Talk:Douma chemical attack

OPCW tangents
So, just restored a very long section on various OPCW "whistleblowers" that had been removed from the article back in November by  (it was briefly restored by  with the edit summary "rv removal of sourced info; the level of detail is probably excessive but then we need to summarise them rather than removing everything"; then  removed it again). I haven't looked back further to see how long it had been there. I reverted Supreme D's edit yesterday, and s/he swiftly reverted. The article is under 1RR so obviously I won't revert again.

I believe that this huge section was undue back in November, and hence the version without it became the stable consensus version. However, now that the OPCW-IIT report was published in January, which deals in a very evidence-based way with all the concerns raised by "Alex" and Henderson, this older material is even less due. The new version of the article has much more on the arcane details relating to these "whistleblowers" than it does to the IIT report, which can't be right.

The edit also includes a major change to the infobox and lead to change the attribution from the Syrian gov to "Unknown", despite the exhaustive UN investigation and the overwhelming consensus in the real world being clear about who is responsible. That seems to me straightforwardly pushing a fringe POV.

Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While I was writing this reverted the new edit (thanks!) so we are back to the consensus version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging me. I think that the version you reverted had way too many details and must be trimmed. However, the version you restored is also problematic: since the leaks are not mentioned it's not clear what differing views Fernando Arias is talking about ("Fernando Arias reaffirmed his defense of the FFM report, saying of differing views..."). Similarly, it's written that Bellingcat criticed Henderson's report ("Bellingcat published a report in which it said it had found problems with the engineering assessment") but again the reader finds itself confused about the contents of the report. Please take a look at the compromise version. Alaexis¿question? 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This makes sense to me. I've made some small edits to the compromise version for clarity etc. I still think this needs to made much more concise, and the final IIT report get more weight than this back and forth. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"and hence the version without it became the stable consensus version." ... the info was removed without any discussion or consensus so the removal slipped under the radar. This is NOT any "stable consensus"  and   are now edit warring to remove important information that the reader now will be unable to find. There are large doubts about the OPCW investigation by several journalists and whistleblowers so the removal of this from the article heavily distorts what has happened. The article now is completely one sided and censored. It is still an allegation that the Syrian Air force carried out the attack, it is still denied by Syria and Russia.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MANDY. You don't get to show up after six months and decide to restore some version that fits your narrative. The tag bombing is disruptive and an indicator that you shouldn't be editing in this subject area. Giving more space to the conspiracy theory than the mainstream is obviously undue. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SD, A single edit (to restore a stable version) is not “edit warring”. When you reverted my edit, I refrained from editing and brought it to talk, tagging you. Please assume good faith instead of criticising editors personally. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

“Dubious”
Re this edit: I strongly oppose it. No reliable sources support any doubt about the perpetrator. To suggest otherwise is to give credence to WP:FRINGE positions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * see the info removed here: the entire event is questionable and denied by Syria and Russia. There is no 100% conclusion.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That material (most of which is back in the article - see talk thread above) does not include a single reliable source saying that there is any doubt about the perpetrators. Russia and Syria denying it (a fact mentioned several times in the article) doesn’t mean there’s any real
 * doubt about their guilt BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The information about "Henderson concluded in his assessment that the evidence encountered at the site in Douma indicated that the liquefied-chlorine cylinders were not dropped from helicopters, but manually placed in their respective locations." is sourced to The independent and is a reliable source, that info has been removed from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourced from an opinion piece in the Independent. Not noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted per WP:FALSEBALANCE. They would deny it, wouldn't they? VQuakr (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, you removed the Syrian and Russian response to the OPCW IIT report and claimed "WP:FALSEBALANCE". Syria and Russia are two heavily involved parts in this occurrence. The first line of "WP:FALSEBALANCE" says: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic", Syria and Russia are indeed two significant viewpoints, it allegedly happened in Syria and Syria is accused and Russia are their partner in the war so their response deserves to be in the article. Your removal is therefore highly inaccurate. It is also more accurate and encyclopedic to present it in the article as: "the OPCW IIT report concluded that Syria was behind the attack" instead of just saying "Syria was behind it", and that Syria and Russia rejected the report, this has nothing to do with "WP:FALSEBALANCE" because the Syrian/Russian response is presented as a Syrian/Russian response and not as a "fact" of what happened. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We give the Russian/Syrian POVs due weight in the article. Those viewpoints are not being excluded. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where in the article does it say that Syria and Russian rejects and criticizes OPCW-IIT ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia's denialism is mentioned repeatedly in the article, throughout. In particular, see the "Reactions" sections but we also include a quote that refers to it in the "OPCW-IIT Findings" section. If anything I think we should reduce the Russian/Syrian POV per WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is also more accurate and encyclopedic to present it in the article as: "the OPCW IIT report concluded that Syria was behind the attack" instead of just saying "Syria was behind it" That might be plausible if only the IIT concluded this. However, every serious piece of research and investigation has concluded it. Some voices deny that climate change is real or that the earth is round, but we don't need to attribute when the consensus is overwhelming. We give weight to the denials already. Adding in more (see WP:MANDY) is unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

OPCW fact-finding mission review
I recently came across a review, submitted to the European Parliament, entitled A Review of The Organization For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-Finding Mission Report Into the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Douma: Evidence of Manipulation, Bias, and Censorship. It can be read here. It is credited to the following four authors:


 * Hans-Christof von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
 * José Bustani, Brazilian ambassador and first director-general of the OPCW
 * Richard A. Falk, Professor Emeritus of international law at Princeton
 * Piers Robinson, professor and co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies

This seems quite notable, and I'm surprised that I don't see any reference to it here. Perhaps one reason is its size - it is 162 pages long, and contains 192 endnotes. Perhaps we can work together here to parse out what is of most use for the Wikipedia article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are some editors here who don't allow any info that challenges the "official" Israeli/US/NATO version. They resort to edit warring to keep relevant info out of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll be proven wrong in this instance. I do think that this source, indisputably, must be included in the article, but I think the best way to decide what to include is to bring it to the talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 out of 4 authors listed here are known for fringe claims, and two work for a disinformation group, the SPM. I clicked through the links to the authors pages to learn this.
 * Further, this report doesn't seem notable. It looks like intentional disinformation. Any crank can mail a report to any parliament. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC) (Strike sock)
 * Hmm. I have to say, that's an odd response. Guilt by association, and a blanket dismissal of "it looks like intentional disinformation?" What evidence do you have for that rather bold conclusion? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a self-published report by experts in the field. It was submitted to Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. Have they commented on it and has this generated coverage by other sources? Burrobert (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good questions, both. There are three sources that I am aware of, and I will search for others. They are:
 * The UN ambassador to Brazil commented on the report. The full text is: "He expressed concern over the latest report, circulated by the Berlin Group, on the process that led to the publication of the Fact-Finding Mission’s final report deployed to investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma in April 2018, noting: “The document raises a host of extremely concerning issues that the OPCW should not ignore.”  In this context, he expressed hope that OPCW Director-General and Technical Secretariat will address the issues raised in the Berlin Group review by the OPCW Executive Council’s next session."
 * Zeit Fragen published an article about the report. It discusses the context, and analyzes the text of the report at length.
 * Berlin Group 21: OPCW investigations on alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria are unprofessional. By SANA. I would hesitate to use a government-funded source if it were the only source, but it's not. If nothing else, it helps to further establish the notability of the report. It's a fairly short, reasonably balanced summary of the report.


 * I'm sure there are more sources, so I'll post them as I find them, and encourage others to do the same. But there's a starting point. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is Zeit Fragen? What is Nach Denk Seiten, the website they have reposted the article from? Neither looks at all like a reliable source to me (in fact both look like conspiracy theory sites). The other two sources here are primary, so give no indication this is DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Berlin Group is the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and is known for disinformation and ties to Russia Softlem (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A former Assistant Secretary General of the UN and the founding Director-General of the Organization of the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, not to mention a Princeton Professor Emeritus, doesn't prima facie look like "any crank" just mailing some report to parliament. Trying to suppress this kind of controversy looks to me like itself some kind of information operation (which these days are often accompanied by accusations of disinformation). Mentioning this controversy in a neutral way is required, in my view, by Wikipedia values. 82.131.85.107 (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There definitely is some kind of suppress information operation going on at this article, see the editing history of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , what happened to WP:AFG? Please do not make these kinds of allegations against your fellow editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Who in particular are you accusing of being part of an operation to suppress information? Malibu Sapphire (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC) (Strike sock)
 * I think you may have accidentally been logged out. These are known cranks, this isn't a controversy. This article is full of reliable sources. There is no need for a wp:falsebalance when it comes to genocide. If you have reliable sources that deny Syria killed unarmed people with chemicals, offer those. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) (Strike sock)
 * These people are known for spreading misinformation. I have about 20 more links handy about their various debunked conspiracies (Strike sock)
 * Clearly, none of this is fit to be believed. You really should start with academic sources for these things. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC) (Strike sock)
 * This is a WP:PRIMARY source. Are there any secondary sources that describe or rebut or respond to the report, or cover how it was received? Andre🚐 06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I listed two directly above your comment, and just added a third. I would very much appreciate it if you add any additional sources, and I'll do the same as time allows. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those may also not be independent or reliable enough. The latter is also a primary source. Anything in a reliable mainstream source? If not, then I think this report should be excluded. Andre🚐 13:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty shocked by the idea that the source should be excluded altogether, along with each and every one of the accompanying secondary mentions. I hoped that the conversation would take the form of "wow, in what way should the report be mentioned? A passing note of its existence, an analysis?" I also assumed that editors would jump on the 192 endnotes and start discussing those, as well. With an attitude of "what here can we use to improve the article?", not "how can we find a way to exclude this from the article?"
 * The idea that none of this information can be used to improve the article leaves me scratching my head. And it's not because I don't understand how Wikipedia works. I do.
 * I'm not sure what the goal is here. If the goal is to make the article more informative to the reader, I don't see a reason to Wikilawyer this source down the memory hole. I'm sure you would at least concede that the existence of the report should be noted, no? To be absolutely clear: nobody other than Malibu Sapphire is suggesting that this source is "disinformation", correct? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Told you so. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, when I search Google for "Organization For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-Finding Mission Report" I get almost nothing back, 3 results. So it's a question of whether this report was significant or WP:ROUTINE, is it mainstream or WP:FRINGE. When I searched further I found they were related to Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Which led me to this article in bellingcat Andre🚐 03:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The report was significant enough for a UN ambassador to make remarks about it at the United Nations Security Council. As I assume you know, UN representatives in these meetings do not get much time to make their remarks. Every word counts. Trust me, for a representative to dedicate the majority of his remarks to the Berlin Report means that the report was considered very significant. I don't see any coherent argument for this being a "routine" report, such as the "planned coverage of scheduled events".
 * Perhaps, in the broadest possible sense of the word, the report is "fringe", since the English-language mainstream press is highly unlikely to go anywhere near this story, for reasons much more complex than the factual accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Berlin Report. This in no way suggestions exclusion. It would be farcical for Wikipedia to pretend that the report doesn't exist. When a former UN assistant secretary general, a professor emeritus of Science, Technology, and International Security at MIT, the founding director of the OPCW, A professor emeritus of international law at Princeton, independent newspapers from Lebanon to Switzerland, Syrian state media, and a current Brazilian ambassador to the United Nations are all expressing the same opinion...that's a pretty notable opinion, and it would be silly for Wikipedia editors to decide otherwise based on our own POV.
 * I think this definitely meets the notability threshold. If you don't agree, I would still argue that the report merits at least a passing mention, per common sense and WP:5P5 It should at minimum be noted, with reference to its authors and the Brazilian UN ambassador's remarks. We don't need to dig into the report itself and quote from it, although it would be wise to look through the endnotes for usable material.
 * Here's a fourth source that's mentioned the report. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to beat a dead horse, but when one of the authors of this source, founding director of the OPCW Jose Bustani, was blocked by the US, UK, and France from testifying in front of the UN Security Council, Noam Chomsky made the following remarks:
 * "The United States and its allies want the evidence provided by some of the top inspectors to be banned. We won’t discuss it, we won’t see if they’re right or wrong, we’ll just ban it. Well it tells a reasonable person something: they want to ensure that it’s not discussed, meaning they have no confidence in their own conclusions, meaning the U.S. bombing of Syria was undertaken on false presences. Whether their report is correct or not, I have no judgment. But what we do know is the United States and its allies don’t want it discussed… And the OPCW is capitulating to this, which is pretty shocking."
 * I'm not suggesting we use this quote as another source, it's just another reference point to establish notability. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Al Mayadeen is the very opposite of a reliable source. It does not establish noteworthiness, as only coverage in RSs can do that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Trust me - No, we don't trust any editor's understanding of what is or isn't significant. We use reliable secondary sources. Do you have any of those? It seems many editors have looked and failed. Please provide a reliable source, or at a minimum, stop bludgeoning the talk page. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) (Strike sock)
 * Strongly oppose inclusion unless independent reliable coverage shows us it is noteworthy. It's an extremely fringe view. This is an encyclopedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, the sources provided and the information provided has only firmed my view that this should be excluded as conspiracy theory that only has skimpy coverage in mostly unreliable sources Andre🚐 17:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it once was, and maybe it will be again one day, when the way Wikipedia covers politics is completely overhauled. Until then, it's more like a case study from Manufacturing Consent (which I doubt anyone here has read) than an encyclopedia. I'd like to AGF, as you command, but it's hard sometimes. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please keep your commentary related to improvements about the article. Talk pages are not forums for general discussion or complaining. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC) (Strike sock)
 * This is an obvious "won't include" per WP:RS. The amount of WP:ASPERSIONS being casually thrown around is concerning, to a degree that I think we should seriously consider discussing if topic bans are warranted. For now: if you're musing about whether to follow WP:AGF or not on an article talk page then you're already failing WP:AGF. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it comes down to priorities. One could take (at least) two views on the best way to improve Wikipedia. One view is that we should carefully and rigidly follow all policies and procedures, and if we have the opportunity to write an encyclopedia within those constraints, we can do so, but as a secondary priority that is subordinate to adhering to the bureaucratic norms. Another view is that our primary goal is to write a good, serious encyclopedia, and to the extent that policies and procedures are tools that aid us in that goal, we should use them.
 * If one takes the second view, as I do, there is no way to exclude this source without operating in bad faith. My suspicions were raised further when multiple people commented, privately and on this thread, that this article has been carefully curated by POV-pushers to promote a certain narrative, and they were raised even further when dubious claims of "disinformation" were made by known POV-pushers.
 * However, if one takes the first view, which appears to be the view of most of my colleagues here, then you can certainly make a good faith argument for exclusion. Upon further reflection, while I think it's completely and utterly absurd to pretend the report doesn't exist, and a disservice to our readers, I do think my colleagues are operating in good faith, and I disavow any previous insinuations to the contrary. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Philomathes2357, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees that this particular source is reliable is some kind of useful idiot or intelligence stooge. It's quite simple. The source isn't good. Find me a better source. OK, bellingcat is some kind of CIA/MI5 cutout according to you. Fine. The Intercept, or Alternet, or Jacobin, or I mean isn't there some source other than a largely WP:SELFPUBLISHED report by a team of dubious folks that makes the same point? or a WP:SECONDARY analysis instead of a WP:PRIMARY source that should not be used for facts? It's very simple, Philomathes2357. If you find me a reliable source, other than a long and sketchy PDF report publication that seems to have been ignored by any reliable outlet, that makes the argument (one which, I may add, Russian/Iranian agents might be making, so we could potentially attribute a sentence to them) that the chemical attacks are a false flag or staged or that the report had reason to be concerned - I'll absolutely change my tune! But instead you come here with a bad source, which is obviously bad, and accuse everyone of POV pushing if they do not like this source for valid, policy-based reasons. I appreciate that you are attributing this, not to bad faith but to policy sticklerism. But I promise you that I will IAR and I have on occasion. But you need to bring me a source that isn't garbage, instead of coming here with this source that is obviously bad and polishing the turd to high heaven! Andre🚐 21:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain, from your point of view, why the UN ambassador to Brazil's comments about the source at the United Nations don't count as a secondary analysis? Sure, he's not a journalist, but I would argue that a UN ambassador using his precious, small window of opportunity to make a statement is more compelling in terms of "weight" than a layman reporter.
 * There's also the Zeit Fragen newspaper which is unquestionably a secondary source. I don't know much about it, other than that it's an independent Swiss outlet that's been around for decades in multiple languages, but I don't see any indications that it's a fake news outlet. I recognize the names of a few of the contributors, and don't consider them to be propagandists in the least.
 * Of course, Syrian state media also mentioned the report, which I get, is not the most neutral source, but it is a secondary source that provides more "weight" to the fact of the Berlin Group report's existence. Of course, it's no shock that the Syrian government would mention the report, because it serves their interests. For the same reason, it's no shock that US media hasn't mentioned it.
 * The fact that "mainstream" US outlets haven't covered this report is not a surprise, for several reasons. Mainly the niche nature of the topic, the very long and technical nature of this report, and the fact that US outlets don't tend to jump on stories that contradict the official US narrative (the wisdom of Manufacturing Consent applies here).
 * I'm still struggling with the idea that the report should be "EXCLUDED" altogether. I'm not saying we should fundamentally rewrite the article based on this. It probably merits a short paragraph at most, or just a few brief sentences. But I think that any fair-minded attempt at encyclopedic analysis would at least mention that the report exists, and perhaps note the Ambassador of Brazil's comments. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments by an ambassador are a primary source, and lack weight, they can be attributed only. An ambassador is a position that gives no expertise. I don't know what Zeit Fragen is, but as it says on the bottom of the page, the article was actually from Nach Denk Seiten, NachDenkSeiten with the subtitle The Critical Website is a German blog that comments on political and social issues. Originally praised as an important part of a “ counterpublic ,” since around 2015 the website has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories, for example about the Ukraine crisis since 2014 or the corona pandemic . The editor is the former SPD politician Albrecht Müller, per de-wiki (not a reliable source, but enough to know that this ain't either) As far as the Syrian state media, it does not count. Therefore, I am still at exclude, not a single reliable secondary source has been provided. Andre🚐 03:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right about NachDenkSeiten. Of course, who has accused them of spreading conspiracy theories would be relevant in determining reliability, but let's set that one aside for now.
 * Why, exactly, does Syrian state media "not count"? Can you point me to Wikipedia's policy on state media outlets, if there is one?
 * In regards to the ambassador, I disagree. We could discuss whether or not this ambassador has, in fact, any expertise in anything. But being a journalist/reporter doesn't confer or imply any expertise in anything, either, other than an expertise in getting hired by a media company! My understanding is that we typically assign reliability to sources, not the individuals that generate content for those sources. For example, if CNN wrote an article about this report, we wouldn't have to look into whether or not the CNN contributor in question is an expert in chemical weapons, or Syria, or the OPCW...we'd just say that the article is reliable. In this case, the ambassador's comments should be construed as the opinions and analysis of the Brazilian government.
 * I understand your intuition that the ambassador's comments would be a primary source, but I re-read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, specifically the following: a secondary source "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
 * It also says "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context." In this context, the ambassador's remarks are "thought and reflection based on primary sources" that are "one step removed" from the report. His comments contain "analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" taken from the report. So this looks like a secondary source to me. Courtesy link to the remarks, two-thirds of the way down the page.
 * In fact, this is a synthesis of the ambassador's remarks made by UN Press, so they're not even 'primary' in the sense of being direct quotes from the ambassador. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The UN Press statement of the ambassador's remarks is a secondary source, but the contents of the remarks themselves are an attributed statement which does not have the full weight and force of the UN Press behind its veracity. As far as the Syrian state media, we could attribute a statement to the official Syrian press statement, and briefly characterize the statements of Syrian state media, but these don't count toward weight for the Berlin Group report, they only count toward weight toward being their own thing, namely Syrian statements, and WP:MANDY applies. Andre🚐 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also forgot, Al Mayadeen also mentions the Berlin Report. That's another secondary source. It's a non-government source based in Beirut.
 * I think the normal ways of thinking about attribution and weight are hard to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion to UN Press. It doesn't look like it's been discussed at RSN. In my view, it's simple: the ambassador's comments are official statements from the Brazilian government, and they are notable and have weight because they were statements issued at the UN Security Council, which is the reason it was covered by UN Press.
 * I see how WP:MANDY would apply to the Syrian government issuing a denial of responsibility. In that context, the Syrian government's statement would be considered a primary source. I'm not sure that it would apply in the same way here, where an unrelated source (Bustani, Falk, Robinson, and von Sponeck) have produced an independent primary document, and the Syrian state media is discussing its existence.
 * In this case, the Syrian state media would be a secondary source providing "analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" from the report, as opposed to blanket statements of denial issued directly from the government with no reference to independent sources. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done, we have a source that I would consider over the line. Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese TV news network and I would presume it reliable enough and it does indeed say, Syria FM and Russian Envoy condemn OPCW politicization The group found procedural irregularities that were considered grounds for controversy over the investigations that took place in connection with the Douma incident. In the past, Russia had accused the United States and its allies of turning the OPCW into a tool to achieve their interests and holding Damascus fully responsible for the chemical attacks "in the absence of sufficient evidence." So it basically said they were tools of Russia, but yeah, it's definitely the best source of the bunch we have here. Now comes the editorial control bit. It's weird when I go search for "Berlin 21 group of experts" nothing else comes up but this article. I assume it must be a translation issue. "Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media" is the title we have. "Berlin Group 21" comes up with about 25 results. We do now have 1 basically reliable enough source that tells us that the group found irregularities that were considered grounds for controversy over the Douma investigations. Would you care to propose the 1 sentence treatment that this should in your view merit for this 1 reliable source? Andre🚐 05:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Al-Mayadeen is like "the Brietbart" of Lebanon. It is a vocal pro-Assadist outlet and unreliable. It should not be mentioned with anything regarding Syria. Infact, the unreliability of "Al-Mayadeen" site has already been clarified by another editor in this same comment section above (here). Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Hard for me to seriously treat a source that tries to delegitimize Israel by putting it in quotation marks. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any other reliable source or fact-checker to show that Al Mayadeen is unreliable? I didn't see that when I did a basic check on it. It looks like a Lebanese TV channel. Biased isn't necessarily unreliable. Andre🚐 16:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A report by Berlin Group 21 is not reliable or notable. A biased source that has never been to RSN doesnt change that Softlem (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the report is definitely not reliable, we've established that. It doesn't appear to be notable either given that we're struggling to find 1 reliable source that describes it. It certainly isn't notable for its own article and possibly not even to be mentioned here; as I said I already believe it should be excluded here, but we're exploring that right now. I'm willing to AGF and give it the benefit of the doubt; I do agree overall that WP:VNOT and we still haven't demonstrated why it should be included. Andre🚐 17:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Al Mayadeen has a section "Russia & NATO", whose description reads: "As the Draconian Western-led sanctions on Russia exacerbate the economic crisis worldwide, and as Russian troops gain more ground despite the influx of military aid into Ukraine, exposing US direct involvement in bio-labs spread across Eastern Europe and the insurgence of neo-Nazi groups… How will things unfold?" The articles in that section include: "450 Arab and foreign extremists from Idlib arrive in Ukraine" (relying entirely on a Sputnik article), "Russia destroyed leopard tank in Ukraine with fully-German crew" (relying entirely on RIA Novosti), "Possible strike on Western mercs gathering in Kramatorsk: Footage" (which "refutes" Western and Ukrainian claims by citing random anonymous Twitter accounts; see 2023 Kramatorsk restaurant missile strike). That's just a small sample of where Al Mayadeen's bias gets in the way of reliability. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, that is pretty bad. Republishing a Sputnik article isn't great. Andre🚐 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, that is pretty bad. Republishing a Sputnik article isn't great. Andre🚐 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify - we already report the predictable Syrian/Russian POV in the reactions section. Both nations are clearly not independent of the subject and their state responses do not convey weight to the POV. So far there is not support for any additional mention of this. It's work noting that while verifiability in reliable sources is a prerequisite to including content, it's not a guarantee. I think it's unlikely I would support adding such fringey content at all unless it was picked up by much higher-quality outlets. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Check its wikipedia page and its "Ownership" section which reveals its funding. "Al-Mayadeen" outlet is explicitly pro-Assad, pro-Iran and pro-Russia. That website has a pattern of promoting conspiracy theories of pro-Russian outlets like Grayzone, Sputnik, etc. In Syria, it is a vehement opponent of Syrian opposition, dehumanises the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists" and labels Assad regime's indiscriminate bombardment operations as "cleansing". It is strongly pro-Russia and describes the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine" and literally labelled the Zelensky government in Ukraine as a "Nazi regime". This website is obviously a fake news, conspiratorial outlet. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Mayadeen is not a reliable source for anything other than Hezbollah press releases. SANA is not reliable for anything other than Ba’ath Party press releases. This is a dead horse that needs no more flogging. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on the UN Press source? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * UN Press is a reliable source for what happened at UN events but a single report in UN Press does not establish noteworthiness. It reports everything that happens at UN meetings, a vast quantity of which is trivial. From the 34 paragraphs of this particular report, there is no particular reason why the Brazilian ambassador’s comments are more noteworthy than those of any other speaker, such as the actual briefing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot argue against your point that Al-Mayadeen is biased. Refreshingly, they're very upfront about their biases in their "about us" section. However, it's also true that every outlet is biased about certain topics, and whether or not bias affects reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

If they re-post some article from Russian state media, I fully understand that we would analyze that article's "reliability" by referencing the original source (Russian state media) rather than the re-publisher, so those particular articles wouldn't be usable, since most Russian state media is deprecated. I understand that.

What I don't understand is why they'd be labeled "unreliable" in this context. The Berlin Group 21 report exists, and Al-Mayadeen is simply noting that fact and providing their subjective analysis of it. That's exactly what any other outlet would do if they covered the story. By citing them in this context, we wouldn't be "relying" in blind faith on any of Al-Mayadeen's assertions, since the only assertion made (that the report exists) is uncontested, and the rest is opinion. I'm not following what exactly is "unreliable" about Al-Mayadeen in this context. Maybe someone can clarify their thoughts on that, and link me to relevant policies.

What the argument of my colleagues appears to boil down to, to me, is that Al-Mayadeen is irrelevant as a source here, because the story is too convenient for their worldview. "Who cares that Al-Maydeen talked about the report - they would"...like a WP:MANDY in reverse. But I don't see that standard applied to western sources that are considered mainstream. If that were the standard, wouldn't that mean that we could never cite NPR or PBS about something that happened in the world that advanced US interests, even if all PBS did was mention that it happened, because "of course, they would think that something advancing US interests is newsworthy"?

If we dismiss any source that deviates in any way from our western sensibilities of what constitutes "proper journalism", we'll be left with articles that give vastly disproportionate weight to the perspectives of western countries, because those perspectives are by definition "more reliable". I'm unsure of how that approach to sourcing differs from the definition of systemic bias.

I really think that even if Al-Mayadeen were later determined to be "generally unreliable", there is no problem with using them in this context. Of course, in a different context, they might not be usable. And I still think that the UN Press source is usable as well. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, at best, based on the discussion here, Al Mayadeen might be no consensus/reliability unclear. Republishing Sputnik means they might not necessarily be so reliable if they'd republish from unreliable sources. The "Breitbart of Lebanon"? If so, Breitbart is very biased, but also fabricates material. Anyway, I agree that in context, Al Mayadeen is reliable enough to cite that the Berlin Group report exists - the question is, why do we need to write that it exists in the article at all? Given that the only sources covering it are pretty sketchy, plus the UN Press which is covering the transcript of the speech by the Brazilian ambassador, Szatmari, who also simply acknowledges that the report exists and raises concerns which shouldn't be ignored. The question is why should Wikipedia cover this. Is it educational, encyclopedic, informative, helping readers understand something about this topic? Your thought experiments about PBS or NPR are also irrelevant. It's not simply the poor quality of the sources, but the small quantity. Andre🚐 04:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * M y point is not that the source is biased. Rather, is an unreliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Berlin group 21 is generally regarded as unreliable in wikipedia. See past discussion.
 * In the front cover, the group admits that this report was "submitted" to two Members of the European Parliament Mike Wallace & Clare Daly, who both belong to Independents 4 Change party. Both of them are known for their support of the policies of Russia and Iran. So this document is heavily partisan.
 * At least two of the "experts" who wrote that document are fringe conspiracy theorists:
 * Richard A. Falk a person who is a "9/11 Truther". His signature is still displayed on a petition of the conspiratorial 9/11 Truth group."911 Truth Statement Demands Deeper Investigation" (9/11 Truth.org, 26 October 2004).
 * Moreover, according to the wikipedia article on this individual, Falk is known for regularly promoting various other conspiracy theories and is also accused of anti-semitic bigotry. (thats from his wiki page)
 * Piers Robinson, another individual known for promoting numerous conspiracy theories (including 9/11 conspiracy theories ) and Russian state propaganda talking points. In addition, he is the founder of Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, a conspiratorial, disinformation organization. Berlin 21 group has been exposed as a proxy of that organization, btw.
 * For more on Berlin 21 group's unreliability:
 * "How an Email Sting Operation Unearthed a pro-Assad Conspiracy—and Russia’s Role In It" (20 April 2021, New Lines Magazine)
 * "Berlin Group 21, 'Ivan's' Emails and Chemical Weapons Conspiracy Theories" (14 May 2021, Bellingcat)
 * So it is clear that this "report" is politically partisan, unreliable and conspiratorial.
 * Meanwhile, the local sources, international media outlets, various reliable source and the scientific research of a UN-approved international investigative body of OPCW concluded that the chemical attack was conducted by the Assad regime.
 * Counter-fiet claims from a heavily politicised unreliable source should never be used to discredit globally recognized facts which are also backed up by scientific evidence. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an RfC (not started by me, and not related to this particular case) on RSN now: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)