Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

RfC on the Diab video affair

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After various edit warring back and forth and much disorganized discussion, I have decided that an RfC is the best way to establish consensus on this controversial material. This text currently stands in the article:

“ On 18 April, Russian state TV broadcast aired an interview with Hassan Diab, a boy who the TV program said was featured before in a hospital video taken by the White Helmets. Diab said that "they were filmed being doused in water and given other simulated medical treatment at the hospital." According to The Intercept, the video was fabricated and "filmed not in the boy’s hometown, where a suspected chemical attack took place, but at a Syrian army facility where Russian military advisers were present." ”

References

Please vote either Keep or Delete. --Calthinus (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging various users whose names show up repeatedly in this page's history: Volunteer Marek My very best wishes Mhhossein Supreme Deliciousness Bobfrombrockley Neil S Walker InedibleHulk ז62 Drmies selfworm Philip Cross LylaSand GnarlyLikeWhoa Icewhiz MrX Huldra Piotrus . --Calthinus (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Delete as proposer. As can be seen, I earlier favored keeping the discussion of the material in the spirit of collegiality; however given (a) the multiplication of bewildering (to most people) "substories" about Douma and (b) the report by The Intercept that the Russian state media video was fabricated and "filmed not in the boy’s hometown, where a suspected chemical attack took place, but at a Syrian army facility where Russian military advisers were present" (at the very least I believe this casts a pretty dark shadow), I don't think it is worth taking up space and leaving our readers confused with the details of WP:UNDUE tangents. Furthermore, it was placed in the international reactions section, where it was technically off-topic. --Calthinus (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Poster was a klutz, apologies from yours truly.--Calthinus (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus: Thanks for opening this, but you need to end this awkward RFC and instead use a RFC template. See the instructions here at WP:RFCST. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Mhhossein my apologies, I tend to be lazy because, you know, time. Template posted.--Calthinus (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - If this has only been published in unreliable media (Russian state TV) and mainly commented on as unreliable in other outlets as questionable - it is UNDUE. We also have some BLP issues (a minor in a newly conquered area - the conquerors generally not having a good record on human rights / freedom of speech / etc.). I do think that "media warfare" article of some sort (covering various claims from all sides - and my reading of the sources here is that no one is innocent - staging is rampant from all sides and has been throughout the conflict) is probably notable (as a standalone article or in the article on the war as a whole) - but it should be built up not by individual incidents, but by sources covering the issue as a whole. It seems to me that the "staging" claim (of the attack as a whole) by the Russian/Syrian/Iranian side is viewed as minority or perhaps even fringe view. It does seem DUE to mention that they are claiming the attack as a whole has been staged - but it seems UNDUE to cover each and every tangent they go off on (of which there have been several different claims of why/how/whom that attack was staged - with varying evidence and coverage for each one).Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Unlike what's said above, other reliable sources have talked about the interview. The coverage degree by the reliable sources are the best criteria to assess whether or not it should be included. In this case, be it faked or other wise, the story merits inclusion since it's covered by The Guardian, The Times, where it's got a nearly full coverage and by The Sun. So, UNDUE claims are simply rejected, specially because just 2 lines are dedicated to the Interview itself.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

But the subject of this article isn't the interview; it is the attack. If the interview has been exposed as a hoax by multiple reliable sources, then it clearly cannot be used as a source for information about the attack. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ditto on VQuakr's comment. Mhhossein has pretty clear WP:POV issues on this topic. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. This is 'fake news', but we do seem to make it clear - perhaps not clear enough. I'd overall support keeping this if this can be rewritten/clarified properly to show this is for what it is, i.e. Russian-created fake news. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - As keeping it sets a dangerous precedent... we'd then have to include all Russian/Iranian/North Korean/Syrian propaganda pieces and conspiracy theories along with a rebuttal, which would result in "false balance". ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - As per the several good reasons already mentioned, and not least because there is an ethical BLP issue about directing any attention at all to a named minor living in a warzone who is not himself notable except as a political football in the back and forth about this attack, who was very possibly interviewed under duress while captive at a military facility and certainly was interviewed in the presence of military from the forces who had defeated his family's side in battle. In general, this sort of detail may emerge in due course as notable, but in the meantime this event is still in or barely out of the WP:BREAKING category, so we should err on the side of caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment & Delete - There is an effort among some editors here and on other articles related to the Syrian Civil War to introduce a narrative that the West is engaged in some sinister plot to stage the conditions for war the in region, such as the ridiculous idea that those involved in this terrible attack are actually being portrayed by actors or that the West is literally planting evidence. We're not doing that. We're not introducing that narrative. That's not a thing that's happening. And we are certainly not going to do it casually accepting the illusion of balance in the reliability of propaganda outlets like RT and SANA, and the objectively false stories they push out. So sorry, the chemical attack happened, and it was perpetrated by the Syrian government (and perhaps others). The paragraph at issue is ridiculous. It begins with a lie and and the rest of the paragraph carries on describing some futile attempt at the rebuttal of the lie. The real story that should be described is, for example, that there are conspiracy theories peddled by propaganda outlets and Syrian coalition governments, and among them are xyz. We shouldn't let readers for a second believe there is any credibility to these conspiracy theories, and that should be the rule throughout the entire article. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this is legitimate content, but it belongs to another page, something along the lines of Information war during the Russo-Georgian War, just replace "Russo-Georgian War" by "Syrian war". My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, that thing also does not belong to this page for the same reason. Undue. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so just like that. It's UNDUE because Mvbw says it is. Nevermind giving policy based reasons as to why. A simple "no" in an edit-summary or just saying "undue" on the TP should do the trick, of course. I never knew Wikipedia was that easy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Mhhossein. We can at least try providing both sides of the story, you know? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @EtienneDolet: - Except that the "side" you're trying to present isn't covered in reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Intercept is an unreliable source? That's news to me. Do you guys even bother checking the WP:RSN? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: - The Intercept is refuting the story. Not supporting it. Basically, Russian state TV reported the bombing was faked, then the Intercept refuted that. Why report the propaganda then refute it? Why not just not report it at all? NickCT (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether the Intercept has fully "refuted" the story is not for us to decide, but our readership. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but to present various accusations pertaining this matter. This means to include all notable accusations/refutations and not censor the ones we disagree with. With that said, if the Intercept finds the accusation notable enough to refute, then we should also find it notable enough to include both the accusation and the refutation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

However criticism of coverage by a source in question does have strong relevance to discussion about the reliability of that source. Pages that are encompassing and incorporate minority views are preferable, but taken to an extreme this leads to WP:UNDUE tangents of he-said-she-said. --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: - Not the point. The point is that the only source that supports the inclusion of the factoid is Russian state TV. Russian state TV is not a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, no. As far as I can see, not "Russian state TV" sources are being used the RFC proposal. I see two sources: Guardian and Intercept. Both reliable. The refutation is as important as the claim. So if the Intercept and Guardian are to take these accusations seriously, even if they are merely considered to be refuted, then we are to take it seriously too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: - Hmmmm.... I don't think you're getting it. Russian state TV is saying the story is true. The Guardian and the Intercept are saying the story is false. There are no reliable sources supporting the story. So why include it? It's sort of double-think to say that b/c there are reliable sources saying a story is false, we should include the story. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Because numerous reliable sources have reported the accusation making it notable. So essentially, we're not discussing whether or not the accusation is true, we're discussing whether it's WP:DUE. Many things on this project deal with the refutation of such accusations, conspiracy theories, fringe theories, and etc. For example, we don't delete stuff like Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Pizzagate, and etc. We keep them but as long as they're balanced by reliable sources. There should be no exception to that rule here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we talk about Holocaust denial on the page The Holocaust? No. Do we talk about Pizzagate on Hillary Clinton? I haven't checked but I would bet no. --Calthinus (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I was rebutting your examples. They don't hold water. We do not give WP:UNDUE coverage to things like this. That is not how our policies work. --Calthinus (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You brought up the articles, not me. I was talking about the project at large. I too can shop around articles that can refute your statement regarding such articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If you weren't referring to how the spinoff alt-narratives were covered on the main event article, then you were comparing apples and oranges.--Calthinus (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I can easily shop around articles that talk about conspiracy theories, denial of war crimes, and fringe theories as part of the main article. In fact, I know quite a few off the top of my head. But that's a moot discussion. Rules that apply to those articles may or may not apply here, hence WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: - So.... Your argument is that this is a notable conspiracy theory? Hmmm... Interesting rationale. I guess that could be the case, but we'd seriously need to reword the current text to make it clear it's a fringe conspiracy theory. NickCT (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not what I said. It doesn't have to be a "conspiracy theory". Indeed, the Intercept article doesn't even frame it that way. But it can be just a simple accusation or a claim. And to clarify: in Wikipedia we go so far as to include conspiracy theories, denial of war crimes, fringe theories, and etc. Such claims and theories may not stem from reliable sources, but are still notable enough to be WP:DUE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• • We can at least try providing both sides of the story, you know? Like the Russian "side" of the story that claimed Ukrainian air force pilot Vladyslav Voloshyn shot down MH17 in his SU-25? Or the Russian "side" of the story that the Ukrainian army also shot down MH17 with a 9K37 Buk missile launcher? Or the Russian "side" of the story that the "pro-Russian" troops active in Crimea were not Russian special forces but were merely enthusiastic amateurs who had been to a surplus uniform store? There aren't really "two sides to the story": there's what really happened and then there's multiple propaganda noise generation from Russia. Neil S. Walker (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

...WP:NOTAFORUM. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

*Delete - it is a far-fetched claim made by an unreliable source that is debunked by a reliable source. LylaSand (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - There's a reason the story is pretty much confined to Russian state news and every other news outlet is pretty much poking it with a long stick. Stikkyy t/c 04:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Having read through the comments, I really see no guideline-based argument supporting the removal. Almost every one failed to respond why we should avoid the materials covered by reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Times, The sun and etc (links are found in my last comment). Most of those said "delete" say that the interview is fake. OK, let's assume it's fake. So, what? Don't we talk about fake things in Wiki? Which guideline allows censoring it? When we have an article Flat Earth, does it mean the the earth is flat? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Good example. Yes, "Flat Earth" is noted in page "Earth" because it is a notable historically concept (unlike that one), because the page about Earth is very big, and because Flat Earh is clearly described as a disproved theory. My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Encyclopaedia not newspaper. As others point out above, this is most likely Russian propaganda/fake news being introduced to create noise. Yes, some news outlets, eg The Guardian, have responded and mentioned it. This is not a news site, however. We don't have to. Also, the Russian state-controlled media really should not be being used - or considered - as a reliable source in this matter. Finally, in the extremely unlikely event that this story is somehow proven to be true in the future, this encyclopaedia is not printed on paper and the article may be updated. Not a newspaper, people. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional. I also agree with My very best wishes' suggestion above. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - @Calthinus: I'm having trouble understanding why you pinged all these editors. Pretty sure it was done in good faith, but it is usually discouraged in such controversial disputes. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing_an_RfC, Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. Many editors, including myself, already had this page on their watchlists, so that was unnecessary. I have no solid opinion (yet) on this particular dispute, but Mhhossein's concerns would seem reasonable under normal circumstances, i.e. if they weren't eclipsed by the several non-policy-based "Delete" !votes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: That I'm a little shit is quite true, though I'm not sure I can be considered a reliable and non-biased source on this matter :). That said, it is extremely doubtful that this "canvassing" (I have seen mass-pings by the poster very regularly done in fact on other RfCs and move discussions) has had an adverse on the outcome -- in fact there are now as many Delete !votes that I did not ping than there are Keep !votes at all (more, if you count VQuakr's comment which argued against a Keep vote). Regarding "non-policy base arguments", I think you would be well advised not to say this when people did state policy in their arguments (regardless of differences in your interpretation from theirs)-- "non-policy based arguments" as a phrase on wiki is often understood to mean "personal bias" and is generally not a thing you should ever use on people who did cite policy in their arguments.--Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment: Re Mhhossein "no guideline-based argument" and Fitzcarmalan "non-policy-based "Delete" !votes": several voters have mentioned reliability of sources (WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RS); Neil S. Walker cited WP:NOTNEWS and I cited WP:BREAKING (I think WP:EVENT is relevant too, which urges slowness rather than speed in determining notability of news events); I cited WP:BLP in relation to the named minor. People have mentioned excess detail that might lead to a lead to the need to balance every detail with a retraction; this is WP:TMI. And false balance has been mentioned, which is WP:GEVAL. I think that's quite a few policy-based arguments to exclude this for now! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm breaking this down point by point:

WP:RS - Reliable sources don't say that it's a fake story (op-eds do that). Reliable sources are quoting Western officials (primary source) who accuse Russian officials (primary source) of fabricating a fake story. See the difference here? Controversies that are themselves notable enough to receive full coverage by (secondary) RS merit inclusion. Real discussion should be about whether it's due or undue weight.

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BREAKING - Those are mainly concerned with the GNG criteria of standalone articles during AfD discussions, not with the content of said articles. What you were probably referring to is WP:RSBREAKING, but even so it says you should "replace with better-researched claims", not remove it altogether.

WP:BLP - Exercising caution is understandable. But I don't see any BLP violation in the disputed text. Do you?

WP:TMI and WP:GEVAL - All I'm seeing is two sentences, so calling this "false balance" is an exaggeration. GEVAL is meant to limit fringe views that are exclusive to GlobalResearch.ca and other conspiracy websites, which clearly isn't the case here, where the controversy itself is notable so far and covered by RS.

So I would normally !vote wait under such circumstances, pending further investigation or analyses by reputable scholarship, which won't happen anytime soon. When it does, I would support keeping the material. But "this is propaganda/fake news" is a bad reason to have this excluded from the article, per my above explanation. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Breaking it down as you did:

WP:RS -- you said Reliable sources don't say that it's a fake story (op-eds do that). You're being misleading. This ([[1]]) is not an op-ed and while it doesn't explicitly say "fake news", it casts so much doubt that we definitely could not consider the original report reliable.

WP:RSBREAKING -- "replace with better researched claims" well there are none afaik.

WP:BLP -- Just imagine what poor Hasan Diab is going to have to go through for the rest of his life. No we absolutely do not need his name in the article and it must be removed. Thankfully Bobfrombrockley has now done so.

False balance -- yes there is absolutely a false balance as anyone who has read the mountains of text on this talk page has seen explanations for.

You forgot WP:UNDUE.

But the point is not collecting a policy arsenal like bottle caps. As I said before Fitzcarmalan originally I favored keeping it in, but we simply cannot establish a precedent where we allow every single controversy arising from the claims emanating from Russian media with all of its RS issues and mutually conflicting stories to become a acne outbreak on the article of tangential paragraphs scattered all over this page (and others). I agree with My very best wishes, Icewhiz and others -- this material should be covered on its own page, as we have done for both Georgia and Ukraine. It just makes pages like this about the actual main news event less readable to readers who really do not have any reason to care about the details of all the debunked and partially debunked alternative narratives and "substories".--Calthinus (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, The Intercept report is probably a primary source in and of itself (not that I have a problem with it), considering we have reliable secondary sources mentioning it as a separate opinion, like this ABC News article. I never said there were better researched sources out there, or that we should mention Diab's name in the article (he might end up having a page of his own anyway). I even said that it would be wiser to wait for further details to surface. This "precedent" being supposedly set up (the controversy surrounding Diab's story) had been so far covered by reliable sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not a separate opinion it is a separate set of (claimed) facts. Diab is essentially a moot point, but I was explaining what was meant by BLP since you seemed to have missed it. As for "better researched sources", as we have waited we have not seen better "researched" stuff showing how this one variant of the Russian narrative could actually be relevant; instead we've seen the emergence instead of mutually conflicting "alternative narratives". As I said, in the situation where the controversies were limited and continuous I would be for having this-- but what we have here (as well as seen earlier in Syria and in Georgia and Ukraine at various points) is the emergence of "alternative" substories and narratives, then they get rebuked, and then they disappear. What then is their significance to coverage of this topic? They are distracting and can be purged without harming coverage. --Calthinus (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Not worth debating the veracity of propaganda. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment - for the closing admin. There's lots of non-policy based delete votes! going on here. "Fake news!", "propaganda!", and etc. are not Wikipedia policies. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - including it would give undue weight to the Russian propaganda piece. On the other hand I have to concede that including it would not exactly create false balance if the broadcast would be described as "Russian state media claims"/"fake news" etc., per refs.-ז62 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Everyone please add The Reuters to the list of the reliable sources dealing with the case. Now, we've got The Reuters, The Guardian, The Times, The Sun. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Except that that Reuters piece also doesn't actually support the current wording. All you're doing is providing sources that say the original Russian report was wrong. The current wording does not make that inference. If you want really want to include this content, you should be proposing new wording that makes it clear that the initial Russian report was bogus. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, what was wrong about the original Russian report? The Intercept "rebuttal" just says that the video was not filmed in Douma. Yet, the video never even claimed that the interview took place in Douma, and even if it did, that certainly doesn't negate Diab's testimony. Even an Aleppo blogger quoted in the very same Intercept article said: “There is no realistic way to find out if the boy was coerced or not, and it doesn’t even matter.” Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

re "just says that the video was not filmed in Douma" ?! Really?? What do you call "Syrian officials have claimed since the first weeks ... that all evidence of violent repression by the state must be fake". It seems to me as the though Intercept piece is very critical of the claim that the video is fake. I don't think you're reading critically. Either that or you don't want to get the point. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's just a general statement and doesn't really negate Diab's testimony. Again, how does the Intercept debunk the video or the testimony? If anything, it leaves more questions than answers. Indeed, even the article says: "There is no realistic way to find out if the boy was coerced or not." Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really here to debate the veracity of the video. All that matters is whether there's RS that supports the video content. There isn't. All the RS available for this video covers it solely from the perspective that it's illegitimate. If we're to include mention of the video at all, we'll reflect what's in the sources. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a nearly consensus this should not be included. So I removed a couple of most obvious and recent things of that kind, but not the segment about the boy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Intercept" proved that the interview with the boy was not held in Guta, but in Damascus? Well. So what? The only thing that "Intercept" proved is that the interview was not held in Guta, but in Damascus. So what did Mr. R. Mackey refute? He proved that this boy is not the one who was on the video recorded by "Jaysh al-Islam"? No. Did he refute his words? No. But maybe, he believes that the boy is not able to leave the Eastern Guta? 2.132.84.191 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the discussion participants (multiple IPs included) seem to be kind of missing the point - we have abundant evidence that the video exists, all right, but we have no reliable evidence that "the testimony" is genuine and uncoerced, and we have at least some evidence that it was staged by the Russian propaganda machinery - e.g. being filmed in some Russian armed forces base or other facility under Russian and/or Assadist control, under unknown circumstances. It would be incredibly irresponsible to treat it as a reliable source, as some more naïve users here still seem to be suggesting in this discussion. Existing reliable sources evidence the existence of the video, but do not support its reliability/veracity - to the contrary, they treat it with rather unrestrained suspicion. It seems to me a bit superfluous to repeat this, but some rather basic facts seem to be still eluding for quite a few of users who are attempting to discuss here. At least to some of them. If we were to retain the mention (which would still be quite controversial, as it would perhaps give undue weight to Assadist/Russian propaganda claims) of the video, it should surely be described as how it's referenced by the reliable sources, and certainly not taken at face value. -ז62 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As I see, some other participants in the discussion lose sight of the fact that all reports of the so-called gas attack and the original video of "rescuing civilians in the hospital" are organized by the al-Qaeda propaganda machine (or as they call themselves now) and, of course, it would be very irresponsible to treat them as reliable sources. Given that the "White Helmets" were repeatedly convicted of complicity in Islamist crimes and lies, it would be extremely naive to accept their statements at face value. In fact, even if some video footage presented by the "White Helmets" shows real victims of poisoning, one should take into account the possibility that the murderers might be accomplices of the "White Helmets" among the Islamists and their victims were hostages from local residents. As is known, in the liberated areas in the Eastern Guta chemical laboratories have been found. Further, it is known that Islamic fighters controlled the supply of food and allowed the civilians to die of hunger. Some participants of the discussion naively believe that if the oppositionists put forward slogans about the justice and welfare of the people at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, they should believe in them. They are mistaken. 2.132.84.191 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain in some detail why you are disputing the evidence for a chemical attack (I'd just mention that so far no attempts have been successful in refuting that - and these are not just based upon a "White Helmets video" as you seem to believe, together with some other factually incorrect and unevidenced allegations) and/or perhaps give some reliable reference supporting your claims? This probably pertains also to your other unsubstantiated attempts at disputing facts you are not comfortable with. You should also perhaps consider what your claim exactly is - it's clearly impossible to claim both that a) there was no chemical attack (which is the official Assadist/Russian position) and b) there was one, but committed by some other party than Assadists government/Russian armed forces. Please also read this.--ז62 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case, there was no chemical attack and the video of "White Helmets" is a fake. The previous so-called videos of the "victims of the chemical attacks of the Assad regime" could show real victims of poisoning, but no one has proven that the murderers were not supporters of the "moderate opposition." 145.255.172.125 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@/145.255.172.125: We should perhaps not diverge into such purely hypothetical speculation, not supported by even remotely reliable sources and rather clearly driven by a poorly hidden desire to somewhat harmonize the conflicting accounts of pro-Assadist/pro-Russian media and/or propaganda and so on.-ז62 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Someone please close this already, we have long passed the point of useful discussion. Thank you.--Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, we got a useful result: it became obvious that some participants in the discussion are reasoning according to the logical schemes "If this information is disseminated by Russia and/or the Syrian government, then it must be a lie" and "If the recognition of this fact is beneficial to Russia and/or the Syrian government, then it must be a lie." Anyway, they do not make any other arguments as to why the White Helmets and An-Nusra messages should be taken into account, and the testimony of the Syrian boy should not be. 145.255.172.125 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@145.255.172.125: Please refrain from further such uncalled for remarks of personal nature, which do not represent what anyone wrote above.--ז62 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

'The first casualty of war is truth'. Logically therefore one must assume that every report might be true or false. But one cannot be sure which is which. In such circumstances one has no choice but to report both sides without judgment or distinction until or unless the full facts emerge. Any other position is illogical and inevitably introduces bias. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.49.165 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@79.74.49.16: It would certainly not be quite wise to accept just any claims, without assessing their relative reliability - please read wp:False balance.-ז62 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In summary, we agree that admins need to close this thread already.--Calthinus (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Seriously - can someone please close this discussion already? The discussion here has long passed any useful or reasonable point, except for some newly appearing IPs still apparently unable to drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse, which I think is rather indecent, even though some of the said horses are quite obvious effigies stuffed with straw.--ז62 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC) I requested closure on the board yesterday. ז62 we are probably authorized to remove any soapy advocacy that doesn't seem remotely related to improving the main space in the mean time. --Calthinus (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks Calthinus, but personally I would rather not attempt to do that, as I was involved in the discussion, so I'm afraid that my removal - even of clearly inane statements and misleading claims attempting to disseminate doubts and/or accept the propaganda unrelated to the Douma attack rather than improving the article - could be possibly misinterpreted.-ז62 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC) ז62 you misunderstood me-- if they continue to post such stuff, we remove it. Because the longer the thread gets from such nonsense, the more the closer has to read. A good metric is how it pertains to the question -- if it involves ranting about "the West" and "mainstream media".... not relevant. Or White Helmets. Boy do they love to talk about them.--Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification - yes, I've missed that you meant possible future posts of such nature. (I've actually only kind of skimmed your previous post, without actually realizing to what "in the mean time" relates to.) It makes sense, but even then I'd rather would not attempt to do it myself (except for the really blatant or crude attempts). I also somewhat hope that it will not be necessary, though this may be over-optimistic on my part.-ז62 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

rv

User:Stikkyy: an explanation please, for this? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Are spirit radio and OANN reliable sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time by playing games. Robert Fisk of The Independent and One America News Network are as WP:RS as they get. Any other objection? Huldra (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh... nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to put Fisk in, it would be worth including this too, no? There were other journalists along with Fisk, such as the ones from CBS, and they found evidence of a chlorine gas attack. Stikkyy t/c 04:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OMNN is about as unreliable as they come. Fisk's claim has also been debunked, https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/20/critics-slam-viral-stories-claiming-douma-chemical-attack-victims-died-dust/ LylaSand (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Sopher99. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

About the author of this "exposure": "Bethania Palma is a huge fan of the X-Files, because while she’s not saying it was aliens, it was aliens." It has one small problem with his "debunking" she was not in Syria and she did not communicate with the people of Douma, unlike Mr Fisk. She is a classic creator of post-truth.

She's not "debunking," she's disagreeing, and isn't nearly as notable as Fisk. Nevertheless it may be reasonable to include her critique, and I have added a sentence attempting to summarize some of her main factual points. -Darouet (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert Fisk is a famous and well-respected journalist and expert in the region, so it's certainly important to maintain a reference to his article. Criticism of his work by lesser-known journalists, e.g. here [2], could also easily be included. Assuming that Fisk's article remains here (it may not), I'll draft a sentence referring to the Snopes piece. -Darouet (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an opinion that many would disagree with. "Fisking" is a thing you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The Fisk material should be left out. It's a fringe view based on a primary source and podcast(!). It fails WP:DUEWEIGHT. Contrary to Huldra's edit summary, yes, this has been discussed before. - MrX 🖋 21:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely incredible how far some people will go to censor opinions they dont like. So Fisk, a journalist with a zillion awards, who were at the place, is UNDUE, while an armchair investigator like Bellincat is DUE? Who do you think you are fooling? Seriously, this is getting silly. Ok, my 2 cents: we bring whatever RS on the table (that is, into the article), and let the reader makes up their own mind. There is zero reason to keep Fisk out, and I am willing to start a RfC about this....to get input from others than the usual zealots who seems to dominate these articles (about the Syrian war). Huldra (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely incredible how far some people will go to dig up and cherry pick sketchy sources to support a ridiculous opinion. So... nevermind, whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also calling other editors "zealots" when insisting on inclusion of fringe and debunked views, aside from being ironic, is not exactly a way to convince others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me one good reason for not including Fisk, while including, say, Bellincat? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Start an RfC then, because you don't seem to be hearing that several of us think this material is fringe and not appropriate for serious encyclopedic coverage of the subject.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE opinion article

Calton, can you explain why you believe that this encyclopedia article should include a CNN opinion piece by Nic Robertson making the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, based on public statements, that Russia planned the Douma attack to divert attention away from something that Russia is alleged to have done in the U.K.? It seems unlikely that Russia directly controls/directs all of Assad's military activities and that Assad's strategy for winning the Syrian Civil War is contingent on the needs of Russian public relations; Robertson's theory is also completely illogical because the Douma attack simply resulted in more negative press for Russia throughout the western world. To put it another way: Were all of the dozens of other chemical attacks in Syria planned by the Kremlin, too? Does Assad have absolutely zero agency?

Robertson's (clearly labeled) op-ed cannot be used without attribution per WP:RSOPINION; since attribution is used in this case, you may think that any lingering questions about Wikipedia's coverage of Robertson's personal opinion are effectively void, but I think otherwise: Robertson's complete lack of any academic qualifications relevant to Syria or Russia combined with the EXTRAORDINARY nature of his allegations (and their potential WP:BLP implications) indicate that Robertson's personal opinion is WP:UNDUE in this article. Do you honestly disagree?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)