Talk:Ghouta chemical attack

No evidence and falsified evidence
Mattis has admitted they have no evidence, and wikileaks has sad it was planted and not the full story Al Farwazirip (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources? If you are referring to Jim Mattis' press conference in February 2018, I suggest you read the transcript. He said Assad's government had used the nerve agent sarin during both the Obama and Trump administrations (referring to the attacks in Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun). He then says "and now we have other reports" of sarin use and he does not yet have evidence of these recent reports, but he is "not refuting them".
 * Here are the relevant parts of the transcript (with emphasis added):
 * Mattis: We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention . ... Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas? Mattis:  Yeah. Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said? Mattis: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it . Obviously they didn't, 'cause they used it again during our administration . And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them ; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
 * Additional sources:
 * "A Litmus Test for Detecting Syria Trolls" by Stephen R. Shalom (February 17, 2018).
 * "Newsweek Engages in Easily Debunkable Syria Chemical Weapon Trutherism with the Help of Ian Wilkie" by Eliot Higgins (February 9, 2018).
 * CowHouse (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Very misleading. This article states that the Syrian government was the perpetrator as fact. Wikipedia should be neutral and not function as a vehicle to perpetuate propoganda of certain states. As is also stated, different government investigations came to different conclusions. 2600:4040:7CD4:AE00:2FCD:4999:37A0:193B (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 91.140.29.253 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * July 2024
 * We need the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry to be clear that the there is great controversy over who made the Sarin attack. By not doing so the article immediately alienates a majority of readers and makes Wikipedia's legitimacy across all platforms questionable. 91.140.29.253 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Header image of dead victims should be changed
The header image currently used is too gruesome with its depiction of a dead man and two dead children. I suggest either the image be changed, or at least their faces blurred out of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahdriyami (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. There has to be a better representative picture that doesn't show dead bodies right as you open the article. Starlesspicturesofthemoon (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Doubtful to me that there is any better representative picture of a mass murder than dead people. Please see WP:OM and WP:NOTCENSORED. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations in lead
Discussion in previous section on the inclusion of references in the lead. Diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=next&oldid=1117101956 Justification per : Many pages cite in the lead where there is a follow-up later in the body, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for instance. Providing sources in the lead provides credit to the article for the reader, as the lead is the main focus of an article unless someone dives into the article details. Also cites WP:ONUS that all material likely to be contested should have a source. Opposed by on grounds of avoiding duplication of refs. Key policy: MOS:LEADCITE, which states The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, I am curious why this has turned into a large debate? All I am suggesting is adding citations to the first two sentences as I once did after a likely vandal used the lack of citations as an excuse to change the page. Since this event is controversial aka suggesting more citations and there also also people that challenge the statements in the first two sentences so as per MOS:LEADCITE why not add a couple of citations in? I don't see it taking away from the readability of the article. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It really isn't much of a debate. You want to add unnecessary cites and no one else seems to think it is necessary. Vandals are gonna vandal regardless of cites. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead is not exempt from citation policies and guidelines regarding contentious material. It's not an anti-vandalism method, it's required as part of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately the content is indeed verifiable, so we're in line with that policy. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki policies are rather clear about the citations being in the lead for this type of complex and controversial article including for verifiability as stated by and other earlier comments.  also commented about the lack of citations in the lead sentence in their comments on "Page should be reverted to version 13:40, 24 November 2021". It does appear at the moment that the consensus is for citations in the lead over limited to no citations in the lead as put forth by .  what is your thinking about having a couple of more citations in the lead would take away from the readability of the sentence? To me they are barely noticeable unless you want to click them to following up with the credibility of a statement. To me they don't take away from the readability of an article. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there is nothing like consensus for your proposed change. You don't get to count support from someone who happened to mention refs in another context. Quit referencing WP:V; that's already been addressed. Existing sources provide plenty of support for the lead as-is, and as already noted spamming more isn't going to prevent vandalism. VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:V and WP:Verifiability as stated in this talk page and census reached on the talk page except for one dissenting view references are being added back into the lead. As can be seen it does not remove from the readability of the article. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're the one proposing the change; you don't have credibility to judge consensus here. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks of credibility. Myself and others have tried to engaged in a conversation with you of why you don't want any additional citations in the lead as per WP:V and WP:Verifiability and to understand why you believe the citations would take away from the article. In the earlier talk of "Page should be reverted to version 13:40, 24 November 2021" I also provided an example of a page that is similar that uses citations as I have edited and proposed here in the lead 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I realize you have done lots of reversions on this page, but you also need to realize as editors we are also here to help improve the page. We don't want to take anything away from the article. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack. You can read about what does and doesn't constitute and attack at WP:NPA. WP:V and WP:Verifiability are the same policy and we would be fully compliant with it with zero cites in the lead (direct quotes excepted). As has already been explained. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material." It also states lower down, "Attribute all of the following types of material to reliable, published sources using inline citations:"..."all material whose verifiability has been challenged"..."all material that is likely to be challenged"..."all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons." You will also notice numerous citations in WP:Verifiability in the lead portion of the article. I see no lead exception stated in the WP:Verifiability policy.
 * The first sentence of this article is, "The Ghouta chemical attack, was a chemical attack carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in the early hours of 21 August 2013 in Ghouta, Syria during the Syrian civil war." This material has been challenged and will likely be challenged in the future and also includes reference to a living person Bashar al-Assad.
 * My apologizes about double linking WP:V and WP:Verifiability.
 * I am also trying to understand besides your interpretation of Wiki policy how do you believe the citations would take away from the article? You believe a certain citation lower down in the lead is sufficient as a citation? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know what WP:V says. And the content is indeed verifiable. Nothing in that policy says we need multiple cites after ever sentence. Yes, extant sourcing in the lead is adequate. Spamming in more unnecessary cites is an example of bloat. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * asked me on my talk page to chime in here. I think WP:LEADCITE is pretty clear in allowing the proposed citation ("neither required ... nor prohibited"). But I think the more relevant guidance is this: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Since we know the accusation is controversial, why shouldn't the footnote appear in the lead? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * supporting footnotes are already in the lead. The proposal is go increase the count from 3 to 6 which I find excessive. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Is it not possible to reach a compromise with just one reference per each sentence? When the statements are echoed in the body of the article, all of the references can be reused, not just the highlited ones for the lead. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am happy to do less references such as one or two on the first and second sentence instead of three, but since it is so controversial and involves a living person I am of the view why not provide a diversity of sources. Does the number of sources take away from readability on the wiki? The last sentence of the lead has three references, so I am unsure how the first two sentences are somehow an exception. The first two sentences of the article has no references provided. We already have the three sources in a none-lead part of the article that would fix the issue and are the ones I have placed in the past before the reversions.
 * Additionally, only one of the citations in the lead as far as I can see from a quick read directly states that it is the Syrian regime that caused the attack. The other state the Syrian regime may have done it or are references for death tolls from other chemical weapon attacks. They are not stating who the perpetrators are.
 * I am of the view of following the guidance quoted by Mikeblas of "any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." and I would also add that the WP:LEADCITE also states that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." -- KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What if, in the lede, we have a reference each for: lower bound of death toll, upper bound, deadliest since, and the actor? That's only three. All the references can stay in the body of the article, of course. Should the lede acknowledge there is dispute about the actor? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can spread the lead references out. I will start working on that.
 * Per the dispute about the actor I think it is mainly rhetoric without evidence that the actor was not the Syrian Military? I worry that adding in the dispute part may create confusion, but I also could see some value in putting it in the lead too to keep the article neutral to the extreme. I am not sure what would be the best approach and how wiki usually approaches this situation? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I think it should be fine for everyone if there's fewer refs in the lede, but still refs in the lede. would you agree ?
 * pI don't know much about this conflict or event, but it's just the regular matter of vetting sources. If the sources saying something are reputable (see WP:RS), then we use them. If they're not reputable (see Fringe theories for example) we don't use them. It's possible that reliable sources say two (or more!) different things; when that happens I just write "some think foo [references], and some think bar [references]'" ... and maybe explan or expand those positions. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Syrian government's counter-claims weren't viewed as credible (and were viewed as quite predictable since it was their SOP) and do not merit mention in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. "carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad" is not a BLP statement; I'm not sure why BLP is being brought up here. It isn't necessary to end every sentence with a cite; end of paragraph is editorially favorable when there aren't quotes. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The guidelines specifically states, "any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." That means after every sentence. Bashar al-Assad is a living person. I agree about not mentioning the counter-claims in the lead due to the none-credible nature.KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the edit proposed by Mikeblas and to leave the counter-claims, which are non-credible, out of the lead. It really doesn't hurt to have the citations in the lead, and it wards off some of the drive-by objectors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bashar al-Assad is indeed a living person, but the statement is not about him. It merely mentions him. So BLP does not apply here. Regardless, I appreciate the effort you put forth in the article-space edit to declutter the cites to the extent feasible. VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the changes without going to the talk page before.
This is a message to VQuakr. You seem to push a POV against multiple users on this page. Namely, you seem to imply that the Assad army is responsible for the attack. Many sources disagrees, many wikipedia users told you to stop. Please discuss before reverting any new changes. Thanks 109.210.109.124 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your count is weird (it is one person, not "multiple users")
 * You refer to a discussion that is one year old and led to the consensus you are disturbing now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Could there be a more digestible image used instead?
I'm not an avid Wikipedia editor, count me as a wikipedia citizen. I think I speak for most casual users (that don't engage in the talk feature) that this image is a little too morbid. I know it depicts the truth, but could there be another image that communicates the same truth that's less macabre? Please reason with me here. 2601:483:5280:55D0:64A5:B7C5:932F:2F4 (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that others seemed to have this issue with the image before the current one. Maybe no image is needed? Bigfatbuddox (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not necessary at all. I don't think anyone wants to see images of dead bodies unless they're interested in the topic, especially when the header image shows up in the page preview. I'd really appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than me could change/remove it. Editinginclass (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED. An article about a mass casualty gas attack is reasonably represented by victims of the attack. If there is a different image that better fits the manual of style per MOS:IMAGES, feel free to propose the alternative. VQuakr (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)