Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 6

FRINGE, WEIGHT, UNDUE
First, a general statement. The whole article needs an improved structure and lots of work. That's what originally motivated me to start editing the article, so I am hopeful others will join in. It is typical of high profile and quick moving news events in that there was lots of stuff thrown against the wall in the early days and unfortunately with Wikipedia, everything sticks. A rethinking of structure, importance, order, sources, really everything about the article would be helpful. So the section "Early opinions" isn't really the place to put info on the possibility of a false flag, so this discussion will have to be followed by a discussion of structure and location of any content that the consensus decides to include.

The debate in the section above is about the existence of a motive for the rebels to perpetrate a false flag, not evidence for a false flag. So this is not about trying to argue that a false flag happened. I think it is clear that the motive exists, and have provided a half dozen sources for it. The motivation section is heavily weighted toward regime motives already. The debate above is about adding one sentence. This decision is not a slippery slope to including a false flag as a viable explanation of what actually happened. I have never advocated for the false flag possibility to be included in the article as fact, without attribution, or without opposing sources. But it is a minority view that exists and should be mentioned in the article, with proper attribution and weight. Volunteer Marek's recent deletions go to far. I think his perfunctory citing of WP is unjustified and will discuss in this section.

Volunteer Marek's second deletion, edit summary: "cherry picked quote which misrepresents source," took out a very good source that is still used in another part of the article. I'm fine with a rewrite of the sentence Marek deleted, but to take out the entire sentence and delete the source citation without regard to the rest of the article is manipulative and disruptive.

The following is not currently included in the article but should be. Åke Sellström, the chief of the UN Mission investigating the attacks: "Mr. Sellstrom said he believed both sides in the conflict had the 'opportunity' and the 'capability' to carry out chemical weapons attacks." ( Copy and Google the first line in the article to get around the paywall. It's the third to last graf.) What is in the article is Carla Del Ponte's statement the rebels could have been responsible for the sarin attack at Khan al-Assal. So there are two very prominent persons acknowledging that rebel use of chemical weapons is not crazy. Obviously this says nothing about actually using CW in a false flag attack, but the plausibility of the rebels having CW needs to be acknowledged so that the discussion of a false flag is not waved away without consideration. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The text I took out WAS cherry picked. The source just says that there is no 100% certainty. The text/quote in the article tried to make it sound like that means that a conspiracy theory is true. It misrepresented the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So change the text. Don't delete the source, breaking other citations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE
Prominent people who have said it is possible that the rebels did a false flag: Vladimir Putin, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, Rush Limbaugh, Saleh Muslim, head of the (Syrian) Kurdish Democratic Union Party. Rand Paul initially said the same, but back-pedaled. Alan Grayson and Tom Harkin both seriously questioned classified US intelligence claiming Assad was responsible.

Several journalists and former intelligence analysts have written about the possibility of a false flag:


 * Seymour Hersh, used in the current article as it should be.
 * Gareth Porter,
 * Robert Parry,
 * Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former), Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.), Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan, Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.), W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.), David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.), Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.), Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.), Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.), Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq, Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.), Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.) Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, Putin would say that. That's already addressed. But who cares what Ron Paul thinks? If we tried to include all of that guy's crazy ideas in Wikipedia articles we'd have to start a whole another encyclopedia. He's got a conspiracy theory for everything. And seriously, Rush Limbaugh? To lesser extent this applies to the others you mention. Consortiumnews/Parry shouldn't be given prominence. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Quit moving the goalposts. The request was for prominent people espousing the theory. I listed 6 prominent people, three more who seriously question the regime's guilt, three journalists who wrote about it, and a letter from 12 former government employees. No matter how much you hate Putin, what he says and thinks matters. Like I have said a dozen times, including prominent people's opinions does not mean they are right. But the theory is held by prominent people and deserves to be included in the article. You are so ideological about your positions, you continually conflate the theory with its truth.


 * FRINGE is clearly satisfied. If I went looking for non-US false flag supporters, I could easily find a dozen. As for WEIGHT, the article is huge, and now almost exclusively supports the regime's guilt. Including a few sentences about the possibility the rebels are responsible is justified. At least give me credit for engaging in a debate. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Putin's view is already in the article. There's no need to spam it in all over the place. And if you seriously think that every wacky idea coming out of Rush Limbaugh or Ron Paul needs to be prominently featured in Wikipedia articles then you're in the wrong place. I would also appreciate it if you cut it out with the personal accusations/attacks (like "no matter how much you hate Putin" - that's stupid nonsense which does not belong in a serious discussion = or your repeated claims that somehow my intent to follow WP:FRINGE is "belligerent"). Discuss content not editors. Keep in mind that this article is under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Marek, FRINGE is not determined by what you or Vladimir Putin think. Mnnlaxer identified a number of major political actors including U.S. intelligence sources who believe that the rebels would have had incentive to launch such an attack (which is obvious to anyone who's not an idiot or blowhard). That's sufficient to demonstrate that the viewpoint isn't fringe. -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh definitely qualify for WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just confirming that you have no idea of what "fringe" means, other than an idea that, like most others, is inconceivable to you. Ron Paul served as a U.S. congressman for over 20 years, and won over 20% of the Republican primary votes in a number of states, including Iowa. Apparently however you think his ideas, or those who vote for him, are best likened to UFO abductions or Moon landing conspiracies. -Darouet (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please, the guy is known for his crazy theories (same goes for his "institute"). . .Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WEIGHT and UNDUE
This article has 269 sources after Volunteer Marek's removal. The most cited sources are the Human Rights Watch report, the UN Mission's reports, UN and HRW press releases and web articles, the US and western government assessments, and UN Human Rights Council reports. All of which assign responsibility to Assad's regime. Seymour Hersh is cited just as much as Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta. There are now only a couple of citations giving any hearing at all, positive or negative, of the possibility of a false flag.

I'm out of gas. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been responded to. People addressed issues that were raised. You responded by posting huge walls of text and starting multiple new sections. That's pretty much textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. What do you expect?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. You made assertions, VQuakr asked a question. I expect arguments, not beligerent responses, but reasons for your position. You can denigrate my attempts to argue my position or my formating, but it doesn't make them wrong. As far as IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this is a textbook case of that:


 * 22:58, 25 May 2015‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,798 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (it's sourced in the text, it doesn't need a citation in the lede. See WP:LEDE)
 * 22:54, 25 May 2015‎ Mnnlaxer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,818 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (Undid revision 664056338 by Volunteer Marek (talk) No, that's wrong. WP:CITELEAD)
 * 22:35, 25 May 2015‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,798 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (it's the lede, doesn't need citation if sourced in text)
 * 22:22, 25 May 2015‎ Mnnlaxer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,818 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (→‎top: citation needed)
 * I cited the specific section in the WP you listed that applied, and you came back with the exact same response. You've never engaged any of my arguments, just asserted you were right with a WP. A textbook edit warrior. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This particular removal belongs to section "early opinions". These can indeed be early opinions that people held two years ago, but this is no longer important per WP:recentism. Or perhaps certain VIP still insist on this theory, as can be supported by more recent refs? If so, I do not see any problem with making a small subsection in the end of this page about the conspiracy theory (provided that many notable people still believe in it - I do not really know). My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable, thanks. As I started this talk section with, the structure and placement of contents in the article needs an overhaul. As far as recentism, it is problem, but finding recent sources will also be almost impossible because if there isn't anything new coming out, there won't be news about it.
 * That leads to an important point to make about this subject. The vast majority of info on this issue will be from very soon after the event. The Human Rights Watch report, which was based on skype interviews with local activists, was issued in early September 2013. The UN Mission report came out in mid-September 2013. The UN Mission final report only updated the lab results. There was a later UNHRC report, but it was less than a page on the Ghouta attack and was based on the UN Mission report. Given the ongoing civil war, there was hardly any on-the-ground reporting and there won't be any going forward to add information about the attack. Seymour Hersh's article is likely to be unique and has obvious problems (NOTE - I'm not saying it can't be used. It can, and should, but only in a certain way). So this is a tough issue for the article going forward. But I like the challenge. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like there is any interest in working on this challenge with me besides Erlbaeko, but I'm always open to actual collaboration. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to cast aspersions, but I suspect you are finding it easy to work with editors with a personal POV sympathetic to Assad and/or the Russians, and hard to work with editors with a personal POV hostile to Assad and the Russians, because the article you want to see here is essentially more favorable to the POV of Assad and the Russians. That might not be your intent, but it is the effect. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I can accept the optics of it. But the sample size here is one. Marek is doing the problematic editing, and all his changes move the article to specifically anti-Putin POV, so when I push back on him, my POV seems the opposite. If you went back to look at all my edits, you would see that I included and expanded the use of the HRW and UN reports, which are clearly saying the regime is responsible. The overall history of my edits are NPOV, in my humble opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your biases and prejudices are showing. Did I put in anything negative about Putin? No? Then how in hell do my changes make the article "anti-Putin POV"? Please. I've just removed excessive coverage of what is a idiosyncratic fringe point of view. Per Wikipedia policy. The fact that you think that this makes the article "anti-Putin" only highlights the fact you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles on this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit removed material from CNN, Salon.com, the Huffington Post, Foreign Policy, RT, and the Associated Press, all major sources of news and opinion, in this case voicing a major perspective on this tragedy. We need to include the material - your personal disagreement with the perspective of these sources is irrelevant here. -Darouet (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Kudzu1, in the grand scheme of things I am far more "anti-Assad" and "anti-Putin" than neutral towards them, but I refuse to edit as a partisan in this civil war, and I think nobody here should. -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the reasons why the material was removed is explained above. "Some commentators" is people like Rand Paul and Rush Limbaugh. And Putin, but he's already given enough microphone in the article. And it's conspiracy theory mongering based on cherry picked opinion pieces or misrepresentation of sources. Like I said, already explained and discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "anti-Putin POV" wasn't the best phrase, I admit. Partisan is a better word. And I was thinking more of the Ukraine articles I've seen Marek police than this one. But the material you most recently removed wasn't excessive and wasn't fringe.
 * Explained does not mean agreed consensus. I can just as easily say that I explained why FRINGE and WEIGHT don't apply in this situation. However, besides you, others have agreed with me. What other editor here has agreed with your latest removal? Citing a WP doesn't make you automatically right. That is the edit warrior attitude I most object to and why I'm making a big deal of this discussion. Probably counter-productively for the article, at least in the short run, but I'm pretty stubborn. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, Volunteer Marek just vandalized another article I've worked on. Talk:Alfreda_Frances_Bikowsky Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already asked you once to cut it out with the personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it, sorry. However, it's not personal to criticize your edits based on facts. Meanwhile, suddenly having an interest in two articles I've worked on after we have disagreed does seem personal.
 * As for this article, what editor has agreed with you that your recent deletions were justified by FRINGE or WEIGHT? Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read this section again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize. It won't happen again. Back to the discussion, who has agreed with you that this deletion is justified by WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT? Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a peace offer. I have read the discussion. No one agreed with your deletion. On the other hand: Now that we are moving on, you may participate by offering constructive contributions to the new section below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "That's sufficient to demonstrate that the viewpoint isn't fringe" and "We need to include the material - your personal disagreement with the perspective of these sources is irrelevant here" Darouet
 * "I do not see any problem with making a small subsection in the end of this page about the conspiracy theory" My very best wishes
 * This isn't a war, at least not from my perspective. Those kind of statements betray a certain WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part. Anyway, if you had actually read the sections you'd notice two users who pretty much agree with my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you actually claiming that my words "I gave you a peace offer" show a battleground mentality?!? Amazing. Who are two users and provide the quotes that they "pretty much agree with my edits"? Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution
For the current Early opinions section: Move the first paragraph on the Mint Press News article into the Initial claims section under a new third level heading "Media claims" after Government claims. Leave as is to show the rebuttal. This article was widely discussed and important to the reaction to the attacks. Delete the second and third paragraphs as not relevant enough for inclusion.

For the deleted material, create a new, short section at the end of the article on proponents of a false flag operation. Use the sources, short summary statements, and any rebuttals needed. I believe a short section is warranted considering the FRINGE and WEIGHT policies. See above for discussion about the difficulty of finding recent sources showing these people still hold the theory of rebel responsibility. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the first part of this proposal. I disagree with the second. If you want to start an article about conspiracy theories be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not acceptable to relegate real concerns about culpability for this attack, by politicians, intelligence sources or major journalists, to a small section somewhere near the end of the article. If there are views that have been published in or by acceptable sources they need to appear at relevant sections throughout the article, period. RT is an acceptable source, among others, despite MV's objections.


 * So, from a practical perspective, this edit is not acceptable because, despite a few improvements (e.g. reducing prominence of the now obviously erroneous MPN story), it removes the views of major Russian officials on the grounds some editors WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Similarly, CNN's world news discussion of motivation here, or that by the Seattle Times here, or the discussion by The Atlantic here are all legitimate in the article, have no relationship to "FRINGE" theories, and can't be removed because editors with a stake in the conflict WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The edit also removes material from a story by the AP, for no obvious reason. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That edit is perfectly acceptable. WP:UNDUE weight (and why should Lavrov's statements be sprinkled around in the "US assessment" section anyway?). The rest of it is really about WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE weight is the right issue here. I'll make a post below. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mnnlaxer, I actually agree with Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes that Lavrov's statement about motives has no place in the U.S. assessment section. That section does need unofficial statements by U.S. officials about rebel capabilities, however.
 * that's fine. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't know why we need the Mint Press News section. Why is this here? Doesn't everyone now agree there was a rocket attack?
 * Fine, take it out. Mildly interesting as a wrong story and there was lots of press about the dispute with the authorship, but not enough to take a stand over. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the false flag section is the easiest way to incorporate discussions of possible rebel culpability, but there are other ways of including this information. If we do include it, we should also find reliable sources that describe it as a conspiracy theory, since I think that's a major western view. Wherever the information goes, any source like "consortium news" should be considered unreliable or needs a specific discussion to include it. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm having edit conflicts with my posts and I'm on a device. Will try to catch up. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) This is best left for mediation and I encourage User:Volunteer Marek to participate. Not to say that we can't move forward with some work we can achieve consensus with now, but I don't see it happening here if VM continues to WP:VAGUEWAVE. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Commenting to keep section on talk page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rocket manufacture and provenance discussion
Isn't explicitly a response to UN Ghouta report, should be in evidence section. Russian defence expert Ruslan Pukhov said that the code, found by the UN investigators on the M-14 munition, showed it had been produced in 1967 by the Sibselmash plant in Novosibirsk for a BM-14-17 multiple rocket launcher. He said that these weapons had been taken out of service by Syria and replaced with BM-21s. He stated that the second projectile identified by weapons inspectors looked to be "home made." Blogger Eliot Higgins has written that Syrian army videos show munitions that "clearly match" those linked to the 21 August attack, concluding, "it now seems undeniable that the Syrian military has been using this family of munitions for at least the past 10 months" - Volcano rockets. Journalist Robert Fisk has written that, according to information circulating in Damascus, unpublished Russian evidence includes export papers for these missiles showing that they had been sold to South Yemen, Egypt, and Libya. The OPCW said in September 2011 that Libya's chemical weapons stockpiles had remained secure since February 2011, when its inspectors had to leave due to the Libyan Civil War. Libya's declaration to the OPCW of chemical weapons to be destroyed did not include sarin, although it did include sarin precursors. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly different material and sources, but same subject as the newly-named Ghouta chemical attack section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this article is the best source for the first tree sentence. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rocket azimuth and range discussion
From the Ghouta report responses section. Should be moved to evidence section. "Analysts noted that the two azimuths determined by the report intersect deep in Syrian-government-controlled territory, near Mount Qasioun, noting that this region has been the target of Israeli airstrikes against chemical weapons-capable surface-to-surface rocket launchers. Based on analyses of the azimuths provided by the UN report, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. Specifically, the inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these pointed to the government's elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun. However, The New York Times later acknowledged that their earlier report assumes a range of 9 km for one of the rockets, while experts determined it to be under 3.5 km. Some weapon experts say that this rocket was unlikely to have operational range longer than 2 km. Journalist Sy Hersh has implied this undermines certain narratives about the August attack but since, in June 2013, Syrian government forces had begun 'Operation Qaboun,' through which they sought to establish control of a region between the suburbs of Qaboun and Jobar, the area where Operation Qaboun was taking place could have been a possible launching point for the 21 August sarin attack, the short range of the Volcano rockets notwithstanding." Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The newly-named Rockets section has similar material and some of the same sources as above. Need to go through it closely to combine the material. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref #6 (London Review of Books) is not a sufficient source for the statement it supports. "Some experts" is too weaselly. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement could be attributed to Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol. I believe this document is the best source for it. Are you aware of other weapon experts who have calculated the range of the rockets? Erlbaeko (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a self-published source. The source itself is notably thin considering the authors; for example, they make a huge assumption about the front-end geometry of the rocket with no discussion of that assumption at all. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a self-published source, but they are established experts on the subject. I also believe it has been published by reliable secondary sources. Are you aware of a good one? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NY Times. We don't need to resort to Higgin's blog for the point that this is still a launch from gov't territory, and we should drop the Hersh fringe stuff. The same source that notes the shorter range also notes that the government is the only plausible suspect, so that is what we should report. I think we should lead with the more relevant 2-3.5 km range info; the "intersecting trajectories" reporting is just historical stuff that can come later. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe we can use some information from that NY Times article, but it is published before the "possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence" report and is not a direct response to it. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

sentence in lead too abruptly truncated
The sentence in the lead about the report findings, about how the sarin came from the Syrian military, should not end abruptly after 'necessary' - but should  continue  - ' necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents.'  the full stop is misleading as the sentence does not end there in the report. The findings of the report are after all most pertinent and should be conveyed adequately - heaven knows enough room is made in the article for all kinds of spurious and fringe nonsense ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.11.8 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The report indicated that the sarin came from the Syrian military, but I agree that the statement should not end after necessary. I fixed it on 1 July. Ref. . However, Kudzu1 reverted it on 11 July. Ref. . Did you mean to do that Kudzu1, or was this just a mistake? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You made a large battery of edits, many of them contentious, during an ongoing mediation. That's why I reverted them. I don't have a problem with this particular change. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will re-add the statement. However, I do not agree that i made many contentious edits. During the mediation (between the mediators opening frame and his resignation), I made 5 edits to the page. You have agreed to two of them (this two: ). One is a simple move (this: ). The last two (this and this ) must be the one you find to be "contentious". They are discussed here: Assads statement in the Initial claims section and Putins statement in the Foreign government assessments section. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)  . Erlbaeko (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Assads statement in the Initial claims section
Kudzu1, I do not see the statement by Assad in the Initial claims section you reverted on 11 July as "contentious". It is well sourced, and I believe an exclusive interview with the Syrian president three days after the attack is most relevant in the Initial claims section. Was this removed due to the ongoing mediation, or do you have other conserns with this statement? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have proposed that this section be removed per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Assad is already quoted in the article and I do not believe adding yet another denial of culpability from the Syrian government is necessary or desirable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kudzu1. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk &#124; stalk 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether to keep, delete or merge the section is another issue.

I added a reference and changed a statement from:

To:

The reference I added is to the full version of the interview, the statement already in the article originates from. (You must read the RT article to verify that part.) And I even added the Original version in case something was lost in the English translation of the interview. Do you have a problem with this particular edit? Erlbaeko (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't think it needs to be or should be expanded, and in fact, I think it should be removed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I believe you speak or at least understand the russian language. Can you verify the translation? The original version is here. I have seen several versions of the "this is preposterous!"-part in the English version. Is "absurd" and ok translation? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC). Erlbaeko (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

UN missions arrival in Damascus
Kudzu1, according to the referenced UN report the UN mission arrived in Damascus 18 August (that is three days before the attack, not two). You reverted my correction on 11 July. Was that just a mistake, or do you believe they arrived two days before the attack? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is a consensus among sources that the team arrived on 18 August, then so be it. This edit was part of a group of edits that also included contentious changes and was made during an ongoing mediation, which is why I rolled it back. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the consensus among sources is, but the date is noted on page 3 in the referenced PDF-file, in the Letter of Transmittal that is addressed to the U.N. Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. It is a scanned image, so you can't just search for the date, but it is an official document signed by Åke Sellström, Scott Cairns and Maurizio Barbeschi. I have no reason to doubt it, so unless you have one, I will appreciate it if you self-revert. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As the change was a small part of substantial revisions you made to this article without consensus, I'm not especially inclined to self-revert, but feel free to change the word back if you want. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC) . Erlbaeko (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Putins statement in the Foreign government assessments section
Kudzu1, regarding the statement you reverted on 11 July 2015, in the Russian chapter of the Foreign government assessments section. I changed it from: to

I also moved a statement. Ref. Do you have a problem with this change? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the expansion is unnecessary and is leading language, so yes, I do have a problem with it per WP:NPOV. There may be a way to workshop it without the extended quotation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the two-year old opinion by Putin should be included in the page about ... Syria? My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Russian government is one of the largest world powers, and Syria's principle international backer. -Darouet (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1, it is obvious that Putin's language is not neutral, and is leading - "foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists" - however, that is Putin's position, and essentially the position of the Russian government. The position is being documented here, not given tacit support (e.g. the language is not, "Putin explained that..."). What would the encyclopedia look like if important statements by officials pursuing definite political interests were always excluded? Readers would have no idea what world leaders think. Or, imagine a scenario in which all Wikipedia editors were of one nationality - say, Russian - and decided which world leaders they agreed with as a basis of encyclopedia inclusion. In that case, while political officials all around the world would be making political statements all the time, readers would have access to only one side, and wikipedia would be a tool of propaganda. That's why it's important to keep statements by Russian, British, Chinese, American, Syrian etc. officials in this and other articles.


 * Also, if the Russian government says its intelligence service has concluded one thing officially, but an intelligence officer tells a journalist it has also concluded something else, it would be worthwhile to note it here. Similarly, U.S. intelligence estimates reported to Hersh, and recently removed by VM at the U.S. assessment section, should be returned. -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we should not put opinions by every foreign government to every page about every incident, such as this one (and it is already two years old). The exception is obviously the opinion by Syrian government. I believe the entire "Foreign government assessments" section should be removed per WP:Recentism, especially since the page is excessively long. Only  intelligence reports and anylyses by independent experts/researchers should be included as reflected in RS and according to due weight. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The US and Russia are not every foreign government: both have had an outsized influence on this conflict and on the direction of world affairs generally. Their statements on this attack have influenced how others (including journalists) have responded, are a matter of public and historical interest, and should be recorded. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, after reading this part more carefully, I can see that paragraphs about responses by some government do provide some factual information. They should stay. Others do not provide any factual information, but only unsubstantiated claims (something like "Putin asserted that "there is every reason to believe [poison gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces," without going into detail"). Those can be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see how your response has any relationship to my comment or anything other than the editorial direction you'd like to take the article. -Darouet (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree Darouet, and I believe the statement currently in the article is false (the "without going into detail" part). He did provide more details. He said it was "to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists". We are not representing his view in a fairly way if we exclude that part. In fact, I believe that is against the neutral point of view policy, and that policy is non-negotiable. Kudzu1, please reread the part I linked to. Also reread this part Bias in sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC) .Erlbaeko (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1, do you have any comment on this? I'm not stating that Putin is right or wrong, and am agreeing that his statement is non-neutral. Rather, I'm stating that his position is notable and should be quoted for readers interested in the Ghouta chemical attacks. Those readers are intelligent enough to understand that Putin is a political leader with vested interests in supporting the Syrian government, and don't need us to shepherd them clear of potentially dangerous ideas.
 * On a different topic, you argued earlier via a series of links that Hersh's recent work has been spotty. I disagree, and unless you'd like to discuss further here, I'd like to take the matter to WP:RSN. -Darouet (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Putin is already quoted. I see no valid reason to expand it beyond increasing the already considerable amount of space this article devotes to politically motivated nonsense. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The few additional words, "to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists," is a short but critical aspect of his statement. Do you believe that Putin should not be quoted at all? What is the purpose of quoting him, but at the same time misquoting him, because we disagree with his perspective - doesn't that seem disingenuous? - Darouet (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Do you believe that Putin should not be quoted at all? " - as the editor already said, Putin is already quoted. So please stop it with the strawman rhetorical questions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We write that Putin said, " '...there is every reason to believe [poison gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces,' without going into detail." This effectively misquotes him because he does go into greater detail, and says that such use would be  'to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.'  Kudzu1 mentioned that because Putin is quoted, there's no reason to expand. However, it's very easy to either accidentally or editorially truncate a quote and, in so doing, misquote. So, we just need to be sure we're actually reporting what he said. -Darouet (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Darouet. However, let's deal with this in the context of the whole article in the mediation. One thing I would like to add here is I respectfully ask Marek to stop saying "stop it" and related phrases. It serves no point other than to frustrate the editors it is directed at. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, someone wanted the witnesses as evidence, previous (before 18-e) use of unkonventionel gas - destroy grenades? On the other hand, the UN - agents has had a certain fortune and remained alive. Schader that the could not determine everything - from where exactly was this horrible gas - provoked Batalie? Insurgents Modschaheddins produce, yes, no gas - grenades or rockets, yes?A18 08 2015 (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving mediation discussions here
Based on common sense, the civility and progress we are showing, and Transporterman's recent comment, the mediation discussions should be moved here. I have also asked User:Volunteer Marek to self-revert his recent deletions and discuss them here first. We can resolve all the current issues if we are disciplined and are willing to compromise to achieve consensus. Sorry I haven't made substantive replies to any recent discussions yet, I will get to it soon. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 16:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The mediation is once again in progress on the mediation talk page. The mediation template will remain at the top of this page during the mediation. Article editors are requested to refrain from making major revisions to the article without first getting consensus here while the mediation is in progress. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Erlbaeko. I would not answer to your question on mediation talk page, but here is an excellent recent commentary on this subject by Andrei Piontkovsky (Based on your ANI comment I have an impression that you know Russian. If not, this can be translated by Google). My very best wishes (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, I do not know Russian, nor do I know who this Andrei Piontkovsky is. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted this edit because it removed mention that The chemical sample, that lies behind Hersh's statement that the sarin used in Ghouta on 21 August was not a match for that in the Syrian government's stocks, came from "Russian military intelligence operatives. That's important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If that was your real motivation, why not reinsert the source rather than reverting the whole edit? You call the edit POV, but what part of it constitutes POV? That Seymour Hersch is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist? Or, perhaps, the fact that The New Yorker and The Washington Post, have refused to publish his article? If it is just the omission of the mention of Russian spooks, then I can reinstate the edit with that mention added. That is, if I can find a source, since it is not in the ones you provided; of which, one is a blog and another a dead link. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sample for Hersh came from Russian military intelligence. This is an important fact because all intelligence agencies used to feed disinformation to journalists (just as in this case). Since we have an article about the person, there is no need in qualifiers because the reader can go to the page about the person and check himself. Sure, that would be a good idea to provide better sources, but remember that this page is under 1RR restriction, and removing/changing sources can be viewed as a revert (undoing work by previous contributors). My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Againstdisinformation, I see that since you got topic banned from one article you came over here to continue your WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously stalking other editors. Does the topic ban need to be extended to anything to do with international relations?  Volunteer Marek   17:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, I wish you had a more collegial tone, groundless accusations can be considered personal attacks. You invoke WP:BATTLEGROUND against me when I was merely responding to MVBW's comment on the reasons which, in his opinion, justify his revert. You will note that I did not revert him, I first made an edit that he then reverted. Therefore, your claim that I am stalking him is rather fantastic. Or, perhaps you deem that your unfriendly comment on my post is proof that I am stalking you, albeit with the arrow of time reversed. Finally, you threaten to extend my topic ban to "anything to do with international relations". Who bestowed such discretionary power on you? I think an interaction ban between you, MVBW, Lute88 and me might be more appropriate, and certainly a relief for me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think VM means these your edits and, which were made right after my edits on pages you never edited before. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ad, you obviously came here following MVBW or myself. You might not have reverted either one of us, but you looked over the article and the controversy and jumped in on whatever side was the opposite. And your proposal for a interaction ban ... is an attempt at WP:GAMEing the system, so that you're left to do your POV pushing in peace. Since you're the one causing all the trouble (not just here, not just with us two), a topic ban on you would solve the problem much more efficiently and much more fairly.  Volunteer Marek   18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You are most welcome to edit the article, Againstdisinformation. Just be sure to note the 1RR per 24 hours rule, and also note that this article currently is the subject of a formal mediation. (Read the info at the top of this page.) Erlbaeko (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Erlbaeko, your comment above, no matter how you slice it is quite offensive. It's either meant as an insult, or is a sexist remark and most likely both. Please strike the relevant portion and refrain from making such comments in the future.  Volunteer Marek   18:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning that editing an article under mediation and 1RR restriction is probably the worst piece of advice one could offer to user Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Relax Marek. That was a joke. (I have removed it.) Erlbaeko (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Erlbaeko. MVBW, I was not even aware that you made an edit on this article. The one I made was in another section. As for RFE, while it is true that I asked you why you reverted a well sourced edit, that doesn't imply that I am stalking you. VM and you have edited a great number of articles directly or indirectly related to Russia. You certainly don’t mean this is reason enough for me not to edit them. Anyway, Erlbaeko is right. Bickering is not helpful for building an encyclopedia. I’d rather we take a collegial approach. For instance, I would be grateful if you answered me on substance. 1) Where is the mention of “Russian operatives” in the sources, I couldn’t find it 2) Why do you reject the description of Seymour Hersch as a Pulitzer prize winning journalist? Is it false? Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) - see, for example, here. 2) I just responded above - we have a page about this person. 3) You are very much welcome to edit anything, but I would strongly advise you to stop editing highly controversial subjects. Actually, the advice by VM was a good one, but advice by Erlbaeko was a bad one. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you are welcome to edit too. However, I fail to understand why you "strongly advise (me) to stop editing highly controversial subjects". It sounds like a threat or caution of an imminent danger. What, do you think, disqualifies me? For my part, I believe that an honest person is, or should be, free to express her/his views on any subject without having to fear anything. As for your source, it represents the opinion of Dan Kaszeta, who was a member of the US Secret Service. This does not disqualify him, but there are other sources which mention British intelligence. Therefore a qualifier like "according to Dan Kaszeta" might be required. Also, the fact that WP has a page about Seymour Hersch does not preclude describing him as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, which is a fact. Finally, I hope that in the future we will dicuss facts, reliability of sources and due weight calmly and seriously instead of who should and who should not edit. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you do not want to follow my advice, that's fine. This is up to you. Back to your edit under discussion, it also has another obvious problem: a misleading edit summary. You did not introduce new sources, but removed sourced information you did not like. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "You did not introduce new sources". This looks like a new source to me. I can't recall to have seen that before. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can look at the diff and decide if it was a misleading summary. But here is the bottom line. I do not think that Againstdisinformation is helping on this page, on the page about P. where he was topic-banned, on page about Timoshenko (where his edit was reverted by FPS) or on other "political" pages where most his edits have been reverted by a number of contributors. If he really wants to help, he should edit something noncontroversial. Otherwise, it will appear that his real intention was not to help the project, but to fight for the "truth" as follows from the username. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough. Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MVBW, could you please refrain from making claims about me which are factually wrong. On the article Tymoshenko, far from being reverted by FPS, I was vindicated by him. Lidaz constantly reverted me, insisting to add the false claim that ECHR had recognised that Tymoshenko was tortured in detention. FPS intervened on my side and also rewrote part of the article that Lidaz had edited in a very poor English. After that, FPS asked Dennis Brown to protect the page and Lidaz was blocked indefinitely. But I think that you know this perfectly well. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's ongoing mediation for this page: please refrain from any edits that could be viewed as controversial in some way. -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, there's ongoing mediation for the page, please don't make (or re-make) edits that could be seen as controversial. You've participated substantially in the mediation, though you are not officially a part of it because you've said you don't have time. However, if you have the time to add this text, twice, why don't you come to mediation and discuss it there. People might agree with you that it belongs, and in that case, I would as well. -Darouet (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly agree that people who are taking part in mediation (like you and Erlbaeko) should not make significant changes. If you guys agree about something during mediation and make some changes, that's fine. However, this does not preclude anyone else from editing this page. Reverting changes only because they were made during mediation is pointy. I would like to notice that you did not revert numerous changes made by users Erlbaeko or AgainstDisinformation (including even disputable ones, such as here), but only my changes. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I came across as pointy. I agreed with your revert of AD's changes (which I hadn't myself really evaluated, unfortunately). If you feel strongly about the lead statement you added and don't want to discuss it with others, I'll be happy to discuss it here. But I do think that the advantage of holding the discussion at mediation is the presence of other editors and a neutral arbitrator. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seaking about this, what do you mean by telling "as we have discussed here"? What did you discuss and where? Sorry, but I did not follow this mediation, and I am generally not interested in these subjects. Indeed, I do not have time and can only quickly look at the page and fix a few things. After looking at the page, the following problems are obvious to me:


 * 1) Abstract does not clearly distinguish the majority and minority views. Obviously, according to the majority view, this particular attack has been committed by the governmental forces. That's why other governments debated military intervention against governmental forces. Further, the article is too big and must be condensed by removing low significance claims and subsections. Here they are (for example):
 * 2) "Assessments prior to the attack" section. These a priori speculations should be removed, and only a couple of phrases recycled.
 * 3) "Other_evidence" section. A lot of this is simply not evidence, but poorly substantiated claims. They should be removed or moved somewhere.
 * 4) "Foreign government assessments". The US subsection is way too large. It should be shortened by leaving only most important claims. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why describing Seymour Hersh as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is disputable, while describing his report as a conspiracy theory is blameless. Even if sources describe it as such it should not be included, since it is well known this label has been propagandized to dismiss arguments you oppose, while avoiding debate. Describing Hersh as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist (a fact) was meant to give some balance to a paragraph which, otherwise, looks completely biased against him. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hersh is already cited approximately a gazillion times in this article, which I have noted before is a prima facie violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on due weight. Do we really need to rewrite every mention of his mendacious piece into a hagiography of the author over a prize he won for unrelated work? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 'mendacious' is a serious accusation. Any evidence to support it? Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Darouet. You said you are ready to respond to my points here. Please do if you wish. If not, that's fine, but then please do not revert my edits.My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * MVBW, points 2-4 have been recently discussed at mediation, so I'd rather not review them a second time, since we did that far better on the mediation page. Is there a reason you don't want to discuss this at mediation? The advantage is that we are both held accountable for our arguments by a mediator there. For point 1, however, about the lead:


 * The third paragraph reiterates the conclusions of the UN report, that "the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents." This is an important finding, and tends to implicate the Syrian government, though neither the UN report nor wikipedia can be certain it actually does. Nevertheless our wording here is good because it lets readers know exactly what was found.


 * The fourth paragraph states, "Many governments said the attack was carried out by forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a conclusion echoed by the Arab League and the European Union." This is a clear statement that says who concluded what, and Russia's position, described next, is obviously a minority.


 * The change you want to make, "Given that the chemical attack has been widely regarded as conducted by the Syrian government…" argues that the reason for discussed intervention was belief by foreign governments that Assad was responsible for Ghouta. However, we don't know that this is why, and there's no reason to declare to readers this is true because you strongly suspect it to be. -Darouet (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Where they have been discussed (any links)? Probably the easiest way forward is to simply remove claims that do not belong to the corresponding subsections and keep only the most reliably sourced claims - as I suggested below . My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediation the best location for discussion
edit warring on this and related pages has been a serious problem, and to address it, editors active here have begun mediation, which you can see following this link. If you are interested in contributing productively, you can request to participate there; has been helping and, who made good points above, has been able to participate from time to time.

Since there is a formal mediation taking place, and since you three have the time to edit and discuss here, can I recommend we take our discussion to the mediation page? The only difference there, compared to here, is that there is a mediator who is neutral and helping with the process. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well please ask if that is possible: they might tell you it isn't, or might welcome your participation. In any event, thank you for understanding. -Darouet (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Kudzu1 and I have disagreed in the past, but I agree with them that we should not describe Hersh as a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist. He is one, but there's no reason to include that information any place other than his biography: otherwise it gives the editorial impression that we are endorsing his reporting. -Darouet (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, I added the description only to balance the fact that we dismiss his report as conspiracy theory. This is a very loaded terminology that we should not use, even if it can be found in the media. I would be entirely satisfied if we removed both. Wikipedia should neither endorse his reporting, nor give the impression that, as kudzu1, it deems it mendacious. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's not we who dismiss Hersh's report, but some blogs and editorials. We could opt not to include them, but from an editorial perspective, I tend to think that inclusion of legitimate viewpoints (e.g. viewpoints that might be notable), while maintaining neutrality of editorial voice, is best. This is because it allows readers access to information without prejudicing their conclusions. In this particular case, mention of this reaction to Hersh's reporting captures some part of the media response, and I think that's a good thing, ultimately. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the opinion by Hersh should appear somewhere on the page. However, we should do the following:
 * 1) Section "Rockets" must include only most important/reliable information about rockets (by Human Rights Watch), rather than claims by bloggers,
 * 2) Section "Other evidence" should not include any doubtful claims that are not evidence; and
 * 3) The claims by governments section should not include any claims that are simply not claims by the governments.
 * That solves many problems. This is all especially important given the large size of this page.My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * MVBW, I think it's unfair of you to ask us to conduct one conversation with all other editors at mediation (which you say you don't have time for), and another conversation here (which you apparently do have time for). These very points you are raising are now being discussed at mediation: why do you insist on having a discussion without a mediator? -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because mediator asked me to refrain from comments on mediation page and I agreed. And no, as one can see from the official list of issues for mediation, you are mostly talking about different issues. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * True. But it seems as through Sunray was responding to your comment immediately before, in which you wrote that you "do not have time for this," and "prefer not making any changes during the ongoing mediation." If you've changed your mind and now have time, I'm sure Sunray would be happy to accommodate you. For my part, I'd also be happy, because I think your perspective is needed and would help the mediation. Also, we could consolidate our work there. -Darouet (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have suggested (see above) a few specific and rather obvious improvements. On the other hand, endlessly discussing "motivations" by rebels (as defined here) is enormous waste of time for everyone involved. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the use of "conspiracy theory". We could use "inaccurate" for instance and leave the propagandized label to the sources. Also, if we are to report what the sources say, I can add a ton of sources that praise him to the sky. Should I add them for balance and fairness? I think it is not a good idea. In my opinion, we should adopt a neutral tone and not favour some sources over others. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop to article editing without consensus
We've been involved in mediation, let's please just wait a little bit before all deciding to dive back in. The fact that recent edits have been accompanied by reverts means that we haven't reached consensus yet. Sorry I haven't actually had time to look through Erlbaeko's edits and see if they're what we agree upon in the mediation, but let's go back there and address that before coming here? If Marek does understand the edits and disagrees, obviously there's more work to do. -Darouet (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're saying. You reverted an edit by MVBW because there's mediation going on. Erlbaeko then came in and made much more substantial changes and I reverted them for the same reason.  Volunteer Marek   23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with you. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me. Also just agreeing with you.  Volunteer Marek   00:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with me?! We've achieved more in a few hours here than mediation has in weeks :p -Darouet (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Re. Those changes were discussed in the mediation. See Item 3 - Work through the bullet points in "Other evidence" and Motivation in the lead. Since no one objected I assumed consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought maybe that's what you were doing. I think that you, VQuakr and I were agreed at least, and even if Marek agrees too, the edits come at an inopportune time, since there's been edit-warring over undiscussed changes. That's why I reverted you without really looking to see if you were implementing some of the mediation discussion changes. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you didn't. Volunteer Marek did. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, I don't see how the discussion in mediation relates to these changes. For example, where in the mediation was it agreed that we should change the phrasing "has characterised attempts to say the rebels were responsible as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."" to "stated that the Syrian government provided no explanation for how rebel forces would have acquired chemical weapons"? That's just you and Darouet agreeing. Since the two of you - and this isn't meant in a negative way - are "on the same side" in the mediation, a proper agreement would obviously involve getting someone on the other side to agree. No one has. So this looks like an obvious attempt to jump the gun and WP:GAME mediation.  Volunteer Marek   18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to game anyting. Since no one objected I assumed the rephasing was ok. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that thread you have couple people saying that the phrasing is fine as is.  Volunteer Marek   18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but that was before I pointed out that he was misrepresented. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Marek when you get a moment why don't you look at the Sellstrom interview where he uses the phrase - it seems to me like he's saying that the Government hasn't been able to explain where the rebels would have gotten access to the CW, and continues that the've only provided poor theories to explain this. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current text does not accurately represent what Sellstrom said. "Several times I asked the government: can you explain – if this was the opposition – how did they get hold of the chemical weapons? They have quite poor theories". He is criticising specifically the Syrian government's explanation of from where the opposition might have obtained CWs. The current sentence can read as any "attempts to say the rebels were responsible" are unconvincing. A very different interpretation indeed. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop
Just to note on the talk page here (I've brought it up at the mediation page as well) that there's clearly no consensus for including this text, which was discussed here and at them mediation and opposed by several editors. This is just the latest round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attempts to over represent a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, give WP:UNDUE weight to the same and to POV the article. Please remove it.  Volunteer Marek  14:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The key elements of a crime are means, motive and opportunity, so I can't see why a paragraph about possible motives should be out of place here. Especially considering that most of the article is not about the fact per se, but about international reactions (by interested parties, by the way) and about what random people from around the world think about it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way you said that there's no consensus for including it, but I can only find this discussion where there's no consensus on its removal. So, for now, it's safe to keep it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And here come the brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war. Anyway, motivations *already are* mentioned in the article.  Volunteer Marek   14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:DUCK.  Volunteer Marek   15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this smells rotten as hell. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... Erlbaeko (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the behavior of some editors - yourself foremost among them - on this article.  Volunteer Marek   15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, comment on content, not on the contributors. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We've commented more than enough about the issues at hand at the mediation, but you didn't listen. When the contributor is behaving disruptively it's perfectly appropriate to comment on that.  Volunteer Marek   17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In general I would support the inclusion of this text, but I'm not getting involved in this dispute without the participation of outside, neutral arbitrators (official or unofficial). First,, the appearance of a new editor already willing to get involved in this rather specific issue is highly suspect. Second, and, I'm dismayed to see people so willing to edit war here, now, when only very recently they could hardly be brought to participate in a talk and source-based mediation. Whatever - peace. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, Darouet, but the appearance of a relatively new editor is not a good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Nor is this talk page the correct place to bring up accusation like that. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We did participate in mediation but then Erlbaeko essentially 1) hijacked it with walls of text and 2) ignored what anyone was saying to them.  Volunteer Marek   16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Please stop attacking other editors. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what you did. You posted long walls of text, waited till everyone got sick of repeating the same thing to you and stopped paying attention, then came back here and snuck your preferred text back in. Then edit warred, aided by some brand new throw away account, to keep it in there. That's pretty much textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:CRUSH.  Volunteer Marek   17:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, Darouet; however, I will note I made one revert to the page today, per the WP:1RR rule in place on this article, after Volunteer Marek's self-revert (which was appropriate due to the 1RR restriction). Erlbaeko clearly lacked consensus for his/her suggested changes during the mediation, and it is improper to try to insert them now and then edit-war when they are removed due to said lack of consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not, and please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. And it's not the first time you tried this tactic. You tried exactly the same thing previously here, here, here, here, and here (and probably in a few moreinstances) and you did this even while mediation was ongoing. This pattern of behavior is exactly what makes this WP:TENDENTIOUS, disruptive and bad faithed.
 * And I am not "attacking" anything. I am criticizing your editing behavior. And this criticism is more than well deserved. Please stop trying to bully others through intimidation.  Volunteer Marek   17:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. I asked several times for your input, and I waited almost a month for your policy based arguments. I still haven’t seen them. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Volunteer Marek and Kudzu1 that there does not appear to be consensus for this change. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, this is not a vote. I haven't seen any policy based arguments for removing the text from you either. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Straw man, no one is proposing voting on anything. Per WP:ONUS your counterstatement about the text is not consistent with policy. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided my input. You ignored it. I provided policy based arguments (as I have done again), you kept repeating the same thing and claiming that you "debunked" my statements or something. No one else at the mediation agreed with you. Discussion died out. You waited for a week then came back here and put your controversial edits back in even though you knew very well (especially since, as my diffs above show, this has happened several times in the past) that these were not supported and they did not have consensus. What exactly is "bullshit" here? I provided numerous diffs which clearly illustrate that you've been using this WP:TENDENTIOUS strategy for awhile now.  Volunteer Marek   21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

With the decline in participation in the mediation and lack of edit waring over the article, I had suggested that we may want to wrap-up the mediation. Now, looking at this discussion, I can see that the dispute is far from settled. I would be willing to continue mediating, either on this page or on the mediation talk page. It seems clear to me that there is a continuing need to resolve this dispute. Comments? Sunray (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * if you are willing to help, I think that's the only possibility of a solution being reached (that doesn't involve punitive measures or endless argument). -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with restarting the mediation, though the article should clearly be returned to the state it was in before Erlbaeko tried to POV it (again).  Volunteer Marek   22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be funny if it were not distressing. It is clear from the tone used that there is a fight going on. However, it is utterly impossible, without prior knowledge, to understand what the fight is about. Vague accusations, made in Wikipedia Newspeak, like WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, WP:DUCK, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT "disruptive and bad faithed" and what not, are leveled at Erlbaeko in an obvious attempt to silence him. However, I can't see any argument on content. I personally happen to know what all this is about and I believe that Erlbaeko's arguments should at least be discussed, not simply dismissed out of hand. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they can talk however much they want. What they can't and shouldn't do is try to game the system and act in a disruptive manner. Also, did I suggest to you already that getting yourself involved in the very topics which led to your indef ban so soon after it was conditionally lifted is probably not a good idea?  Volunteer Marek   22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, I hadn't seen WP:CRUSH before, but it could have been written about Erlbaeko. Eerie. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the history of the article; "Motivation" and "Timing" sections have been here since September 2013, that is the beginning, until June 2015 when an edit war started. Given that a crime is prompted by a motivation, given that a military action is carried out for an objective, given that ostensibly this has been obvious for almost two years until someone decided that it was WP:NOTMYBELOVEDOPINION, it looks to me that: (a) the section is needed and in fact it is present in some form in any comparable article (e.g. Boston Bombing for a crime, e.g. Aleppo Offensive for a military action), (b) if a consensus is needed, that is to remove it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that it is well known who did it, speculation about possible motifs by someone else is simply undue. This has been discussed previously, and discussed a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As BRG~itwiki correctly has pointed out, "Motivation" and "Timing" sections have been here since September 2013, and consensus is needed to remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. Whether or not something was in an article is irrelevant (except for you making controversial changes while mediation is ongoing). Burden of proof is for inclusion and your completely failure to get support for these changes during mediation, combined with the bad faithed and disruptive way you are trying to make them, means that you need to convince others, not vice versa. You might want to try a new tactic - instead of trying to WP:GAME the rule and sneak this in under the radar, how about engaging others in a constructive dialogue?  Volunteer Marek   15:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't talk if you have nothing to say. It's simple. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that you're a single purpose account, recently created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this article. How about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts? Then we can try and have a serious conversation.  Volunteer Marek   15:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Erlbaeko. You recently made this edit with edit summary: "Added motivation section per mediation discussion". Do you mean that you have reached consensus in mediation to include this text? If so, could you give me a link to relevant section of mediation discussion, please? My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The most relevant section is this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack, but there is several relevant discussions there. No consensus has ever been reached for your removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As MVBW correctly points out you falsely claimed that the text was being added "per mediation discussion", pretending that there was agreement at mediation to make this change. There wasn't. All the "relevant discussions" involve people objecting to your proposed changes. So this was, at best, a misleading edit summary on your part. The mediation discussion did not support your POV.  Volunteer Marek   16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As you know, I asked you several times to specify what in the policy and the article text that allowed the "Motivation and timing" section to be removed as "UNDUE". I then waited almost a month for your reply, and I then said "If there is nothing in the neutral point of view policy (or any other policy) that allow the suggested "Motivation and timing" section to be removed, I will go ahead and make the change.", before I made the change, so it is very much a change that is made "per mediation discussion". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is spiraling out of control. Can we all agree not to insert contentious material into the article until consensus develops? It doesn't matter whether you think you're "right", it matters whether consensus has been established. That's the way Wikipedia works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While I doubt that it is spiralling out of control (at least not yet), I agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article. All the more reason to re-start the mediation imho. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do also agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article, and I am fine with continuing the mediation. However, the Motivation section should stay in the article as long as no consensus is reached for removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Motivation section was there when the Mediation started and it got through a vote for removal around the same time. There is nothing else to add. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you please stop lying so blatantly? It's not like this is hard to check. Here's the "mediation version" from September as restored (after one of Erlbaeko's attempts to sneak in his POV despite ongoing mediation) by Darouet. No motivation section there and the text was NOT in there. Here's the version from June. Now of course Erlbaeko tried to insert this stuff into the article and that's what led to the mediation. But that's the whole point. It should be hashed out there. Not Erlbaeko wearing everyone out by stonewalling then declaring victory and coming here to push their POV again. And in 2013? Well, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that we *improve* them. This includes removing blatant POV pushing. Some of that material was in there in Sept 2013, but even back then some editors noticed it was a huge WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem and tried to remove it . As that editor says in their edit summary what some people want to do is to summarize the consensus view in a sentence or two and then devote massive paragraphs to various WP:FRINGE theories. Not going to happen.  Volunteer Marek   17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a lie (that is, BRG~itwikis statement is not a lie), but slightly inaccurate. Some facts:
 * On 4 June 2015, the section was in the article. Ref. old revision.
 * On 5 June 2015, removed "My very best wishes" the whole "Motivation" section. Ref. diff.
 * On 6 June 2015, filed Mnnlaxer the mediation request. Ref. diff.
 * On 22 June 2015, created I a new section on the talk page to see if there was consensus to remove it, ref. diff.
 * Erlbaeko (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the revision of 4 June before the edit war started: . Then my very best wishes deleted a whole paragraph that has been there for two years without giving an explanation, and the edit war started. Then the mediation was requested (June). And I want to stress the fact that I know this by reading through the history of this mess, because after the first edit I made, someone said there was a mediation, so I read it all. I'm baffled by the lack of any kind of interest in collaborative editing, while it's all just agenda pushing and petty propaganda wars. BRG~itwiki (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments, your tone, your familiarity with this article, your references to stuff that's happened on other articles all clearly indicate that this isn't your first account. Like I said, how about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts and then we can have a serious conversation. I don't see why we should waste our time discussing issues with an account which was obviously created for the sole purpose of behaving disruptively and edit warring here.  Volunteer Marek   19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report" at Sockpuppet investigations. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Erlbaeko. It does not matter what consensus (or the lack of consensus) existed a few months ago. It only matters what consensus exists right now. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about contentious matters related to living people, I would have agreed, but we are not. I do, however, agree that what matters is what consensus exists right now. But the question is not whether it is consensus to add the material, but whether it is consensus to remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is merely what you have endlessly asserted. Your repeating it over and over does not make it so. VQuakr (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest removal of one image
This image is currently in use in the "Chemical weapons capability" section. I am unclear on how it helps with any understanding of the attack, so I think it should be removed. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. It doesn't serve any purpose in that section. It might be handy somewhere else, but nothing came to mind when I looked for a new spot for it in the article. Badon (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

CBS News quotes from UN chemical weapons inspectors reverted
Seems a little biased to insist that information from the chemical weapons inspectors themselves is controversial and should not be included in the article. This is the information I added that was reverted. First a paragraph in the lead, and then sections in the body - note that I added some depth to the sections so they would be sorted nicer here Badon (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC):


 * The Syrian government and opposition blamed each other for the attack. Many governments said the attack was carried out by forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a conclusion echoed by the Arab League and the European Union.  The Russian government called the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side. Åke Sellström, the leader of the UN Mission, characterized government explanations of rebel chemical weapons acquisition as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories." Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know."

Allegations of responsibility
Both the opposition and the Syrian government said a chemical attack was carried out in the suburbs around Damascus on 21 August 2013. Anti-government activists said the Syrian government was to blame for the attack, while the Syrian government said foreign fighters and their international backers were to blame.

Opposition claims
On the day of the attack, George Sabra the head of the Syrian National Council said 1,300 people had been killed as shells loaded with poisonous gas rained down on the capital's eastern suburbs of Douma, Jobar, Zamalka, Arbeen and Ein Tarma. A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council, Qassim Saadeddine, said "People are growing desperate as they watch another round of political statements and U.N. meetings without any hope of action." Ahmad Jarba, who was the president of the Syrian National Coalition at the time of the attack, called on the U.N. investigators to travel to “the site of the massacre” and for an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting on the subject. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attack was committed by the Syrian regime and called on Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, "to apply all pressure within his powers to pressure the Syrian regime."

The next day, a spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition, Khaled al-Saleh, said at least six doctors died after treating victims, and that they didn't yet have the number of dead first responders.

Government claims
Syria's Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Qadri Jamil, said foreign fighters and their international backers were to blame for the attack. Syrian state television, SANA, said the accusations were fabricated to distract a team of UN chemical weapons experts which had arrived three days before the attacks. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons would go against elementary logic and that "accusations of this kind are entirely political."

Independent observations
Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know." Cairns described the UN team's hasty entry into Ghouta to document the attack as quickly as possible. The attackers were still present in the area when they arrived, and although their vehicles were briefly fired upon, no one was injured, and their entry into Ghouta was almost entirely unopposed. Cairns stated the gunmen could have killed them to stop the inspection, but instead allowed them to proceed, and he believes the attackers fired on the UN vehicles only to "send us a message". CBS News claims that, "Never before had investigators arrived at a chemical crime scene so soon."

The rev I reverted made one change - it cherry picked a quote from to imply an opinion that the person quoted does not actually have. We don't do that. The proposed rev also inserted information into the lede that was not in the body - moot since the cherry picked quote is not usable, but still a problem since the lede summarized the body. I am unclear on what purpose the other 8k you dumped above is supposed to serve. VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "We"? You have a mouse in your pocket? It's very conspicuous that no highly-credible factual independent information is in the article, if it could be in any way construed to contradict the official justification of the USA's military objectives. Information that contradicts the USA is reduced to the appearance of nothing more than non-credible he-said-she-said hearsay between the belligerents, when in reality, the lead UN chemical weapons inspector noted the bizarre timing of the attacks, and questioned the motive for such timing...as follows (hurry, hide the information again before your NSA/CIA/Mil handler sees it!):


 * Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know." Cairns described the UN team's hasty entry into Ghouta to document the attack as quickly as possible. The attackers were still present in the area when they arrived, and although their vehicles were briefly fired upon, no one was injured, and their entry into Ghouta was almost entirely unopposed. Cairns stated the gunmen could have killed them to stop the inspection, but instead allowed them to proceed, and he believes the attackers fired on the UN vehicles only to "send us a message". CBS News claims that, "Never before had investigators arrived at a chemical crime scene so soon."
 * Badon (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't have any interest in getting back on the "NSA/CIA controls Wikipedia!!1" crazy train, so I'd suggest dropping that line, knocking it off with the boldface type, and trying to reach consensus for the material you want to include rather than attacking other editors and repeatedly inserting contentious material. The language you want to add to the article uses leading quotes removed from context and speculation presented as "evidence", and it clearly is written to present a fringe POV. That's not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lots of silliness above, but to address the one addressable point - Pelley did not say that the gunmen who attacked the UN inspection convoy were the same as those that launched the chemical attack. He makes no claim regarding their identity, he just notes that the convoy took fire entering Ghouta. That's good for Pelley's credibility, since he couldn't possibly know the identity or affiliation of those particular gunmen in the complex war zone. The attack on the UN convoy was widely reported elsewhere as well, but it isn't very germane to an article on the attack.


 * As is readily verifiable from a quick check of the history tab, if/how to include speculation about the motivation for the attack is a contested subject and currently the subject of mediation. It should not have been inserted in the article without discussion, let alone repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So, you don't like my boldface type. Right, I must be crazy. I'll use all caps, italics, and boldface type, just so I can please your aesthetic tastes. I'll even throw in some excessive exclamation points, since you seem to like those.


 * YOU ACCUSE me of attacking an editor. YOU ACCUSE me of repeatedly inserting "contentious material"? VQuakr ACCUSED ME by putting an edit warring template on my talk page for all the reverts I've done on this article. There's just one problem: I haven't done any reverts. WHO IS ATTACKING WHO? I think you protest too much. There is CLEARLY AN AGENDA here to suppress independent observations from the UN chemical weapons inspectors about the circumstances of the attacks.


 * First VQuakr reverts my edit because I didn't also edit the body. Then he reverts my body edit because that's "repeatedly" edit warring. I'm seeing 100% brick-wall hostility, and it's very conspicuous. How else should I interpret accusations of revert-edit-warring after only 2 edits that did not involve any reverts? TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THE FRINGE POV OF THE UN CHEMICAL WEAPONS INSPECTORS ON-SITE IN GHOUTA!!!111oneone


 * Note that while I was writing this, VQuakr ALSO insinuated on my talk page that I must be crazy: User_talk:Badon. Did I just find a coordinated pattern of attempts to manipulate public opinion? Don't listen to me, I must be crazy!


 * Badon (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * VQuakr just tried to censor my paragraphs above using Deny recognition, which was intended for chronic vandals . Now I think it should be obvious that the agenda here is to suppress, suppress, suppress - even if it requires blatantly unethical and totally indefensible tampering with other people's words. Badon (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SHOUT and Shouting things loudly does not make them true. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Badon, you've been shouting like a maniac. That's why VQuakr was censoring your text. -Darouet (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes, the Talk page guideline you linked to says "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." (my emphasis). It is also a fact that guidelines should be treated with common sense. I find the above to be an acceptable exception, provided it is rarely used. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr, the Talk page guideline says you should not delete the comments of other editors. Exemptions are intentionally extremely narrow; you can review them here. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The "fringe point of view" of the leading UN chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta just got a lot more credible. It appears a precedent for the USA supplying stuff to Turkey, who in turn supplies stuff to ISIL/ISIS in Syria, has become public knowledge: Texas City plumber files lawsuit after Islamic extremists were seen using his old truck - Houston Chronicle. For something this conspicuous to show up in Syria, there is likely a lot more that doesn't become public knowledge. OK, it's the accuser's turn. Get on with it, accuse me of being crazy, so nobody pays attention. Badon (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkey. IS. Sarin
Came across this. Thought this article might benefit. MP Eren Erdem claims Turkey supplied Isis with sarin gas materials for chemical weapon attacks. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mp-eren-erdem-claims-turkey-supplied-isis-with-sarin-gas-materials-for-chemical-weapon-attacks-34286662.html

http://atimes.com/2015/12/sarin-materials-brought-via-turkey-to-syrian-is-campsmp/

Edited. Adding this here as one of the big Turkish dailies is running with it. (Referencable)

http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-revives-claim-of-turkeys-hand-in-syrias-chemical-attack_402065.html

Saint Aviator  lets talk 23:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems a little hasty; this is not a new claim but just a resurrection of an old one. Pretty clearly internal Turkish politicing and not a watershed. A debunking from the same claims over a year ago can be found here. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the link you gave to the opinion by bloggers Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta. Thanks. Its essentially a reply by [now] Bellingcat (Eliot Higgins blog) to Hersh's work. Its kinda dated now. That aside, it did not mention a Turkish MP's claims. These claims are significant. This is the new material. Since the Wikipedia article does not conclude who 'did it', this is an interesting line of inquiry. I think it would go under 'Reactions'. Edited. I forgot this from a big media outfit with new allegations Islamic State used Sarin. Here  This deserves mention as it firms up the IS state did it line of inquiry.  Saint Aviator  lets talk 03:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not new material, it is a rehash of 2013 claims. The "reactions" section of event articles is usually for responses temporally close to an event AFAIK. VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK not in reactions then, but somewhere. I cant see anywhere before where a Turkish MP claimed this. Can you point it out please? Saint Aviator  lets talk 04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Turkish MP is rehashing old claims for rather transparent political reasons. Nothing new has been presented. No, I do not think this merits any mention in the article unless something of any substance comes out. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Old claim coming true? After all this time this line of inquiry may finally point the finger at IS and Turkey for the Sarin Ghouta attack. Considering recent developments regarding oil smuggling between IS and Turkey it would not be surprising. Did you see the Sydney Morning Herald link above regarding IS using Sarin this year? Im still of the view we should begin to put this in, perhaps just a line or two. Saint Aviator  lets talk 04:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarin is notoriously dangerous and difficult to manufacture; WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and the MP has provided no support for his remarkable claim. Are you talking about this? That article does not suggest the rebels using sarin. Attacks using mustard or phosgene-like agents and chlorine have unfortunately been more common and appear to have been perpetrated by several parties; see Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War for a partial list. VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Some good work in that link Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. It shows several possible possibilities which dont exclude rebel use of sarin. That article here this shows rebel use of chemicals yes. Would IS use sarin? I just read today they have a fatwa on disabled children. So I think they would use sarin. I'm hoping the MP or someone will provide more info. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 07:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Use of chemicals" is a long way from hundreds of litres of sarin. Not much more to discuss until something of substance is published; conspiracy theories such as these tend to be long on claims and short on substance. VQuakr (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, SaintAviator MUST be crazy too! Only bad people we shouldn't listen to would dare to say such a preposterous thing, VQuakr. Dismissing the possibility that a 3rd party was involved in the sarin attacks at Ghouta, as a "conspiracy theory", is insulting, and a darn good thought-stopper. This tactic works GREAT for suppressing information on Wikipedia that conflicts with the military goals of the government of the United States, and I highly recommend you keep doing it, so no one gets the wild idea of investigating further. That would be bad for freedom. Freedom good. Crazy bad. Grunt.


 * As a matter of fact, countries presenting themselves as the shining bastion of freedom and righteousness have been caught supplying chemical weapons precursors to belligerents at war that were used on civilians. Namely, the USA and its allies were caught supplying chemical weapons components to Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, when Iraq famously gassed non-combatant Kurds who made the dictator mad by asking for freedom, democracy, puppies, kittens, and Barbie dolls. When the issue was presented at the UN, the American side would say only that "chemical weapons were used" in the Iran-Iraq war, without mentioning the known fact that "chemical weapons were used on civilians".


 * Considering the amount of international condemnation that chemical weapons supposedly bring these days (only when might makes right), I find the deceptive and/or false flag possibility much more credible than the official claim that the chemical weapons were unilaterally ordered to be used on civilians by one specific belligerent, with clear responsibility running up the chain of command, directly to the head of state, making him yet another war criminal that must be brought to justice by the USA. Mix in a few oceans of precedent, and I think the Ghosts of Ghouta have a good case for persuading us to listen to all of these crazy conspiracy theory people.


 * Badon (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, which exactly sources claim that Ghouta chemical attack has been in fact committed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Sources above do not claim this. And even according to the earlier "alternative theories" the attack might be committed by other groups of rebels. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not sure what to make of this reply Badon. So I read the above threads. Edit War. Now I understand. Yes VQuakr you are correct until something of substance is published to mention this as a general reminder. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 05:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:VQuakr inserted a claim that the delivery was several months after the attack, making it irrelevant to the article. The only information on the dating I could find is that the criminal case is No 2013/120. Where did you get this information from? If you just inserted it without a source - it proves your bad faith in editing this article! And then it is removed altogether because RT is unreliable source? US and British media are reliable but Russian not? There is a video of the MP, not just a written report, that was fabricated by RT too? - Owain Knight (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge issue right now in Turkey and should be documented here. It's also a part of the story that Hersh originally reported on. -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The alleged connections between Turkey and ISIS may be notable, but not necessarily related to this page. We need some undisputable RS (something like an article New York Times) telling about ISIS being responsible specifically for this attack. So far, even Hersh was talking about other groups of rebels who fight against ISIS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is about sarin gas material supplies, it is connected with this article. Eren Erdem has received death threats and a treason investigation has been launched against him for saying this! There is no "undisputable" Western media that is highly devoted to reporting the truth. Nor am I saying that RT is perfect. What you do to achieve neutrality in a conflict is allow both sides to present their views. You are exercising censorship on this article. - Owain Knight (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * RT is not considered a reliable sources except for the most basic of facts. Neutrality does not mean putting in unreliable sketchy-ass sources to "balance" reliable ones. Different "sides" are accorded WP:WEIGHT according to their representation in sources, not half-and-half or something. This isn't "censorship" it's just following (common-sense) encyclopedia policy.   Volunteer Marek   23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What about the big Turkish daily as RS? <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 23:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this, Claims have resurfaced that the Turkish government, under then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, was behind the Ghouta chemical attack. Given that such claims are very serious and not really supported by anything in the past (BTW, we have a section about Turkey on this page ), we definitely should wait for more reliable sources and additional info. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes thats the article My very best wishes. It is a very serious allegation. Given hes a sitting MP who made it gives it more weight than a blogger. I dont yet understand the RS rules fully. But why is a blogger like Elliot Higgins in the article making small claims and a sitting Member of Parliament of a nation right next door to Syria where the Gas Attack happened, who is making a serious claim (which appears to have been made before by Hersh), not in the article? What am I missing? <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 03:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As typical for weak/unreliable sources, this article makes a sweeping claim "Erdogan was behind the chemical weapons attack", but does not provide any factual materials to support the claim, other than simply saying about a possible connection in general. Do we even have a page about Eren Erdem? Hence yes, someone like Eliot Higgins is actually a better source. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. Perhaps and maybes. Its quite frustrating not knowing who did it. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is all connected to Hersh's original story on this issue in the London Review of Books, and subsequent reporting or commentary  on it.

Briefly, does anyone have any specific objections to the Belfast Telegraph, Cihan News Agency , Today's Zaman , the Asia Times or CounterPunch , either individually or altogether? What about The Daily Star (Lebanon), The Independent, The Korea Times, The New Zealand Herald, Gulf News, the Kashmir Times, or the London Review of Books?

Also, does anyone have any specific objections to commentary by Middle East regional experts like Robert Fisk, Robert Cockburn and Gwynne Dyer, either individually or altogether? -Darouet (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is too much for me to check, however I can see that quoted sources tell this: "Sarin gas materials sent to Isis from Turkey, claims MP Eren Erdem". OK. Is it really related to the Ghouta chemical attack? I do not see any evidence (or even a claim of evidence) in the sources to support such direct connection. Given that, I would say this is something to be used in other pages, at least for the time being. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think whether the MP made the claims is really in question. It is whether his claims warrant mention in the article. There are a lot of MPs, senators, and congressmen in the world and some of them say some pretty outlandish stuff. That doesn't mean we need to repeat all of it in the article. VQuakr (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I did take the time to check. 15/16 (94%) of the sources I linked above mention the Ghouta chemical attack, often multiple times. The only one that does not is the Turkish Cihan News Service (the article is one of a number about Erdem being charged with treason). -Darouet (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * if we don't use a few WP:RS, or many of them, to determine what goes into an article, and there are a whole number of editors arguing for inclusion, what policies other than a feeling of general opposition can justify exclusion? Also, the big deal isn't just what Erdem said or that he's being charged with treason: it's what he says was found by the government investigation into chemical weapons trafficking. That's also reviewed in the above articles. Only a portion of which, I should point out, are about Erdem. -Darouet (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my question: is there any objection to the sources above? -Darouet (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of them. Which ones analyze the text of the government report on CW trafficking? Is the report itself linked? VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every one of the newspapers cited above reports the ministers' descriptions of the documents at length, which include arrests, raids, phone records and transcripts, recordings, shipments, border crossing sites, and companies and individuals involved. The Turkish government has however declined to release documents that, according to opposition ministers who've seen them, implicate its own intelligence service in providing chemical weapons to al-Qaeda. Why don't you actually read the material? I'm surprised that both you and My very best wishes are objecting to all this while also maintaining that you haven't read any of it. -Darouet (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is uncouth to list 23 sources and then complain that we haven't read all of them. I have read several (despite your allegation for some reason that I haven't read any) and my takeaway was that this is nothing more than unsupported political mudslinging. That doesn't make it untrue, but it does make it unsupported. Just like every other claim of a false flag attack, from the hours after the first reports of a massive chemical attack over two years ago to today. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, that may be your impression, but it's not our job to figure out who was responsible for the Ghouta attack - nobody knows that. It's just our job to fairly present what reliable sources have written. Blanket reverting all newspaper stories at don't fit your personal theory, rather than presenting them neutrally and with appropriate WP:WEIGHT, is inappropriate. All of those articles, from the ones quoting U.S. intelligence officials, to those reporting on Hersh's story, to the comments by regional experts, to the minister disclosing the contents of a Turkish investigation, relate to Ghouta. They belong somewhere in the article, not as WP:TRUTH, but as a part of what sources have reported. -Darouet (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Darouet Oh I see, what sources report not truth per se. I think I'm getting it. Thats why a blogger like Higgins made it in right? I know The New Zealand Herald is a large well respected outlet. The Independent too. I'm sure they are reliable. A lot of the others are biggish long standing outlets. How many do we need? Two or three? <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 04:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It already is in the article; how much coverage do you think it needs? So far I have objected grouping it with Turkey's official assessment. Looking back, we probably should have started on this sooner (sorry). What is your proposed change? What makes you think anyone is "blanket reverting?" VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, well there's no rush. I think we should figure out a way of concisely describing this somewhere in the article. The connection with Hersh's second LRB article is sort of obvious, since that's what prompted the initial investigation, according to Today's Zaman. -Darouet (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am just confused. For the last 6 weeks (admittedly after another edit war) the article has stated, "On October 20, 2015, Republican People's Party deputy Eren Erdem claimed that ISIL and affiliated groups received the help of the Turkish government to carry out the Ghouta chemical attack." This is in a paragraph about Hersh's allegations. Why are you implying this needs to be associated with Hersh's claims when it clearly already is? VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I haven't been editing the article and assumed it had remained mostly static since we began mediation. -Darouet (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems everyone missed it till today. Put in by Nishidani late Oct then edit war with it. I still dont get why it was challenged so hard then and now. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 05:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE. Conspiracy claims without supporting evidence have been par for the course, for years now. AFAIK no one is proposing removing the sentence that is there currently. VQuakr (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE yes. It has a place under this protocol for sure. My hunch in starting the thread was right afterall. I guess the rest is kinda humerous, the arguing and such. Its a pity though its not smoother. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 06:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I for one could have done better. VQuakr (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was well said Sir <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 07:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hersh vindicated?
Some background to above report, I was unaware of. This story just gets more interesting. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/

Heres the big Turkish Daily page. http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-revives-claim-of-turkeys-hand-in-syrias-chemical-attack_402065.html

<b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 01:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been collecting some of these stories. VQuakr, My very best wishes, and Volunteer Marek have been trying to keep this information from the article for over a year. Because of the enduring struggle in Turkey over whether Turkish intelligence should be supporting rebel forces and whether the country should be so involved in the civil war, this whole thing has blown up in Turkey. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Unhelpful comments struck until I have time to write something more useful. -Darouet (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have the reliable sources to include this right now.  Volunteer Marek   20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see Darouet. Turkey's Oil smuggling really surprised me and made me wonder about what else they have been doing. Will the NYT's pick this up soon do you think Volunteer Marek? Why dont we use the Turkish Daily until the NYT's or Washington Post picks it up? <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 02:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I had seen that the Zaman has written on this, and believed it had been picked up elsewhere around the world. The NYT would be loath to cover this or if they did would probably take an editorial line on it. But the NYT is just one paper and rather predictable in their perspective. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the world, not for the NYT, and that's a good thing. -Darouet (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * oil is a bit more of a commodity than chemical weapons, no? Particularly from a country (Turkey) that lacks a chemical weapons program? Seeing trucks and oil illicitly move across the border and concluding that sarin must be as well seems like synthesis (not to mention logically weak). In any case, I think we are waiting for something more substantial than unsupported claims by a MP; who reports the unsupported claim isn't really the issue. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points VQuakr. I think the MP was saying Turkey, his country, was facilitating 'Transit' rather than open commerce. Was it from Europe? Maybe like for stolen historical artifacts. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 04:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * examining turkish sarin recipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.9.158 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Open letter from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: A Call for Proof on Syria-Sarin Attack December 22, 2015 - --79.223.4.242 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice article, this jumped out at me.


 * Scott Pelley: Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?


 * Scott Cairns: I ask myself that a lot. I don't know.


 * <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 09:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Putins statement in the Russian chapter of the Foreign government assessments section
Re:. No, Volunteer Marek I am not "jumping the gun". I proposed the change on 20 December 2015, ref. diff, and no one has expressed any legitimate concerns. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are several "legitimate concerns" expressed right below your proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Like what? Erlbaeko (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The addition of roughly 1200 words is more than a minor tweak." (probably applies more to Darouet's proposal but that's what you get for hijacking the thread)
 * "Here's an idea for you, free of charge: How about you wait until people agree with it?"
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first quote relates only to Darouets proposal. This one. Your second quote is not a legitimate concern with my proposed change either. After waiting over two weeks without any response, I stated that I would add the statement to the article. I even gave him an extra day to express his concerns. Looks like I have to implement the proposed change to have any response at all. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And no, I was not "hijacking the thread". Even the mediator said "False flag theory [...] has to do with Russian claims that the chemical attacks were perpetrated by the opposition in Syria." and I said here that Putin is misquoted, and that "the without going into detail part is misleading." Here the mediator said "I suggest that we ask Darouet to show how he would re-write that quote. If no one objects, that can then be added to the article." Since Darouet didn't, I did. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I seem to have missed Sunray's comment. Kudzu1 and I have both made suggestions now. -Darouet (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats ok, Darouet, but we should change that statement. The very least we can do is to remove the "without going into detail"-part that is directly misleading. I have added the full quote above for easy reference. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the current version is better. Here is edit. Older version is just a shorter quotation, not a misquote. New version calls this an "opinion piece" which is POV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We can use “commentary” instead of "opinion piece" if you like, but I changed "asserted" to the more neutral word "wrote". The quote "there is every reason to believe [poison gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces," is fine, but the "without going into detail" part is misleading. The full quote above shows that. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: : The rest of the sentence "to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists." should be added to fairly represent his view. Putins view is significant in the Russian chapter in the "Foreign government assessments" section, and that part of the quote is essential to fully explain his position. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Weather conditions
Are the weather conditions relevant? The section as it currently exists doesn't explain why the conditions matter. In any case it may be in the wrong section altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacoblimpfan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead editing
I support the July 4 trimming of the lead paragraph. It could go further as well, leaving detailed information in the main article. The third paragraph in particular could be shortened. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lede, and the article as a whole, could do with trimming and updating. I also agree with your null edit that substantial changes should be discussed first. VQuakr (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then revert the substantial change, not just my attempt to find a third version. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The BBC article links to this HRW analysis. The HRW analysis is based on the UN report (see, “Considerations on the likely trajectory of the rockets” on page 25), but fails to take into account the short range of the rockets used in the Eastern Ghouta attack. If we include the HRW analysis in the lead, I believe we also should include the MIT study. We may use an attributed statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Postol study
Have we ever discussed whether the MIT .pdf from Postol,, constitutes a reliable source? It appears to be self published and there is no indication it received any editorial or peer review - it looks more like a powerpoint presentation than anything else. The report is pretty transparently an effort to support a preconceived conclusion rather than an actual study. Examples: the author shows the effect of marginally increased (but not decreased) drag coefficients on slide 29, assumes the front of the rocket was a flat face even though it probably wasn't, assumes the lowest propellant density and specific impulse values from the range of available data, and doesn't take into account possible thrust curve modifications to the motor. If there was a good reason for these simplifications/assumptions, they are not explained by the source. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's self-published and not given notability in reliable sources, then it fails our test. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That pdf is published by a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a former UN weapons inspector working as an analyst at the military contractor Tesla Laboratories. This article is published by the New York Times. If you don't think the New Your Times article is a WP:RS, feel free to start a new discussion here. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The NYT article says that Postol issued an analysis. That statement is not contested, so I am unsure why the NYT article should be discussed at RSN. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Just don't add that sentence without describing the view that the rocket most likely had a maximum range of no more than three kilometers, and likely less. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Two points, feel free to respond within each one separately.
 * 1) VQuakr said "pretty transparently an effort to support a preconceived conclusion rather than an actual study", giving examples. That statement and the examples are transparently opinion and go beyond what we can settle here. But we shouldn't have to, because the important questions are can we use it as a source and if so, how we should use it. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 23:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The study doesn't fit into cut and dried policy guidance. It was mentioned in the NYT, so at minimum, those statements can be used. But I would argue for inclusion of statements besides those, with attribution. I'll have to go back and reread the NYT story and the study to have specific points. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 23:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding rejected change - probabilistic analysis of chemical attack in Ghouta.
Proposed addition: On December 2016, a probabilistic analysis of all of the evidence regarding the attack was released, resulting in a 92.3% likelihood that opposition forces in Syria carried out the attack, and a 1.4% likelihood that the Syrian Army carried out the attack.

This is the first open, independent and unbiased probabilistic analysis on the matter, so it is a meaningful addition to this article. The analysis takes an aggregate of evidence specific to this case into consideration. No other assumed knowledge is mentioned. The analysis is completely transparent and based on publically available sources. It is just as consensual as any other independent analysis on the matter which is mentioned in the article.

--TamarSK (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry it is just a clever guess and is only based on public sources, and we cant add speculation from everybody so oppose it being added. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What MilborneOne said. Dr.   K.  18:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Ghouta chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lccsyria.org/11670
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/22/dispatches-longest-short-walk-syria
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214081227/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/172 to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/172
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23806491
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/23/syrian_activist_on_ghouta_attack_i
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-crisis-us-warship
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/syria-chemical-weapons-eyewitness
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10260913/My-breath-seized-up...-I-lost-control-of-my-body.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/reports/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msf.org/article/syria-thousands-suffering-neurotoxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported-msf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/reports/chemicalmassacrefollowup
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6AwRz6aPF?url=http://gadebate.un.org/ to http://gadebate.un.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/military-strikes-in-syria-cannot-bring-justice
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/reports/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Characterization of Jobar attack in this article
Starting a new section since this is a bit of a hijack. why are we using the executive summary of the UN report as our source rather than the more detailed section that specifically discusses Jobar? See this diff for the proposed edit. You are correct that the source states on page 10, "The United Nations Mission did not receive sufficient or credible information in respect of the alleged incidents in Salquin on 17 October 2012, Homs on 23 December 2012, Darayya on 13 March and 25 April 2013, Otaybah on 19 March 2013, Adra on 24 March and 23 May 2013, Jobar between 12 and 14 April 2013, and Qasr Abu Samrah on 14 May 2013." - but the report makes clear that the Jobar attack was a case of insufficient evidence, not lack of credible evidence in the summary specifically about Jobar on page 19: "The United Nations Mission collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons in Jobar on 24 August 2013 on a relatively small scale against soldiers. However, in the absence of primary information on the delivery system(s) and environmental samples collected and analysed under the chain of custody, the United Nations Mission could not establish the link between the victims, the alleged event and the alleged site." The version you reverted to does not accurately summarize the source provided. "Sufficient or credible" != "sufficient and credible". VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The version I reverted to says "the UN fact-finding mission that investigated the alleged attack did not find sufficient or credible information to support the allegation". The source says the UN "did not receive sufficient or credible information". I believe it summarize the source pretty good.


 * The conclution on page 19 is about the attack in Jobar on 24 August 2013. The "Jobar chemical attacks" section in the background chapter is about the attack between 12 and 14 April 2013. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, the August/April difference was what I was missing. We are aligned now; thanks for your patience! VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move Khan al Assal cheical attack to separate page
I'm not sure why a separate attack is included in this page, and suspect there is a neutrality issue. Shawn.carrie (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a separate page for that attack. I believe a summary is relevant here as bacground information, since the sarin used in the Khan al-Assal attack "bore the same unique hallmarks as those used in Al-Ghouta" (according to the UN, ref. ), but we may shorten it. However, I think you can remove the Jobar attack. The UN did not find credible information regarding that alleged attack, ref. . Erlbaeko (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you provided doesn't say that the Jobar claims are not credible. It says that the UN could not independently confirm the chain of custody of most of the evidence. Have reliable sources linked Jobar and Ghouta? That should be what we use to determine if it warrants mention in the article. I agree that the Khan al-Assal attack summary could probably be cut in about half. VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says (on page 10) "The United Nations Mission did not receive sufficient or credible information in respect of the alleged incidents in Salquin on 17 October 2012, Homs on 23 December 2012,  Darayya on 13 March and 25 April 2013, Otaybah on 19 March 2013, Adra on 24 March and 23 May 2013, Jobar between 12 and 14 April 2013, and Qasr Abu Samrah on 14 May 2013.". I believe you are mixing the Jobar, 24 August 2013 attack with the attacks in Jobar between 12 and 14 April 2013. The attack on 24 August was on SAA soldiers, and reported to the U.N. by the Syrian Government (see Appendix 7 on page 61-70). Erlbaeko (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per our discussion below, yes I think it is reasonable to remove Jobar from the "background" section. VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Removed it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mediation re-start
Here is a link to the mediation resolving the content disputes that look like they might become the subject of renewed edit warring:. I'll quote 's move to close below:

It has been quiet on this page for the past couple of weeks. I note that Mnnlaxer has been adding to the article based on the discussion here. There don't seem to be any issues arising from that, thus I think that we could close the mediation now. Anything else could be handled on the article talk page and I'd be willing to keep an eye on things for awhile. If we do close, now, it a new mediation can always be started if major issues arise once more. Would you be able to indicate whether you agree with closing and add any comments you have about any aspect of the mediation? How has the experience been for you? Sunray (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind picking this up again, and don't believe a mediation resolution has some special status exempt from future change, especially as more time passes. Nevertheless please don't just make large changes that were addressed in the mediation without even making a post on Talk. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that would be waste of time. Here is a possible compromise option. According to current version of lede, "The Syrian and Russian governments blamed the opposition for the attack, the Russian government calling the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side.". OK, this text could be moved to section "foreign government assessment" with a couple of minor adjustments. Right now this text creates wrong impression that conspiracy theory comes from US intelligence. No, it is not. Any way, this does not belong to "Evidence" section and should be at least moved somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The text does not create the false impression that the attack is a conspiracy hatched by US intelligence - it relates to readers the positions of the Russian and Syrian governments, which is an absolute minimum that the lead must include. -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am telling that lead was fine, but suggest to move the segment of text under discussion in the body of this page. This segment creates the false impression because it tells: "The timing of the attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were meant to draw western intervention" and gives a reference to something outdated published in 2013. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll think about it but I don't have any strong objection to this. Placing the material at the very end of the article seems POV-ish, but in the end maybe it's really the best place? I was reading back through the mediation and see that one of my concerns - the presentation of US intelligence estimates - was never fully addressed. -Darouet (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, this is not "Evidence". If you read this section, it tells basically the following: "such and such claims wwer made in 2013 [one ref], but they have been dismissed later [several refs]". Why we should include something that has been dismissed? My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section does contain evidence: U.S. intelligence officials describing no deployment of chemical weapons sensors, and intercepts prior to the attack. Furthermore we had a dispute resolution that lasted months on this issue. After describing further dispute resolution as "a waste of time," then proposing a "compromise," and then just moving the material to the end of the article, now you've decided that no, you really will try to upend the resolution we all worked towards. -Darouet (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that mediation is not some sacred "never edit it again" thing, but in the absence of new material that should be integrated this seems like just a rehash of what we already worked over for what seemed like forever. Honestly I'd rather this be treated as a behavioral issue as the results of that mediation aren't just being modified, but completely ignored. VQuakr (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus can change, and I agree that there are problems with the text/sourcing Marek removed here and MVBW removed here. I think we should remove it, and rather add some text closer to the best RS we can find, without giving undue weight to Hersh. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed that it can change. We (at least in theory) don't need more mediation to establish a new consensus. Let's just raise proposed changes in a new section here. I will request full protection of the article if there is another back-and-forth revert cycle like we saw over the last few days, though. We really don't need edit warring here. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It has changed. Three editors like to remove the "Allegations of false flag attack" section. Two like to keep it. That is 60 % in favor of removing it, so my advice will be not to revert the next removal, as that can be seen as edit warring. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As written, the section is not misleading or terrible, but simply outdated and uninformative. I would suggest to remove, but do not care too much. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. There was consensus to remove it (3 against 2). However, if your revert means it is 3 against 3, that will be a No consensus situation. So, I guess you are free to do whatever you like... Erlbaeko (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview
I'm reposting discussion content I wrote during mediation over this issue. There have always been "Motivation" questions about why the Assad regime would have launched an attack, for a limited tactical advantage, inviting US/UK/French intervention at the very moment UN investigators arrived in Damascus, a few miles away. 

U.S. intelligence assessments have reportedly noted that rebels also possessed CW capability, and multiple, independent intelligence officials have voiced skepticism that Assad or his inner circle would be responsible, raising the possibility of rogue elements in his regime or a rebel attack to provoke a war. Seymour Hersh is one source for this. 

In a second piece by Hersh, a former senior U.S. intelligence official stated that Turkish intelligence, the MIT, had collaborated with al-Nusra on CW and a False Flag operation in Ghouta, hoping to draw U.S. intervention for Turkish-backed rebels. The story was reported globally, received support from a number of expert commentators (like Robert Fisk) and resulted in a very politicized indictment, investigation, and then treason charges in Turkey. 

Motivation
Multiple sources raise the question of motivation and timing with ambivalence. In this Independent article, the journalist notes that the British intelligence brief published after the attack "does nothing to answer the question asked by many: why would the Damascus regime launch such a sustained assault with chemical weapons with UN inspectors in a hotel a dozen miles away and its forces making advances on the ground using conventional weapons." The journalist also states, however, that Russia, Iran, and the Syrian government have "failed to provide evidence" of rebel culpability.

In This CNN article, the journalist writes, "There is also the question of motivation and timing, if regime forces were responsible. Just a few miles from [Ghouta], a team of United Nations chemical weapons [inspectors] were asleep at their hotel..." They continue, "Some observers also point to claims on jihadist websites that rebels have seized chemical weapons equipment after overrunning government bases such as one outside Aleppo in July 2012. Supporters of the Assad government claim that Wednesday's reports are very convenient for the opposition as it tries to spur the international community to action." This CS Monitor article is another example of these questions being raised, by Russia or others.

A good article in the Seattle Times explores the topic with greater detail. Referring to the U.S. government assertion of Assad's culpability, the authors write that the assessment "has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people – especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground." The article quotes "Charles Heyman, a former British military officer who edits The Armed Forces of the U.K., an authoritative bi-annual review of British forces," who asks "why would any commander agree to rocketing a suburb of Damascus with chemical weapons for only a very short-term tactical gain for what is a long-term disaster?" The article writes that "Some have suggested the possibility, at least in theory, that the attack may have been ordered by a 'rogue commander' in Assad’s military or fighters seeking to frame the regime." The article quotes Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese army general who closely follows Syria’s war and heads the Beirut-based Middle East Center for Studies and Political Research. "It would be 'political suicide' for the regime to commit such an act given Obama’s warning. [Jaber] also questioned U.S. assertions that the Syrian rebel fighters could not have launched sophisticated chemical weapons. He said that some among the estimated 70,000 defectors from the Syrian military, many of them now fighting for the opposition, could have been trained to use them... He claimed Syrian insurgents have acquired chemical weapons, bought from tribes in Libya after the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, through Saudi interlocutors."

U.S. Intelligence Assessments
According to this AP news story, U.S. intelligence officials doubted whether Assad or his inner circle ordered the Ghouta attacks or controlled the weapons used in them. "Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report."

In an article for the London Review of Books, Hersh cites a senior intelligence consultant who states that in May before the attack, "the CIA had briefed the Obama administration on al-Nusra and its work with sarin, and had sent alarming reports that another Sunni fundamentalist group active in Syria, al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), also understood the science of producing sarin. At the time, al-Nusra was operating in areas close to Damascus, including Eastern Ghouta." In June, a top secret cable concerning al-Nusra's CW capabilities was forwarded to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "Independently of these assessments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assuming that US troops might be ordered into Syria to seize the government’s stockpile of chemical agents, called for an all-source analysis... 'They concluded that the rebel forces were capable of attacking an American force with sarin because they were able to produce the lethal gas. The examination relied on signals and human intelligence, as well as the expressed intention and technical capability of the rebels.'" Hersh's report was of course picked up by Russian and Iranian press, but also by The Wire from The Atlantic (whose journalist appears to get their own independent confirmation, though could be reading that wrong?), and in other international press.

False flag attack
Hersh followed up on the story with a second LRB piece, where he wrote that British intelligence had concluded that sarin used in the 21 August attack "didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal," and reported one senior official wrote him that Ghouta "was not the result of the current regime. UK & US know this." Hersh's source, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, said that Turkey's MIT intelligence service began supplying al-Nusra with materials needed for CW capability in late 2012 and early 2013, and were desperate to bring the U.S. into the Syrian conflict. Hersh's source stated "we now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line," and that evidence for this was provided by intercepted Turkish communications after the attack.

Turkey's Daily Zaman immediately reported on the story, as did Lebanon's Daily Star, the UAE's Gulf News, the Foreign Policy Journal, the Foreign Policy in Focus Think Tank, and Hersh was interviewed by Democracy Now regarding his report.

Gwynne Dyer wrote a supporting Op-Ed published in India's The Pioneer, in the New Zealand Herald, the Korea Times, Kashmir Times, Gulf News and other smaller papers internationally. The UK's The Independent published an opinion piece by Robert Fisk supporting Hersh's story, and both The Independent the Belfast Telegraph published a news piece and by Patrick Cockburn with a similar view. (And there are other pieces like this).

General Michael T. Flynn, who was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for the Obama Administration at the time of the attacks, was asked a few months ago if the Ghouta chemical attacks were a false flag operation. He responded, "I really don't know. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know. To have that level of knowledge or insight or detail of what an intelligence service is doing to do a false flag -- who knows. I don't have a good answer for you."

Turkish politicians took the allegations very seriously. The main Turkish opposition party called for an investigation into Erdoğan’s "dirty war." More recently, two opposition MP's revealed details a Turkish prosecutor's indictment over the Ghouta chemical weapons scandal, and stated that Erdoğan’s administration derailed the investigation, reported by the Daily Zaman and reviewed by CounterPunch. "The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government. CHP deputy Şeker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the perception that, according to Şeker, 'Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria.' He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic." One of the deputies, Erdem, faced treason charges for speaking publicly about the contents of the investigation. Wikileaks later released 57,000 emails suggesting that at least some of Erdem's accusations were correct. 

Conclusion
Many reliable international, non-Russian sources covered the question of motivation, Hersh's reporting, and the possibility of a false flag operation. Hersh's reporting was also described favorably by well-known, respected regional experts including Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and Gwynne Dyer. Per WP:SCOPE, these issues remain an enduring part of the the Ghouta chemical attack. While some sources endorsed Hersh's reports and others didn't, (and I don't know myself what exactly to believe), WP:DUE requires that it's our job at least to document them and the issues of motivation, U.S. intelligence and the possibility of false flag attack that they deal with. The many WP:RS that we have available allow us to neutrally present this information in a manner that is verifiable to our readers.

There has been no discussion of what has changed since the mediation that would warrant a dramatic re-appraisal such that this content simply does not appear, at all, in the article. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence estimates are still described inaccurately in this article. Lastly, I'd recommend that we add Flynn's comment to the article as well. He was director of the DIA at the time of the attacks, and just a few months ago, wouldn't rule out the possibility of a false flag attack. -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a lot. If to summarize very briefly, what is main idea? That the use of chemical weapons in this particular case (Ghouta chemical attack) was in fact directed by the Turkish intelligence? My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MVBW, I don't think "the use of chemical weapons in this particular case (Ghouta chemical attack) was in fact directed by the Turkish intelligence" accurately or adequately summarizes the above material. -Darouet (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. But what is the claim here? Who did it according to the text above? I am not sure. And if there is no any specific claim of responsibility, why include it? My very best wishes (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we delete the whole article, since it remains unknown who did it? I don't follow your logic. do you have any thoughts? -Darouet (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. As I said above, I think we should remove the false flag section, and rather add some text closer to the best RS we can find. Sometimes it's best to start with "Fresh eyes". Erlbaeko (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If we tell about an alternative/false flag theory, we must explain what the theory is. For example, there is a sourced claim that Moscow theater hostage crisis was in fact directed by an FSB undercover agent Terkibaev. What is claim in that case? Who was the side or specific agents/persons responsible for the attack according to this theory? This is question #1. Next question: what evidence of this specific claim was published? My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * MVWB: you are proposing a series of non-policy based inclusion and exclusion criteria that you wish to apply selectively to material you've tried to remove from the article. In my view, mediation was helpful earlier because it required editors to avoid this kind of behavior. Like I wrote earlier, I think it may be necessary to go back to mediation. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that the use of chemical weapons in these incidents was by Assad regime. But according to the text suggested by you, that was not Assad but someone else ("false flag attack"). Who was the perpetrator according to the "false flag theory"? What was the evidence of the "theory"? Why did this deserve inclusion keeping WP:FRINGE in mind? You did not answer these questions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to rephrase the text and sources above as if you haven't read them and don't plan to, because you want to argue with me, and not address the sources at all. I'm not interested in inventing theories about who in the hundreds of actors participating in the Syrian Civil War are responsible for Ghouta, so that you can criticize random ideas you yourself are asking for. Instead, we should briefly and neutrally summarize what RS have reported. Again, the criteria you're proposing are your own: they are subjective, which is required if you want to remove text supported by dozens of sources published in large papers all around the world. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, I agree that the regime was responsible is the generally held position. But it is not universal. Some intelligence analysts and writers have doubts. It is a significant viewpoint and reported in RS. We need to include these views in the article. I think you are approaching the section from the wrong angle. The section is not about laying out an airtight case for what really happened. It is to inform the reader that there are viewpoints that disagree with the generally held position. The section should not be presented as fact or as a comprehensive "theory". But rather it should neutrally describe and attribute the views. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am telling that if there is a conspiracy theory, one must describe what that theory was and who are the alleged alternative perpetrators. This is a bare minimum for something fringe to be included. So far I can see only some poorly substantiated "concerns" in mainstream version (that it was done by the Assad regime), without even explanation what was the alternative theory. That kind of poorly explained and unsubstantiated "concerns" does not satisfy even minimal requirements for inclusion per WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This was discussed ad nauseum during mediation. Yes, consensus can change and if there is something new let's discuss, but a 3:2 vote is not indicative of a sufficient shift in consensus to merit nuking the section. And this is coming from someone who during mediation had to be dragged kicking and screaming into mentioning the false flag theory at all. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that VQuakr. I also think the false flag section should stay. As Darouet has shown, it was discussed in dozens of RS. Two paragraphs in a long article is an appropriate amount of coverage. DUE actually requires it be included. If there are specific revisions anyone would like to make, I'm all ears. But it should not be completely deleted. And I'm fine with it being at the end of the article. That's a compromise, it would be nice to have it reciprocated. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * do you think it would be reasonable to add one sentence mentioning Flynn's recent comment, obviously without any endorsement, citing CNN? My sense is that this isn't a trivial matter: Flynn directed the DIA at the time of the attacks and would have been in the middle of all the intelligence analyses conducted at that time. I think the Wikileaks - Eren Erdem update to the Turkish story is interesting, but wouldn't recommend including it right now, since it only indirectly comments on Erdem's original (and very extensively covered) accusations. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not favor adding Flynn's comment. (It was made in December 2015) It was an off the cuff remark made at an event that he was paid to speak at by the Russian government. I'm not trying to bash Russia, the point doesn't matter who the payer is. The point is that it is easy to say "I don't know" and move on in that position, regardless of what Flynn actually thinks. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I was way off on the date, sorry about that. I think it would be wild to suggest that Flynn was paid to answer the question as he did. Rather, it's reasonable to believe he chose to attend the event based upon his beliefs. -Darouet (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it was an unprepared reply to a Q&A. I do not think it warrants mention in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding U.S. intelligence estimates and Flynn's comment: When Flynn, the then director of the DIA said "I really don't know" when asked if the Ghouta chemical attacks were a false flag operation, and James Clapper, the then Director of National Intelligence said the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas was not a “slam dunk”,ref and 12 former U.S. intelligence officers says they have information that undercuts the official "Assad did it" story,ref then I think we need to clarify that in the article, and also explain where that official US government assessment actually came from. "It was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”, ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Dozier, who wrote some of the AP stories, is not only a journalist but has a Chair at the US Army War College. -Darouet (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Mediation re-start
Here is a link to the mediation resolving the content disputes that look like they might become the subject of renewed edit warring:. I'll quote 's move to close below:

It has been quiet on this page for the past couple of weeks. I note that Mnnlaxer has been adding to the article based on the discussion here. There don't seem to be any issues arising from that, thus I think that we could close the mediation now. Anything else could be handled on the article talk page and I'd be willing to keep an eye on things for awhile. If we do close, now, it a new mediation can always be started if major issues arise once more. Would you be able to indicate whether you agree with closing and add any comments you have about any aspect of the mediation? How has the experience been for you? Sunray (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind picking this up again, and don't believe a mediation resolution has some special status exempt from future change, especially as more time passes. Nevertheless please don't just make large changes that were addressed in the mediation without even making a post on Talk. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that would be waste of time. Here is a possible compromise option. According to current version of lede, "The Syrian and Russian governments blamed the opposition for the attack, the Russian government calling the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side.". OK, this text could be moved to section "foreign government assessment" with a couple of minor adjustments. Right now this text creates wrong impression that conspiracy theory comes from US intelligence. No, it is not. Any way, this does not belong to "Evidence" section and should be at least moved somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The text does not create the false impression that the attack is a conspiracy hatched by US intelligence - it relates to readers the positions of the Russian and Syrian governments, which is an absolute minimum that the lead must include. -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am telling that lead was fine, but suggest to move the segment of text under discussion in the body of this page. This segment creates the false impression because it tells: "The timing of the attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were meant to draw western intervention" and gives a reference to something outdated published in 2013. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll think about it but I don't have any strong objection to this. Placing the material at the very end of the article seems POV-ish, but in the end maybe it's really the best place? I was reading back through the mediation and see that one of my concerns - the presentation of US intelligence estimates - was never fully addressed. -Darouet (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, this is not "Evidence". If you read this section, it tells basically the following: "such and such claims wwer made in 2013 [one ref], but they have been dismissed later [several refs]". Why we should include something that has been dismissed? My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section does contain evidence: U.S. intelligence officials describing no deployment of chemical weapons sensors, and intercepts prior to the attack. Furthermore we had a dispute resolution that lasted months on this issue. After describing further dispute resolution as "a waste of time," then proposing a "compromise," and then just moving the material to the end of the article, now you've decided that no, you really will try to upend the resolution we all worked towards. -Darouet (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that mediation is not some sacred "never edit it again" thing, but in the absence of new material that should be integrated this seems like just a rehash of what we already worked over for what seemed like forever. Honestly I'd rather this be treated as a behavioral issue as the results of that mediation aren't just being modified, but completely ignored. VQuakr (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus can change, and I agree that there are problems with the text/sourcing Marek removed here and MVBW removed here. I think we should remove it, and rather add some text closer to the best RS we can find, without giving undue weight to Hersh. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed that it can change. We (at least in theory) don't need more mediation to establish a new consensus. Let's just raise proposed changes in a new section here. I will request full protection of the article if there is another back-and-forth revert cycle like we saw over the last few days, though. We really don't need edit warring here. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It has changed. Three editors like to remove the "Allegations of false flag attack" section. Two like to keep it. That is 60 % in favor of removing it, so my advice will be not to revert the next removal, as that can be seen as edit warring. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As written, the section is not misleading or terrible, but simply outdated and uninformative. I would suggest to remove, but do not care too much. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. There was consensus to remove it (3 against 2). However, if your revert means it is 3 against 3, that will be a No consensus situation. So, I guess you are free to do whatever you like... Erlbaeko (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview
I'm reposting discussion content I wrote during mediation over this issue. There have always been "Motivation" questions about why the Assad regime would have launched an attack, for a limited tactical advantage, inviting US/UK/French intervention at the very moment UN investigators arrived in Damascus, a few miles away. 

U.S. intelligence assessments have reportedly noted that rebels also possessed CW capability, and multiple, independent intelligence officials have voiced skepticism that Assad or his inner circle would be responsible, raising the possibility of rogue elements in his regime or a rebel attack to provoke a war. Seymour Hersh is one source for this. 

In a second piece by Hersh, a former senior U.S. intelligence official stated that Turkish intelligence, the MIT, had collaborated with al-Nusra on CW and a False Flag operation in Ghouta, hoping to draw U.S. intervention for Turkish-backed rebels. The story was reported globally, received support from a number of expert commentators (like Robert Fisk) and resulted in a very politicized indictment, investigation, and then treason charges in Turkey. 

Motivation
Multiple sources raise the question of motivation and timing with ambivalence. In this Independent article, the journalist notes that the British intelligence brief published after the attack "does nothing to answer the question asked by many: why would the Damascus regime launch such a sustained assault with chemical weapons with UN inspectors in a hotel a dozen miles away and its forces making advances on the ground using conventional weapons." The journalist also states, however, that Russia, Iran, and the Syrian government have "failed to provide evidence" of rebel culpability.

In This CNN article, the journalist writes, "There is also the question of motivation and timing, if regime forces were responsible. Just a few miles from [Ghouta], a team of United Nations chemical weapons [inspectors] were asleep at their hotel..." They continue, "Some observers also point to claims on jihadist websites that rebels have seized chemical weapons equipment after overrunning government bases such as one outside Aleppo in July 2012. Supporters of the Assad government claim that Wednesday's reports are very convenient for the opposition as it tries to spur the international community to action." This CS Monitor article is another example of these questions being raised, by Russia or others.

A good article in the Seattle Times explores the topic with greater detail. Referring to the U.S. government assertion of Assad's culpability, the authors write that the assessment "has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people – especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground." The article quotes "Charles Heyman, a former British military officer who edits The Armed Forces of the U.K., an authoritative bi-annual review of British forces," who asks "why would any commander agree to rocketing a suburb of Damascus with chemical weapons for only a very short-term tactical gain for what is a long-term disaster?" The article writes that "Some have suggested the possibility, at least in theory, that the attack may have been ordered by a 'rogue commander' in Assad’s military or fighters seeking to frame the regime." The article quotes Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese army general who closely follows Syria’s war and heads the Beirut-based Middle East Center for Studies and Political Research. "It would be 'political suicide' for the regime to commit such an act given Obama’s warning. [Jaber] also questioned U.S. assertions that the Syrian rebel fighters could not have launched sophisticated chemical weapons. He said that some among the estimated 70,000 defectors from the Syrian military, many of them now fighting for the opposition, could have been trained to use them... He claimed Syrian insurgents have acquired chemical weapons, bought from tribes in Libya after the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, through Saudi interlocutors."

U.S. Intelligence Assessments
According to this AP news story, U.S. intelligence officials doubted whether Assad or his inner circle ordered the Ghouta attacks or controlled the weapons used in them. "Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report."

In an article for the London Review of Books, Hersh cites a senior intelligence consultant who states that in May before the attack, "the CIA had briefed the Obama administration on al-Nusra and its work with sarin, and had sent alarming reports that another Sunni fundamentalist group active in Syria, al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), also understood the science of producing sarin. At the time, al-Nusra was operating in areas close to Damascus, including Eastern Ghouta." In June, a top secret cable concerning al-Nusra's CW capabilities was forwarded to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "Independently of these assessments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assuming that US troops might be ordered into Syria to seize the government’s stockpile of chemical agents, called for an all-source analysis... 'They concluded that the rebel forces were capable of attacking an American force with sarin because they were able to produce the lethal gas. The examination relied on signals and human intelligence, as well as the expressed intention and technical capability of the rebels.'" Hersh's report was of course picked up by Russian and Iranian press, but also by The Wire from The Atlantic (whose journalist appears to get their own independent confirmation, though could be reading that wrong?), and in other international press.

False flag attack
Hersh followed up on the story with a second LRB piece, where he wrote that British intelligence had concluded that sarin used in the 21 August attack "didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal," and reported one senior official wrote him that Ghouta "was not the result of the current regime. UK & US know this." Hersh's source, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, said that Turkey's MIT intelligence service began supplying al-Nusra with materials needed for CW capability in late 2012 and early 2013, and were desperate to bring the U.S. into the Syrian conflict. Hersh's source stated "we now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line," and that evidence for this was provided by intercepted Turkish communications after the attack.

Turkey's Daily Zaman immediately reported on the story, as did Lebanon's Daily Star, the UAE's Gulf News, the Foreign Policy Journal, the Foreign Policy in Focus Think Tank, and Hersh was interviewed by Democracy Now regarding his report.

Gwynne Dyer wrote a supporting Op-Ed published in India's The Pioneer, in the New Zealand Herald, the Korea Times, Kashmir Times, Gulf News and other smaller papers internationally. The UK's The Independent published an opinion piece by Robert Fisk supporting Hersh's story, and both The Independent the Belfast Telegraph published a news piece and by Patrick Cockburn with a similar view. (And there are other pieces like this).

General Michael T. Flynn, who was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for the Obama Administration at the time of the attacks, was asked a few months ago if the Ghouta chemical attacks were a false flag operation. He responded, "I really don't know. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know. To have that level of knowledge or insight or detail of what an intelligence service is doing to do a false flag -- who knows. I don't have a good answer for you."

Turkish politicians took the allegations very seriously. The main Turkish opposition party called for an investigation into Erdoğan’s "dirty war." More recently, two opposition MP's revealed details a Turkish prosecutor's indictment over the Ghouta chemical weapons scandal, and stated that Erdoğan’s administration derailed the investigation, reported by the Daily Zaman and reviewed by CounterPunch. "The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government. CHP deputy Şeker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the perception that, according to Şeker, 'Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria.' He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic." One of the deputies, Erdem, faced treason charges for speaking publicly about the contents of the investigation. Wikileaks later released 57,000 emails suggesting that at least some of Erdem's accusations were correct. 

Conclusion
Many reliable international, non-Russian sources covered the question of motivation, Hersh's reporting, and the possibility of a false flag operation. Hersh's reporting was also described favorably by well-known, respected regional experts including Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and Gwynne Dyer. Per WP:SCOPE, these issues remain an enduring part of the the Ghouta chemical attack. While some sources endorsed Hersh's reports and others didn't, (and I don't know myself what exactly to believe), WP:DUE requires that it's our job at least to document them and the issues of motivation, U.S. intelligence and the possibility of false flag attack that they deal with. The many WP:RS that we have available allow us to neutrally present this information in a manner that is verifiable to our readers.

There has been no discussion of what has changed since the mediation that would warrant a dramatic re-appraisal such that this content simply does not appear, at all, in the article. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence estimates are still described inaccurately in this article. Lastly, I'd recommend that we add Flynn's comment to the article as well. He was director of the DIA at the time of the attacks, and just a few months ago, wouldn't rule out the possibility of a false flag attack. -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a lot. If to summarize very briefly, what is main idea? That the use of chemical weapons in this particular case (Ghouta chemical attack) was in fact directed by the Turkish intelligence? My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MVBW, I don't think "the use of chemical weapons in this particular case (Ghouta chemical attack) was in fact directed by the Turkish intelligence" accurately or adequately summarizes the above material. -Darouet (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. But what is the claim here? Who did it according to the text above? I am not sure. And if there is no any specific claim of responsibility, why include it? My very best wishes (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we delete the whole article, since it remains unknown who did it? I don't follow your logic. do you have any thoughts? -Darouet (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. As I said above, I think we should remove the false flag section, and rather add some text closer to the best RS we can find. Sometimes it's best to start with "Fresh eyes". Erlbaeko (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If we tell about an alternative/false flag theory, we must explain what the theory is. For example, there is a sourced claim that Moscow theater hostage crisis was in fact directed by an FSB undercover agent Terkibaev. What is claim in that case? Who was the side or specific agents/persons responsible for the attack according to this theory? This is question #1. Next question: what evidence of this specific claim was published? My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * MVWB: you are proposing a series of non-policy based inclusion and exclusion criteria that you wish to apply selectively to material you've tried to remove from the article. In my view, mediation was helpful earlier because it required editors to avoid this kind of behavior. Like I wrote earlier, I think it may be necessary to go back to mediation. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that the use of chemical weapons in these incidents was by Assad regime. But according to the text suggested by you, that was not Assad but someone else ("false flag attack"). Who was the perpetrator according to the "false flag theory"? What was the evidence of the "theory"? Why did this deserve inclusion keeping WP:FRINGE in mind? You did not answer these questions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to rephrase the text and sources above as if you haven't read them and don't plan to, because you want to argue with me, and not address the sources at all. I'm not interested in inventing theories about who in the hundreds of actors participating in the Syrian Civil War are responsible for Ghouta, so that you can criticize random ideas you yourself are asking for. Instead, we should briefly and neutrally summarize what RS have reported. Again, the criteria you're proposing are your own: they are subjective, which is required if you want to remove text supported by dozens of sources published in large papers all around the world. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, I agree that the regime was responsible is the generally held position. But it is not universal. Some intelligence analysts and writers have doubts. It is a significant viewpoint and reported in RS. We need to include these views in the article. I think you are approaching the section from the wrong angle. The section is not about laying out an airtight case for what really happened. It is to inform the reader that there are viewpoints that disagree with the generally held position. The section should not be presented as fact or as a comprehensive "theory". But rather it should neutrally describe and attribute the views. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am telling that if there is a conspiracy theory, one must describe what that theory was and who are the alleged alternative perpetrators. This is a bare minimum for something fringe to be included. So far I can see only some poorly substantiated "concerns" in mainstream version (that it was done by the Assad regime), without even explanation what was the alternative theory. That kind of poorly explained and unsubstantiated "concerns" does not satisfy even minimal requirements for inclusion per WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This was discussed ad nauseum during mediation. Yes, consensus can change and if there is something new let's discuss, but a 3:2 vote is not indicative of a sufficient shift in consensus to merit nuking the section. And this is coming from someone who during mediation had to be dragged kicking and screaming into mentioning the false flag theory at all. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that VQuakr. I also think the false flag section should stay. As Darouet has shown, it was discussed in dozens of RS. Two paragraphs in a long article is an appropriate amount of coverage. DUE actually requires it be included. If there are specific revisions anyone would like to make, I'm all ears. But it should not be completely deleted. And I'm fine with it being at the end of the article. That's a compromise, it would be nice to have it reciprocated. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * do you think it would be reasonable to add one sentence mentioning Flynn's recent comment, obviously without any endorsement, citing CNN? My sense is that this isn't a trivial matter: Flynn directed the DIA at the time of the attacks and would have been in the middle of all the intelligence analyses conducted at that time. I think the Wikileaks - Eren Erdem update to the Turkish story is interesting, but wouldn't recommend including it right now, since it only indirectly comments on Erdem's original (and very extensively covered) accusations. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not favor adding Flynn's comment. (It was made in December 2015) It was an off the cuff remark made at an event that he was paid to speak at by the Russian government. I'm not trying to bash Russia, the point doesn't matter who the payer is. The point is that it is easy to say "I don't know" and move on in that position, regardless of what Flynn actually thinks. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I was way off on the date, sorry about that. I think it would be wild to suggest that Flynn was paid to answer the question as he did. Rather, it's reasonable to believe he chose to attend the event based upon his beliefs. -Darouet (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it was an unprepared reply to a Q&A. I do not think it warrants mention in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding U.S. intelligence estimates and Flynn's comment: When Flynn, the then director of the DIA said "I really don't know" when asked if the Ghouta chemical attacks were a false flag operation, and James Clapper, the then Director of National Intelligence said the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas was not a “slam dunk”,ref and 12 former U.S. intelligence officers says they have information that undercuts the official "Assad did it" story,ref then I think we need to clarify that in the article, and also explain where that official US government assessment actually came from. "It was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”, ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Dozier, who wrote some of the AP stories, is not only a journalist but has a Chair at the US Army War College. -Darouet (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. intelligence
This sentence "The timing of the attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were meant to draw western intervention", in the "Allegations of false flag attack" section is not in the ref given. Do we have an RS that actually states something like that? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I believe this is in the Hersh reporting, but it's also in an AP story. "The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say... So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report." -Darouet (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you get that to be " The timing of the attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were meant to draw western intervention"? Erlbaeko (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you aren't certain how to paraphrase why don't you quote it directly, e.g., "U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report" ? This is also consistent with Flynn's off-the-cuff and unscripted response to a question about the possibility of Ghouta being a false-flag attack.-Darouet (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A paraphrase is fine, but to write it that way, we need a source that say it was the timing of the attacks that prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were meant to draw the West into the war. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've changed the text to avoid that problem (and I'm not sure how we originally arrived at that summary or source). However, The timing issue has been raised repeatedly in various quarters. For instance, here's a Seattle Times story:


 * "The U.S. administration says its evidence is classified and is only sharing details in closed-door briefings with members of Congress and key allies. Yet the assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack’s aftermath, has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people – especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground. Rebels who accuse Assad of the attack have suggested he had learned of fighters’ plans to advance on Damascus, his seat of power, and ordered the gassing to prevent that. “We can’t get our heads around this – why would any commander agree to rocketing a suburb of Damascus with chemical weapons for only a very short-term tactical gain for what is a long-term disaster,” said Charles Heyman, a former British military officer who edits The Armed Forces of the U.K., an authoritative bi-annual review of British forces."


 * Or a CNN story,


 * "There is also the question of motive and timing, if regime forces were responsible. Just a few miles from those terrible scenes, a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors -- led by a well-qualified Swede -- were asleep at their hotel. Russia -- an ally of the Assad regime -- made that point immediately. A Foreign Ministry statement from Moscow noted that "the criminal act was committed near Damascus at the very moment when a mission of U.N. experts had successfully started their work of investigating allegations of the possible use of chemical weapons there..." Government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by rebel factions in the areas concerned; in fact, many observers believe a bloody stalemate has set in around Damascus. And regime forces have also made gains recently against rebels around Homs and elsewhere. Why would it risk an action that would likely kill hundreds in a heavily-populated area and risk stirring up an international appetite for intervention? Would it also have risked using an agent as lethal as sarin just a few kilometers from the heart of Damascus -- to both the southwest and northeast of the city -- on what appears to have been a quite windy night?"


 * Or a CS Monitor story,


 * ''"Moreover, [Russian analyst] Mr. Markov argues, rebels are the only ones with an incentive to use chemical weapons, because they are losing on the battlefield and Western intervention is the one thing that could turn the tide. He says ever since President Barack Obama made his "red line" remark warning of intervention if poison gas is used, the rebels and the Persian Gulf nations known to be financing and arming them – Qatar, for example – have been desperate to create just such an incident.


 * Again, I think Hersh mentions this too. Some reference to the timing issue should be included, somewhere. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. Be bold. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)