Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 1

Removal of the Russian POV from 'Background' section
regarding this edit, would you kindly also remove the previous sentences covering the Mattis statements? That is, of course, if you're interested enough to prove that you're not primarily targeting the Russian POV in your typical mass content removals. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Strike apparent "smearing", for which I apologize. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about I just ignore you seem you seem incapable of discussing issues without resorting to attacks and smears against other editors? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * How about we focus instead on your content-related behavior? I can strike/remove the "typical mass content removals" part if you were so offended by it as a sign of good faith, so we can be over with this quick.
 * Now, before WP:SYNTH is brought up, the Reuters article in the entry you just removed (published last month, yes) is cited by The Drive article, which I used as a reference in the first sentence, and which mentions the exact same statement but without names and with less detail. So WP:COMMONSENSE seems to trump WP:SYNTH in such case. If anything, you should've removed the Mattis part, because it is sourced to an Associated Press story rather than the Politico article cited by The Drive. But I stand by this addition as well, because it has the much needed quotes by Mattis, which the Politico article lacks.
 * And I just wanted to mention that The Drive has a platform called "The War Zone", which focuses on updates in the defense industry and on ongoing conflicts, so it's not just an automobile news outlet, and any matters concerning its reliability should be taken to RS/N. I'm just bringing this up before the "Not reliable!" thing starts showing up. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't comment as to whether or not user Fitzcarmalan is making "smears," but this user is correct that there was no good reason for relevant material with a citation to a mainstream media source to be removed. The fact that the government of Russia, a major world power, warned shortly before this alleged incident that rebel groups were planning a provocation to accuse to Syrian government of using chemical weapons is certainly very relevant. I've thus restored the content. -2003:CA:83FE:7700:61C4:965D:1AAA:9EE4 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's classic WP:SYNTH being used to suggest that the attack was a false flag. Find a source which links the statement to the attack, then we can talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not "classic WP:SYNTH", per my above explanation. And you just went past 1RR, so kindly self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " - here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event. Yes, it's classic SYNTH. "Per my above explanation" doesn't cut it when you don't actually explain why it's not synth but rather claim "common sense" (wtf that is in this case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event. Except the source from before the event is cited by the source about the event, which I did explicitly point out above before you distorted my explanation here. So it clearly isn't "classic" synthesis, especially when it's a "Background" section we're talking about. I expect you to remove the Mattis part once the 24 hours have passed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Above you mention something called The Drive, whatever the hey that is, but that source was not being used to cite the relevant statement under discussion. It was used to cite an entirely different statement. So I don't see the relevance. The text under discussion was cited to a Reuters story from March. Now, March, is a month, which happens to come before April. So yeah, SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then isn't the entire background section under SYNTH? Because there is a part that says claims have been made of usage of chemical weapons recently, yet nothing specific about this particular incident. Mattis said here specifically that the US has no evidence confirming the battlefield reports making this claim. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with restoring the comment. There is absolutely no doubt a chemical attack has occurred, and plenty of RS's are stating the Assad regime is responsible. Wait for other RS's to point out that the Russian general's statement may have been part of a future plan/"need" for the Syrian regime to try and get away with another chemical attack - and was trying to set up a mindset in the world community that when they did attack, that somehow the victims did it to themselves in some insane attempt to frame Assad and his pals.50.111.41.216 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need sources which make that claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically everyone on Twitter and elsewhere is saying this is an obvious false flag, but of course that will never be included in the article. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, it won't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So you have a statement in March being used to imply the falsity of something that happened in April? Unless something weird has happened to the Arrow of Time while I wasn't looking, that's pretty obvious WP:SYNTH there. So no, it obviously should stay out. --Calton | Talk 09:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This article, which I used for the first sentence makes the exact same claim. I intended to use it as a source for the whole paragraph (here's my original edit), but it only lacks one detail: the Russian official's name (Gerasimov). So I used instead the Reuters article cited by the very same source in order to have his name mentioned. I'm prepared to take this to OR/N if it's too controversial. But I don't think it is, and it obviously isn't "classic" SYNTH as Marek suggests above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you check if the countries listed on the list match the sources
I just rewrote the lede but didn't verify deeply if Saudia Arabia and others actually claimed that the attack was carried out by the Syrian Army. Please help. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Funeral
Where are the pictures of dead bodies on 7 april 2018 ? BBC source didn't get them ? Are all 70 people already burried the same day as the Muslims traditionally do ? Who can examine the crime scene now ? -- 2.61.180.9 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing Crucial Information on UN Resolution
From the article "There have been reported incidents of chemical weapons use in Douma in January 2018, however Russia vetoed a potential United Nations mission to investigate"

A one sided statement. Russia proposed their own resolution which was struck down. "Rival draft resolutions by both the US and Russia to set up a new expert body to probe chemical weapons attacks in Syria have failed to pass at the United Nations Security Council."

..."Later, a rival Russian bid to create a new inquiry also failed after the proposed resolution only received six votes in favour."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/russia-vetoes-resolution-syria-chemical-weapons-probe-180410193956669.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your confused. The source you give is for today's resolution, not January's which the statement is referring to. LylaSand (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Time of alleged bomb dropping
The article is stating that the alleged bomb dropping by a helicopter took place on 7 April 2018 at 06:30. According to the WH, however, the alleged bomb dropping took place at 20:22. https://twitter.com/SyriaCivilDef/status/982735364518567937 So, somebody seems to be wrong here.--91.61.112.40 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The White Helmets' Twitter feed is not a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 19:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Non neutral text about UNSC resolutions
In the Aftermath section it says: "On 10 April Russia vetoed a UN resolution to "create a new investigative mechanism to look into chemical weapons attacks in Syria and determine who is responsible." and nothing more, but the US and their allies vetoed 2 other UNSC resolutions about the chemical weapons by Russia. . The three resolutions are already mentioned in the "International organizations" section, so there is no need to have the one sided text in the aftermath section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

LylaSands edit
LylaSand, can you please provide the quotes from the sources backing up the text you added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Douma_chemical_attack&type=revision&diff=836005433&oldid=836004942 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll specify it. LylaSand (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

POV
Even the main source for the statement that the SAA did the attack uses "Is Accused" and "working to verify". Why did the author wrote "attack carried out by the Syrian Arab Army". And all information about this incident are from bogus anti-government sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on facts and not on the political opinion of the author. DerElektriker (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * An example "Syrian helicopters dropped barrel bombs on the town of Douma." The article takes this as fact, however the source linked after the sentence writes "The (activist) groups ... said" and there is no mention these helicopters were "Syrian" (whatever that means - official Syrian army or Syrian rebels?) Ah yes, war propaganda at its best here at Wikipedia, what a wonderful world to live in even if you are on the opposite side of the globe and your first world problems don't (yet) include bombs falling on your own head ... --213.175.37.10 (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments to what Reliable Sources say in the effort to improve the article contents. A politcal POV rant like yours serves no purpose.50.111.41.216 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" but what if the "reliable source" uses an unreliable propaganda source for their article? You just pass the propaganda through into the wikipedia article. Just because some people think that a source is reliabe does not make every infromation from this source true and you fill your wikipedia artice with lies fake information. Maybe this talk page is the wrong place for this discussion is there a place on wikipedia where I can discuss this? DerElektriker (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one of Wiki's tenants - "verifiability, not truth" - "truth" may be in the eyes of the beholders in some rare situations. We report what the RS's say. We don't make judgements. Try a forum someplace to vent your spleen.50.111.41.216 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So your saying that wikipedia is just lies. Makes sense. DerElektriker (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a single editor in this discussion has presented any sources, so this bickering is not only unproductive; it lacks evidence. Cite a source then make an argument for content based on that source. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @MrX: What sources are you demanding? - I don't want to prove anything else so I have nothing to provide evidence for, my point was in wrong work with the source provided in article.
 * @50.111.41.216: Please re-read my (the second in this thread) objection - even the 'verifiable' source does NOT say what the sentence on Wikipeadia said as I quoted it (rewritten since then). Plus it stated it as a fact, not as an accusation from one side of the conflict - compare e.g. with articles on movies, if you write that the movie is bad then it gets edited in no time, if you write that the movie got bad rating on IMDb then it's perfectly fine.
 * And while at it, the article was locked so I couldn't put any efforts into improving the article contents other than pointing out concrete example of what is wrong and should be changed, so that someone with appropriate rights can pick that up - which I'd say is constructive criticism, and I can support that by the fact that the sentence got rewritten so I wasn't the only one thinking it needs change ... since when it is called a "rant"? Just because I've appended a note that such wording is propagandist, that Wikipedia got abused? --213.175.37.10 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV claim
I removed this per WP:NPOV. We cannot make such claims based on a cherry-picked reading of a single source.

Also, Kronen Zeitung is not making that claim; they are simply pointing out the viewpoint of Russia/Syria/Iran.- MrX 🖋 11:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We need better sources for what appears to be a fake claim. I have also removed a related claim sourced to Twitter (sigh): . This entire paragraph read like the very definition of POV/fake news. I'll also note that the single user restoring those claims seems to have more than violated WP:3RR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected
Notifying, logging, blocking, and logging the block of IP editors for violating 1RR is an unproductive use of time. If 1RR violations start up again after protection expires let me know and I will implement a longer protection under general sanctions. --Neil N  talk to me 18:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Cut it out with the dishonest weaseling
In the sentence "Chemical weapons have previously been". All of the attacks listed in the source have been carried out by the Syrian Army (only possible exception - unproven - is use by Turkish government against the Kurds) and the source is explicit about it so STOP trying to write the sentence as if both sides have used the chemical weapons. Aside from being extremely dishonest and sleazy, it's a violation of discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you think the babies are not lobbing chlorine at Assad?- MrX 🖋 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say the beautiful babies are doing it, who are we to judge? (Fortunately, though, they don't.) See? I can do the snarky thing too. Now kindly drop it. You're not contributing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your point Fitz? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Peter Ford and George Galloway in the International Reactions section
I didn't know that a former ambassador and a former MP had the same weight as a UN member state. Remove it. LylaSand (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, two former British ambassadors and one former British MP, they are all British politicians, so its very notable. So there is no reason to remove their views, also I put them under a separate section, below the current UK government.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain how they are notable. Don't explain their expertise. Explain how they are notable reactions. LylaSand (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are British politicians whose views are not the same as the British government. How is it npov to censor Wikipedia and remove their views from the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, how are they notable? They a different views, yes, but we don't add contrary views for the sake of adding contrary views. More importantly they are WP:UNDUE. LylaSand (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why they are notable. If they weren't notable, news sources wouldn't be reporting they're views right? Any attempt to remove they're views from the article is a censorship attempt. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact only non-prominent new sites and opinion pieces are covering them. Also you can't "censor" things on wikipedia because wikipedia is not an outlet for free press. LylaSand (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So the BBC and RT are "non-prominent news sites" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reactions form Ford, Galloway, and Sellström should stay out of the article unless it can be shown that several sources have taken note of their reactions. That's what would be required by WP:DUEWEIGHT. Also, Russia Today is not a considered a reliable source, especially for subjects like this.- MrX 🖋 22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whaw, just whaw. So sources, which were known to have reported falsely that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, are now absolutely WP:RS, while Ford, Galloway, and Sellström (when was anyone of them taken in telling blatant lies?) stays out of the article? Nice.....Huldra (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Blair falsely reported that Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any sources in this article quoting Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Blair's or any of their associates/cabinet members. LylaSand (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, members of the Bush Administration wouldn't even be considered proper sources for the purpose of this article, so I have no idea what you're talking about. LylaSand (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When I talk about WP:RS, it is newspapers like NYT, and other US and Western sources etc. which are considered RS...while the, say, Russian sources are not. Judging on past performance, I question this. Huldra (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Huldra, if those are rebuttals to my comment, they are not particularly helpful. We're not discussing Iraq. We need to use reliable sources, and not simply find individual commentators that support a particular point of view. Again, WP:DUEWEIGHT is a primary way to achieve NPOV.- MrX 🖋 00:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources showing that several notable countries and people are questioning the claims that the Syrian governments were behind it, this includes, Syria, Russia, Iran, Åke Sellström, Peter Ford, George Galloway, Craig Murray. Attributing the views to those specific countries and people are in accordance with npov and due weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense. Due weight is determined by preponderance of coverage in reliable sources. Show that Åke Sellström's opinion about this chemical attack has been discussed in a few other reliable sources and you will have something. Right now, the single source that was cited was pretty questionable to begin with. And it's only one source.- MrX 🖋 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Western politicians/media are following the same Israeli/US/Deep State narrative. The majority of them don't question what they are told. This is the reason not many news sources are picking it up. But we have a couple reliable source doing that, including RT, BBC, Haaretz, Fox News, Dagens Nyheter. To remove all these prominent and notable peoples views from the article is the very definition of censorship. Only the Israeli/US/Deep State narrative is allowed. Anything that questions this is edit warred out of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * and you keep following the same Alex Jones tinfoil hat narrative. Ironic that you don't question what you are told by dictators and conspiracy theorists. LylaSand (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's keep personal political opinions out of this discussion. RT is not a reliable source. The others generally are. I've already explained how WP:DUEWEIGHT works. We also have WP:CONSENSUS to guide us. If other editors are objecting to your edits, you have WP:DR at your disposal.- MrX 🖋 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Another notable person question that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, no other than Fox News Tucker Carlson: "All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don't really know that. They're making it up. They have no real idea what happened," Carlson said."Actually both sides in the Syrian civil war possess chemical weapons," he said, noting that it wouldn't have benefited Assad to use chlorine gas, since his forces have been winning the war in Syria." RT Haaretz Fox News --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Carlson, like Sean Hannity, is a political pundit. Not a news reporter or journalist. He can say literally whatever he wants on his show regardless of veracity. His show classifies as entertainment. LylaSand (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tucker Carlson's opinion does not belong in this article, and RT is not a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 02:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RT is reliable source and CNN isn't. CNN, BBC, / lied about Iraqi WMD. These news sources are therefore totally discredited and unreliable. Same goes with official USA government statements. BobNesh (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN, BBC, Sky News didn't lie about Iraqi WMD. The Bush and Blair administrations did. RT lies about anything Russia/Syria related. LylaSand (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. your views on reliable sources are not in accord with widespread practice and policy on English Wikipedia. If you doubt that, you can re-post your comment on WP:RSN.- MrX 🖋 11:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The sad fact is that when it comes to the Middle East, Western sources have not been any more reliable than RT. (And I dont trust either RT...or NYT/CNN etc very much here). I just think it is absurd to call, say NYT/CNN etc RS here...while RT is not. It is not only the invasion of Iraq..have you guys forgotten about  Libya, 2011, and the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi? About all those rapes being committed (see 2011 Libyan rape allegations): all lies...about the Gaddafis planned massacre of the people of Bengazi (also totally fictional): the Western media were filled with this! Have you really all forgotten? (And I am not saying that Gaddafi was a saint, but who the heck is saying that the Western intervention turned out well for the Libyan people? No-one....except some ISIL people). Fool me once...(Iraq), fool me twice...(Libya), fool me trice..? Huldra (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gaddafi literally said in his own speech he was going to wipe them out street by street. Also Libya currently maintains both a higher gdp per capita and HDI than countries like India, Philippines, Bolivia ect. The Syrian government has already killed over 300,000 civilians. Also its not just western media. Media in Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Africa, Botswana all concur with what "western media" reports. Only media in countries that don't have entirely free media (Russia, China, ect) maintain the western conspiracy narrative, most often at the service of their own government. LylaSand (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, "wipe them out street by street" is something Trump or Bibi could have said, if they were met with equal protests. ...and the Western media reported ..uncritically...that Gaddafi had killed thousands in Bengazi...when those numbers were completely wrong (by an order of magnitude). And those Viagra funnelled rapes? Complete fiction. And that "Libya currently maintains both a higher gdp per capita and HDI than countries" like etc, etc, heck have you any idea as to how rich Libya was before 2011?? It had oil..the LIA was one of the largest in the world. Read Economy of Libya: Libya, before 2011 used to have a higher GDP (PPP) per capita than the EU. That you now compare it with  India, Philippines, Bolivia etc is just......desperately sad. Oh, and today, slave marked have appeared again in Libya...progress, indeed. (Tearing out my hair in frustration) (Oh, and how many people is it that the US War on terror has killed? Researchers have tried to find out...but are virtually never given adequate funding. But the "educated guesses" I have seen are between 1 and 4 million people.) Huldra (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First off media reported hundreds dead in Libya, with thousands *expected*. Also its not up to journalists and news media to intentionally report on things critically or not. That's the jobs of pundits and editorials. If doctors, activists, observers or witnesses contact the news, then the news reports on their testimony. Also Libya's gdp per capita before the war was comparable to that of Venezuela, Egypt, and Dominica. So now it being comparable to India and the Phillipines is not some sort of momentous crash, especially considering Libya is in better economic and health condition now than Syria was in 2011. As for the "war on terror", Chelsea Manning leaked that the US kept counts on the collateral damage in iraq and found that ~67,000 were killed. She went to jail for that leak (though eventually pardoned) so its pretty authentic. And you people are still blabbering about oil? What next? USA went into Afghanistan for Lithium? LylaSand (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea as to how you can say that "Libya's gdp per capita before the war was comparable to that of Egypt...I mean, seriously?? Libya was vastly richer than Egypt! According to tradingeconomics, in 2010 Libya had a GDP per capita of 11,9K USD, while Egypt had a 2,6K USD, by 2015 Libyas GDP had nosedived to 5,4, while Egypts was 2,6. And the latest forecasts still have "negative growth" for Libya. Seriously, if you dont know that the 2011 Western intervention was a catastrophe, (economic and otherwise) for Libya, then you must be the only one. At the bottom of 2011 military intervention in Libya article is linked the British Parliaments Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options: at least they have mostly gotten their facts right.
 * As for how many the War on terror has killed..Chelsea Manning was arrested in 2010, anything she revealed is ancient history. And the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties in 2008 said  around 600,000. A 2016 study gave at least 1.3 million, and possibly as high as 2 million, while others say that  Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990. My point is that ...nobody knows, ...as it has virtually been impossible for researchers to get funding for examining the numbers. And that in itself is interesting, I think, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

typo
Did anyone catch that typo in the beginning?75.171.110.135 (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Bias
The present content of this article suggests a limited and biased perspective. Just for example, it begins by stating the death toll at 70, as though that were an established fact, supplying as documentation merely a preliminary estimate by the BBC. Preliminary estimates in such cases are seldom correct; and in any case, a news story counts only as a news story, not as scientific, objective or official evidence. The article also repeatedly states as fact comments made by US officials -- as though oblivious to the fact that the US government has biased motives. I agree with those who perceive the article as merely taking for granted that Assad is guilty, and hence fails to supply an objective perspective.

My deeper concern is whether paid staff of US or foreign intelligence agencies are altering Wikipedia content. I will not pursue this further -- only write off Wikipedia as a credible source.

I do not with to pursue this, but would encourage others to consider flagging this article as controversial so that readers are alerted not to uncritically believe everything it says. Practical321 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Because we are on the edge of a major war I would hope an article of this nature would show less bias! Here are my points.

1. Article assumes Syrian Government did it. Both SAA and JAI have used CWs in the past. Syrian gov. also found a chemical weapons factory in Eastern Ghouta recently. Not even the MSM is unilateral on the identity of the culprit! 2. Reports of # number of deaths varies from 25 to as high 150. Specific numbers should be dropped until this is clarified. 3. Russians investigated and could not find a single casualty. Not one. They checked the hospitals and interviewed civilians. They found no evidence that an attack took place in Douma, conducted by the Syrian Government or otherwise. The footage released is not geolocatable. 4. One major point of contention is the motive of the Syrian government. The Syrian government was about to broker a peace deal - within hours of this attack taking place. Is this not suspicious? Why would they do this now? 4. Russia has been claiming terrorists would conduct a false flag chemical attack for a few weeks now. Is this not important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get your information, but we only used reliable sources on Wikipedia.- MrX 🖋 10:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The information about Jaysh Al Islams CW attack be found on their Wikipedia page. The information about their manufacturing of chemical weapons can be found on the dedicated page for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil war. The other information can be easily sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's important in that they were attempting to set the stage for excuses when their Syrian proxies initiated yet another chemical weapons attack.50.111.41.216 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we didn't attribute where they did. I agree that all claims to who launched the attack should be attributed - as the Syrian government (and its allies) are denying they did it, and RSes for the most part are attributing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think attribution is best, based on my reading a a few prominent sources. I think it would be better to say that "the Syrian government is suspected of carrying out chemical attacks on civilians". That seems to be what the better sources are saying.- MrX 🖋 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget that lots of our WP:RS sources were absolutely convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, too. They were not only convinced of it, nay, they had proof of it!! Lol. Anyway, this just doesn't make sense to me: Assad has been winning the war...and then he suddenly does something so suicidal as using chemical weapons?? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

China state TV reports
The stuff about what Syrian government claimed (unreliable) being reported by Chinese state TV (unreliable) is undue in this article. Please stop adding this nonsense back in. Looking at you User:Supreme Deliciousness.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * China's state TV statements are reliable sources for the statements of China's government. We may not agree, or even believe, in the factual nature of their claims, but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source of the claim. It is apples and oranges and my statement here is within the spirit of WP policy. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Your statement"? What are you talking about? Are you Supreme Deliciousness?
 * And the issue is UNDUE. We don't mindlessly repeat everything that some propaganda outlet out there puts out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My statement is in regards to my statement on this talk page, I apologize if that was too confusing. To be clear, I am not Supreme Deliciousness. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let reliable source reports on the Syrian government's claim. China state tv is not a reliable source. LylaSand (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should go. We can put the content back if other reliable sources pick up in it.- MrX 🖋 20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Other organizations have reported that the Russians said they found a chemical weapons workshop around March 12th and it just keeps getting deleted from the article. [][][][]. I am not claiming it is true, but it is certainly part of the story and reported in a variety of sources. CCTV is just saying what a dozen other reliable sources also say. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first link is a Reuters snippet which just notes that they reported it. Your second link is a non-reliable source which got into some trouble in the past for employing neo-Nazis. Your third source is also just a snippet which notes that it was reported and most likely same as the Reuters source. Ditto for the fourth one.
 * News agencies run wires which collate news stories so if Reuters (or AP) reports something it gets repeated by other news sources but just in a "there was this headline on Reuters" kind of way. Other than that you got a really really sketchy source which I don't think you really want to use. Again, UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You crack me up. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is good removal. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Like clockwork on a VM thread. How convenient.... 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Go away sock puppet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Says the owner of the MVBW meat puppet. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To claim that it is unreliable just because it comes from the Chinese is blatant racism. We have a WP:NPOV policy. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia policy which says "Only Anglo-Saxon sources are realible, for something to be approved we need a thumbs up from the Master Race first. Have the BBC said this is OK? What do "Human Rights Watch" in New York City think?" China is a major nation and their medias views should be represented here. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "To claim that it is unreliable just because it comes from the Chinese is blatant racism" - nobody made such a claim. Stop being dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...The reason why it is unreliable is because it is Chinese state television, and thus not independent... LylaSand (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You really need to get this into your heads: Chinese, or Russia state news (or official response) is as reliable as the US state info. (Or, should I say: as unreliable). Remember the US bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory? Where the US afterwards didn't want to test the site for chemicals, when offered? Now, why is that, I wonder? (Btw, that bombing came when Clinton needed a respite from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair, as Hitchins, and others, noted). It is Déjà vu, all over again, as the American says.... Huldra (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The US doesn't have state media. It does however pay for subsidies of three different media outlets: PBS, NPR, and Voice of America. None of these are sources in this article.
 * Also more conspiracy blabber? Yeah a single night's bombing occurred in 1998 in Sudan. But a prolonged bombing campaign happened in Kosovo in 1999. So your cherrypicking to find a conspiracy is pretty far fetched. LylaSand (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, the US don't have a state media, but you have spokespeople from various state organs, and (at least until the present US president) I dont know of any, and I mean any Western press which were so subserviant to the US political powers as the US media. Seriously.
 * I am not looking for any conspiracy.. I am saying that the US (together with other Western countries) has a history of bombing Arab countries, without sufficient evidence/or with faulty "evidence". And you cannot deny that. (Again, read the Parliamentary report about Libya which I linked to above), Sudan, Iraq (heh, those WMD..), Libya.... fool me once, twice, trice.....etc, etc, etc Huldra (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't the media in the United states be the most likely media to cover what United States leaders say?
 * Libya and Sudan bombings were publicly justified, Iraq's wasn't, but the administration which lied about iraq isn't here anymore. You can't even fool me once with your tinfoil hat nonsense. LylaSand (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The Iraq war most certainly was "publicly justified"....by virtually every single Western Media, pre 2003 (and for some time post 2003). As were the Libya and Sudan bombings. But, post factum (if you could bother reading, eg the British parliament report on the Libya bombing) the "justifications" turned out to be wrong. And that is three different presidents: Clinton, Bush and Obama. (And please recall the WP:NPA policy...your breaking that rule again and again is getting rather tiresome) Huldra (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The People's Republic of China is a single party state/dictatorship with the Chinese communist party/state-controlled media, so it would be quite wrong to treat claims by the party controlled media as reliable sources. They could be perhaps used for referencing the government statements... The same for the reports by media controlled by the Putinist Russian government. -ז62 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The United States is a dictatorship of finance under the rule of a blood sucking capitalist oligarchy, an oligarchy which controls the party-system and media and regularly invades other countries to plunder resources and sabotage rivals. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy... we don't say the Republican Party/Democratic Party (same thing) are good and the Communist Party of China are bad. That is not for us to decide here. The Anglo-Saxons are the good guys saving the world thing just doesn't wash, I'm afraid. Are you honestly suggesting the US intelligence services have no influence over the American media? The British literally have the DSMA-Notice system, where if any piece of news which runs contrary to the interests of British imperialism is doing the rounds, then the government can step in to stop it being printed. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you back your ideologically-based claims by a reliable source? -ז62 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is simple. We have a non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia explicitly puts itself forward as a non-partisan encyclopedia. So for you and certain other people to say that the Chinese point of view should be excluded, because "evil commies" is ridiculous. Especially as we can take the Anglo-American sources and argue even more forcefully "evil capitalists, evil imperialists." The cancer of Anglocentrism which runs through these highly contentious current affairs articles without fail is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia as a non-partisan point of information. We are an encyclopedia, not a public relations operation for the Anglo-American Empire. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Claiomh Solais just showed up here right after I removed some noxious BLP vios of his from a different page, in a clear cut case of WP:STALKing. That and his comment is ... ridiculous, to put it politely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While I don't like Claiomh Solais views, they are a fairly widespread minority view. To ignore them because we don't like them doesn't change the fact that this views exist and it is not hard to find coverage from reliable sources about these views. Toned down to not be so offensive, they give a full portrayal of the situation and add balance so an encyclopedic reader can understand the diversity of views regarding the subject. History unfolds to a fairly singular truth. There is no need to rush to judgement in an encyclopedic article, we are not a news site or an arbiter of facts, though this makes editing on a daily basis a bit less exciting. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT_A_FORUM LylaSand (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Why the rush to determine a responsible party for an alleged attack?
Shouldn't an encyclopedia wait for the facts to be known before including statements about who is responsible for an "alleged" attack? That makes no sense. Nearly all sources still state this is an alleged attack and suspect that it may have been committed by the Syrian Army. We are not a news site, we should err on the side of having substantiated facts, rather than being a second hand publisher of the latest news blurbs regardless of accuracy. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that should be the case. Thank you for acting like a sane and reasonable person. As you can see from various other comments, that is a rare commodity. Practical321 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe Wikipedia should wait to include any of this information. In any case, the chemical attack did happen. So the fact that editors have called this an "alleged" attack is more than generous. Furthermore, NPOV writing by Wikipedia, news outlets, etc. ordinarily characterizes criminal acts as allegations, usually until there is an adjudication of the facts. Wikipedians write this way rather well, maintaining neutrality for the good of the site despite our inevitable personal feelings about some of these events. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The attack isn't alleged. We are only ever "second hand publishers" from reliable sources and proud of it. We just follow the facts as they are reported and then a narrative will emerge a few years later. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we should reflect what is reported by the most reliable sources. We don't wait for the war crimes tribunals to conclude.- MrX 🖋 19:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We should reflect that 90% of the free world says X, while Syria and its allies say Y. We should not say in our voice who is responsible (yet!) - even if most of us think so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what we should do, if that is what sources say.- MrX 🖋 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and also agree with this edit. It was reported not only by CNN, but also by a lot of other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the comment "We should reflect that 90% of the free world says X, while Syria and its allies say Y" could perhaps better be read as "the USA and it's allies say X, while Russian and its allies say Y". There is inherent bias in the original comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiablestray (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't know if there was a real chemical attack, and if there was, who was behind it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And Neo-Nazis say we don't know if there was a holocaust, and if there was, who was behind it. 68.199.196.38 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That didn't take long Godwin's law. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't know if that was an example of Godwin's law, and if was, who used it. 68.199.196.38 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What's alleged?
Just to be clear. I don't think anybody is disputing that some attack took place and some people died. What is 'alleged', is the usual - the Syrian gov't and Russia are denying that they were the ones to have carried out the attack, and of course, that chemical weapons are used. Business as usual, in other words, but the attack itself is not alleged, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The forensic testing to confirm that chemical weapons were used will take weeks. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Already done and reported . My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you ever bother to read that? "Another US official familiar with how the US intelligence is unfolding regarding the chemical attack tells CNN that the initial intelligence assessment -- that a chemical agent was used -- is based on viewing the videos and comparing the shown physical effects with what is known about both chlorine and nerve agents." So no, they have done no actual testing yet to find evidence of chemical weapons. The UN chemical weapons inspectors weren't even scheduled to arrive to begin their work until Saturday, the day after that article was written. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * International consensus, based on expert opinions, including from WHO, is pretty clear. Sure, there's no concrete proof, but there's a lot of near proof, and the only thing opposing it are verbal denials from parties that have long history of claiming white is black. We don't heed North Korean claims that they have no human right abuses and we don't take for a fact their claims that their country is a 'peace loving, prosperous democracy'. Syrian denials are not more believable, they have used chemical attacks in the past and are still denying it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is no concrete proof yet, which you admit there isn't, then it is still "alleged". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful with such expressions, per WP:ALLEGED. I find 'suspected' a more neutral adjective. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian claims and the BBC jouranlist tweet
Like I said in edit descriptions, since this incident is disputed, we have to include the Russian POVs in the attack section and probably those of other involvement governments such as Syria and Iran because you don't want to sell the existing POVs in that section as undisputed facts. Iran and Russia have also covered the BBC journalist's POV as evidence. So as per NPOV it has to be covered and since its about the nature of the incident it has to go to the existing Attack section even though I believe this section title has to change into "Incident" since whether there was any attack is itself disputed. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you used are reliable. LylaSand (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As for official claims, to the very least, they are reliable for official positions of their respective governments. As for the BBC journalist, it is verifiable. You also don't want to remove the POVs by important parties to this conflict as per NPOV--Expectant of Light (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Russian claims can be sourced to RT (it is reliable for attributed Russian claims - but little else) - and we should provide some (limited) space to various Russian claims. Coverage of a tweeting BBC journalist (UNDUE issues here too - as well as routine (throughout conflict zones)) - can not be sourced to non-RS RT and Fars news, and use of a deleted tweet is also full of issues (-reyraction), beuond being primary.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus that RT and Farsnews are not reliable and not even in this particular context? --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * RT and Farsnews, and CCTV for that matter, are reliable with attribution as a source for statements from their respective governments. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And only that. The BBC journalist is not a member such government. LylaSand (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not for coverage of tweets by BBC journalists. RSN has been fairly clear on this, RT has been up many times IIRC.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I said in my talkpage, I didn't break the 1R rule but you seem intent on forcing your (mis)interpretation of the BBC journalist's tweet by ignoring my edit descriptions. The tweet clearly talks about the scene being "staged". It doesn't say it was only manipulation of an existing pile of dead bodies or otherwise. So we stick to only what he has clearly written in tweet. As for reliability, since it is verifiable, and covered by official media outlets of the parties to the conflict, I think it warrants inclusion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two things here. First, the claim by Aleksandr Shulgin, Russian envoy, belongs to "reactions" section. This is just a claim, it has nothing to do with actual independent investigation. Second, Russian government made two claims: (a) the chemical attack had never happen, and (b) yes, it had happen, but it was made by UK or whoever. They both must be mentioned, even though they are mutually exclusive. So I fixed it. As about including certain "POV", no we do not need to include POV that qualify as WP:FRINGE anywhere except its own section, where it should be clearly described as fringe per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Staged means faked in this context so it is not mutually exclusive at all. One could certainly say a chemical attack never happened and then say the video used as evidence was staged, which could be used to reinforce the belief that the chemical attack never happened. One would think this is common sense. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when sources are mentioning a "false flag attack", one should keep in mind that "false flag attacks" are actually happening (and people get killed), but they simply have a different perpetrator, not the one who have been declared as such. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are conflating multiple sources with WP:SYNTH. This discussion was about a statement of no attack and a statement of a staged attack, neither of which are actual attacks. Don't move the goalposts to include false flags from other sources. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this source (currently used on the page), "Konashenkov said that “powerful pressure from London was exerted on representatives of the so-called White Helmets to quickly stage the premeditated provocation.” Yes, the claim is sourced, but it is actually WP:FRINGE, a ridiculous and completely unsupported claim, according to majority of independent sources that we normally use (CNN, NYT, whatever). Yes, it should be mentioned somewhere, but I do not think it belongs to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can run it through spin cycle as many times as you want and feel free to talk about whatever other fringe things may or may not be in the article. That doesn't change the fact that the Russian claim that A: -It never happened- and B: -the video was staged- is 100% most definitely not mutually exclusive. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the messages on Twitter user uploaded video exact date of Uploading 22: 53 - 7 APR. 2018, the video allegedly victims of a chemical attack, authenticity and attitude to the incident requires expert evaluation, it is not recommended for viewing by persons under the age of 20. https://twitter.com/amer_almohibany/status/982859028324929536 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77mart77 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Reactions Sections
There are three different sections discussing reactions to the chemical attack. Granted they are three categories: domestic (Syrian), powers developing a military response (US, UK, France), and other international reactions. I propose combining all reactions into a single section, but creating subsections for the three categories. Any thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree.- MrX 🖋 22:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was that way because that's how Khan Shaykhun chemical attack was laid out. The two biggest things about this event are that 1. Syria and Russia deny they did it and 2. US, France, and UK will do some military action thing. Those two things need their own sections, like their own "==" section. Reactions from other parties can be in a third section. On a related note, not every country's reaction deserves its own sentence or quote. (Re)expanding Qatar's, Saudi Arabia's, and Sweden's reactions gives them completely undue weight. I had it as "Several other countries condemned the attack and called for an investigation, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and Turkey." and that was fine, that's what their saying, we don't need a quote farm here. And the flags... the flags just encourage this type of quote farming, they're not a good thing to have in a reactions section. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reactions make the article comprehensive and tighter. It’s also pretty standard to have individual countries’ reactions. In any case, it’s not a big deal. I’m happy to concede there should be some kind of separation of the sections on reactions, but having three looks quite funky. This is why Wikipedia has subsections. Just a thought. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way I just saw your bit about prose. Really not cool, dude. That makes the section look defective in a way that avoids discussion. This is Wikipedia, everyone’s work is edited and improved upon, so there’s no need to get offended. I helped people visualize the reactions better, and I think it looks sharp. You gotta pick your battles. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see this revision. That template was there before my rearrangement - it's what made me do it in the first place. Seems fitting to readd it if we are going back to the "list with flags" format. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 14:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The claim by Gerasimov was made many days before the attack. Hence this is not reaction, but background. Quite obviously, he knew that the attack is going to happen. This an important fact. What it means is another question. Maybe he ordered the attack himself. Or maybe he had good intelligence. Whatever sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think that personal opinions of individual journalists belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree about individual journalists. The contents of the "civil society" section of the current Reactions page should be moved completely to the "Attack" or "Aftermath" section shouldn't they, as it is about what happened, not reactions to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Burn the flags. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Directorate of Military Intelligence
No source says that the Directorate of Military Intelligence itself is being accused. LylaSand (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, these sources do not name any "Directorate of Military Intelligence" of UK. In addition, saying in the box that "UK was accused of the chemical attack" is a classic case of WP:GEVAL. It should be removed from the box - agree. No one seriously claims it except the actual perpetrator(s) who do not allow independent inspection. It is interesting however, that according Russian sources cited in these ref, the claim about the use of chemical weapons by Syria is considered anti-Russian. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Russian accusations are WP:UNDUE we may include them in article though if WP:RS report it--Shrike (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, and they are already included in the body of page and in the lead. I am only saying they should not be included in the infobox, as fringe claim that creates wrong equivalence with main stream position that it was committed by the Syrian government, possibly with help of their allies. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Directorate of Military Intelligence in the UK has not existed since 1964. Reference to it in this article at all, even in relation to Russian accusations, is entirely erroneous. WatermillockCommon (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I did not know. Just another reason do not include it. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)