Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 7

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)

Improve the lead section
Well, there will be more traffic here now after the latest attack, we might as well work on improving the article while we're here checking edits. My first suggestion is that the lead is too long. Can we cut some material and then improve the writing?


 * the long quote of the 2014 HRC report can be removed I think. And the Khan assal sentence too. These should be used in the main text. A sentence from the report or a UN official's quote would be more appropriate.


 * The description of the UN Mission requesting and getting access can be left to the main text or just tighten up the writing. Definitely don't need all those refs in one spot. Makes reading it harder.


 * Descriptions of blame and the threatened attack can be copy edited, too.

Any other suggestions?

- Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag changes
Let's try to gain consensus for major changes to the false flag section. The most recent additions I removed had problems. The first paragraph was OR, several other citations were day of the attack speculation and opinion. I believe the length also caused UNDUE issues. I would however support one or two sentences on the timing / motivation. The AP Doubts source is good and already used in the article. Currently 209. There is also good discussion the was just moved to archive 6, section 26, that can be referred to here. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Re, 4 editors have argued for the removal of the "Allegations of false flag attack" section as written. Why do you restrict editors from improving it? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The editors that wanted the section removed would certainly not support additions to the section. I don't think it was an improvement. Can you argue for why the first paragraph is not OR and why the Telegraph and CNN articles should be used? And I am in favor of adding a short addition from the AP doubts source, but within the current paragraphs. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do support the removal of the section as written. It's not informative. The first paragraph you removed, that "Several reporters, military experts and government officials have questioned the motivation and the timing of the attack" is not OR, it's a summary of the rest of the section. The rest of the paragraph is well sourced. What exactly is your problem? Do you see a way to improve the paragraph? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The other editors argued removal due to Fringe. Improving is a better response than deleting. The two sentences use "since" and cite the UN Report, which makes no mention of timing or motivation. I see the summary point, but think a short statement that doesn't need a summary is more appropriate. See below, please improve. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 14:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first "since" can be sourced to this article: "But the JIC document 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 second "since" may be OR, but the Syrian Government did hand over its own investigation report of the Khan al-Assal chemical attack to the U.N. mission on 20 August 2013, only hours before the attack. That is covered in the U.N. report, see page 31/32. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Independent source is better, but it is painfully close to analysis ( presenting the writer's conclusions rather than sourcing to others). We just get "some question" and not referenced government officials at the end. Although I can agree on using it. OR is based on facts, of course, but present an interpretation not in the source. Why don't you take another try at writing something below, we are close to agreement. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 15:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How about something after the first sentence, referencing timing and motivation doubts of regime guilt, sourcing to APdoubts? Then Hershs first article can start a new paragraph. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "The AP reported that experts questioned the motivation for the regime to launch the attack, since it was holding off the opposition in the area and the UN Mission was in Damascus at the time." Note, this is the same article as the Seattle Times quoted in the previous talk section - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just something "AP reported". Several reporters, military experts and government officials have questioned the motivation and timing of that attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what the sentence says. I'm fine removing in line attribution to AP, I thought you preferred it. Expand it as needed. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"The attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were carried out by the opposition in order to draw the West into the war, a concept dismissed by others. Other experts and officials questioned whether the regime was responsible based on the timing of the attack, just after the UN Mission had arrived in Damascus, and lack of motivation, since the regime was advancing in the area." Sourced to APdoubts and the Independent article.

Note I added a bit about the opposition in the first sentence for clarity. and, your thoughts? - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 19:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I made this change. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

VIPS memos
OK tell me about your objections to addition of VIPS memos. Of note, the group has also issued a new memo in response to the recent Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and it's been covered by the Huffington Post. --2.180.100.187 (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The VIPS memos in particular, and Consortium News articles in general, are opinion and commentary, not news. They should not be used as stand alone citations. If several prominent RS report the memo, then it is possible to mention VIPS views through the RS. Note that your example above would not qualify since it is another commentary piece written by one of the VIPS. The Hersch articles did receive wide-spread coverage in RS. Another issue with adding more material to the false flag section is to avoid undue weight. The FF theory is a small minority view, so it shouldn't get a lot of coverage in the article. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 12:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know of a particular wiki policy that distinguishes between an expert analysis and a news piece? I don't know why you made the distinction. The only merit I see in your argument is that their memos have not been covered by many reliable sources except however Huffington Post, but I think since they are a reputable expert group with a history of accuracy on Iraq war (See Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity), they can pass the reliability and notability test. Your undue weight argument also has some merit but that would mean perhaps dedicating less space to their memo. --2.180.100.187 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RS talks about opinion pieces and self published expert opinion. VIPS are advocates of their views, they are not outside observers like news reporters. I think it is possible to write a sentence about VIPS, but it will need at least one RS that references them. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The introduction should indicate scepticism of regime agreement to give up its CW
'In a meeting at The Hague with Syrian government officials in April 2016, the OPCW inspectors laid their cards on the table. The samples they collected at Hafir 1 “contain indicators of Sarin and VX, which suggests that chemical weapons may have been produced and weaponized in this facility,” they told the Syrians, according to an account of the exchange in a highly confidential report by the OPCW’s Declaration Assessment Team, or DAT. Foreign Policy has exclusively reviewed the 75-page report.

The inspections at Hafir 1 — which have never been publicly detailed — are part of a wider effort by the world’s chemical weapons watchdog to determine whether Syria has really abided by a high-profile pledge it made three years ago to eliminate, under international supervision, a decades-old program designed to produce large quantities of mustard gas, Sarin, Soman, VX, and other lethal agents.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.134.41 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Mediation once again ignored
We previously held a long mediation to resolve conflict over the inclusion of significant minority views that have received substantial press coverage and also support in high-quality news outlets throughout the world. Recently, that conflict began again, and was resolved with the keeping of the material agreed upon. Yesterday, that material was removed without any reference to the prior mediation outcome. Because the article has been protected by, the longstanding text that was the result of mediation cannot be restored.

Below, I am reposting the recent discussions that were prematurely sent to the talk page archives. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can unprotect the article, but I am sure edit-warring resumes immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the best solution is: I think if editors really want to delete this material we should re-start the mediation, something (who presided over the mediation) had suggested might be possible when we closed this mediation previously. -Darouet (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Turkey supplied the Sarin
On 21 August 2013, a chemical incident caused between 322 and 1,729 deaths in the “ghouta” of Damascus. At the time, the Westerners pinned culpability for the attack onto the Syrian Arab Republic. However, four months later, a Turkish MP of CHP, Eren Erdem, put in the public domain, documents testifying: • that the gas used came from Turkey; • that Ilhami Bali (who is currently leading Daesh in Turkey) had ordered it to be brought to Damascus; • and that this operation was carried out with the complicity of the Turkish authorities. Eren Erdem was accused of high treason by the Prime Minister at the time, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for having divulged these documents (not because he had falsified the facts) and saw his parliamentary immunity being lifted. He was arrested and sentenced to 350 days in prison. Saint Aviator  lets talk 21:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find references for Erdem's fate. Can you provide some? Thanks, Darouet (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Turkey hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look around, Deep State MSM control has done a pretty good job filtering it out. Until it hits Western mainstream media like the truth about the Fake news WMD in Iraq story did eventually, (WMD not existing was once a conspiracy theory VQuakr like NSA Meta Data surveillance). So yeah I'll keep poking around and play the 'its not an RS yes it is game' with those not interested in whats really going on. Saint Aviator  lets talk 04:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Poking results.  control F 'Erdem' Oh this ones not bad  Saint Aviator  lets talk 04:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * When someone writes stuff like "Deep State MSM control has done a pretty good job filtering it out" you can pretty much ignore anything they say. This isn't some wacko fringe conspiracy website.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When wacko becomes mainstream people forget it was once wacko like WMD, Nasa spying, Snowdens leaks etc. Sighs. I thought you saw the bigger picture Marek, were a player, Im dissapointed. Saint Aviator  lets talk 21:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't say that Erdem spent a year in prison, so far as I can tell. -Darouet (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "NASA" spying? That's a new one. The key difference is that those examples do have exceptional sources. They aren't fringe any more as a result. We, as an encyclopedia, are not a forum for effecting that change. VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. LylaSand (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no new information or other reason to further detail Erdem's statements here. Nor have I found any sources that state he was jailed for a year. His initial statements alleging Turkish intelligence contacts received substantial coverage, and merited a brief mention, which we included prior to VM's removal. As far as I can tell, myself,, and possibly others still want inclusion of this text, or further elaboration of the material it contains, even if in some modified form. Marek it is inappropriate to summarily delete the content again as if mediation never happened. -Darouet (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted mediation text
, this edit was meant to restore three paragraphs that were worked out after very long mediation, detailed above. Wikipedia text is not inviolable that's a good thing, but I'd ask that the mediation text be restored, unless an involved discussion decides otherwise. This is the text wording:

{{quotebox|

Allegations of false flag attack
The attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were carried out by the opposition in order to draw the West into the war, a concept dismissed by others. Other experts and officials questioned whether the regime was responsible based on the timing of the attack, just after the UN Mission had arrived in Damascus, and lack of motivation, since the regime was advancing in the area.

In December 2013 Seymour Hersh wrote that in the days before and after the attack, sensors notifying U.S. intelligence agencies of Syrian chemical weapons deployment did not activate, and intelligence briefings shown to the U.S. president contained no information about an impending government chemical weapons attack. Publicly, the U.S. government cited classified intercepts of communications it said were between Syrian officials, unavailable to the public, which they state prove Syrian government forces carried out the chemical attack. Criticizing what they called a misleading presentation of intelligence, a former senior U.S. intelligence official quoted by Seymour Hersh said the transcript actually included intercepts from many months prior to the attack, collated to make them appear related to the Ghouta attacks.

In April 2014 Hersh wrote an article proposing the attacks were committed by Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front, whom Hersh writes were supplied with sarin by Turkey. Hersh's argument received some support, but was dismissed by other commentators. The US and Turkish governments denied the accuracy of Hersh's article. On 20 October 2015, Republican People's Party deputy Eren Erdem stated that documents from a Turkish government investigation showed that ISIL and affiliated groups received help from Turkish intelligence to carry out the Ghouta chemical attack. }}

The missing references are contained within the full article. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SupportTerrorist96 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this issue will be resolved by a bunch of !votes. Darouet (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the hard-earned mediation results should be taken seriously. Having the WP:WRONGVERSION temporarily in place, though, while this is resolved outside of article space is a small price to pay for stopping the quite blatant recent edit warring on this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This reads to me as an outdated conspiracy theory that has been dismissed and forgotten long time ago. Why include it? If I edited this page alone, I would remove it at once. But apparently there are people who want this to remain on the page, just as on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and other similar pages. As written, this is not terribly misleading, just outdated, redundant and undue. So, let's keep it just to make other people happy? This is not a policy-based argument of course. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is outdated and no longer relevant.`Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is outdated, can you tell me what new information has superceded it? Its relevance is not related to how old it is. Is the White House report any less relevant now? The fact that the topic describes a minority view, then and now, doesn't mean it's outdated or not relevant. What exactly is redundant? A short section on this topic is not undue, there are dozens of RS that cover it. See the talk page, Darouet has listed many. If you would like to make a policy argument, then you need to explain specifically *how* the text violates policy. Even better, propose an edit on the talk page that improves the article. The mediation concluded to keep the topic in the article. We can debate that again or reopen mediation. But until a new consensus is formed, it would be helpful if editors that disagree with the inclusion would not be absolutist and simply delete it. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for starters, the first phrase tells, The attacks prompted some U.S. intelligence officials to speculate they were carried out by the opposition in order to draw the West into the war, a concept dismissed by others. OK. Which U.S. intelligence officials? Their names? Do these officials still believe that the attack was carried out by the opposition? Why should we write about it if this has been dismissed? Basically, whole this paragraph reads as something that has been dismissed. Why include? My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They were unnamed and we don't know what they think now. So? All unnamed intelligence sources can't be used? The article contains numerous dismissals of the false flag theory, both in this section and the other sections. But there is nothing inherently wrong about presenting multiple viewpoints in the article. Just because the majority dismisses the theory is not a reason to exclude it. It is covered in many RS and therefore deserves a mention. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some unnamed people said something four years ago when the event just had happen, i.e. prior to investigations by UN and others. Since then, the claim has been dismissed. I do not understand why you and some others want this to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

False-flag allegations are an extraordinary claim. On top of that devoting a section to it is undue given the lack of both reliable -and- credible sources backing the claim up. LylaSand (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

To expand on my post above, we worked extensively to come to a shaky agreement in mediation. The consensus we built there should be respected. Consensus can change for a variety of reasons, but that changed consensus should be documented in a form that indicates a similar level of consensus to the mediation; ie a RfC. Until (if) that new consensus is achieved, I strongly agree with Darouet that the mediation should remain in the article as the status quo. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I said from the beginning: let's keep it just to make people happy. WP:Consensus effectively overrides the reason, WP:NPOV and other policies. This is wrong, but such is life. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's most definitely not what I wrote. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I simply think this is the case when the content clearly should not be included per WP:NPOV (and clearly does not improve content), but still could be included just to save some time and make some contributors happier. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-added it since it was removed without consensus. I also changed the structure and added some text about the perpetrators according to the report from the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Re What do you mean with "newly added Hersh stuff"? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The newly added stuff that you mention immediately above, which wasn't part of the mediation consensus, contained in this diff. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was not "Hersh stuff". You also said "This warrant discussion on the talk page first.". Ok. What do you like to discuss? The structure or the text I added? Erlbaeko (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I cannot see how WP:DUE applies to this in its current form. It is currently longer than the "International reactions" section. I would suggest that the content on the Hersh article is shortened. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that section has a main article and there is a large foreign government section as well. But I could agree to shortening the second paragraph based on Hersch's first article. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 02:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * just read the False Flag allegations, its a good wrap up as it stands. When more material comes out, which it will like the WMD fake story, it wont be so surprising to read for instance it was not Syria who did it but the rebels with outside help i.e Turkey, France?, CIA? all of whom collectively who had all the motives to create a False Flag. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 23:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830104049/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/154697/syrian-opposition-claims-chemical-attack-by-assad-forces-kills-635.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/154697/syrian-opposition-claims-chemical-attack-by-assad-forces-kills-635.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914180136/http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/martyrs/1/c29ydGJ5PWEua2lsbGVkX2RhdGV8c29ydGRpcj1ERVNDfGFwcHJvdmVkPXZpc2libGV8ZXh0cmFkaXNwbGF5PTB8Y29kTXVsdGk9MTV8dGhpc0RhdGU9MjAxMy0wOC0yMXw%3D to http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/martyrs/1/c29ydGJ5PWEua2lsbGVkX2RhdGV8c29ydGRpcj1ERVNDfGFwcHJvdmVkPXZpc2libGV8ZXh0cmFkaXNwbGF5PTB8Y29kTXVsdGk9MTV8dGhpc0RhdGU9MjAxMy0wOC0yMXw%3D
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6J4aHSA9n?url=http://www.lccsyria.org/11670 to http://www.lccsyria.org/11670
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920012715/http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/arab-league-says-assad-crossed-global-red-line-with-chemical-attack to http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/arab-league-says-assad-crossed-global-red-line-with-chemical-attack
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304132604/http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/martyrs/1/c29ydGJ5PWEua2lsbGVkX2RhdGV8c29ydGRpcj1ERVNDfGFwcHJvdmVkPXZpc2libGV8ZXh0cmFkaXNwbGF5PTB8c3RhdHVzPTJ8Y29kTXVsdGk9MTV8dGhpc0RhdGU9MjAxMy0wOC0yMXw%3D to http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/martyrs/1/c29ydGJ5PWEua2lsbGVkX2RhdGV8c29ydGRpcj1ERVNDfGFwcHJvdmVkPXZpc2libGV8ZXh0cmFkaXNwbGF5PTB8c3RhdHVzPTJ8Y29kTXVsdGk9MTV8dGhpc0RhdGU9MjAxMy0wOC0yMXw%3D

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) 16:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mattis admits no evidence of Syria using sarin
Please can I get a firm consensus that the U.S. Secretary of Defence's current opinion regarding the evidence of sarin use be included from this NewsWeek article? Wilkie, Ian., Now Mattis Admits There Was No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas on His People, Newsweek, 8th February 2018 The article currently does not reflect the position of the Department of Defence very well without it. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I responded at Talk:U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 &mdash; where you also spammed this text - and the answer is no, this is not acceptable. This Newsweek piece is an op-ed (it's clearly labeled "opinion"), and is not usable for reporting news or statements of fact. (It's also, by the way, a distortion, see Eliot Higgins referring to it as "Easily Debunkable Syria Chemical Weapon Trutherism"). I'm concerned that your editing pattern (in combination with your username, etc.) indicates a single-minded focus here. Neutralitytalk 18:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't realize this was Elliot Higgin's blog. I thought it was Wikipedia. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Point being that whatever Higgin's opinion, this statement has not just made it into NewsWeek. Reuters has picked it up saying Mattis "stressed that the U.S. did not have evidence of sarin gas use." I think it should get a mention with the Reuters source as fact. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, some off-the-cuff remark to reporters (which was rather limited anyway) is not a change in U.S. policy. WP:WEIGHT. We're not going to muddy the waters here. Neutralitytalk 23:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

100% garbage
I saw this on twitter.

'Yousuf‏ @yousuf604_ Apr 27 More Wiki uses Al-Masdar as its main source and RT & Sputnik as supporting sources. Their Syria articles are 100% garbage.'

This is the sad but logical outcome of idiotic admins who are politically clueless indulging Assadist and Putinist editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.141.105 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everything you read on the internet is true. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with his sentiment. LylaSand (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thats a funny tweet, about 100% the opposite of the bias here. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 23:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pleased to be informed that Tweeter being granted as most reliable source of information.--霎起林野间 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrators
'Establishing facts surrounding chemical attacks relies on set of evidence: Incident report via witness/open source, munition typology, flight patterns, visual and olfactory sense of first/medical responders, victim symptoms, and eventually proper biomedical and chemical analysis.'

Once all that has been done, conclusions about the likeliest perpetrators were drawn by the OPCW. That should be indicated to readers in the infobox. Sellstrom called the various other theories extremely weak. Chemical analysis indicated regime stocks. OPCW says since then its obvious regime did not give up all its CW, used them again. To say all that is equal to the unsubstantiated 'theories' and predictable flat denials of Iran/Russia/regime is slanted POV, being currently pushed by a user going under the nom de guerre of 'terrorist' Great. Wikipedia in safe hands there then. To just have 'disputed' is a capitulation to the false flag conspiracists and pro Fascist regime supporters like 'terrorist' ( hiding in plain sight with that username) and is unworthy. Dan the Plumber (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Dan the Plumber, you have violated Wikipedia's 1RR policy (no more than 1 revert per 24 hours) that is in effect for all Syrian war-related articles. Violation of this policy can get you blocked. Thus, please cancel your last edit . After this, continue discussing the issue here on the article's talk page to seek consensus for such a significant change instead of engaging in an edit war. The long-established wording Disputed has been acknowledged by everyone for five years now. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Ekograf has said, you should also note that the "perpetrator" category does not quite align the information you added, which tends to suggest that the Syrian regime carried out the attack, but does not state so directly. A lot of other information could be added to this category — for instance acknowledgement by U.S. intelligence sources that the Syrian rebels had Sarin capability as well, enough so that US defense analysts were worried about US ground forces exposure to these materials in the event of a large-scale US intervention. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Darouet. The words in the report, do not 'tend to suggest', but very very forcefully suggest, something. That is precisely what is hidden in the infobox and that is not an accident at all. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not known who carried out the attacks, and many reports all have different suggestions for the perpetrators, so it is disputed. You appear to be pushing a POV for who committed the attacks, of which it is not known, and is therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 'many reports all have different suggestions for the perpetrators'. Really? RS have suggested a host of different suggestions for the perpetrators. If you say so, it must be so. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Dan the Plumer, the addition of the long section of text for perpetrators in the infobox is not compliant with Wikipedia infobox policies, which state that infobox information must be short and concise, and not contain excessive length. See Help:Infobox for advice on how to make and edit infoboxes. Additionally, I hope that you do not include information about the "facist regime" and it's supposed Wikipedia supporters, as that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Serafart, there was just the single word, 'Disputed', that I could see. Now at least there is more detail ,but it is still 'short and concise', and I prefer this to how it stood with just the word 'Disputed'. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So to conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and structure of an Infobox, the information needs to present all sides POV (not just one) and the info in the infobox needs to be short and to the point as Serfart has said. Although, indeed, you could say only leaving the word Disputed is a bit too barren. This is why I expanded the text a bit so readers can be pointed to all of the different claims made by different actors. EkoGraf (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

New section on investigations in Germany, France, and Sweden
Since this page seems to have been largely neglected in the past year, I added a section detailing important new legal developments in the national criminal justice systems of Germany, France, and Sweden; in my view, the page as it stood did a disservice to readers by failing to live up to its encyclopedic aspirations. That is why, despite the fact that this is not an area where I consider myself to have specialist technical knowledge, I made these additions; with this in mind, and since I know this issue is contentious and that nuance and precision are important - especially in legal matters - I invite feedback from other editors on the new section. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Page should be reverted to version 13:40, 24 November 2021
As of now the page is heavily editorialized and breaks multiple rules of neutrality and sourcing, I would like to revert it to a previous version of 13:40, 24 November as it doesn’t contain the editorializations and doesn’t break neutrality rules Bobisland (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, if there's something in the relatively limited changes since then that's concerning to you, let's address them specifically not mass revert 8 months back. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok then the first sentence which is editorializing, has no source and is very poorly worded, the removal of claims on perpetuators and U.N investigation which isn’t neutrality, the replacement of the attack and U.N investigation in the intro with blames of responsibility which is also editorialized and poorly worded Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The replacement for everything I listed would be what was previously in its place Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are all improvements; no we don't need to remove them. We don't generally cite content in the lead that summarizes the body, but we can add a cite for Russia and Assad blaming others if you feel that's important. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many pages cite in the lead where there is a follow-up later in the body, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for instance. Providing sources in the lead provides credit to the article for the reader, as the lead is the main focus of an article unless someone dives into the article details. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * assuming you're discussing this proposed edit? It duplicates (not references) two sources and also a footnote. I'm assuming you meant to reference them not duplicate? Why those two, and why add the duplicate footnote? No I don't think any additional cites are needed here nor do I think it will reduce vandalism to have them. VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be the only editor with this view. Bobisland, also is of the view that we should have quality citations in the lead paragraph. Can you revert your reversion until there comes a time that a different consensus is reach by the article editors? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Bobisland had a different suggestion, to roll back the article months. Suggest a new section for your idea. Rather than interjecting it into this old discussion. And no, the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus before making changes. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking me to that page, as it states, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." This page receives a large amount of challenges, so I was citing as stated by Wikipedia:Verifiability. The first sentence that includes, "carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad" especially gets challenged so could be cited as per the guidelines. Please revert the changes and feel free to improve it. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bobisland was proposing a reversion to a previous iteration of the article that primarily involves a change to the infobox - see the link I posted below. No other editor has supported this, and at least two of us, VQuakr and myself, have opposed it (possibly also Kleinpecan). So there is certainly no consensus for that reversion. KeepItGoingForward appears to be making a new proposal but has not spelled it out on this talk page or gotten support for it yet. That should be done in a new talk page section to avoid confusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC) I've created a new section below where we can gain consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For reference, here is the comparison. Lots of very minor edits that would be a major mistake to revert, some trimming of tangential stuff, only slightly significant difference is in the infobox and the lead, both of which seem improved to me. The first sentence is easily verified. Oppose this suggestion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s not neutrality and it’s disputed, it was investigated by the U.N which concluded it most likely used Syrian chemical stockpiles but didn’t conclude it was carried out by the Syrian government while the Syrian government and Russia accused rebels of committing the attack, stating accusations as facts breaks neutrality editing rules on Wikipedia Bobisland (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus among reliable sources is overwhelming. The dissenting views are already reported here under Reactions, but they are basically fringe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The Syrian and Russian government aren’t fringe and are key figures in the incident, the reliability is accusations by opposing countries, the U.N already did a investigation which didn’t conclude Syria committed the attack, saying these sources are fringe is bias Bobisland (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on independent sources, not on the claims of the article's subject(s). And yes, Wikipedia is biased. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was implying biased to the point where the page is being disrupted due to its political nature and that doesn’t excuse removing key figure statements using 3rd party sources Bobisland (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We give the Russian and Syrian government positions in the article already. Which "key figure statements using 3rd party sources" have been removed that you want to go back in? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All the ones that were previously in the info box Bobisland (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But no refs or claims have been removed in the edits you're talking about. Rather, three refs have been added to the infobox. You're going to need to spell out what you want, otherwise this is both pointless and confusing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The info box in perpetrators, each accusation was listed with its source but then someone removed them all over time excluding the Syrian government that’s what I’m referring to WP:CONFLICTING Bobisland (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It didn't in the version you're requesting we restore. WP:CONFLICTING is an essay not policy. We don't use infoboxes to give equal weight to fringe views as mainstream views. The Russian and regime claims are reported in the article body. I'll stop here unless your request gets support from other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes that’s the version I want to restore in the perpetrators tab and it’s not “regime” it’s the Syrian government and the key perpetrators and U.N aren’t fringe Bobisland (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We say government not regime in the article (outside of direct quotes). Or are you complaining about calling the Syrian regime a regime on the article talk page? If so, stop. I agree with BobFromBrockley that rolling this back would not be an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article already calls the Syrian government the regime outside of quotes along with other bias wordings and I’m not looking to argue only reach consensus which isn’t happening Bobisland (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Current version. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attack was committed by the Syrian regime and called on Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, "to apply all pressure within his powers to pressure the Syrian regime." The last quote also doesn’t exist in its source regardless I wasn’t trying to dispute any of this only the edit that removed all the links in the infobox Bobisland (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an indirect quote; it's not in Wikivoice. Good catch on the referencing error; I added a cite directly after the direct quote. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)