to look at the attitude of Russia and china in the immediate days after the attacks but there will come time - today 15 September ali haidar Syrian minister 'hailed the deal on the Assad regime's chemical weapons as "a victory … won thanks to our Russian friends, Ali Haidar, paid fulsome tribute to its longstanding ally, praising "the achievement of the Russian diplomacy and the Russian leadership". ' -Russia has been there right through, totally aligned, 100% KGB trained lavrov-putin cynicism, - needless to say I regard blades regard for npov as a joke in very poor taste. Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2013 Ghouta attacks's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Secretary Kerry seems to have been sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number of deaths
Figure in article needs explanation re this. "Secretary Kerry seems to have been sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number," said Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the U.S. Defense Department.
Now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he writes on the CSIS website, "Put simply, there is no way in hell the U.S. intelligence community could credibly have made an estimate this exact."
Yes, I would agree that the Kerry's (and by extension the USA's) casualty number is over precise. Casualty estimates by all sides in all wars have been classically inaccurate, but Kerry's estimate has drawn criticism essentially from all quarters. I am actually surprised that we do not already mention this, either here or at International reactions to the 2013 Ghouta attacks. Am I missing it somewhere? VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Turkish prosecutors indict Syrian rebels for seeking chemical weapons
This is going in. I dont care who does it.
The prosecutor in the Turkish city of Adana has issued a 132-page indictment, alleging that six men of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham tried to seek out chemicals with the intent to produce the nerve agent, sarin gas, a number of Turkish publications reported.
Good job Blade! And it says "including the Aug. 21 incident outside Damascus" so no one can say it's Synth. :-) USchick (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that Chicago Tribune falsely says "The United States and its allies say the proof is overwhelming that it was forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad who unleashed sarin " in this Sept 13, 2013 report since it's been some days now when in fact even back on Sunday Sept 8 White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough[104] said they do not claim to have "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence." but rather a certain test, called the "common sense test". But thank you Blade for this update! Maybe here suggest which section(s) to put it in? Harel (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I already added this to the "Capability" section, on the assumption no-one would complain about adding an update to the May incident based on mainstream Turkish (but English-language) and US sources. Podiaebba (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The alleged ring never manufactured sarin, a potent nerve agent, according to Turkish media. This is wholly irrelevant to this article, which is on the Ghouta chemical attacks. It may be useful in the Syrian Civil War article. Blade, you may not be aware that your declaring "This is going in" does not make material more suitable for the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Intelligence summaries have made it clear that determination of culpability rests significantly on the claim that rebels don't have the capability to launch CW attacks as seen in Ghouta. Discussion of rebels' capabilities is therefore extremely relevant to this article. NB one detail that may be worth adding is that the indictment says the suspects ordered 10 tons of chemicals. [105]Podiaebba (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes its extremely relevant as you say Podiaebba. VQuakr re "This is going in" call it a hunch then, a Eureka moment, that 'Ahha' feeling you get when you see some contrivance that isn't making sense start unraveling. Also VQuakr you may not be aware but apparently 'its' already in. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It always made sense to me... I rather assumed that the Turkish government was leaning on police and/or prosecutors to quietly drop the investigation (see eg Şemdinli incident). Well if they did try that it clearly didn't work... NB The Syrian opposition is embarrassed enough about the episode to suggest it's a false flag operation by the Syrian government designed to embarrass the opposition and Turkey! Podiaebba (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the lack of any attempt to mask your blatant POV, but why would it matter how many tons of precursor they ordered? Some (very wealthy) yahoo can order 10 kilos of Pu-239 from a reference lab in milligram aliquots, but they ain't gonna get them. It already being in the article just means that someone added it without consensus and is not germane to a discussion about whether it should be included. So, framing your reasoning in the context of Wiki policy rather than rhetoric and conjecture, what is the reason that you think this is relevant to the Ghouta attacks? VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the lack of any attempt to mask your blatant POV - what the hell? You appear to be both clueless about recent Turkish political history (Ergenekon/Susurluk!) and unwilling to make the effort to read a relevant article when its provided to you. If you think what I suggested is so unthinkable you won't even look into it, then it's you who has a blatant POV - apparently that a Middle Eastern state with a weak democracy couldn't possibly do something dodgy in order to support its foreign policy interests just because it's a US ally. Podiaebba (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Podiaebba: I rather assumed that the Turkish government was leaning on police... Blade: a hunch then, a Eureka moment... these are things someone says when they are attempting to twist information to fit their preconceived idea of what happened rather than neutrally reflect the most reliable sources available. Again, I agree it is better to be straightforward that you are not attempting to be neutral than to try to hide it, so thanks for that. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr - I attempt to write neutral articles. I have views, and so does every editor, and anyone who pretends they don't is fooling themselves and/or others. For example, your view is clearly that the Turkish government is incapable of doing dodgy things - presumably because they're a US ally. (And you appear unwilling to make even minimal efforts to educate yourself on the matter, which is somewhat irritating). In short, distrusting everyone equally is closer to neutrality than elevating the official pronouncements of one nation and its allies to the status of the Gospel, and I'm closer to the former position and you appear to be closer to the latter. Podiaebba (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You probably will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree with your assessment of my beliefs and knowledge, and am similarly unsurprised that you are unwilling to admit your own bias. I am also unsurprised given your stated disdain for our policies that you are so eager to violate WP:NPA. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not have "disdain" for Wikipedia policies - where do you get this from? What I've meant by recent references to how people use/abuse them is that they provide a broad framework within which we work to discuss facts. When people suddenly veer away from facts to demand discussion of policy, this is generally an attempt to avoid discussing facts they don't want to, since detailed discussion of policy cannot speak to facts. Note the distinction between introducing policy that is relevant and applying it to a situation or discussion (eg "is that really a reliable enough source for backing up that claim in that way? let's talk about that...") - it's the demand for unspecified policy to be introduced into a discussion which is the problem. As to so eager to violate WP:NPA - well that's ironic, since I didn't make any personal attacks as far as I can see (I was describing what your views appear to be) whilst alleging a character trait of making personal attacks is in itself an actual personal attack. Podiaebba (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You probably will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree with your assessment of my beliefs and knowledge - well if you are in fact willing to countenance the possibility of Turkey doing something dodgy to support its foreign policy then you could perhaps do me the kindness of conceding that my willingness to countenance that possibility isn't evidence of bias. On the other hand, if you're not, perhaps you could explain why and/or concede that this constitutes an actual bias. Podiaebba (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Governments lie. None lie all the time, but all lie some of the time. But what you are suggesting is to use reports that a terrorist group failed to make sarin months ago as evidence that terrorists used sarin in another country. My response - that terrorists attempting to make sarin in May in Turkey is not relevant enough to mention in an article about August attacks in Ghouta - is neutral. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Insisting on backing up arguments with reference to "wiki policy" is generally a red flag that someone is trying to deny the obvious conclusion arising from the facts. I already stated what those facts were: the Western conclusions about culpability for the attacks are (by their own admission) based significantly on the belief that the rebels have no significant CW capability. Therefore analysis of that capability is not just relevant, it's highly relevant. And yes, there are good independent sources making this obvious link between the Turkish arrests and the strength of the Western conclusions (see article, section Capability). Podiaebba (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Relevance, lets see,(do you mind colloquial?). Hmmm how about Intent, track record, history, form, as they say. Or simply put, 'they be caught red handed guvnor, see what business they got with da chemical weapons when them being denying they have any interest atall. Makes one wonder it does guv'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The sources you linked do not say what you want them to say. A terrorist group allegedly tried and failed to obtain precursor chemicals that could have been used by a capable entity to make sarin. In a neighboring country. With no evidence of a delivery system and certainly no evidence of a connection to Ghouta. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you want the serial numbers of the delivery system as well, what about their tax file numbers? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, UN inspectors were able to retrieve some serial numbers from the weapons used. Third party sources discussing the provenance of those weapons would be very relevant to the article. Tax info may have to wait, though. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
you seem very indulgent to the regime, (not big on NPOV at all, fine, at least theres nothing sneaky about your bias) -'when them being denying' they had any chem weapons at all - and, meanwhile, -'scepticism about its real intentions was deepened by 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.' Sayerslle (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's well into the topic of the international reactions article, surely. Perhaps we could begin to try and separate these topics. Podiaebba (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle 'reports' you say, why not bung them in the lede without discussion. What reports? Wheres the reliable refs if they are that good? Re ' theres nothing sneaky about your bias' again why not bung your stuff in the lede without discussion. You want personal have at it. I have my reasons for doubting the US version. I wont divulge them here. But as long as there is counter evidence with refs it should be mentioned. Its called NPOV. What you dont like are things that cast doubt on the US POV? Why? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Blade...we have to be especially careful not to have a US/West-POV. Yes this is the English language part of wikipedia, but it is not the Official Western View part of wikipedia, is it? (yet people still post comments here that "you can't trust RT" and forget how US media repeated lies over and over again about 2003 Iraq "WMD" and that's just the most famous case. I would not trust RT on things like Russian crimes in Chechnia as well as civilian casualties etc..in any case, multiple countries, multiple media, with references, backing up, is the way to go) By the way another article on the Turkish indictment just the other day: [106] which then goes on to mention other lines of evidence, Piccinin/Quirico, and Del Ponte (on earlier attack) and Russian analysis of previous attack (which unlike the White House analysis of this one, actually gives technical details, some are cited here) and more.Harel (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Citing all relevant reports and preventing an omission
A citation of the Russian intelligence report must appear in the article, alongside the UK, US, French and German reports, in order to cover the topic from all angles.Lenmoly (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
We need a source in order to report it; has Russia published an intelligence report that we can use? Right now the article has a very awkward structure where we talk about "allied" intel reports in the Evidence section and then later have an Intelligence reports section. One the article settles this will need to be restructured. VQuakr (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A Russian report from July about the sarin attack in Aleppo was given to the UN [107].
This means that Russia collects intelligence about such attacks in Syria. If a report about the attack in Ghouta is still not available from Russia, then it should be at least mentioned that they, like the other powers, collect intelligence and that they submitted the July report about Aleppo to the UN.
Lenmoly (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
They don't routinely do such investigations; their investigation of the Khan al-Assal chemical attack was at the request of Syria due to delays getting the UN investigation started. Podiaebba (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Their Aleppo report is, to my knowledge, not publicly available (yet?). It also is not relevant to an article about Ghouta. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again: a key claim for dismissing the possibility of rebel attack in Ghouta is lack of capability. Prior attack by rebels clearly speaks to analysis of capability. Honestly, when you go to the doctor do you deny any information about your medical history, because it couldn't possibly be relevant?? Podiaebba (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Four points.
Russia will always be doing inteligence reports, the question is when do 'we' see them.
Two, Russia has a robust intel service and its in action re Syria as evidenced by this from the link below. 'Meanwhile it was reported that Russia has dispatched an intelligence ship to the Eastern Mediterranean'.
A succinct Russian Intelligence section has been added using above refs based on discussion above. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I reverted because your bold addition did not actually contain any information on Russian intelligence. Re your list above, 1 does not appear actionable, 2 may be useful as a sentence of background but is really not very relevant to this article, 3 is just one of innumerable examples of Russia naysaying whatever the "west" claims (to be fair, that activity is 100% mutual), and 4 is relevant to the article but not to a "Russian intelligence" section since it is not related to Russian intelligence. VQuakr (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Your revert is unjustified but not unexpected based on your past comments. However I will revert it. Why? Putin is the president. There is no way he would be saying what he says without good intel. Too much is at stake Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. "I didn't provide support, I won't provide support, but I jusk know it is correct!" No. I tagged the disputed section since you did not even attempt to address my concern; what do other editors think? VQuakr (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Im beginning to wonder about you VQuakr. You are saying Putin is acting from a position of ignorance. The President of the Russian Federation is invested with extensive rights to implement the state's foreign policy. The President determines Russia's position in international affairs and represents the state in international relations, conducts negotiations and signs ratification documents. He is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Amoung other things he will
Determine the main directions of military policy of the Russian Federation;
Enact regulations of war and cease their action, form and abolish executive authorities for a period of war in accordance with federal constitutional law on martial law;
While you revert an edit of Putins clear statements because you VQuakr didnt get to see the reports he saw. Do you think this is a game? That he shoots off at the mouth? This is high stakes VQuakr. If the US strikes civilians will die. I am annoyed at your continuing attempts to maintain the US POV. Any continuing revert is bordering on vandalism. Dont do vandalism or I will escalate. You should be aware the USA has backed down from Putins challenge to present their intelligence. The supposition the US intel would not stand scrutiny is one conclusion and the refusal of the USA to front up merely verifies Russias intelligence assessments Putins words are based on . Any other conclusion is puerile. Im frankly disappointed in you, I took you as having more class Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, you could substitute Cameron's or Obama's names with Putin's and get similar results to above. I have no doubt that you would rightfully object if I attempted to use your "he's the president, he must be right" argument. We report what has been verifiably published, not what you think Russia's intel reports must say based on Putin's actions. I disagree with your assessment that the article is biased towards a "US POV" (good luck coming up with a singular POV accurately described by that phrase!), and you make it apparent that you could do with a rereading of WP:VANDNOT. Personal attack noted. VQuakr (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Your right about the vandalism label. My apologies. You are doing something else. Ill get the right label for it, when I have time. But your wrong about the main point. Putins verified statements in response to US intelligence reports do fit where I put them, maybe I will tweak the title, maybe not. The title I made had no 'report' in it, same as the German one, different from the UK US Fr ones. So its fine, its not citing an intel report same as the German one its citing articles about it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the word you are looking for "Wikilawyering"? I am trying to be through as a means towards the end of slow but stead progress. I think Putin's responses to other countries' reports should go in the sections on the reports, not in a "Russian intelligence" section. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thats not the word. It may be part of the mix. So might obfuscating. Its still too early to tell. No its best where I finally put it, since the bulk of the others are reports, as you were at pains to point out. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What is going on here? We had a clear distinction between intelligence as Evidence (i.e. evidence derived from intelligence work, like phone intercepts) and Intelligence Reports (various countries' summaries). We now have intelligence reports under the Evidence section, even though they provide no evidence distinct from intelligence or other evidence present in other sections; and an Intelligence Reports section which is the remnants of the mishmash of intelligence reports from before I started splitting them by country. We also have a strange "Russian response to US" section, even though this would most obviously just be a paragraph in the US report section. Surely we can do better than this. Podiaebba (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You have a point but as the neutrality issue persists the Russian response assuredly needs mentioning to balance that section. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Why? Do we need to include an American rebuttal every time we publish a claim made by Assad or Putin? Russia's response is and should be in the article, but it does not need to be repeated everywhere. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be "repeated everywhere", but it needs to be mentioned. Can we drop the separate section? It looks silly being so short. Podiaebba (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree the Russian reply to US claims needs to be in because the US claim is so strong and if the USA is wrong again and like Iraq WMD there is fraud in the intel its Iraq all over again and thats significant. So the other view Russia is vital. I put it back where VQuark had it. Not isolated. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
![[96]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_Department_map_of_Gouta_chemical_attack.svg){kind=link}
Done VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)