Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 10

More developments on the Douma scandal
There has been another development related to the OPCW’s handling of its Douma investigation.

The opcw recently released a report targeting the two whistleblowers, Ian Henderson and “Alex”. A third whistleblower has now come forward to support the previous two. An email obtained by The Grayzone corroborates complaints by Henderson and his colleague about senior management’s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria. It also details an atmosphere of intimidation with opcw. The article discusses the evidence related to Henderson’s role in the organisation and concludes that it was more senior than the opcw had said in its report. The article goes over the timeline of events related to the douma investigation and reports, including what is known about the internal opcw discussions about what happened in douma and how the final report was created.

Former OPCW director general Jose Bustani, who was ousted from the organisation due to American pressure (as mentioned in the opcw wiki page), said that “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani said after the session. “The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” Bustani added that he hoped the Douma revelations “will catalyse a process by which the [OPCW] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”

Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Any sourcing outside of Grayzone? VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Something to think about: neutral editing on contentious topics means accepting the use of sources that an editor, or his or her preferred sources, unless totally detached from the subject, do not like. Hence, I may not think that Bellingcat is particularly reliable, but, even if the latest of a long list of discussions on the RSN hadn't declared it to be generally reliable, I wouldn't hinder it being used in the article to detail the viewpoint which it adheres to (so long as other, significant, viewpoints were also fairly represented).     ←   ZScarpia  14:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for a source I like or dislike, I'm looking for something reliable. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * But there's the rub: if an editor effectively selects those sources which suit his or her prejudices as reliable and rejects those that don't, perhaps using double standards and self-justifying reasoning to do so, the end result is equivalent to exactly that. One of the criteria for selecting reliable sources is reputation for fact checking. At the high end of the reliability spectrum, that's not a problem because we know that mechanisms such as peer review are used. At the low end, with newspapers and journals, it becomes more hit and miss because we know nothing about how well fact checking might have been done on particular stories and what influences may have come to bear on whether and how those stories are reported. Really, we go on image and trust in regulatory bodies. If it's a newspaper, anything reasonably well-established and broadsheetish will probably be accepted. However, the fact-checking process can fail in various ways, including using sources which are deficient. I've had the experience of being involved in a story which was reported by various national news organisations, including the BBC, but reported highly inaccurately because the details were obtained from someone who was at the near end of a long chain of Chinese whispers and misunderstandings. In a highly disputed subject, asked about reputation for fact checking, an editor's views are going to be affected by which sources he trusts, which will depend on which ones correspond to his prejudices. There's a good chance that he will say that another source is reliable because the sources he trusts say that it is, or unreliable because the sources he trusts say that it isn't, which, at the end of the day, amounts to selecting or rejecting sources according to whether or not they agree with prejudices and preferences.    ←   ZScarpia  18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:REHASH. This isn't a forum where alternatives to WP:RS are going to be considered. Has this been covered by any RSs? VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An answer to your question lies in my previous two comments: it depends.      ←   ZScarpia  00:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not a new development. The email Grayzone claim as an exclusive is the email from the person who leaked to the WGSPM back in the Spring last year, and Bustani's quotes are from the Wikileaks release in the Autumn. This is not a new development, just a new commentary on previous developments in a non-RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I won’t argue the semantics of the word “new” but I haven’t seen any previous references to the email mentioned in the following quotes:








 * Burrobert (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As can be seen from my comment of 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC) above, at least one of the quoted statements of José Bustani may also be found on the pages of the Courage Foundation website, of which organisation he is a member.      ←   ZScarpia  14:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Realistically I don't see any chance of coming to a consensus here; there's just no common ground on basic questions like "what is a RS". I'd suggest taking it to an RfC. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of complicated, intertwined issues here. Before seeking outside help, we'd have to separate out reasonably self-contained and simple problems which can be dealt with individually. At the moment, the Douma incident is still 'live' in the news. It might be worth waiting for a bit to see whether things calm down so that any result isn't quickly undermined by new developments. In the longer run, the incident will become more the subject of books rather than the news media, which, I should think should will greatly affect the form of the current article. I look forward to a book equivalent to Muhammad Idrees Ahmad's "Road to Iraq, The Making of a Neoconservative War" (2014), which will provide insights to what exactly was going on behind the scenes, coming out.     ←   ZScarpia  14:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The email is the email sent by the leaker to the WGSPM in Spring 2019, as reported in their write-up of the January Portcullis house meeting, already published on one of their Wordpress blogs some time before the Grayzone claimed to have "obtained" it. In other words, Grayzone is at best inaccurate in claiming to have "obtained" something, which shows why Grayzone is overwhelmingly considered absolutely not a reliable source by most Wikipedia editors. Similarly, as ZScarpia says there is nothing new from Bustani in the Grayzone piece, so there's no need to even go near it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a level playing field. On the one hand, pieces by Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens in mainstream newspapers are disallowed on the grounds that they are opinion and Grayzone is attacked as unreliable; on the other, for example, we have an article by the Eurabicist writer Bruce Bawer in Commentary, a magazine consisting of opinion pieces, pushed as highly reliable.      ←   ZScarpia  14:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any use of Bawer here, but I can't see a reference to him in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm interested in is whether double standards are being applied. Here, you blocked the use of articles on the grounds that they were opinion pieces, in Robert Fisk's case using what amounted to rather crude original research to construct an argument. At the article on Max Blumenthal, a journalist from Grayzone, which you've described, rather boldly, as being "considered absolutely not a reliable source by most Wikipedia editors", articles which are just as much opinion pieces, one by an author whose views are much more extreme that Fisk or Hitchens, are being used. Would you agree that is a double standard and, if so, what remedial action do you think should be taken? I seem to remember that you objected to Grayzone on the grounds that it is a self-published source. If true, can you explain why Bellingcat, say, is not also a self-published source and, also, why its contents, as you've asserted with Fisk, don't count as opinion?    ←   ZScarpia  18:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not questions for me or for this talk page but for the RSN. I haven't blocked anything (if the "you" in your comment ZScarpia is refering to me); I've given policy-based arguments for what sources should be included or excluded, and I'm not sure why you're assuming bad faith on my part. I'm not sure that I have ever edited Max Blumenthal's page so can't answer for the sources there. Grayzone has been discussed once on the RSN and it is clear it is not seen as an RS by the majority of editors; Bellingcat has been discussed there multiple times and is. The policy on using opinion published in mainstream media (e.g. Fisk in the Independent, possibly Hitchens in the MoS) is here: WP:RSOPINION; these may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. The inclusion of opinions is based on WP:DUE: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So, the opinions of Fisk and Hitchens should not be given less weight here than the consensual view of Douma that is expressed by more or less everyone else in reliable sources. That's my view anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline: "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. ... Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I certainly don't believe that you're editing maliciously and hope that nothing I wrote gives that impression.
 * Thank you for clarifying your position on the use of sources containing opinion, though I think that, for reasons I outlined above, you are incorrect to write off everything of Robert Fisk's from The Independent as such. I regard that as a step forward. Your clarification does seem to contradict what you have written before, though. On 17 December 2019 (UTC), for instance, you wrote: "These sources are not legit. ... (2) Fisk's articles ... (3) Hitchens' blog ... ." By the use of the word 'legit', it certainly looked as though you were stating that the listed sources should not be cited under any circumstances.
 * You wrote: "Bellingcat has been discussed there [RSN] multiple times ... ." That is true, and every time apart from the last, when Bellingcat was given a very heavy push by the editor opening the discussion and, from memory, fewer editors took part, the result was inconclusive, with very divergent opinions being given. Bellingcat is a website produced by a small number of citizen journalists with little apparent in the way of qualifications and with no obvious editorial control or policy. Some believe that the golden glow of truth emanates from therein; others strongly believe the complete opposite (and, as pointed out, even the Integrity Iniative was critical of disinformation disseminated by the site). As such, either Bellingcat should not be regarded as reliable, or, to avoid a double standard, many other sites should be.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @ZScarpia: (1) Thank you for clarifying your lack of assumption of malice. I appreciate that. (2) On Fisk etc: my position remains that these opinion pieces are not legit sources for claims of fact made in Wikipedia's voice. If used, they need attribution and clarity that they are opinion. The question then is whether mention of such opinions is DUE, i.e. how noteworthy it is. As noteworthiness is shown by looking at the weight of reflection in published reliable sources. We'd need to look rigorously at that, but my strong sense is that these views are not widely reported in published reliable sources, and therefore should not take up undue space in this article. (3) On Bellingcat: It is not surprising that, as a start-up news website builds up its portfolio and its reputation, editors start to view it more positively. In 2015, it was seen as an SPS, but in 2019, once it had proven its professionalism, the RfC was pretty conclusive, although the closer said it should be used as a source "preferably with attribution", which is the guidance we should follow here. It feels premature to launch a new RfC on Bellingcat just a few months later, so if you want to achieve WP avoiding a double standard by considering many other sites reliable, then you need to propose that on the RSN on a case by case basis. However, you might be right that it is over-used in the current version, based on WP:DUE. In my view, the Bellingcat reference at the very end of the Media commentary section adds nothing, and the OPCW investigation section (where most of the Bellingcat refs are) has become bloated and should end after "assign blame for the attack" rather than spend several paragraphs debating a fringe theory about the investigation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Fisk's reporting, taken on its own, does not constitute a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia voice. That said, his views are clearly sufficiently notable for inclusion:


 * The Independent describes him as their Middle-East correspondent
 * In their news reporting, The Independent states "Our reporter Robert Fisk has visited Douma. Read his report below" (emphasis added)
 * The BBC has sought out an interview with Fisk about his reporting on the subject
 * The Times of London finds Fisk sufficiently notable to devote an article to his reporting
 * ABC Australia discusses Fisk's reporting
 * Sky News discusses Fisk's reporting


 * The above list is not exhaustive. If by "etc" you mean Jonathan Steele, Peter Hitchens, and France 24, the status of their articles as reporting on the OPCW leaks, by the publications in each case, is not in serious question. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we are at cross-angles here. I thought our recent discussion of Fisk was purely in relation to the criticisms of the OPCW which have surfaced since 2019. None of these mentions relate to that. They all relate to his reporting from Douma in 2018. I am not against a brief mention of his 2018 report in the "Media reports" section, although these sources (especially Times and Sky, which say this explicitly) make it very clear that Fisk's 2018 version is a dissenting version shared only with Pearson Sharp (who I assume nobody thinks is a reliable source) and contradicted by the weight of reliable sources such as AP, CBS, NYT. WP:DUE requires us to give the consensual view the much more in the article than Fisk's.
 * The more recent question I thought we were discussing is whether Fisk's 2019 endorsement can be used to show weight is due to 2019+ dissenting views on the OPCW, or instead if these remain fringe and/or not noteworthy enough for inclusion. At the moment, Fisk is cited in this section, currently footnote 85, where he is used without attribution as a source for a statement of fact. I think we need attribution there. I understood your argument, Cambial, was that Fisk, Steele and Hitchens between them showed that this material is noteworthy and non-fringe. My position remains that all three of them are flawed sources and don't add up to enough to give more than a brief mention to a perspective which is contradicted by basically all other reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You are really reaching here. Fisk's status as a major EL newspaper Middle East correspondent, along with his numerous awards, indicate his prominence as a reporter. The programme and articles above, devoted to or mentioning Fisk's reporting on Douma, indicate that his views are noteworthy in the general media reporting of the situation in Syria and Douma. There is no requirement to establish that each individual report published by The Independent from Fisk is also noteworthy.

The question is as to whether we should include the view of those who take the OPCW whistle-blowers seriously (a significant minority). As per WP:DUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I'll do so:


 * José Bustani
 * William Binney
 * Noam Chomsky
 * Richard A. Falk
 * Marcello Ferrada de Noli
 * Robert Fisk
 * France 24
 * George Carey
 * Katharine Gun
 * Peter Hitchens
 * Ray McGovern
 * Craig Murray
 * John Pilger
 * Theodore Postol
 * Scott Ritter
 * Coleen Rowley
 * Jonathan Steele
 * Oliver Stone
 * Hans-Christof von Sponeck

On the second point: your opinion (or my opinion) as to whether or not the sources are "flawed" is not relevant. The only question is as to whether they are reliable as a source for what the ex-OPCW sources have stated, and those statements' potential implications. As per WP:IMPARTIAL, WP describes disputes, it does not engage in disputes. Hence we include a description of the information, even while including any necessary caveat. The notion that "all other reliable sources" have indicated that the ex-OPCW sources should not be taken seriously has no basis in fact, and you have provided no evidence for it. Given that the dispute is about OPCW impartiality, the OPCW press office or director is clearly partisan and is not a reliable source for statements about the dispute. (n.b. I am not arguing that we should not reference their statements w attribution) Cambial Yellowing<b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 15:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the France 24 article that's linked above, its primarily about Chinese and Russian attempts to defund the OPCW and only mentions the leaks in passing to note the OPCW denied them. This is the fundamental problem, on one hand we've got a handful of well known activists and the other, the opinion of literally every RS news agency on the planet. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mischaracterising an article by ignoring the headline and the first 9 paragraphs, and pretending that four sentences towards the end of the body are what "its primarily about", is not a serious form of argument. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i><b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 11:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well said RaiderAspect: on one hand we've got a handful of well known activists and the other, the opinion of literally every RS news agency on the planet. I would not argue that there should be no mention whatsoever of the dissenting view that the OPCW was somehow nobbled. My argument is about due weight. In WP:DUE, immediately before and after the sentence Cambial quoted, we read: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public (emphasis added). The dissenting view held by the list of people Cambial has presented (and really are the views of Coleen Rowley or Oliver Stone vaguely relevant to the issue of chemical weapons in Syria?) has been reported in a tiny number of reliable sources (and actually I'm not sure a reliable source could be given for all of the names), whereas the OPCW's findings have been reported by more or less any reliable source we could name. "France 24" does not hold this minority viewpoint. Assuming you are referring to the article you cited earlier, Cambial, that's France 24 publishing an AP report that mentions the dissenting viewpoint. That France 24 article is good and judiciously and neutrally written. Wintour's article and that one are the best sources for us to use about the OPCW doubts. We could easily come up with a sentence that summarises the doubts, citing F24 and Wintour, and that would be giving this minor side-story due weight. In my view, the section on the OPCW report should stop where it now says "It was not the mandate of the fact-finding team to assign blame for the attack" and then contain this one sentence, and not give over the nine paragraphs it now gives over to the issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the view that the OPCW whistle-blowers should be taken seriously (≠ all their views believed uncritically) should be given due weight. You are still yet to provide any evidence that "all other reliable sources" or "any reliable source we could name" suggest the whistle-blowers should not be taken seriously. That notion has no basis in fact.
 * The OPCW's findings have been reported in many reliable sources, in July 2018 and March 2019. We can − and do (I added the citation) − cite OPCW directly; they are undoubtedly the most reliable source for their findings, which are properly stated as fact. Their main finding was that "the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM...provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place" (my emph). The information from whistle-blowers came out in May 2019 and then November 2019 onwards. Their information, broadly construed, is that there is evidence providing other reasonable grounds it did not take place in the manner previously reported. The existence of the two sets of evidence are not mutually incompatible. It is new information (compared to that published in multiple reliable sources in 2018 and March 2019), and there is no basis to the notion that "all reliable sources" suggest it should not be taken seriously: therefore its content should be summarised here. That's how we remain impartial. It is clear that would take significantly more than one sentence. At the same time, the fact that the details are reported from 5-6 reliable sources, with varying degrees of credulity, mean it should indeed be given due weight. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i><b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 14:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We seem to be going around in circles. The evidence that "all other reliable sources" or "any reliable source we could name" do not take the whistle-blowers seriously is the fact that very few have reported on it, while they have reported extensively on the official OPCW report. So what sources do we have? Just two even-handed reports in solid reliable sources (Wintour and AP/F24 - and this third one from CBS, a very brief National article, and Huffington Post), plus the problematic Fisk and Hitchens pieces, plus the refutations by Bellingcat (and possibly the refutation by Whitaker, who presumably has similar status to Steele - a veteran credible reporter published in a less credible outlet). I think we can put together a couple of neutral sentences about the whistleblowers sourced to the actyal news articles and not claiming anything that can't be sourced to them, and delete the several paragraphs of discussion. Fisk's is the only opinion piece I can find published by a reliable source which endorses the whistleblowers. There is also an opinion piece by Jeffferson Morley in Asia Times, a mainstream news source whose reliability I don't know about, refuting the whistleblowers' claims. If we are going to include opinion pieces like Fisk's, there's no reason not to include Morley or Whitaker, but my preference would be to avoid discussing opinion unless it is widely reported in reliable secondary sources. (17:27, 27 February 2020‎ Bobfrombrockley)
 * The absence of reporting is not a source at all. Therefore it is not a reliable source for your assertion that "all other reliable sources" suggest the ex-OPCW sources should not be taken seriously. You may interpret it as such, but that is your original research, and is not relevant to the question at hand. That said, you have now provided some articles which take a more critical view of the information from the ex-OPCW sources. One is from a reliable source (CBS) and should certainly be taken into account - and cited - in any WP material on the subject. The Huffpost piece only has 5 sentences about the ex-OPCW sources; those sentences rely entirely on a completely anonymous and undescribed "source close to the OPCW". The National.ae seems mainly to restate the OPCW's statements, with little commentary: I think we are better citing these directly. In addition, the UAE's repeated detention of journalists and low press freedom mean I am a little surprised a serious person would wish to cite a source from that country.
 * There is nothing "problematic" about the Mail on Sunday news reports written by Peter Hitchens. They are a useful report on the substance of the ex-OPCW sources statements. Their interpretive aspect should be set against what other RS have explicitly stated.
 * I am not aware of the Whitaker piece you refer to; will appreciate a link. It's interesting that you cite the Jefferson Morley article in the Asia Times; this opinion piece was first externally published in Counterpunch. I have great respect for Jefferson Morley's journalism, and the article includes some quoteworthy statements. But the establishment of Morley's notability on Syria in reliable sources is unfortunately lacking.
 * On opinion pieces, I agree with your view that opinions should only be included if the notability of the individual for their views on Douma or Syria has been established in reliable sources. Plainly, per the list of commentary including The Times and the BBC above, Fisk is notable for his views on Syria and Douma. (As opposed to say Oliver Stone, who as you rightly point out is famous ("prominent"), but not because his views on Syria are at all noteworthy). If there are others who have been similarly established as notable for their views on Douma or Syria, who have also commented on what occurred, their views should be included. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i><b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 13:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the Whitaker being referred to is Brian Whitaker, former Middle East editor of the Guardian. In this Medium piece about the OPCW leaks, he lists his website as al-bab.com, which contains these entries referring to the OPCW. Juan Cole reposts al-bab.com articles on his website, Informed Comment. On al-bab.com, articles in the blog archive are categorised according to country. The ones relating to Syria contain much material relating to Douma and the OPCW leaks. I think it's fair to categorise Whitaker as a defender of the OPCW and a strong critic of the Assad government, Russia and the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.
 * He has written a few books about the Middle East, of which the most important is probably What's "Really" Wrong with the Middle East? (2009). [I have a full copy if you're interested]
 * In my opinion, Whitaker's views are more worthy of inclusion than most (though not of Fisk's, who has been journalist and writing about the Middle East far longer, who has lived in the Lebanon for something like four decades and speaks Arabic). If other editors more capable of me weren't here to do the job, I'd feel obliged to outline views such as Whitaker's in the article myself. My concern, is that opposite viewpoints are properly presented in the article and that the article stops treating one position's claims as "the facts".
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  14:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of Peter Hitchens'  Mail on Sunday articles should rightly be treated as opinion. However, not all. For example, the following comes from the News section: The Mail on Sunday - Peter Hitchens - PETER HITCHENS reveals fresh evidence that UN watchdog suppressed report casting doubt on Assad gas attack, 14 December 2019.
 * Not a reliable source, of course, but fans of alternative media may appreciate the OffGuardian website's commentary on Syria:, for example: Crimes of the century – truth, perception and punishment (Kevin Smith).
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  11:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The current article does actually cite an article] from Brian Whitaker's websitesite, al-bab.com: Whitaker, Brian (21 January 2020). "Russia steps up its campaign to discredit OPCW investigations". albab. Retrieved 29 January 2020.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This feels like we might be making progress. Re The absence of reporting is not a source at all. That's true, but the point I think RaiderAspect and I were making is that the fact that something is unreported shows it is not considered noteworthy by RSs and therefore noteworthy for inclusion here, whether because it relates to a fringe view or a trivial incident. A small number of opinion pieces by fairly marginal people, few of whom have any authority on Syria or chemical weapons, do not constitute noteworthyness. Having looked pretty exhaustively through potential RSs, we now have a small number of mentions, enough for a brief mention on our article, but not enough for a significant proportion of our article. Of these, clearly CBS, Wintour and F24/AP are clearly the best, and my view would be we should limit what we say here to a concise summary (a couple of sentences tops) of what can be sourced from those. (My understanding of WP policy is that these secondary sources are better than the OPCW primary sources, although it makes sense to footnote the latter too.) Beyond that, the dispute would be: (a) should a summary of the extensive refutations from Bellingcat (and Whitaker) be included too? and (b) should the supportive articles by Fisk, Hitchens and/or Steele be included too? My response would be that we should be wary of inflating this less noteworthy episode, and that we should be careful not to give the impression that the preponderance of reliable sources see the whistleblowers as credible. I would not support the inclusion of Jefferson Morley, but mentioned him to show something about the weight of opinion (bearing in mind weight in the article should be proportionate to weight in RSs). Finally, I continue to regard Hitchens as "problematic" partly because he has no expertise on this issue and partly because of the lack of clarity around whether the Mail on Sunday should be used on WP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of reliable sources out of all those that exist in academic literature, the media, and online, have not expressed a view on the credibility of the ex-OPCW whistle-blowers. This also applies to practically any subject: most sources have not commented. That fact doesn't mean anything. Attempting to infer their unstated opinion from a perceived lacuna is — very poor — original research. No-one has made the suggestion that this evidence should constitute the main narrative of the article, but it is the most recent development, has been reported by multiple reliable sources, and hence needs to be properly covered in sufficient detail.
 * The information needs to be presented as the evidence that the whistle-blowers have presented - i.e. just the evidence. That conclusions could potentially be drawn from those facts, which conflict with the narrative constructed from earlier information, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether they should be included in the article. WP readers are not idiots and can make up their own minds about whether the evidence from whistle-blowers is sufficiently persuasive to call the narrative into question. The opinions of other individuals as to those implications, and how persuasive the new evidence is, that should be included, are those of people who are already notable for their general expertise on the issue, or whom RS have indicated have notability on the Syria/Douma or CW issue.
 * You may regard Hitchens as "problematic" because of the reasons you gave. But the question of whether an individual has expertise on the issue (which is a right and proper question, attention to which would greatly improve Wikipedia) is not a determining factor in the source's acceptability as a source in WP policy. Were it so, this entire article and thousands of others would be reduced to stubs, relying as they do on journalists, who lack the subject expertise to seriously question them, repeating information from government or institutional press statements. The journalists from BBC, CBS, Wash Post, Al-Jazeera, USA Today etc. on which this article relies, probably without exception have zero expertise on the engineering, physics, chemistry and international law of chemical weapons or military strategy and its application in the Syrian civil war. Per WP, that does not mean they cannot be reliable sources. Similarly, Bellingcat articles by Eliot Higgins would need to be removed given that he has no expertise on any topic. On the second point, there is no lack of clarity: the MoS is a widely circulated national newspaper, has been cited elsewhere on WP as User:Kiwicherryblossom has pointed out, and is not deprecated or held to be unreliable in any existing RSN RfC.
 * Hence, the best sources are CBS, France24, the MoS, Steele, and Wintour. Opinions should be included from sources including: Bellingcat, Bustani, Richard Falk, Fisk, and possibly Whitaker. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i><b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 11:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Another whistleblower has appeared
A fourth whistleblower has made a statement about the OPCW’s report on Douma. The statement is as follows:

As an employee of the OPCW I was horrified and simultaneously unsurprised by recent events in the organisation. The mistreatment of two highly regarded and accomplished professionals can only be described as abhorrent. I fully support their endeavours, in that it is for the greater good and not for personal gain or in the name of any political agenda. They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.

Unfortunately this is not a recent occurrence but a continuation of how the previous Director General and management group were operating. Working in the organisation has been an eye-opener and the cause of deep professional shame when I became aware of how a key element of the organisation was and clearly continues to be mismanaged. I am one of many who were stunned and frightened into silence by the reality how the organisation operates. The threat of personal harm is not an illusion, or else many others would have spoken out by now.

There is still no mechanism at the organisation to enable the calling out of irregular behaviour to protect the integrity of the organisation. It is quite unbelievable that valid scientific concerns are being brazenly ignored in favour of a predetermined narrative. The lack of transparency in an investigative process with such enormous ramifications is frightful. The allegations of the two gentlemen urgently need to be thoroughly investigated and the functionality of the organisation restored.

Burrobert (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The only source for this is the Grayzone, on which Wikipedia [policy] is as follows: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated" BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Inevitably, RT has also reported the news, but so has Shafaqna. However, whether or not an acceptable source can be found for the latest email, it is perverse not to take the claims made by the OPCW's own employees and former employees seriously. The documents reeased by wikileaks are without doubt genuine or the OPCW would not have launched an investigation to try and find out who leaked them. There has been an extreme reluctance in the established media to cover this story, but Jonathan Steele, Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens have certainly done so, and in Peter Hitchens' case, extensively. Like him or not, few journalists know as much about the subject and his reporting in the Mail on Sunday has been meticulously researched. These are not "opinion pieces" and Hitchens is not a "marginal" person. The MoS is not the Daily Mail and, it is absolutely WP:RS, at least until a decision is made to the contrary. There is no lack of clarity about this. I would add that the Mail on Sunday has a pretty decent record of investigative journalism and I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of removing valuable sources. The original investigation that led to this article London Forum (far-right group) was from the MoS. See ref 11. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From the RSN discussion on Grayzone: "It is a self-published site. Most of its contributors are also regulars with Russian state media (e.g. Anya Pamparil is an RT America presenter) and its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media. An informed glance at any of its articles shows several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking. It is a partisan site which might be usable for the opinions of its contributors if they are noteworthy but not as a source of news or information." Well, we'll see how things look some way down the line. I should think that pretty much any news organisation is "self-published." "Most of its contributors are also regulars with Russian state media." Horrors! "Its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media." It has an agenda? Good lord! "An informed glance at any of its articles shows several factual errors." Thank goodness for informed glances! "It is a partisan site." We don't let those anywhere near Wikipedia of course! I do hope that the closer wasn't counting that opinion as one which was "based more clearly on policy and procedures." What a place the RSN is: the Grayzones are deprecated while the Bellingcats are reliable! Good job that the latter don't have "several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking." Probably best to use the word "policy" more restrictively, by the way.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  15:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Article in The Nation (July 2020)
There seems to be some resistance to including recent analysis of the Douma incident published by Aaron Mate in The Nation. The material was attributed both to Mate and The Nation. Any thoughts on this?

Burrobert (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not worth including in any way. Wikipedia does not allow citations from the Aaron Maté associated Grayzone (which has also made similar arguments), so an article published in The Nation by Mr Maté is an exception to the usual rule considering the magazine a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a ridiculous argument. Putting aside the dubious manner in which Grayzone was blacklisted to begin with, Wikipedia absolutely should not make a practice of censoring particular journalists. A mainstream publication universally considered reputable found the story credible enough to publish. That is a reliable source. It should be added. Zellfire999 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all the arguments made by Mr Maté were refuted months ago by Bellingcat. He has chosen not to respond to them directly. Philip Cross (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That's totally irrelevant, as Bellingcat is not the metric for truth or reliabilty. These arguments are patently absurd. Andwhatnot (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, what Philip Cross has written has no basis in policy; the Nation is the source here, and there is no suggestion that the article has not been through the publication's editorial process. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i><b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 16:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The definition of a source is not just the publication, but also includes the writer as well as the article itself ("Any of the three can affect reliability"). Philip Cross was correct that Aaron Maté writes for The Grayzone, which is a deprecated source. In fact, several of the links in this Nation article are to The Grayzone. It is also generally a red flag for WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE issues when an article such as this says the media are "ignoring" the story. To quote the article: Even progressive, adversarial outlets that have traditionally defended whistle-blowers and challenged US wars have shunned this story. The article also cites James Harkin's investigation for The Intercept but omits the very relevant point that Harkin's report concluded a chemical attack did take place. CowHouse (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Meh. The specific proposed addition seems like overcoverage. We know what Aaron Maté's opinion is going to be before he states it, and this appears to just be a rehash of the same arguments from months ago. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The reason for removal is based on two pseudo-syllogisms:


 * Argument A has appeared in source B
 * B is unreliable
 * Therefore A cannot be included in Wikipedia even if it appears in reliable sources.
 * Therefore A cannot be included in Wikipedia even if it appears in reliable sources.


 * and


 * Aaron Mate has written for source B
 * B is unreliable
 * Therefore, Aaron Mate’s writings in reliable sources cannot be included in Wikipedia
 * Therefore, Aaron Mate’s writings in reliable sources cannot be included in Wikipedia


 * The consensus seems to be that neither is convincing.
 * Burrobert (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not what is being argued. What's being argued is that, while the Nation itself may be generally reliable if partisan, this particular author isn't, as shown by the fact that he writes for sources which are deprecated more than he writes for those considered reliable. In The Nation, this is the first time he has written an article that is not about "RussiaGate" since he started writing for them in 2017, so we have little reason to believe he has expertise in chemical weapons, Syria or UN investigations. So in terms of reliability, it seems week.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "That's not what is being argued" and then restate the second pseudo-syllogism with slightly different wording.
 * You will need to clarify why you think "expertise in chemical weapons, Syria or UN investigations" is necessary for the additions in dispute. The disputed inclusions include a critique of the administration of the Douma report and treatment of whistleblowers, a critique of the Western media and a statement about a US government delegation meeting with members of the investigation team.
 * Burrobert (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the other arguments:
 * "Meh": Not convincing.
 * "overcoverage": Something similar to Mate’s critique of the OPCW leadership and the Western media doesn’t appear anywhere in the article. Currently there is no mention that a "US government delegation met with members of the investigation team to try to convince them that the Syrian government had committed a chemical attack with chlorine".
 * Knowing "what Aaron Maté's opinion is going to be before he states it": even if it were possible to read Mate’s mind in some way, I don’t see that this is an argument for excluding his points.
 * "rehash of the same arguments from months ago": The meaning of this is unclear. As mentioned above Mate’s points aren’t in the current article so there doesn't appear to be any "rehashing".
 * Burrobert (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously worth including. The source is reliable, the point is not sufficiently covered, and the article would be improved by its inclusion. Bawnk (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Burrobert et al., it's a reliable source and it should be given due weight. The rationales offered for exclusion aren't persuasive, especially the "but Bellingcat said..." argument. DSQ (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable source, definitely should be included in the article. The usual edit warring/censorship attempts by US cheerleaders. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Enough of the ad hominem attacks on fellow editors please. They do not strengthen the arguments for inclusion but undermine it. Assume good faith BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As well as reliability (see above), I'd question noteworthiness. The alleged whistleblowers are a very minor part of the topic of this WP article, the 2018 chemical attack, as demonstrated by the paucity of reliable sources discussing it, and this particular article has not received secondary coverage in RSs either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't really true, there's quite a few "reliable" western sources that have discussed it.   And it's certainly notable that the reliability of the OPCW report is in question, given its prominence in this article. Zellfire999 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right; a handful of RSs covered this issue in November. I argued in the Talk page section above "More developments on the Douma scandal" (and I think there was consensus for this) that we should cite some of the articles (the three with most consensus where France24, Wintour in the Guardian, and CBS) in a short summary and radically cut down the back and forth discussion (the last nine paragraphs of the bloated OPCW investigation section) about the OPCW, but we did not act on it as the article was locked at that point. In other words, point about the OPCW's prominence in the article would be best addressed by reducing that prominence, not adding in yet another commentary on it. Second, my more specific point that this particular article (the one in The Nation) has not received secondary coverage in RSs, and so does not yet seem noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the "OPCW investigation" talks about this; IMHO the existing coverage of this aspect in the article already is undue even with the The Nation coverage factored in. The only specific aspect of the proposed addition that has been brought up here is new is Burrobert's comment about the US meeting with OPCW team members. Is that really worth even a sentence? It doesn't sound particularly scandalous to me. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to deprecation of The Grayzone, editors may be interested in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eggishorn#RSN:_Deprecation_of_Grayzone_--_more_detail_requested. request for detail] I made to the closer of the RFC. It appears that the decision was heavily swayed by the comments made by DreamLinker and ZiaLater. Ben Norton has since written a Grayzone article commenting on that deprecation and other RSN decisions. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  15:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reopening the RfC so soon after the decision is unlikely, and your mention of it is off-topic and really WP:FORUM. My comment and yours should be deleted. By the way, Norton's article refers to myself as being "shady", which I still find hilarious. Philip Cross (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that the deprecation of The Grayzone has been brought up as a reason for not using an article by Aaron Maté in The Nation. Please keep your speculations about my motives and intentions to yourself.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  19:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Having made the point about The Grayzone/Aaron Maté early in this thread, I am well of the reason. The reminder User:CowHouse added above about the elements of a reliable source decision still stand as well. However, feel free to revive the RfC if you wish, no one is stopping you, but this is not the place to re-start it. Philip Cross (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering no other reliable sources have discussed it, citing that particular Nation article would lend WP:UNDUE weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened a RSN discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note The RSN discussion attracted very little input and has now been archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#Is_The_Nation_reliable_for_claims_about_the_Douma_Chemical_attack? To summarise, two involved editors ( and myself) argued against inclusion on reliability grounds and also (in my case) due weight grounds (the latter being outside the remit of the RSN), while two uninvolved editors ( and ) leant towards acceptance on the basis of reliability, but pointed out that the question of due weight remained. I would alkso note that the arguments in the RfC below for inclusion are almost all based on the reliability of the Nation (although the proposed content is actually the Nation quoting Counterpunch) and do not attempt to refute the arguments for exclusion based on due weight. I wonder if the due weight noticeboard should be consulted too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this has become more complicated than it should. Two members of the OPCW dissented from the findings. The OPCW said that they did not have access to the evidence collected. It doesn't matter whether the first source to note the dissent was an article in The Nation or the front page of the New York Times. It's a fact, confirmed by multiple sources including the OPCW itself. It should be noted along with the OPCW reply. My preference when there is an ongoing story is to use the most recent sources because their writers have access to more information. We wouldn't for example use articles from early March for opinions on how the virus would spread, but would use current articles by authors who have more information. Incidentally when facts are presented, we shouldn't mention the source in-text. That should only be done for opinions or when facts are in question. TFD (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. What content do you think should be in the article for which this Nation piece would be a good cite? We already cover the members of the OPCW (Russia, Syria, China) who dissented from their inspectors' findings. We already cover (at great length) the OPCW employees who questioned elements of the reporting process. I'm not sure what you mean about access to evidence. Meanwhile, the editor who proposed inclusion of The Nation wants to use it to make a totally different claim of fact (see RfC below), about OPCW team members meeting with US officials, based on a comment by one of the former OPCW employees in an interview published in CounterPunch. Generally, when facts are presented we don't need to mention the source in-text, but here the facts are sourced from an opinion piece, which suggested we'd at least need attribution. Again, while we might usually use the most recent sources, I don't think that holds when the most recent source is highly partisan and contentious. The best sources - for which editors of every perspective on this talk page have supported - are AFP/France24, Patrick Wintour in the Guardian, and CBS News, all of which present a thorough, balanced, neutral account. These all date from 25 November 2019 (i.e. more recent than the CounterPunch piece The Nation is citing). The only developments since November are the documents released by Grayzone is the material published by Grayzone, which is mentioned in two paragraphs near the end of The Nation article. Given that Grayzone is deprecated we should be careful with that material on reliability grounds, and given no reliable source has mentioned this we should consider due weight too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't the culprit listed as unknown when we know for a fact that the Syrian government did the attack.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found evidence that Assad did. In addition, Human Rights Watch agrees that Assad is the culprit. Sarsath3 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Just as we cannot describe someone as a murderer here unless they are convicted of murder, we cannot attribute this act to the Syrian government unless and until there is a formal finding of responsibility. The existence of "evidence" to that effect is not sufficient to state it as fact in an encyclopedia.  The assertions are already discussed in the article.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * People also use the term 'murder' to describe immoral killings, but okay. Sarsath3 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarsath3, both of your sources are about a different attack, the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in 2017. In fact, both of your sources are from 2017, before the Douma attack even happened. CowHouse (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Syrian government did the Douma attacks. Sarsath3 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Nate Hooper (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)