Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 4

RfC
Should Robert Fisk of The Independent visit in Douma (See The search for truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack) be included in this article? Huldra (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be very interested in hearing editors argument for keeping Seth Doane visit in Douma in the article....while keeping Fisk out? Not to mention, why do we keep an armchair "journalist" like Eliot Higgins in the article, again, while keeping Fisk out? And, unlike some other editors here, I don't think anything about the Douma situation is "obvious." Huldra (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that wp:Fringe, wp:Undue and wp:Extraordinary were invoked (and supported by references) several times in relation to Fisk and his account (and even Fisk himself described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as "extraordinary"), while not once in connection with the ones (Doane, Higgins) you mentioned. The whole difference basically boils down to the fact that Doane and Higgins are supported by other accounts and backed by other known evidence of various forms (it should be also noted that Higgins' analysis is mentioned because it's used by reliable third party sources for the identification of possible base from which the attack was perpetrated, not as a reference for the chemical attack itself, which is supported by sources independent of Higgins), while Fisk's report was a) based only upon interview with a person or persons who are not believed to have complete freedom of speech, under the circumstances; and b) was not supported by other accounts, not even by other journalistic teams who visited Douma at the same time as Fisk. There's also some possibility that Fisk just ignored locals who claimed that the chemical attacks took place, as these other journalists spoke with them. So it would be undue giving weight to Fisk's account. Attempting to "keep others out or include Fisk too" would be a case of wp:FALSEBALANCE.-ז62 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the article, Fisk spoke with around 20 other people (who said much the same as the doctor) in Douma. According to himself, he could walk around without "minders". It would be totally out of character for an experienced (and highly awarded) journalist like him to ignore dissenting voices. Also: your argument agains Fisk, could just as easily be brought agains Seth Doane: what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, etc, I say keep them both in: if we exclude one, but not the other, we are basically saying we "believe" one, but not the other. That is plain WP:POV, and nothing else. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the article/According to himself - these were clearly not the parts of Fisk's account which had been disputed by anyone, were they? (Also Dr. Rahaibani is the only Fisk's interviewee who posess a medical degree, i.e. can be expected to be able to have a qualified opinion whether these were symptoms of a chemical attack or not.) What would be out of Fisk's character as a journalist would be perhaps better left for some different discussion, what remains relevant here is the fact that even other journalistic teams visiting Douma at the same time were able to find witnesses contradicting Fisk's account - whom Fisk somewhat failed to meet/find/acknowledge.
 * your argument agains Fisk, could just as easily be brought agains Seth Doane: what is good for the goose, is good for the gander
 * Actually I just mentioned what reliable neutral sources have to say against Fisk's reliability, and I think attempts to claim that these are just mine would not be quite polite. Please also read more carefully what was written above about false balance etc., prior some possible further meaningless mentions of geese and ganders, reckless accusations about WP:POV etc. Regards-ז62 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re your "Also Dr. Rahaibani is the only Fisk's interviewee who posess a medical degree, i.e. can be expected to be able to have a qualified opinion whether these were symptoms of a chemical attack or not." Now that is interesting, as AFAIK Seth Doane spoke with exactly zero people with medical degrees...and still the article have no problem with quoting his assertion about "a choking gas"? And I went through WP:RSN, in spite of all the huffing and puffing on this talk page about "fisking" and such, I could find no discussion saying that Fisk was not WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be somehow disturbed now, so please calm yourself down a bit - the difference you've somehow still failed to notice is that Doane's account a) does not represent a fringe theory based upon a single witness (whose freedom of speech/expression is quite open to suspicion), b) even people without a medical degree are still quite able to depict what they'd seen, though perhaps not with ability to distinguish between "gas" and "dust" (it should be noted that Fisk openly admits that Dr. Rahaibaini was not an eyewitness, it's more like he was attempting to give a medical examiner's statement) and c) is by no means an only account based upon established evidence.
 * So Doane's inclusion is more of an illustration of established reliable news sources report, not representation of a fringe theory. The differences between Doane's and Fisk's accoutns are clearly recognizable for anyone who can see them.
 * As far as I know, no one here claimed that Mr. Fisk was listed among the WP:RSN - actually all objections I'm aware of were based upon Fisk's undue representation of a fringe thesis? -ז62 (talk)
 * First, your silly attempt to intimidate me woun't work (I've been here since 2005 and have seen it all before.) Secondly, the difference between Doane and Fisk is that Fisk talked with a lot more people in Douma than Doane...and that he reached another conclusion. And someone, you included, have decided that Doane's opinion is "mainstream", and to be included, while Fisk's opinion is "fringe thesis", and therefor to be censored out. My opinion is that both are WP:RS, and both should be included. To exclude one is nothing less than censorship. Huldra (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't attempted to intimidate you at all, and I do not quite understand why you seem to be thinking so. Please also reconsider your use of an adverb "silly".
 * the difference between Doane and Fisk is that Fisk talked with a lot more people in Douma than Doane
 * That's certainly a subjective opinion you're completely entitled to, but it fails to take into account the more substantive differences pointed to you earlier.
 * have decided that Doane's opinion is "mainstream", and to be included
 * Nope. Please calm yourself down and read very, very carefully comments above. Doane's account is not contradicting other existing evidence and other sources, and certainly not promoting any unsubstantied fringe theories, so it would not be quite reasonable attempting to create wp:FALSEBALANCE and giving the same weight to both undisputed accounts and an account whose reliability/marginality has been contested on so many levels. regards.-ז62 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I do wish you would stop these childish personal comments. May I remind you that the OPCW investigation is still ongoing....but you are 100% sure "who did it"?  This reminds me a bit too much about 15 years ago, when I was called a gullible fool, a Saddam lover (and worse things)...just because I wasn't convinced that Iraq had WMD. (While all US sources, (like the Nytimes) were 100% sure that he did...)  I say that until we have some solid evidence, then all theories are just that: theories. It is  simply not up to us to remove a well known journalist, who has visited the spot, with, lets face it: no other argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please - do really refrain from further remarks of such unwarrantendly rude nature. And read carefully what I actually wrote, please, instead of such futile personal comments you've made, if you'd like to attempt to improve the quality of the article. Sadly, your attept at allegations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are no more substantiated than the ones you've attempted to make earlier in this discussion. --ז62 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read everything you have written, and I cannot see that you have made any substantial argument for keeping Fisk out. You link to wp:FALSEBALANCE, as if Fisk had reported the earth was flat. The wp:FALSEBALANCE is not very relevant, to say the least. So we are, sadly,  left with  WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's because I just mentioned/pointed to/commented on arguments given by others in this discussion? Perhaps you are still somehow quite stuck with your subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it would be certainly quite selfish to somehow assume that your personal opinion (and precferences) carries any more weight that opinions of other editors.--ז62 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you essentially reject any arguments in favor of the Syrian government. Well, let's say that people in the territory of the Syrian government are "afraid to speak out the truth." But why then are you sure that people under the rule of a dozen Islamist groups are free to express their opinion? Little hint: people there are not free even in the choice of religion. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not (as I believe that Wikipedia should be neutral, not just favouring one side, neither claiming that all claims are equal, regardless of their reliability) - I'm just pointing how weakly supported some of the claims in favour the Syrian government/Assadists side are, while also noticing that there're actually rather noticeable differences in quality/verifiability/connection to facts between Fisk's and Doane's reports, so an attempt at equating them would be a false balance. Also I'd not like to stray into unrelated territory of religious problems existing in Syria, as these would be diffciult to disentagle their cause and origins from the effects of longtime dictatorship of al-Assad family, who are Alawite Muslims. I can perhaps also point out/repeat that differences between Fisk's and Doane's accounts do not hinge upon recorded statements of respective witnesses they met.--ז62 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * al-Assad family, who are Alawite Muslims. His wife is a Sunni. His prime minister is a Sunni. Even his religious endowments minister is a Sunni. And his minister of the Interior is a Sunni, too. So what's the problem with the fact that Assad is Alawit? If his "religious oppression" is a ban on the forcible conversion of religious minorities into Sunnism, perhaps it is worth putting up with it. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly have no problem if the Assad's family has support of other Islamic groups. It's actually quite nice from you to point out the exact composition of the wider Muslim support behind Assad and his régime, though I do not really got why exactly you think it somehow supports your point. "Ban on forcing into Sunnism" is hardly the same thing as religious freedom, not to mention that you've completely failed to address what I wrote above (I presume you have no more arguments/objections) about the article discussed, instead for some reasons focussing on sectarian differences of rather minor importance here. -ז62 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you bother to read the mr. Fisk's report, you would have known that of the dozens of Douma residents interviewed, no one noticed dozens of people who would have died in a cloud of poisonous gases. And for such an observation, medical education is not required, is it? Further, as follows from the article, all civil defense volunteers who accused the government of attack, left the city along with Jaysh al-Islam fighters (as they did earlier in other places), and it can give an idea of their impartiality or lack of it. Why do members of civil defense who allegedly want to help civilians ignore 80% of Syrians? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you think I haven't read it. Please read somewhat more carefully I wrote above. Also try to reconsider that medical education is required for distinguishing symptoms of gas poisoning from someone being a victims of otherwise unobserved duststorm (which is the current official Assadist/Russian line, and what the Fisk's account seem to be - very tentatively - promoting). So we have Dr. Rahaibani (to quote Fisk: "by his own admission not an eyewitness himself") and about twenty (according to Fisk) or so unnamed "witnesses" who Fisk says were not aware of anything.
 * As for your mention of White Helmets, which does not seem to be related to the present topic at all, you should perhaps try to impartially consider the possibility that they left before Assadist forces occupied Douma because they feared that under Assadist occupation they would not be able help civilians any more? --ז62 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the OPCW investigation continues. I wonder when the OPCW announced that no traces of a chemical attack have been found, will opponents of Assad here recognize it or they will say that the Syrian government and the Russians "covered their tracks"? So far, they still demonstrate the presumption of guilt of the "Syrian regime". 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you tried to claim that OPCW made such announcement, you should perhaps back your claims by a reliable source, otherwise you perhaps should not stray into such idle speculation so wildly unrelated to the current discussion. Some of us here attempt to back Wikipedia's content with reliable sources, as per policy, that's why inclusion of the Fisk account is disputed.-ז62 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Should "one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack" be included? No, one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack should not be included. He just visited the place and talked with a couple of locals about it. He did not do any investigation. He found nothing. He has nothing to tell. It is exactly the kind of nothing that should not be included on any WP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. We've been around this multiple times. It's not due, just because some people love Fisk doesn't mean it is (he's actually quite controversial and has been accused of just being flat out wrong on countless points in his published works... and then there is "fisking") . In this specific case a shadow has been cast on his report by conflictual reports. Do we need to make a he-said-she-said COATRACK? No. If we did this in every case the page would be unreadable. --Calthinus (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No per my previous contents. The material is WP:UNDUE and including it would give too much prominence to a fringe viewpoint.- MrX 🖋 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No Our job isn't to include every single view, whether dissenting or supporting. If it was by the OPCW or some other ethics committee, then sure, I could see a point. As it stands, it's a single article by a single independent journalist, who drew his own conclusions. Stikkyy t/c 04:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a journalist who visited the site of the alleged attack. The BBC does not have its own journalists there and refers in its report to the messages of the "White Helmets" and their questionable video recording. There are no independent sources confirming the fact of the chemical attack: only the BBC, which refers to the "White Helmets", The Syrian American Medical Society, which makes a joint statement with the "White Helmets", and... no one else. And all these organizations support the Syrian opposition. Reuters reports here in one line: "medical aid groups reported the suspected chemical attack, saying it had killed dozens of people in Douma." I think that the unnamed medical aid groups are the same "white helmets". So, the words of the alleged medical opposition group against the words of a single independent journalist... and the television channel, which is not worthy of trust because it focuses on conservative rural Americans... and the government of that country, which is guilty, because it is guilty of everything. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Summoned by bot. Policy section WP:REDFLAG requires exceptional claims be supported by multiple high quality sources. The reporter describes the claims as an "extraordinary conclusion", and explicitly questions the account. The claims are very fringe given the overwhelming RS reports to the contrary. I also find it beyond extraordinary to suggest the event and symptoms were instead due to.... wind and dust! The Syria topic has been subject to incessant efforts to push unreliable, fringe, or just plain bizarre sources. The next one may claim everybody just had a cold. Alsee (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wind, dust and smoke. Dust storm is a serious thing and it can be life threatening. 145.255.171.160 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However I believe no one can have the opinion that's what happened here, not unless they are sufficiently uninformed as to render their opinion worthless. Life threatening dust exposure normally takes years to progress. We are looking at a highly localized event, with exposure of such an acute degree to cause immediate mass casualties. The individuals who received a near-fatal exposure would not have recovered - they would have faced permanent effects with a number of non-immediate fatalities. It is implausible that anyone treating the affected individuals could confuse the two conditions. It would be trivial to confirm the dust-theory at any time (including today) with a basic X-ray of the lungs of the dead or of survivors. As a additional minor note on just how absurd the story is, I am unaware of any report of a dust storm in the region at the time. It requires blatant propaganda or a blind conspiracy-theory mindset to suggest that there was a dust storm severe enough to cause instant fatalities, and nobody noticed it happening. These observations are WP:OR, and I certainly do not suggest they be added to the article page. My "no" !vote is based on policy section WP:REDFLAG, the fact that the claims are poorly supported and contrary to overwhelming other sources, the reporter's description of the claims as "extraordinary", and supplemented by my informal evaluation that the claims fall under the common-English interpretation of "extraordinary". Alsee (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You repeat the general mistake of most commentators here. There is no "overwhelming other sources". There are only "White Helmets" and media from Western countries who uncritically rebroadcast any of their statements. Those countries, whose leaders have been saying for seven years: "Assad must leave." As medical workers, they do not have professionalism, but they like to make movies. They work only in areas under the control of Islamists, their headquarters are usually located in the same buildings as the headquarters of Islamist groups, after the capitulation of surrounded Islamist groups they leave together with the Islamists.
 * And, when some participants in this discussion state that it is impossible to believe the polls of the inhabitants of that part of Syria, which is under the control of the government, I wonder if they really believe that the fighters of "al-Nusra", "Ahrar al-Sham" and other Islamist groups respect the First Amendment? That is, in the areas under their control, where no any correspondent of independent media, residents are free to express their opinions? Really?
 * P. S. By the way, for the panic message about "dozens of corpses" it is absolutely not necessary the presence of these corpses. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If we include this report, it does not mean we've verified it and our job, as editors, are not to assess the whether or not things are true. Why should this material be kept out? -- M h hossein   talk 11:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I made a search though the net and checked if the doctor's doubts and Robert Fisk's report were discussed elsewhere. The results showed me that we should mention the "hypoxia" claim in the article since it was covered by the following:
 * Snopes.com
 * Sky News
 * ABC News
 * Global Research
 * AOL
 * ...and probably some others.
 * GlobalResearch.ca is not a reliable source. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I've not been around this page for some time. But now checking after a while I am kinda disappointed with the move to remove these two POVs here. My usual concerns with such moves is WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Obviously if the Douma attack was a false flag by the British MI6 or the so-called rebels it would be very unlikely that a Western corporate source would cover these or give them weight given the fact that the West in general has been hell bent on toppling Assad for all these years. So including POVs by some few independent/alternative sources in the West helps towards neutrality. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No Robert Fisk is a partisan source in the conflict. LylaSand (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Sopher99. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No - a fringe viewpoint. Attack Ramon (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Fisk is one of the few clearly WP:RS journalists commenting on this issue who has actually been there. His report was subject to editorial control by a newspaper of record that is a WP:RS. It is indeed possible that his interviewee was under coercion; but nobody has questioned the reliability of his report, on its own terms. The report is a reliable account; it doesn't say there was no chemical attack, it just reports the opinion of a doctor who examined the victims. People should be allowed to weigh such evidence themselves; it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what the truth is, and suppress anything to the contrary. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No Fringe viewpoint. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No: Do not support giving undue weight to a fringe account. However - perhaps it could be included if clearly and unambiguously described how it's mentioned/referenced by reliable sources - i.e. otherwise completely unsupported claims (suspiciously similar to the Assadist and Russian propaganda) and based upon an interview with a single person (whose reliability was not established, and there're many doubts whether he was really able to express his opinion freely), and even Fisk himself in his account described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as "extraordinary". (Which some of supporters of the inclusion of Fisk's account here seem to be missing entirely.)--ז62 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, "some opponents of the inclusion" are either having a hard time understanding what our core NPOV policy says, or are intentionally dodging the perfectly valid argument which says that no matter how controversial a person's account of an event is, it merits inclusion when sufficiently covered by reliable secondary sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read please more carefully what I wrote above. I basically just pointed that such a fringe account, when covered by reliable secondary sources, should be described as how it's described by such reliable secondary sources - there's no reason for creating WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving false impression that Fisk's account has the same reliability as the reliable neutral sources, as some supporter of Assadist islamist/Russian propaganda in this discussion seem to be convinced. Even Fisk himself described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as extraordinary. Regards-ז62 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes - Fisk's account is covered by various secondary sources, including Sky News, The Times (no access), Le Monde, ABC News.au and The Intercept among others. It doesn't matter if they discredit or even mock his story (which they don't really do). What counts for us Wikipedians is that they actually do cover the account. Quoting the NPOV policy as a reminder:"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."


 * So if this is the material in question, then I'm seeing no problem with it except for the fact that it only cites primary sources. But this is grounds for replacement, not outright exclusion. And there's also the part saying that Fisk "found no proof", which should be reworded as "said that he had found no proof". But other than that I see nothing too controversial. A story that was covered by multiple RS is anything but "fringe viewpoint" or undue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they discredit or even mock his story 
 * It actually does...
 * which they don't really do
 * They describe it as a fringe account based upon a claim of a single physician, while also mentioning that other journalistic teams visiting Douma at the same time as Mr. Fisk had no difficulty to find found witnesses stating otherwise. I mean, titles like "Russia Sows Doubts Over Chemical Attack in Syria, Aided by Pro-Trump Cable Channel" or "Critics Leap on Reporter Robert Fisk's failure to Find Signs of Gas Attack" should perhaps really trigger at least some suspicions. Regards.-ז62 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. WP:GEVAL is concerned with conspiracy theories, and there are no RS explicitly denouncing Fisk's report as a "fringe account" or anything of the same order. The ones that seem to be doing so are merely quoting other journalists/officials who are doubting the story, but (again) not necessarily discrediting it themselves. And there are no scholarly works treating the Douma chemical attack yet. Only journalists and news networks. So, until that happens, we don't get to omit stories by well-established journalists that are covered/mentioned by well-established sources by simply quoting "WP:FALSEBALANCE". From the same Intercept article:""There was no way of knowing if any of the medical personnel who spoke to the reporters in the presence of government minders had been coerced into making those statements by threats from Assad’s secret police, the mukhabarat, to harm their families — as the head of the largest medical relief agency in Syria told The Guardian they were.""


 * Whether we like it or not, there is no concrete evidence as of today suggesting that a CW attack took place, let alone blame the "Assadist side" for it. Only "evidence" we have is foreign/local officials, and the media that is quoting them. Plus the OPCW is only allowed to state whether CWs were used or not. It doesn't get to hold any side responsible. So, in order to cite "WP:FALSEBALANCE", you need to be able to fully discredit the Russian/Syrian line first. Only then you are allowed to refer to Fisk's account as a fringe theory that goes against the mainstream scholarly line. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps read more carefully, as this policy deals with the fringe accounts in general ("Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.") with conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and alternative history given just for example. Perhaps you should also read Fisk's account more carefully, as even Fisk himself described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as "extraordinary". Also, the report you quoted just states that there's no final report yet, not that there were no chemical attack.
 * "So, in order to cite "WP:FALSEBALANCE", you need to be able to fully discredit the Russian/Syrian line first."
 * Are you sure you have you fully understood what the wp:FALSEBALANCE exactly means? --ז62 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I did. Unless we've established what the mainstream scholarship's take on the event is, we are in no position to determine which theory is commonly acceptable and which one deviates from the acceptable ("fringe"), i.e. we are in no position to determine what constitutes FALSEBALANCE yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Include Fisk: his report is integral to the WP:SCOPE of this article, which should accord his work the required WP:DUE weight according to coverage in international reliable sources. As notes above, editors should be reporting disputes, not editorially deciding them according to their political preferences. Given Fisk’s stature in this arena and the coverage of his report, its omission would present a non-neutral review of the Douma attack and would harm readers and the encyclopedia.


 * As with his other work, in this case many international newspapers have covered Fisks’ report on Douma, even if some of that coverage is negative:


 * The Independent - "...There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had “never believed in” gas stories – which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups...." -
 * Le Monde - "Robert Fisk, reporter for the British daily The Independent and veteran of the battlefields of the Middle East, whose work is decried by supporters of the Syrian opposition, reported that he did not meet, in his visit to the place, a single person aware of a chemical attack on April 7th…" -
 * The Intercept - "...Still, Russian state television channels and critics of Western military intervention seized on credulous reports from the British writer Robert Fisk, the French news agency Agence France-Presse, Dirk Emmerich of Germany’s RTL, and Pearson Sharp of One America News..." -
 * Counterpunch - "Robert Fisk’s Douma Report Rips Away Excuses for Air Strike on Syria..." -
 * La Repubblica - "...But at the same time the representatives of the Syrian Ministry of Information escorted Douma to Robert Fisk, a British journalist who in this war has repeatedly taken a position for Damascus..." -
 * The Times - "Robert Fisk, a reporter for The Independent, interviewed a doctor who said there had been a fierce regime bombardment that had sent scores of people to hospital but that chemicals were not to blame." -
 * Sky News - "...The narrative appears similar to that given to the Independent's long-standing and award-winning Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk who made it to Douma with help from the Syrian government and spoke to a man who was not a direct eyewitness to the Douma attack..." -


 * There’s a reason why newspapers report on Fisk’s work: he’s received countless awards and honors for his work in journalism over decades (e.g. Robert Fisk), and has authored multiple books on the Middle East, including Pity the Nation and The Great War for Civilisation. In other words, he’s the kind of expert source you should be looking for when writing an encyclopedia article.


 * By contrast, five of the seven "no" !votes above state that Fisk is a "WP:FRINGE" source, with only one of those editors — — attempting to make any argument about what they mean in that regard (note that I do find their argument sincere, and they note that if Fisk is mentioned, criticism should be included, a position I agree with). The argument they cite, WP:FALSEBALANCE, is a perfect example of why Fisk needs to be covered in this article:




 * and furthermore,




 * Given his history and coverage of his Douma report, Fisk is certainly a significant view on this topic. Mention of his report does need to be tempered by mainstream criticism (e.g. ), but his report is not not remotely similar to the flat earth theory, or moon landing conspiracy. Instead Fisk did his job: he traveled to Douma, interviewed dozens of people there, published his article in a high-quality newspaper, and his report received international coverage.


 * As editors we should do our job as well: actually cite policy, review the quality of our sources, and present information to readers free of our personal biases. -Darouet (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, it can be that others who mentioned Fisk felt no compulsion to restate the obvious, as it was pointed earlier in the discussion above (e.g. by Bobfrombrockley or Volunteer Marek). It would be also perhaps a bit more honest to quote somewhat more fully what the RS say about Fisk and his account, e.g. mentions of "Fisk's credulous account" etc. --ז62 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When you write that I should be "more honest," do you mean quote from the source, e.g. "credulous reports from the British writer Robert Fisk," exactly as I've already done? Or are you thinking of something else? -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Struck per comments below. -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't certainly commenting on your personal honesty, and I'd be quite offended if you'd insist on such interpretation, just on the general standards of Fisk's supporters in general, who somehow fail to understand what the RS are actually usually saying about his report.-ז62 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies ז62. I do believe we need to cite criticism of the report, and attempted to add this earlier . -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure now if we're talking about exactly the same thing, but I've basically started with that it could be possible to include Fisk's report, if it'd be described as sourced by the RS (and as described in Fisk's own words) - e.g. possibly include if described as per neutral reliable sources, not giving it the same weight as to the RS. Even Mr. Fisk admits his account is based upon a single witness (who was actually not an eyewitness), whose statement Fisk himself describes as "extraordinary". --ז62 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Fisk talked to more than 20 persons, one of whom was a doctor. (In comparison, Seth Doane, whose report you have no problem including, reported talking to 3 people,) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nominen. When you try to delete such a high profile feature of this article, you make yourselves look ridiculous. Flashy Gordon (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No Not in the voice of Wikipedia. Bordering on fringe.    Even some of the links given to support inclusion did the opposite...discrediting it.  Possibly include it attributed as a claim.  E.G.   .....Fisk claims....."  North8000 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No Fringe and undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support According to Wikipedia, Robert Fisk "has been Middle East correspondent intermittently since 1976 for various media; since 1989 he has been correspondent for The Independent, primarily based in Beirut. Fisk holds numerous British and international journalism awards, including the Press Awards Foreign Reporter of the Year seven times. He has published a number of books and reported on several wars and armed conflicts. An Arabic speaker, he was among the few Western journalists to interview Osama bin Laden, which he did on three occasions between 1993 and 1997." Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Of course, the article should be included, Robert Fisk is simply reporting what was said by residents of Douma. We do not know what happened, so we are in no position to dismiss evidence from a highly regarded correspondent with a deep knowledge of the region who is undoubtedly a reliable source. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So, what about Fisk?
The OPCW found no traces of sarin in the Douma. They did find, however, traces of organochlorine compounds, which may or may not indicate the use of chemical weapons by someone. But, as it seems to me, the controversial report of Fisk in these conditions deserves mentioning, unlike reading Putin's thoughts by Nick Robertson. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The OPCW Investigation section is woefully incomplete
To say that the following encompasses the totality of the OPCW report, found here :
 * "On 6th July 2018 the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the OPCW published their interim report.
 * At the warehouse and the facility suspected by the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic of producing chemical weapons in Douma, information was gathered to assess whether these facilities were associated with the production of chemical weapons or toxic chemicals that could be used as weapons. From the information gathered during the two on-site visits to these locations, there was no indication of either facility being involved in the production of chemical warfare agents or toxic chemicals for use as weapons. During the visit to Location 2 (cylinder on the roof), Syrian Arab Republic representatives did not provide the access requested by the FFM team to some apartments within the building, which were closed at the time. The Syrian Arab Republic representatives stated that they did not have the authority to force entry into the locked apartments."

Is a sad joke and utter propaganda nonsense. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some editors of this article believe that it should be guided by "reliable secondary sources." The fact that the overwhelming majority of media in the "democratic countries of Europe and North America" belongs to a small group of people who are oriented towards the forces that want to start military intervention in support of the so-called "moderate opposition" (US defense industry, Israeli lobby, companies with the participation of the Saudi), does not interest them. It is a pity that for some reason these media are not in a hurry to publish materials that contradict the task of immediately overthrowing a cruel tyrant that does not allow trading slaves and hacking heads in the streets. And, unfortunately, those journalists who publish materials that contradict the task of "overthrowing the regime" are unreliable, questionable or propagandistic ones. Well, or they are declared as such. But, as I said, some Wikipedia editors do not care or they satisfied with that. "If this is not written about in the NYT, then it was not." 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BIAS "Wikipedia editors are people with enough free time to participate in the project, such as the retired or unemployed. The points of view of editors focused on other activities, such as earning a living or caring for others, are underrepresented. This puts subjects of interest to the employed segment of society at a disadvantage, since they are less likely to have time to devote to Wikipedia" It is hard to stop the spread of biased nonsense from those with nothing else to do, so we write a longer post than normal. You edit was biased nonsense, which is gone now due to being fixed after this post and now you come posting WP:NOTAFORUM. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)