Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 6

Material that was apparently selected from Brian Whitaker's blog to support a pre-determined POV
I object to adding this material which takes a very minor point from a blog and puts it on equal standing with much more reputable sources. I don't see why we would add this bit, which seems engineered to cast doubt on the use of chlorine in Douma, while omitting the more relevant material in the next paragraph of the source article:

Also,, please consult a dictionary on the definition of the word "censored". - MrX 🖋 22:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * First Robert Fisk, (see here), now Brian Whitaker, yeah, I call that censorship. This article makes us look like fools...or worse: paid operatives for the British Foreign Office. Huldra (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, I told an old friend of mine, a well known and very respected journalist in Western European country, that Wikipedia didn't find Robert Fisk reliable....he was absolutely speechless......Huldra (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When you call things what they are not, you only diminish your own credibility. Wikipedia doesn't deem people reliable or not. We deem sources (e.g. publications, news organizations, books, magazines, and journals) as reliable or not. Whitaker's blog is not high on the reliability scale, because it is not under editorial control and (as far as I can tell) does not have a reputation for fact checking.


 * Of course, the bigger issue here is the blatant cherry picking of a source, evidently to promote the fringe viewpoint that chemical weapons were not used in Douma.- MrX 🖋 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SPS, we can use a blog as a source if the author is a recognized expert. That's not really the case here, since Whitaker is a journalist not a subject matter expert. Obviously the selective quoting is a no-go in any case, as is the use of this blog in the lede. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , I don't think you are in strong position to explain the meaning of words or Wikipedia policy to me, especially when you are violating your topic ban. - MrX 🖋 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarity on MrX's comment, Kiwicherryblossom reverted 2 replies which were in violation of their topic ban [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douma_chemical_attack&diff=877233353&oldid=877113203] based on my suggestion. I was actually trying to suggest they only revert if there were no replies, and strike them out if there were, but I don't think it something worth worrying about. BTW, feel free to remove this reply if it's no longer needed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that Whitaker probably counts as an (albeit relatively weak) RS even though SPS because of his recognised expertise on the region based on a long career reporting from it for RSs, in a similar way to, say, a blogpost or opinion piece by Fisk would. However, it is clearly a minor source, so better for the body than the lede, and I feel its use here was cherrypicking to push a POV, as the detail picked out was a minor one while the main points of the article were ignored. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a non-notable and poorly sourced opinion (I think that was actually discussed before). It should not be included, agree with MrX. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Postol source
Harkin, a fellow at Harvard's Shorenstein Center, is no less reliable than the other journalists cited under 'Media Commentary'; Postol, who is recognized as an expert by Harkin and others, has changed his opinion about Douma and now acknowledges the chemical attack based on new evidence, per the cited source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if he "changed his mind" or not. At the end of the day Postol is WP:FRINGE. Also, that is a small part of the overall article so it's also cherry picking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Postol is, indeed, "a small part of the overall article," so why did you invoke him when unilaterally deleting the entire paragraph after it had been stable for four days? For what it's worth, Postol has relevant expertise as an MIT scientist, but if he is so "tainted" by his earlier skepticism that he can no longer be cited as accepting the use of chlorine canister bombs at Douma then that's all you should have removed. Harkin's journalistic credentials are not in dispute and the source is easily on par with others cited in this article. Please, let's strive for a more collaborative editing environment with fewer kneejerk reverts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Stable for four days"? On a Syria-related article? Is that a joke? Maybe if it manages to stay in the article for four months then we can talk about whether it's stable or not. And after that conversation, we can have another about how "stability" is NOT ACTUALLY a Wikipedia policy or a guideline and has nothing to do with whether something should be in the article or not.
 * And yes, the Postol part is a small part of the source article, so the info is cherry picked. And yes, he is WP:FRINGE and yes, there have been previous discussions on related articles about whether to include him, and the consensus was against.
 * Please don't refer to my improvements to the article as "kneejerk". Thanks.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily have a problem with how the content is written, and source's conclusions are not especially controversial, but I'm concerned about including material that may be WP:FRINGE, and definitely seems WP:UNDUE. I can't help but notice that no other sources seem to cite the Intercept article that is now 11 days old. That seems unusual. We could get some fresh input by posting a query on WP:FTN. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still not clear what basis Volunteer Marek has for removing Harkin in The Intercept that could not apply to CBS, The Guardian, and other RS in the "Media commentary" section and throughout the article. His edit summaries consist of one-line policy invocations, with his initial revert suggesting that he had simply skimmed the article, found Postol's name, and decided to burn everything in its vicinity with fire. Indeed, I wish that Yaniv had not responded to Volunteer Marek under the heading "Theodore Postol source," because it plays into Volunteer Marek's erroneous suggestion that Wikipedia is citing Postol or giving undue weight to Postol's earlier fringe views, when this is not the case: Wikipedia is citing Harkin, Harkin's conclusions, and how Harkin came to those conclusions. The text that I added barely mentions both Higgins and Postol as two experts consulted by Harkin, accurately reflecting the contents of Harkin's article (notice that the text does not actually mention Postol's position, either his previous doubts or his change of heart, at all); however, if Volunteer Marek sincerely believes that this small reference to Postol has been "cherry picked" and materially misrepresents Harkin's work, then he could modify Wikipedia's summary accordingly, yet he has not done so—insisting instead on total deletion. Volunteer Marek, can I ask you why that is? Would it just be too much work to "fix" the text, or do you have an additional (unstated) reason for your repeated reverts, such as Harkin's agreement with the OPCW that early reports of sarin use at Douma appear to have been erroneous? Refusing to admit error, acknowledge conflicting evidence, or engage with opposing viewpoints (even to persuade their adherents to reconsider!) because you're afraid of giving ammunition to Assad apologists and conspiracy theorists is probably pathological and entirely self-defeating, in addition to not being a valid consideration when editing an encyclopedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree and add that The Intercept is a high-quality source, Harkin's work was evidently long and carefully researched, and even Postol, whose views are not mainstream, regularly appears in the news for his expertise. -Darouet (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I too believe this should be removed, but mostlty as a repetitive content. We have a lot of similar claims on this page already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the replies here—"source's conclusions are not especially controversial" (MrX), "The Intercept is a high-quality source, Harkin's work was evidently long and carefully researched" (Darouet), "We have a lot of similar claims on this page already" (My very best wishes), among others—it seems that we can disregard Volunteer Marek's invocation of WP:FRINGE as unsuited to this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I do not think the problem is sourcing. Rather, this is a highly repetitive content on the page. Nearly the same claim appears many times. If you think this is fine, well, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

91.5% of confirmed chemical attacks by Assad government
We should retain this material which is highly-relevant to the Douma chemical attack. Douma is specifically highlighted in the original source as well as others. - MrX 🖋 12:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Poll
I see that Smeagol has removed this material again. I would like to poll editors on their view of whether this material should be included in the article, and whether it should be in the lead. Please indicate your preference in the appropriate section.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

'Key point of our analysis: Stop missing forest for trees. It's about the strategic utility of crimes against humanity. Assad didn't just "get away with it". He achieved his political goals. It worked!' To my mind that means, To understand Douma chemical attack, its not enough to only look at Douma chemical attack. So brief material in the lead would be great imo that adds to that understanding/knowledge. ( I can see quite clearly this reasoning will enrage 'certain' povs. So be it. ) Dan the Plumber (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Yes - The material is brief and provides an overview of the situation in Syria, including the Douma chemical attack. I'm neutral on whether it should go in the lead or not.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - The material includes Douma and other cw attacks and I would say Yes to being in the lead too. One of the co-authors of the GPPi report explicitly stated;
 * Yes, with one correction. This is not chlorine, but chlorinate organic chemicals as correctly noted in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Clearly relevant (lede and body). I would correct per MVBW and also attribute the estimate to the source (particularly since this is an exact number 91.5% - liable to change per different dates and may vary a bit between different estimates) - however this is highly relevant here. Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - robust research reported by secondary sources, as per above comments. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose

(if you want to reply to a !vote, put it in this section)
 * Threaded discussion
 * I've already "argued my POV" in the edit summary: "Not only is the report too recent, there's also insufficient coverage in secondary sources to warrant inclusion in the lead as of now." So yeah, that makes it undue for the lead. Nothing against mentioning it in the article though, and I was actually about the expand this paragraph before you reverted. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And what is it with all these "polls" showing up every now and then on this page? I'm sure the OP meant well, but is there no other way of settling content disputes? Or should matters like this be subjected to mob rule format from now on? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan You've 'expanded' it but  made it worse imo. One of the co-authors said 'Stop missing forest for trees' so its better if the material is left brief and uncluttered in the lead. Dan the Plumber (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Hope that helps. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No What you left in the lead (and lower) does not explain anything about Douma specificaly. If you want it to explain something, write the alledged motive (with good references) in the lead, instead of numbers. But looking on other similar articles, this report is too fringe for that. Or will you argue that we need to add it to all CA articles? Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It provides important context. Yes, it would be good idea to add it to other articles about chemical attacks in the Syrian civil war.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this report represents RS consensus... But I don't think so. And even than, the information that is identical in all incident articles should be in an article about all cw use in scw, not in individual incident articles. And as I said, the important thing for the lead section is motive, not precentage numbers. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Motive? Like, from the introduction to the report; 'the Syrian regime’s persistent and widespread use of chemical weapons is best understood as part of its overall war strategy of collective punishment of populations in opposition-held areas.' Tobias Schneider, co-author : 'It's about the strategic utility of crimes against humanity. Assad didn't just "get away with it". He achieved his political goals. It worked!' Dan the Plumber (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, write this in the introduction, and not some numbers. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Number of attacks, reason for attacks, its in the material added.  ('Syrian government'  your imposed wording, deviating from source material, is 'neutral'.  Like fuck .) Dan the Plumber (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I speak about the lead section, not the "material". Do readers of the wikipedia article need to go to the "Media Comentary" section to read the main conclusions from the report (as relating to the topic of this article)? Then why mention it in the lead at all?. About 'Syrian government'- it is used in all articles about syrian civil war. It is accepted phrasing here. Or did you not not notice it?Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I use the language from RS, 'Our research found that there have been at least 336 chemical weapons attacks over the course of the Syrian civil war – significantly more than has commonly been known. Around 98 percent of these attacks can be attributed to the Assad regime, with the Islamic State group responsible for the rest.'  Maybe because since 1970  Syria has been ruled by an Assad, and it has been upheld against the wishes of millions of Syrians by Russia and Iran ,  that is why the RS call it ' regime'. Very often anyhow,. Whether you are right and Syrian government is used in 'all articles about syrian civil war'  I don't know.  History is written by the winners I guess so you may be right. But I see 'regime' in lots of RS. You won't see 'regime' if you go around expunging the word  will you. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RS are good, but we have an encyclopedic style here, and they have their own. Some editing is often in order. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * so you are speaking for the whole encyclopedia now. Figures. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As do we all. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it an argument to call it something else than what it is? Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the encyclopedia use words favoured by RS like The Guardian, who write about the  Assad regime, or want to follow, I don't know, SANA, RT, where do you get your views from?  I'd say if House of Assad has ruled since 1970, and if Syrians have the presidential choices of  Assad, Assad, or Assad, thats  a regime , and thats why RS tend to write 'regime'.  But its a detail, isn't it. 'Whats in a name'. (Shax) A tyranny is a tyranny. Dan the Plumber (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever it's a Syrian regime, Assads's regime, or even despicable child-killing Assad's regime, it does not change the fact that it is Syrian goverment. Do you think that goverment is an inherently "good" word, or something? Also, none of the RS (and NRS)) you named are an encyclopedia, so their wording style is not our style. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you get apoplectic at me saying ' do you think government is an inherently good word or something' I just say 'do you think regime is an inherently 'bad' word or something? It isn't . Look it up in a dictionary.  Why are you so touchy about this.  If we follow RS, 'our' encyclopedia can't go far wrong .  Dan the Plumber (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'ré·gime[ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem]

noun a mode or system of rule or government. ' So we can follow RS and you don't need to keep changing it.Dan the Plumber (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not a native English speaker, don't know abot you. But native ones seem to think that "regime" is far less neutral than "goverment" in this contenxt (see Regime (also, if we talk about dictionaries, by some definitions, "regime" cannot bomb someone)). Moreover, your phrasing seems to demonstrate that I am right in this understanding. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regime cannot bomb someone. Thats news to me. I'd rather follow the words commonly found in RS. Your argument that regime is not an 'encyclopaedic' word  is spurious imo. I may be wrong, but to me it is not a valid reason to depart from what is regularly found in the RS wp regularly uses.  Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I said by "some" definitions). See, for example: "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."  I don't think it is spurous (obviously)), especially in the alredy sensitive topic. Also, I am sorry, if you started with ""regime" is neutral and encyclopaedic" it would be one thing, but you began with the picture of dead kid. To now claim that you thougt "regime" is neutral compared to goverment.... It would be difficult to belive. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I say 'regime is neutral compared to government'. You are making up your own arguments. I said I want to stick to the language most often found in RS. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what did you mean by "I just say 'do you think regime is an inherently 'bad' word or something? It isn't ."? Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I wrote that. Where in that sentence is the comparative neutrality of the word regime set against the word government. Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Context: I change "regime" to "goverment", you change back, I say it is not accepted encyclopedic style here, you speak abot how bad Assad is. So I ask "Do you think that goverment is an inherently "good" word"? You answer "I just say 'do you think regime is an inherently 'bad' word or something? ". So did you not claim that "regime" is as neutral as "goverment" by this? Or do you admit that you like "regime" better because of your POV? Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your "responsibility", you say? Well, not only were those edits the exact opposite of "improvements", you are also technically proxying for a banned user by restoring his sock's edits, which is sanctionable per WP:PROXYING. So I suggest you self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Syrian government redirects to Council of Ministers (Syria). That's misleading. Saying "Assad regime" is more precise and frequently used in RS. So yes, that was an improvement. Let's improve the content. And no, improving the content is not sanctionable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In a world where this is debatable I might agree with you. But in ours it isn't. That I have to explain to you that "regime", while applicable in theory, has negative connotations to it hence a POV concern when appearing in Wikipedia's voice, is baffling in itself. And "misleading redirect" is not an excuse (or at least not one I'd expect from you). You either pipe or you don't wikilink and the problem is solved.
 * And in case you weren't just blanket reverting, the source uses the word "funded" instead of "supported", per the Google translation. The "weapon attacks" vs "weapons attacks" thing is a non-issue, since they are both correct. But it's certainly not something worth edit-warring over in favor of a banned user's sock. Per the policy: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.
 * So yes, giving the appearance of proxying for a banned user (who happens to share your POV on this topic) is potentially sanctionable. Kindly self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I did not do any edits at the direction of a banned user. Period. Please refrain from unfounded accusations and from following my edits. "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". Yes, that is exactly what I did, and not for the first time. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to play on semantics then so will I. What I said was that you may be "giving the appearance" of proxying for a banned user, which is "potentially" sanctionable. In other words: when in a hole it's probably a good idea to stop digging. And there are no personal attacks here.
 * It's getting late here, so I hope you'll have self-reverted by the time I'm back tomorrow. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not play on semantics. The policy is very clear, and I follow it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know if you have read my dialogue with Dan, but did my arguments about neutral, encyclopedic, language not change your mind? Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I found this via the drama boards (sorry but true). Question: is GPPi the sole source for the claims about chlorine attacks? Because... We shouldn't be making potentially controversial statements in-wiki-voice based solely on the opinion of a single private think tank in Germany. Especially one that wears its own biases (it's very much in a line with German foreign policy and not afraid to say so) quite openly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Final report from the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the OPCW
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/03/s-1731-2019%28e%29.pdf

--Alogrin (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OPCW power to assign blame
'In June 2018 82 states voted in favour of a resolution giving the OPCW the mandate to place blame, 24 states voted against. This is a list of OPCW member states which voted against giving OPCW mandate to assign blame to the party responsible for using chemical warfare: Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam.'

Russian officials said the change will undermine the organization and threaten its future 

In February 2019 Russia stated it is not willing to fund the establishment of OPCW attribution mechanism. Russia stated it is not willing to fund the establishment of OPCW attribution mechanism

Following the Decision on “Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use”, adopted by the Conference of the States Parties at its Special Session in June 2018, the Technical Secretariat is putting in place arrangements to identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic. opcw march 2019 issues report 78.144.92.69 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

External links above References?
Is there some good reason this article isn't following the standard MOS ordering for appendices? -- Kendrick7talk 14:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Caitlin Johnstone
"the final report actively concealed evidence that the Douma chemical attack was staged by jihadists and the White Helmets,”"

"To be clear, this means that according to the assessment signed by an OPCW-trained expert, the cylinders alleged to have dispensed poison gas which killed dozens of people in Douma did not arrive in the locations that they were alleged to have arrived at via aircraft dropped by the Syrian government, but via manual placement by people on the ground, where photographs were then taken and circulated around the world as evidence against the Syrian government which was used to justify air strikes by the US, UK and France."

Full article: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The author of that article, Caitlin Johnstone, does not have a mainstream reputation and does count as a reliable source. The statement from OPCW on this leak confirms all available reports were considered in its final conclusions. For a response from a reputable source, see Brian Whitaker's own Medium article entitled "OPCW and the leaked Douma document: what we know so far".Philip Cross (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Caitlin Johnstone, writing in 2017,

 If there’s an unauthorized narrative coming out about Russia, Syria, the DNC, WikiLeaks, or the mainstream media itself, for example, '''we need to all join in and fan the flames of interest and excitement about it. Don’t hesitate to share something solely because it comes from a conservative source '''or might help Trump in the short term, and don’t worry about your lefty and/or liberal friends giving you a hard time about it. '

She is the antithesis of a RS for anything except her own opinions. Unless the wikipedia article wants to push the idea that the OPCW is corrupt I hope fringe sources will be kept at arms length. 92.3.3.67 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ian Henderson / OPCW report
In case Ian Hendersons opinion is presented as an OPCW finding, leaked document revives controversy 'The experts’ analysis — indicating that the cylinders could have been dropped from the air — was eventually presented in the FFM’s final report, published on 1 March. On 27 February — just two days before the final FFM report was published — Henderson handed in his own report offering contrary conclusions. Exactly how the FFM reacted on receiving it at such a late stage is still to be revealed, but they clearly didn’t see fit to hold back the report in order to incorporate Henderson’s findings. (Brian Whitaker)

'On 16 May, in response to media enquiries the OPCW issued the following statement:

'The OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which was set up in 2014. The OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its findings. The FFM takes into account all available, relevant, and reliable information and analysis within the scope of its mandate to determine its findings. Per standard practice, the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.

On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.

Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question. At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.

And...here we go russia presents un measure rein chemical weapons watchdog92.3.3.67 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the assessment of the sub-team's report, which was leaked by a whistleblower to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media. Niemandsbucht (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And, again, here is the response from the OPCW,

'the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.

On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.

Unless RS, sources other than the 'propaganda group for absolving Russia and  Syria of all responsibility for CW attacks on Syria and in Salisbury' report this , and unless and until the OPCW decide to overturn the conclusions of their final report, this seems not to have been regarded as a significant development in RS 92.3.3.67 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is too soon. Main coverage so far is from SANA and RT /Sputnik. Then there is an extensive account of the story so far by Brian Whitaker. Regarding reliable sources, there was a release by the EFE agency, which has been echoed on a few Spanish newspapers: La Vanguardia, El Confidencial and El Diario Vasco. This discussed the leak and OPCW's investigation into it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also EAWorldViews Scott Lucas has written on reasons why Hendersons opinion was disregarded, from explanations provided in one of the annexes to the OPCW final report . Did Henderson even actually go to Douma?  Also, not clear at all that 'members', plural, contacted the pro Assad regime group of propagandists ; 'The Group claims that it obtained the document from "OPCW staff members" who "communicated" with it. It does not name the members, but a clue comes from a tweet by David Miller that one person (not "members") contacted him last week.
 * "Can the person who sent me an anonymous letter please get in touch?" Miller asks, adding his protonmail address.'92.3.3.67 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Brian Whitaker update  "Misinformation in the Working Group’s commentary also suggests they had no direct contact with Henderson but had been talking to someone else who had scanty knowledge of his work at the OPCW.
 * The commentary asserted that Henderson was a member of the FFM (despite the OPCW’s denial) and had gone to Syria as part of that work. It also asserted that an “engineering sub-group” which helped with Henderson’s assessment had been in Douma as part of the FFM.
 * There’s no evidence that any of that is true and the Working Group has not responded to repeated requests via Twitter for an explanation."
 * 92.3.3.67 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the scarce coverage in reliable sources, I would opt for either excluding this at the moment, or including the controversy around the release of the material itself, but making it clear that its validity is widely disputed. --MarioGom (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Daiky Mail came out with an opinion piece. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mail is not an RS, and that is a blogpost on their site by someone with no expertise on any dimension of the issue. Let's wait for reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * When adding the information about the leak I've tried to make sure it's clear that it's an alleged report and included OPCW's response. The two sources I used was The Independent and Peter Hitchens's blog. This sounds like enough to merit a mention. Alaexis¿question? 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Daily Mail is not a good source, and a Daily Mail blog is an even worse one. The Independent piece is published under opinions, not news. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one more RS (Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie) describing the alleged leak. Again, if there are refutations, let's add them for the context. Alaexis¿question? 19:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a decent source. But all it says is that the new "leak" is not worth much. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're stretching WP:RS here. It nowhere says that opinions published in major newspapers are not an acceptable source. Also, where exactly did you see in the VRT article the claim that the leak is not worth much? According to the expert they interviewed the document is genuine. Again, we are discussing *mentioning* this leak and not removing everything else in the article. Alaexis¿question? 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The head of the OPCW has spoken about this now

Fernando Arias D-G of OPCW ' In March 2019, I received the first indication that an internal document pertaining to the Douma incident, produced by a staff member could have been disclosed outside of the Secretariat. It should be noted that, the time of the FFM deployment in Douma in 2018, this staff member was a liaison officer at our Command Post Office in Damascus. As such, and as is customary with all deployments in Syria, he was tasked with temporarily assisting the FFM with information collection at some sites in Douma. The document produced by this staff member pointed at possible attribution, which is outside of the mandate of the FFM with regard to the formulation of its findings. Therefore, I instructed that, beyond the copy that would exclusively be kept by the FFM, the staff member be advised to submit his assessment to the IIT, which he did, so that this document could later be used by the IIT. As is the case with all FFM investigations, the Secretariat encourages serious and professional debates within, '''so all views, analysis, information and opinions are considered. This is what the FFM did with the information included in the publicly disclosed document; all available information was examined, weighed and deliberated. Diverse views were expressed, discussed and considered against the overall facts and evidence collected and analysed.'''

'''With regard to the ballistics data collected by the FFM, they were analysed by three external experts commissioned by the FFM, and working independently from one another. In the end, while using different methods and instruments, they all reached the same conclusions that can be found in the FFM final report.'''

When further evidence appeared that the document drafted by the staff member had been shared outside this framework, I considered I had sufficient information to authorise the initiation of an investigation to clarify the situation. At this moment, and consistent with my responsibilities as Director-General towards States Parties, actions had to be taken. Taking into account that the issue is under investigation, I will not make any further commentaries or evaluations that could be incompatible with the requirements of the investigation. I intend to keep you informed about the outcome of the investigation, as appropriate, in due time. I have provided all the information I have so far. For now, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the impartial and professional conclusions of the FFM that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place in Douma on 7 April 2018. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine. I remain available to all States Parties for further clarifications through bilateral discussions and written correspondence, as I have endeavoured to do since taking office.78.144.91.170 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I've added the reformulated passage adding the official OPCW position and taking out the Daily Mail link. Alaexis¿question? 08:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to the ballistics data collected by the FFM, they were analysed by three external experts commissioned by the FFM, and working independently from one another. In the end, while using different methods and instruments, they all reached the same conclusions that can be found in the FFM final report.

'In the meantime, those who put great stock into the Henderson report should lean on Damascus to cooperate with the IIT.' (Tobias Schneider). 78.144.91.170 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The published conclusions feature prominently in the article, including in the lead. They say nothing about the attribution, so they do not contradict (or confirm, for that matter) the leaked report. Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a minority view described by multiple reliable sources (including OPCW itself) so there are no reasons not to mention it. Note that we adhere to WP:DUE and dedicate much less square footage to this view compared to the opposing claim that the attack was done from helicopters by the SAA. Alaexis¿question? 18:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Any attempt to remove this information from the article is in my opinion a censorship attempt. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In accordance with WP:YESPOV I have made some careful amendments to the language used in this section, so that it aligns with the language used in both the document itself, and MSM/RS descriptions of it. There was immediately an attempt to vandalise that change away from WP:NEUTRAL so will be reviewing. Cambial Yellowing (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Henderson, should he be mentioned?
The fact is that OPCW said there was no other evidence....when there was. They suppressed it.


 * Strange News from the OPCW in the Hague, Peter Hitchens  16 May 2019


 * The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack, Robert Fisk, y 23 May 2019


 * Bias, Lies & Videotape: Doubts Dog ‘Confirmed’ Syria Chemical Attacks, Scott Ritter, June 20th, 2019

It looks as if the story has started to unravel, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted chemical weapons expert Peter Hitchens.

the logic of chemical weapons use in syria -  yeh, its really unravelling, this idea that the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons 78.144.85.113 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A well-written if contentious report but, funded as it was by the German foreign office, hardly WP:NEUTRAL Cambial Yellowing (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Head of the OPCW, 'OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias, speaking on a panel in Slovakia, said, “We are attacked with misinformation [and] with proxies that produced reports to undermine an official report of the fact-finding mission about investigations in Syria.” Arias indicated the Henderson memo was not considered fit for the conclusion. solving a mystery Diverse views were expressed, discussed and considered against the overall facts and evidence collected and analysed. With regard to the ballistics data collected by the FFM, they were analysed by three external experts commissioned by the FFM, and working independently from one another. In the end, while using different methods and instruments, they all reached the same conclusions that can be found in the FFM final report.


 * I don't think its a matter of any suppressed evidence is it, anyway?  A different opinion was expressed, based on the evidence. No new evidence. An opinion is not evidence. An opinion Henderson expressed in a reporthendrsons memo,that the head of the OPCW has indicated was discussed internally, ( and rejected) , and  has asked him to further on to the IIT.  The IIT that is being hindered at every point by the regime.syria refuses visa for chemical weapons investigation chief. Maybe the story only unravels in the minds of those who  believe the regime has never  used chemical weapons ,  and will maintain that opinion even in the face of mountains  and mountains of evidence.   . 78.144.85.113 (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 'the IIT replaces the earlier Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) which was set up by the UN Security Council and later closed down by Russia. The JIM had power to apportion blame but shortly after it issued a report blaming Syrian government forces for a sarin attack Russia vetoed a renewal of its mandate.' 78.144.85.113 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ( btw Sam Dagher has a new book 'ASSAD OR WE BURN THE COUNTRY', which apparently has many insights on the regime and its fighters mindset. For example :

"The only solution is chemical: we must exterminate them all, they and their families and children, all - these people do not deserve to live" - Mohamed Jaber (2013), days before the Khan Alassal attack.) 78.144.85.113 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 'There have been something like 300 chemical attacks in Syria since 2012, and there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of them have been carried out by the same forces that have been dropping barrel-bombs, cluster bombs, napalm, and plain old HE, on Syrian civilians for 8 years. I think this whole campaign to get them off the hook for one of those chemical attacks, while discrediting the agency charged with policing chemical weapons, is part of a move to normalize CW use in our world again, and you are one of its anonymous agents.' 78.144.85.113 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it makes for sharp if glib reading, but coming from a document funded by the White Helmets and the German foreign office, pretty remote from a neutral point of view. Cambial Yellowing (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@CambialYellowing an article putting in context the Russian and Syrian regimes war on the chemical weapons police, and why they would do so russians war on opcw putting the henderson 'leak'in context 78.144.95.235 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, those who put great stock into the Henderson report should lean on Damascus to cooperate with the IIT. 78.144.95.235 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And, as everyone, like you, who operates from a 'neutral point of view' 'Cambial Yellowing', one understands the White Helmets, who are AQ,  are the real men behind all the chemical weapons attacks. Sure. working group can you find henderson . whats the evidence it was a false flag
 * You can argue the merits of "operating" from a neutral POV all you like. But wikipedia always does. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Article about trolls and conspiracy theorists   trolls conspiracy theorists assad syria

Louis Proyect:'The notion that jihadi devils would have killed 43 people in a city that was a stronghold of poverty-stricken Sunni resistance to Assad for 7 years in the hope that the Muslim and poor-people hating President Trump would have come to their rescue is patently absurd, but no more so than the propaganda that has been cranked out by the Sputnik left up to this point in the sorry project of burnishing Bashar al-Assad’s reputation during a savage war that has left his country a burning rubble.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.95.235 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Arias : - 'we are attacked with misinformation ...'78.144.95.235 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sascha Ruppert twitter - has interesting things to say about this subject also. 78.144.92.87 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Goodman external link
This has been inserted many times, most recently. I think it pretty clearly should be excluded as an EL per WP:ELNO#1 (Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article). It isn't even very good as a source: it is an interview transcript from just after the leaked OPCW memo and should be superceded by later sources with more information per WP:RSBREAKING. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It includes a transcript, but the main subject of the link is the video interview itself. Clearly this cannot be replicated in the article. As before, it is of a veteran professional journalist with particular expertise on the region, by a 20+ year news organisation with wide syndication. The journalist/interviewee has also been following the Douma story closely and goes into detail on the implications of the recent information. What later impartial sources are you suggesting? Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't address the main issue (ELNO#1) at all. All they say in the interview is "this may have significant impact, mainstream news outlets may pick up on this". Such speculation adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The interview is 8½ minutes long. They cover significantly more ground and detail than you suggest. Simply lying about the content is not helpful, and is a bit weird. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 05:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. I generally don't do video, and it sounds like you are saying the printed transcript at the link is just an excerpt? Meanwhile can you address ELNO#1? VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know, it was addressed in my post above, stamped 11:44 3 August. The video and the level of detail discussed cannot be replicated in the article, but it is highly relevant to the subject. That you "don't do video" is not a reason to exclude. Many readers will be interested in this highly relevant source. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 07:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a video isn't special. For copyright reasons we can't "replicate" a printed source in its entirety in an article either. That isn't a reason to include it in the external links section of the article. If it were public domain and we wanted to, we could upload a video to Wikimedia and use it in the article, just like we could copy and paste the full text of a public domain interview. It isn't exceptionally relevant, it is just more WP:RECENT than many of the events in the article - we already have plenty (I would say too much) prose coverage of the memo. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've now viewed the video and confirmed that the written transcript is accurate and complete. I'm unsure why you couldn't have just said that, but whatever. As such, the link doesn't provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, and it should not be included per WP:ELNO#1. I would not have any reliability concerns about it being used as a source in the article, though I do not think it expands significantly upon our already longish coverage of the memo. VQuakr (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * we could copy and paste the full text of a public domain interview but we would never do this, even aprt from copyright. The interview explains in detail the possible implications, and why the leaked memo may or may not be of consequence. He does this from a journalistic position of some authority on the region and the specific issue. That detail would likely not go in the text even as featured article, but is nevertheless highly relevant, and expands on the detail present in the article prose. I.e. a unique resource beyond the article. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 00:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the copying; that was to address your comment that the video was somehow special: the main subject of the link is the video interview itself. That ended up being a bit of a wild goose chase since the transcript matches the video verbatim. Let's try this: what specific quote from the interview did you find the most unique? VQuakr (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)