Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack/Archive 1

Deleting government claim of missile factory strike
I don't know how this 1RR crap works for reverting IPs, but one has twice deleted a government claim from the government claims section. If we're just deleting stuff that doesn't fit the fuck Assad theme, that hardly seems fair, but I'm not getting blocked for this. If someone else finds it useful for a wider picture, maybe restore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's back, before I even complained. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The f'uck, this is the worst source ever, they are paid to lie for the sadist Assad regime--2A02:8108:1900:3E24:C0C7:E9CB:C4BC:595A (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And others are paid to lie against the sadist Assad regime. That's war for you. If readers don't trust the source, they don't have to believe the story. But it seems useful to have someone saying something (somewhat) specific about why the town was hit, where and by what. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you've deleted a third time, against two editors. I suppose as an IP, our one revert rules are powerless to stop you. Must be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1RR only applies to reverting registered users' edits. Revert to your heart's content (well, not quite, but you know). ansh 666 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarin Gas attack in Hama Gov. 11 Dec. 2016
No mention of the suspected Sarin attack in Hama from December. This took place in vicinity of town of Uqayribat in Eastern Hama Governorate.

Guardian reports 93 dead.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria

Notable for its high death toll and the suspicion that it was not another chlorine attack, but a nerve agent. Perhaps the first major nerve gas attack since 2013, with the 2017 one being the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That incident should have it's own article, and it should be referenced here: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war Please consider creating an account and editing! MeropeRiddle (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Whose territory is it?
The infobox mentions the location of the incident as "Ahrar al-Sham-controlled territories". However, the lede itself describes the town as being part of the rival Tahrir al-Sham. The two groups are rivals and have clashed woth each other often. If HTS controls the town, then it doesn't make sense as to why it is called Ahrar al-Sham territory. A source used here says Ahrar al Sham is the main group in the town but it is a Twitter source, if what it says is true then it cannot be said to be "Ahrar al-Sham controlled" as there are other groups controlling parts as well. I wonder if it fulfills WP:SPS. We cannot use it if its unreliable and there are other reliable sources contradicting it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Idlib Governorate clashes (2017) and the cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War Khan Shaykhun is currently controlled by Tahrir al-Sham. I am not sure how reliable of a source "Charles Lister" is. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Lister" doesn't pass Wikipedia's reliability guidelines - it is a self-published source.GreyShark (dibra) 11:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

US and the UK
Its not just trump and johnson. The US state department, congress, and defense department all share the view. As does Theresa May. Please change it to say "The United States and United Kingdom placed.." 68.199.221.23 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator
Re, what do you mean with "it is known". Do you seriously believe that five days after the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the United States' policy on Syria is no longer focused on making president, Bashar al-Assad to leave power,ref he go on an order the deadliest chemical attack since the Ghouta attack in 2013? Do you realy think he is that stupid? Come on. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about what Assad thinks or his level of intelligence. Neither do you. See WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He is smart enough to be a doctor. Anyway, no independent investigation has taken place, and no credible journalist has been at the site. So the perpetrator is still unknown, and that is what the info box should state. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag question
Can someone with far more experience at writing current event articles please fix this? Neutrality of POV would be nice.

my story; my source code; my life in strings of text 23:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney Stencil (talk • contribs)

The Guardian
The guardian went into detail on the unlikeliness of the regime's claim. Please add the following:


 * Finally, the Syrian manufacturing process for sarin involves creating and storing two key components, both far more stable than the nerve agent itself. They are mixed to create sarin hours – or at most days – before it is used, said Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and former officer in the US Army’s chemical corps.

So an airstrike on a storage facility would be unlikely to release sarin itself. And because one of the two components is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol, or rubbing alcohol, you would expect a fireball, which has not been observed.|

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun

68.199.221.23 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Military engagement
Please make a new article for the military response, keep the summary of the military response short and sweet here. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2017 Shayrat strike
 * If the military response is limited to the single cruise missile attack against a Syrian military airfield, then it hardly warrants an article of its own. -- ToE 02:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I thought it would be wider. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That "single missile attack" involved at least 59 warheads - many of which were no doubt cannister bombs that unleashed hundreds of grenade-sized bomblets that more effectively close down military aircraft runways. This story is just beginning and will be a big news topic internationally for days to come - an article is justified.104.169.28.48 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Tomahawk missiles don't work that way. But inasmuch as this is Trump's second military raid, I concur that it is notable. kencf0618 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

timing of gas attack
Questions for editors who have had the time to sift through all the reports

Timing of Khan Shaykhun air attack

_ some sources 7:00am eest local time

_ Russian sources 11:30am-12:30pm eest local time

Or were there two air attacks reported, a dawn attack and a noon attack? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hard to separate fact from fiction, but:
 * the head of Idlib's health authority, Mounzer Khalil, said "this morning, at 6:30 a.m., warplanes targeted Khan Sheikhoun with gases, believed to be sarin and chlorine", ref.
 * An activist, Samer al-Hussein, said "We woke up, as usual, to the sounds of warplanes that barely ever leave the skies of Idlib province." and that he got word from fellow opposition activists that new strikes had targeted a nearby town, Khan Shaykhun. Ref.
 * The Russian Defence Ministry said “According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions.", ref.
 * So, the strike on the ammunition depot might be compleatly unrelated to the sarin attack. If no objective monitoring data shows flights over the area in the early morning, the rebels are simply lying about it. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of explosion for dispersion
I removed the content "(however, in oppose, explosive dissemination in one of nerve agent deployment method)" as it was unsourced. However, it was re-added by Mykhal, saying "probably wikilinked content should be removed then". I suggest that we remove this - it is the definition of WP:OR. If explosive dissemination is not mentioned in relation to Khan Shaykhun, then it should not be in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read e.g. ("... Two U.S. soldiers were exposed to small amounts of sarin in Iraq in May 2004 when an artillery shell containing the nerve agent, rigged as an IED, exploded.") and use it as a reference. —Mykhal (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

To add to article
Can the type of plane (Sukhoi Su-17) the bombs were dropped from be added to the article? Also, do any rebel groups in Syria own or use such planes, or only the Syrian military? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can, if you have a source for that . Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NewSniffer as a reliable source
Some content in the "Syrian government claims" section is sourced to NewsSniffer, i.e. content is sourced from what NewsSniffer claims is an old version of a BBC article. Is NewsSniffer a reliable source, and is it standard policy to use old versions of articles in this way? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The source being cited is the BBC, NewsSniffer is used as an archive link. This is somewhat non-standard; Wikipedia suggests using either the Internet Archive or WebCite for creating an archive link. Augurar (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"current" tag
See WP:WTRMT, #5, this is still a current event with breaking news. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * i agree with this. there was no proper investigation yet from the side of the UN or another group not involved in the war, also the follow-up of the attacks are not yet completely clear (e.g. if there will be NATO ground troops in Syria. Thus I am convinced we should make clear that this is a current event and that we still dont know all that happened in Khan Shaykhun. User:Nirmaz(PS: sorry if i didnt get the layout for talk pages right i am a relatively new user) 20:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The current tag is not a maintenance tag, used only while an article is heavily edited. WWGB (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"this time"
"On 8 April, the town was attacked again by unknown aircraft, this time using conventional bombs, with one death resulting." This sentence assumes that the original chemical attack was delivered by an aircraft borne chemical weapon full of sarin. It made a big crater with explosion marks, virtually eliminating that possibility. I don't think we should make assumptive statements like this without any evidence. RaRaRasputin (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag edits
Hello, Yihman1, The Wicked Twisted Road, Scientific Alan 2, Editor abcdef, and Cyrus the Penner. Can we please discuss on the talk page or have some consensus on whether or not to include accusations of a false flag rather than having a whole editing war back-and-forth? Also, I believe WP:3RR was violated so I'm not sure how to proceed with that. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is actually under WP:1RR. Now that knows that, I don't expect any more multiple reverts from them. --Neil N  talk to me 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We definitely DO NOT include this unless the topic has been covered consistently and repeatedly by multiple reliable sources. The two sources was providing both seemed unreliable. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Seemed unreliable". Could you please be more specific. Why did they seem unreliable? Roberttherambler (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * False flag rubbish should obviously be kept off this article (WP:UNDUE). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Think that a false flag opinion can be included in somekind of reaction section, if there's a reliable source(s) and reliable/notable opinion(s), but for now I do not see anyhow the possibility of a separate section about the false flag claims. The chemical attack was fairly recent and there's not enough reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable evidence either that it was, or was not, a false flag attack. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right. However, this page claims the "false flag" theory prominently, even in the lead. Look at the 4th paragraph in the lead: "However, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem later explained that "the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support."[13]". Please fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Syrian governments view must be explained, My very best wishes. It's a requirement according to the Neutral point of view policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Noticing the claim by Syrian government ("we did not do it") in the lead is fine. I am saying that the text in lead is not a proper summary of corresponding section Syrian_government_claims and it gives improper weight to conspiracy theory in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy says we should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, so it have to be included. However, I agree that it was not a proper summary of the Syrian government claims section. I fixed that. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Reorganize the "Responsibility" section
I think that the title of the "Responsibility" section doesn't accurately describe its contents. Although the rebels are clearly identifying a specific group of people as having responsibility for an intensional release of the chemicals (i.e. the Syrian government), the Syrian government is NOT claiming that the rebels are responsible for an intensional release of the chemicals. All parties agree that the chemicals were, in one way or another, a consequence of the bombing (i.e. either chemicals dropped by the government or else the result of a conventional explosion releasing chemicals that were already on the ground). This is an important distinction that I think (a) is not clearly identified in the "Responsibility" section (b) is not accurately reflected by the title "Responsibility."

So I propose that we form two separate sections: "Attributions of responsibility" and "Competing accounts of the chemical release". (Now although this title is a little long, it's still shorter than the title "Supranational and non-governmental organizations" that's currently in the article. Maybe we could shorten it to "Accounts of the chemical release"?) The two section would then describe the following: I also think that these are sections that can be easily expanded now and probably also in the future. Your opinion?selfworm Talk ) 20:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Competing accounts of the chemical release" would have couple of sentence briefly describe the two main completing claims.
 * This will have two subsections: "Syrian opposition account" and "Syrian government account", which will present each side's claims, supporting evidence, and counter claims.
 * The "Attributions of responsibility" section will go into detail about all claims of responsibility (and corresponding rejections) by all important groups, which includes: the Syrian rebels, the Syrian government, the U.S. government (which also holds Russia responsible), and then one section for all other governments, individuals, and organizations that make attributions of responsibility.

I think the section is fine as it is. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this may need some changes per recent publications to reflect more assertively that it has been in fact committed by Assad government, but certainly not in the way suggested by selfworm. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright thenselfworm Talk ) 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As it is related to the section, User:El C you removed sourced information relevant to the section, basically substantiating it by WP:OWN policy. I partially agree with Selfworm's proposal, and note that information and status of the investigation is really important to be mentioned, and should not be ignored. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't own a page I never edited before. No nationalism, please. El_C 08:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nationalism has nothing to do with my comment neither I mentioned it. Please comment on content change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have violated 1RR. Please self-revert. No, never mind, that's a different user.El_C 08:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

-
 * We're really gonna go with unknown, that's the consensus? El_C 08:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "The perpetrators who are responsible for [sic] attack are unknown."


 * Everyone is fine with that? El_C 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, just to get it out of the way, I do think that it was the Syrian government, but I'm not here to write the article from my POV (remember NPOV) since I recognize that I may be wrong because I wasn't there and the only thing that I have to go off are the statements of others. The fact of the matter is that although there are a lot of claims being made, there is no "smoking gun" evidence that the Syrian government is to blame while at the same time there are people (like Jerry Smith from the the politically neutral Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) who say that Assad's defense can not be discounted. In addition, since this is English Wikipedia, the overwhelming majority writers hail from countries (a) whose governments want to overthrow the Syrian government, and (b) whose populations largely oppose Assad. At the same time, these writers will get most of their information from English language news outlets which again, overwhelmingly oppose Assad and want to see the the Syrian government overthrown. This represents Systemic bias, Systemic bias, and Systemic bias.The point is that it is extremely likely that this article will develop into an article that (even with all statements having proper citations) (1) takes the position that there is WORLD-WIDE consensus that the Syrian government is to blame (where although this consensus only exists in the Western world it is clearly not world-wide,), resulting in giving readers an incorrect impression and pushing a non-NPOV, and (2) minimizes the non-Western viewpoint by simultaneously:  (a) dismissing all sources from Syrian/Russian/Iranian news as Non-Reliable to suppress a major party's viewpoint, while simultaneously(b) using Citation overkill with Western sources to conclude that a consensus exists against the Syrian government (when in reality this would just show that such a consensus exists in the Western world).Remember that "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and that importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."The original reasons for my proposal was to try to give the article a NPOV, as well as to make more clear to the reader which statements are uncontested, which are contested, the origin of contested statements, and any likely bias that a source may have. So at least for now, I support having the perpetrators be "unknown" or possibly "accident caused by conventional bombing by Syrian government or a chemical attack by the Syrian government (contested)". <font color="#FBB117">selfworm <font color="#FDD017">Talk ) 19:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Images of alleged munition
Should there not be some images of the alleged crater and the empty munitions as per the Guardian article?Engineman (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * we can't have the actual images unless they have been released under a WP-compliant free license. Of which article do you speak? VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The ones in the Guardian? Engineman (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to Ghouta-Mintpress theory
The Syrian gov't narrative seems markedly similar to the Mintpress story floated after the 2013 Ghouta sarin attack. Has anyone seen any RS comparison of the two narratives? VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not the narrative. Se the Timing section above. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Blowing up sarin destroys it
How do they put it in rockets then? I find this statement axiomatically incorrect and think it should be removed. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need rockets to drop chemical weapons, and even if you used rockets they don't have to contain explosives.68.199.221.23 (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sarin is combustible. If bombs were dropped as claimed, then ideologically the sarin will be burnt up. That's what the statement refers to. Regardless, we don't use our own interpretation on what to add or remove. All sides must be presented if they are notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The sarin attack was in the early morning, while the attack on the ammunition depot took place between 11:30 and 12:30. Doctors Without Borders said victims of the attack were exposed to at least two different chemical agents, and suggested that some had been exposed to chlorine, so it is possible that the strike on the ammunition depot hit the rebels chlorine stockpile (that they stole from SYSACCO). Erlbaeko (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Erlbaeko but I still think it is a dumb comment. If it must remain, we should at least balance it with independent suspicions that the rebels did it. . RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There's more to blowing stuff up than setting it on fire. A big part of any explosion is the blast wave, which does the titular blowing. Fire mostly sucks. Without knowing more about what exploded where, it's hard to say whether any hypothetical stuff is likely to burn up or spread out. Hard to know so, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here the Guardian shows the blast hole left from the obviously explosive warhead that some claim was "laced with chemicals" or some such rubbish. They even put a biochemical warning label on the large blast crater left in the road. There's no evidence of any shell casings or physical proof that should be easily retrievable, if people are putting signs on it. What it does show is that the alleged chemical rocket did "blow up" a substantial amount of concrete and in the (frankly incredible) suggestion that the chemicals were in the warhead, this explosion did not destroy them as the General claims. Any reasonable person seeing that blast crater must surely push for the removal of this comment as completely unreliable and really, I have to say it again, a dumb thing to have on an intelligent encyclopedia. Firing warheads at chemical weapons could do who knows what to them from mild leaking damage to destruction, where still the gas would go somewhere. Unless we want to lead people to believe that gasses can just blink out of existence by will of God. RaRaRasputin (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Burning sarin destroys it. The thing about high explosives is that they don't produce much in the way of flames, whatever Hollywood thinks. Chemical shells, bombs and rockets have an HE burster charge to disperse the weapon. That said, the casualties from this attack seem far too low for it to have been caused by military weapons.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United States government claims
We need "United States government claims" sub-section. They are the main source for the narrative that it was an attack by Assad, yet we don't have a sub-section which mentions on what evidence and reasoning they claim it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 10:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you find any quote or consideration by Niki Haley from the UN Security Council? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 10:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we do not need such subsection in the section "responsibility" because USA is not an alleged perpetrator of the chemical attack. Only sides which were claimed in a number of RS to be involved in the attack and denied the involvement should be included. I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I could agree with such a reasoning.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's problematic to list the US as just another reaction among many uninvolved—but it was also problematic listing them under responsibility. I think they need their own section under US response  (changed to US reaction). So, I have done this. El_C 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, we need a separate own section for US because there was a military response by US - I agree with your changes. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now it's back again. I may not have a revert left for a few more hours (though I don't think undoing and restoring a cleaner version counts—but why risk it?), so I leave the article in a sorry state, instead, but have added the npov-section tag due to WP:DUE. I'm thinking we may need a hidden note, for once it is removed, so that US claims doesn't keep getting re-added to Responsibility. Obviously, whomever did this has failed to read this discussion. El_C 10:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. Moreover, no one objected to your change on the talk page. I restored it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Reactions excessive quote tag
Unless there are objections, I'll be removing the tag. I don't even think it is quoting excessively for such a section, not anymore, barring one or two exceptions. El_C 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Timing
As it currently reads, it appears that the Syrian gov't narrative is that the sarin gassing (with patients in hospitals at ~0500 EEST) was caused by a Russian airstrike accidentally hitting a terrorist gas cache roughly 7 hours later? If this is the case, I would imagine there is ample sourcing for some skeptical analysis by 3rd party sources. If this is not the case, we should fix the phrasing in the article. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is not the case. As discussed above (see the end of the Npov section), the Russian/Syrian claim is not that the attack was caused by a Syrian airstrike that hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”, as theGuardian claim. "The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, so the Syrian/Russian narrative (SRN) is that a false flag attack occurred that morning, and the Russian airstrike later in the day was coincidental? If my personal confusion on the issue is now resolved, what is the best way to update the article with RS content that communicates the SRN? VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually believe the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) is the best source for the official Syrian view(f.ex. this article), while Sputnik, RT or TASS are good sources for the official Russian view, like the BBC, theGuardian or The Telegraph are good sources for the official British view. I know some editors don't like to use Syrian and/or Russian news sites, but the reliability of a source depends on context, and at least in that context they are RS. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another question: when did the SRN change to false flag? Initially it was "we hit a warehouse", no? VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the "ups, we hit a warehouse" narrative was created by theGuardian and CNN. BBC was kind enough to include a link (in the "What does the Syrian government say?" section) to a translation of the original statement. The Russian Defence Ministry simply said "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town.", and that "On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions." Does this mean that the strike caused the chemical attac? No. It means the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large ammunition depot in the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun between 11:30 and 12:30. It could be coincidental, it could be a response to the chemical attack or it could be for some other reasons. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But if the attack took place around 06:30 local time on April 4, before most children and parents had left for school or work, as the rebels narrative says. How do we explain this? It's posted 13:18 on April 3 (twitter time). I believe that is 00:18 on April 4 local Syrian time. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the "ups, we hit a warehouse" narrative was created by theGuardian and CNN. Source? VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

non-English sources - this is the English Wiki -
- remember, non-English sources are to be used ONLY if they provide information otherwise not available in English. This is a very, very widely covered topic and there is no shortage of English sources. I will remove the Arabic source from the multi-source string for a paragraph in the article. Note, this is not to be seen as anything against other languages - Wiki guidelines are somewhat strict on this for verifiability purposes by anyone who reads English, which the the en.Wiki is geared towards. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not true, per WP:NOENG. While we may not prefer non-English-language sources, they are by no means restricted or banned. ansh 666 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was banned, but there are restrictions - read the guideline - non-English sources are to be used when they provide information not otherwise available in English sources. If it is covered in an English Reliable Source, English is to be used.
 * I see, this is why the statement by the UAE was removed. If you want to read the reference, download chrome and use the automatic translator. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
Currently the Lead section does not inlcude the Syrian governments view in any way, since Volunteer Marek removed it here, with his personal analysis in the edit summary. I believe we, according to the Neutral point of view policy also should explain that side. Should we include the Syrian governments view that, "the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support.", in the lead? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-added a shorter version.. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By your edit (and the following) the current paragraph is not concise and contradicts the WP:LEAD policy, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". I advise to include the information somewhere in the article ("claims" section), revert the lead to previous revision, and add to the lead a remark that Syrian government denied any involvement.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit is covered in "the remainder of the article". See the Syrian government claims section. The addition made by "Dan the Plumber" is not. That should be fixed. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Think both edits are not represented concisely in the lead. You should add a wikilink to false flag.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will, but I have to wait for 24 hours to pass, since I technically reverted Volunteer Mareks revert when I re-added that statement. The "one revert per twenty-four hours restriction" is the most important rule of all, you know. I guess you know that by know... ;) Erlbaeko (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * with your edit you removed the part by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, did not cite any reference for Assad's denial, while you left the part by a journalist Kareem Shaheen (edited by Dan the Plumber), discussed here, who is not mentioned in the article nor there's a reference for him nor it deserves to be mentioned in the lead.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead does not need any sourcing. This is just a summary of the text provided in the body of page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead section states "On 8 April, the town was attacked again by government forces, resulting in one death" which seems off topic. How is this attack specifically related to the gas attack, the primary subject of this article?Axium Cog (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not. Removed it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, the Kareem Shaheen article is referred to in a later section. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I too don't find Shaheen's visit to the warehouse DUE in the lead. It's best to start an RfC to highlight each issue here separately. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * at the time of my reply it was not referred in the section. It was edited by you a day later.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed
Can we substitute "Disputed" for "Unknown" in the infobox? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. (Is it disputed?) El_C 10:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you can explain how a Syrian Air Force fixed-wing aircraft that took off from Shayrat airbase in Homs province on Tuesday morning and fly over Khan Sheikhoun on two occasions at 06:37 and 06:46 local time caused "More than 20 suffocation cases among civilians, mostly children and women," before 00:18 on April 4, yes, then it's disputed. See the Timing section above. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but we need reliable sources to discuss the timing, or your disputed is original research. El_C 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Erlbaeko This contribution, and your contribution here, would appear to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Unless you are referring to sources which make identical claims (which you are not citing), you are wasting your time by leaving these comments here - we can do precisely nothing with them. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". Erlbaeko (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But you are asking us to consider it for the article: that's what at issue (disputed vs. unknown). El_C 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hence I said: "Unless you are referring to sources which make identical claims (which you are not citing), you are wasting your time by leaving these comments here - we can do precisely nothing with them."
 * You are welcome to share your unsourced reflections here, I suppose, but you will be wasting your time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me worry about my time. Thanks, Erlbaeko (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you have also misinterpreted that line in WP:OR. You are obviously not expected to reference your personal evaluations about content, layout, and sources. You couldn't ask me to withdraw my comments about Sputnik not being WP:RS on the basis of it being WP:OR, for instance. You may also like to read this: WP:FORUM. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also about our time, when you use it as grounds to edit the article in a certain way, is the point. El_C 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Russian and Assad governments only denied using chemical weapons, but they did not deny the air strike. Hence, there is no question who conducted the strike. I fixed it in the infobox accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As per my new source from Theodore Postol in the attack section, you will see the fact that the chemical "strike" was carried out from the air is disputed, so I am going to fix it in the infobox accordingly - unless we can agree Turkish Intelligence did it, which I somehow doubt at this time? ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where this report by Theodore Postol was published? Was it published in WP:RS? This looks to me as a self-published material at best. Whole paragraph should be therefore removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Disputed by what source? Cite your reliable sources right next to the word disputed, please. El_C 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess this is WP:OR of the worst kind by RaRaRasputin on the basis of "sources" like that. Things like that should be reverted on spot and user warned. My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider Postol, even when self-published to be reliable as an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, perfectly in line with reliable sources. RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, it is self-published!. Another user just inserted a duplicate of this claim sourced to RT (TV network). No, this is not a good source for the claim. My very best wishes (talk)
 * RT-cited content is problematic, but this is an expert who is, himself, a reliable source...Maybe mention him under Russian claims, due to the RT source? Although it is an independent analysis, so I can see that point, as well. El_C 20:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can moan about it but it's still acceptable under international law, or whatever you call it. He's American so you can't put it under Russian claims. It'll be widely reported soon but only came out last night. It's still imperative to publicize it widely as soon as possible before another stupid, staged attack to avoid World War 3 and all that. I think it's best left where it is. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just relax. Maybe you need a break from this article. El_C 21:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I think my work here is done. Have nice holidays. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. El_C 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * MIT professor Theodore Postol is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable sources. He has even been cited in a resent Deutsche Welle-article about this attack. I think we should include his view. Happy Easter. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever has been published elsewhere on other issues doesn't matter - what matters is whether a Reliable Source has taken up his ... fringe ... theory and put it forward. RT is hardly a neutral, reliable source. He also has not been on-site, so he's just being an armchair analyst.  "It is conceivable, as one of his colleagues has suggested, that Theodore Postol could be more effective “if he did not eventually accuse just about everybody of fraud or malfeasance or stupidity” - to quote one of his colleagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk)
 * That same article also states that: Postol's technical analysis of missile defense is "the best work that anybody has done outside the bowels of the Pentagon," says former assistant secretary of defense Philip Coyle. [|El_C] 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Re No, I did not, but you did. Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction <U>when reverting logged-in users.</U> I am logged in, you are not. Please, self-revert or I may have you blocked. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Made a copyedit which makes clear that it's reported by RT but allows readers to come to their own conclusions about that. Hopefully it's satisfactory. ansh 666 23:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also reported by theNation. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like "engineers for 9/11 truth", but go ahead and cite the Nation (the only RS that appears to cite him in this context) for now to establish notability. RT won't cut it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah, Al Qaeda weren't ...fringe... bad guys back then requiring true engineers to point at them! Highly notable journalist Robert Parry has also reported it now here, if this is okay to use and a better source than RT? RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Still not RS. Still conspiracy crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Request semi-protection?
In the light of recent POV-pushing by IPs reverted here and here? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're quite at that stage yet. Especially, since it's still on the Main page. El_C 11:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV-section on US reaction
Where is the discussion for that? El_C 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added by My very best wishes—was it by accident? I 'm the one who added it to US claims because I felt it was undue weight for the Responsibility section. I think it can be removed without incident, and not counting as a revert. Unless you do feel that there are neutrality problems with that section now. El_C 21:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of the tag - why is the section not neutral?104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * pinging you to this. El_C 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to vast majority of sources (including even the official claims by Russia and Syria), the bombing raid was conducted by the Syrian aviation. This is not "according to US". Syria denies only using chemical weapons, but not the raid itself, if I understand correctly. Even so, Syria did use chemical weapons according to "majority view". I am not sure how this should be fixed in infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you propose? You can't tag the section with without having an idea of what to do. El_C 04:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree: there is no reason for NPOV tag in the section. Also, according to intercepted communications, chemical attack was prepared by Assad in advance . I would suggest to clearly mark in the infobox "Executed by" Assad government if you do not mind. This is almost a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The NPOV tag must be removed because no argument was presented. Also, I am warning editors once again that such comments like by My very best wishes above (including e.g. ) and edits (becuase of which are removed or not supported RS and sentences which are neutral) is an evidence that it is pushed WP:IMPARTIAL violation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to you. There's not much weight to your warning, I'm afraid. El_C 23:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will only say that these days was made enough material for a serious collective warning. Personal opinion must not interfere in the editing. Back to topic - the tag was removed per point 6. of WP:WTRMT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I fixed it per discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * [E]nough material for a serious collective warning—Serious how? What does that even mean? El_C 09:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Serious to the point it is deliberately pushed violation of IMPARTIAL. Throughout the main page editing history, talk page discussion history, were made edits and statements which lack neutrality, substantiation and indicate partial attitude. At the moment it is not critical, however, we need to be aware of that and act when required.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Npov section
"The perpetrators who are responsible for [sic] attack are unknown." I dispute the neutrality of that edit. Reliable sources are clear that it was the Assad regime who was behind the attack. El_C 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are clear there exist a dispute on responsibility and the investigation on the chemical attack is ongoing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute that it should be phrased as "the perpetrators who are responsible for [sic] attack are unknown"—the perpetrators are known. They are the Assad regime: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html El_C 09:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, what you're saying is against WP:NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute the neutrality (due weight) of your addition. We have to follow what the mainstream of reliable sources say at this time. Widely attributed to Assad should be the first thing mentioned under Responsibility for the attack, not the second thing. El_C 09:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The addition is neutral and objective, and is primary (like with 2013 chemical attacks) - perpetrators are not known and disputed as the investigation is ongoing. What you're saying belongs to secondary claims or consideration category for which even exist sub-sections. We can not push an one-sided subjective narrative and degrade the factual status of the perpetrators.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The passage should switch the sentence order in the interest of due weight—what is widely considered should be the first thing mentioned. El_C 10:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It can not because it is not factual - the due weight is given as widely attributed consideration (mainly by US) is mentioned first in the second sentence, compared to Syrian or Russian consideration, which is specifically about the claims for responsibility.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's factual is whatever represents the consensus in the reliable sources. As for consensus here, what do everyone else think? El_C 11:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I note you once again, there's no consensus in the reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whereas I note that that is your interpretation—another is that it is widely believed the Assad regime was behind the attack. El_C 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing and accusing other editors for interpretation whereas you're doing it. Widely believed claims, mainly by US, do not represent the consensus. Factually there's no consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm doing it. We each have our interpretation of what the consensus among reliable sources is. It's not an accusation nor is anything "pushed"—it's a statement of fact. At this point, I'd like to hear from someone, anyone else. El_C 11:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS as it is not a fact. We, editors, should not and can not twist things as we please. Think a WP:THIRD opinion (please request it) could help the current dispute.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying. No need for third opinion, there's enough editors watching this article. Just be patient. El_C 12:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE applies. British and American intelligence believe the attack was carried out by the Syrian government - this having been widely reported. Munitions experts have dismissed the Russian claim that a government airstrike hit a warehouse storing chemical weapons. We should attribute the attack to the Syrian government. The Russian and Syrian governments previously denied that Syria possessed chemical weapons right up until the moment they agreed to surrender them in September 2013. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, British and American believe&claim one thing, Syrian and Russian believe&claim another thing, sources show there's no consensus on the dispute, investigation is ongoing, thus to partially attribute the attack to the Syrian government, on personal opinion and SYNTHESIS, would be a violation of Wikipedian policy. Actually, the reply was not that relevant to the specific issue discussed above.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, when I checked the sources, there are no munition experts and it is an opinion, basically - if anything else, the UNDUE applies to this.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an overwhelming consensus in the Western press, and British and American intelligence believe that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government. Your repeated references to an "investigation" are a red herring. If there is a UN inquiry, its findings will have to be accepted by the Security Council, which means it won't attribute the attack to any party. Giving WP:UNDUE credence to the Syrian and Russian position would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Only overwhelming consensus in the Western press is that US&allies "claims" it was carried by the Syrian government. If such fallacious criteria and interpretation of NPOV is considered, we will be violating WP:ASSERT as we must "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Also see, "responsibility for the chemical event in Khan Sheikhoun is still very much in question".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed this section a little. It is definitely the case that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government, meaning this is an "majority view" - agree with L.R. Wormwood. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By fixing is not meant removal of a reliable source which more than well explains that the responsibility is still in question. Stop considering and portraying an opinion as a fact, as it does not mean it is a "majority view". You're playing around with Wikipedian editing principles--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is certainly in question to some degree, meaning that investigation is needed. However, you put as the first phrase the following: "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack". No, this is not main idea of the paragraph. The "majority view" is that the attack was committed by Assad regime. The majority view should go first. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Western media sources have, in many cases, adopted positions on this issue. I believe you have also misinterpreted WP:ASSERT; if something is widely reported, even if it remains disputed, it could not be considered "stating opinion as fact". It would appear you will only accept attributing responsibility here if the Russian and Syria governments concede that the Syrian government carried out the attack. I would therefore suggest that you have not offered a valid set of criteria for closing this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I no longer dispute due weight in that section, now that "widely attributed to the Syrian government" has become the opening sentence. El_C 20:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The words "British" and "American" should be firmly attached to any claim that Assad carried out the attack. Most of the European countries in their responses are very ambiguous about who actually carried out the attack and don't claim one way or the other. I don't think we can even say "Western media sources", since they simply report that the British and the Americans are making the claim. Miki Filigranski is essentially correct there, as far as I can tell. Other than active combatants like Turkey and Qatar who are funding the Islamist opposition, which countries categorically state that Assad for sure carried out the attack? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, by this edit (with invalid substantiation) was removed neutral and realibly sourced factual sentence "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack", and caused cite error only to be fixed by a Bot. If this sentence is excluded, if is mentioned that the attack is "widely attributed to the Syrian government", which is factually wrong as nor it is widely attributed nor US sided claims makes a majority viewpoint nor such a consideration is mentioned or can be concluded from the cited source (32; ) nor the sentence is supported by multiple sources - on the article is ideologically pushed a one-sided narrative and violated neutrality. I propose to revert the first sentence and place it in the beginning of the section, while remove the second sentence as it is not supported by the source (among other issues) as well in the same section is a whole paragraph dedicated to the US claims. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the section is about as good as it's gonna get—in terms of reliable sources and due weight. El_C 23:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If principles are checked, what you're arguing is violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS because there is no "wide attribution", violation of WP:VERIFY because such a claim can not be verified in the source (32), violation of WP:UNDUE (on which you're substantiating current section revision) because the viewpoint is not in the majority since it is not provided a single reliable source nor multiple sources which mention and support such a claim, violation of WP:IMPARTIAL as it is endorsing and rejecting a particular point of view, violation of WP:YESPOV as an opinion i.e. claim by US is stated as a fact.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with El_C and L.R. Wormwood. Most RS say that Bashar al-Assad's regime was most certainly behind the chemical attack. Speaking about official positions by governments, well this is not what really counts per WP:NPOV, but US, European Union, and Australia tell the same in their official statements. I do not see what's the problem.My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What "most RS"? This "most RS" are not cited nor support the sentence. Where are these "most RS" in the article? What you argue is your personal opinion and generalization, and as such is null. What El_C, L.R. Wormwood, My very best wishes, consider is violation of WP:GAMETYPE, "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community", and of WP:STONEWALL because effectively preventing a policy-based resolution, i.e. WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This activity lasted for too long and started to be disruptive and time wasting, indicating we should seek some dispute resolution i.e. sanctions to be imposed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some extraordinary accusations and (mistaken) policy-linking here. No dispute resolution will be necessary, you are the only person who objects. Given how the section reads now, your suggestion that it is OR or improper synthesis is false. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Miki argue it would be NPOV-consistent to summarize that The perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown as it was in their edit, meaning whoever might be responsible? I am sorry, but that is not what RS on the subject say. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it - I am going to seek resolution and sanctions. First editor, L.R. Wormwood, falsely stated that I was the only who objected as ignored Claíomh Solais, as well failed to acknowledge multiple violation of policy. Second editor, My very best wishes, obviously does not follow the discussion as ignored that the sentence "The perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown" is not discussed and proposed anymore as it was replaced by "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack", and also failed to acknowledge multiple violation of policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no violations of policy by anyone except you (hence your block). No one "falsely stated" anything. Please stop accusing other contributors of something they did not do. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, the three (four, if you count Volunteer Marek) of us seem to think that the section is about as good as it's gonna gets at this point in time—and we are entitled to that opinion and to hold that position, as you much as you are entitled to challenge it. But going on to accuse us of gaming the system is an escalation of the dispute beyond the content in question, and to that I and —if I may be bold enough to speak for my two colleagues— we collectively object. El_C 04:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider these remarks once again as false and invalid substantiation. Yes, you're entitled to hold your position, but because such a position is contradicting editing principles it is losing any credibility for consideration. As the talk page scope is the content change,I propose changing:

to
 * [The attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government. Syria denied any involvement, Russia claimed that the deaths were a result of gas released when a government airstrike hit a rebel-operated chemical weapons factory. The UN Security Council session unanimously declared the need for an investigation of the chemical attack. According to OPCW, its investigation into the attack is ongoing. According to the US government, the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack, and that the Syrian jets carried out the bombing of a rebel stronghold. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying "Either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent". According to Tillerson, the U.S. appealed Assad to cease the use of chemical weapons, and "other than that, there is no change to our military posture", with ISIS remaining the primary priority.]
 * [The responsiblity for the attack is disputed.[sourced by #43 reference] Syria denied any involvement, while Russia claimed that the deaths were a result of gas released when a government airstrike hit a rebel-operated chemical weapons factory. According to the United States government, the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack, and that the Syrian jets carried out the bombing of a rebel stronghold. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying "either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent". According to Tillerson, the U.S. appealed Assad to cease the use of chemical weapons, and "other than that, there is no change to our military posture", with ISIS remaining the primary priority. The UN Security Council session unanimously declared the need for an investigation of the chemical attack. According to OPCW, its investigation into the attack is ongoing.] --Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌. You may consider whatever you wish, in turn, but you are here to attempt to gain conensus, which you are failing to do. Repeating the same issues of due weight will not get you far. I'm not seeing anyone who is likely to make these changes at your behest. El_C 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Claíomh Solais Specifically in regard to your comments:
 * "Most of the European countries in their responses are very ambiguous about who actually carried out the attack and don't claim one way or the other."
 * Most governments have not attributed responsibility for the attack, since most European governments are not involved in the conflict and do not have access to intelligence. The US airstrike was widely supported, and this can be assumed to indicate attribution of responsibility for the chemical attack. The following article provides a summary of government statements which address the US airstrike . The Saudi government has explicitly attributed responsibility to the Syrian government, as has the government of the UAE . Several munitions experts comment on the plausibility of the Russian/Syrian claim here . L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the Russian/Syrian claim is not that the attack was caused by a Syrian airstrike that hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”. "The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed the new position, and you can find a source other than Sputnik, we can update the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed the content change, once again, it is dismissed on substantiation which is contradicting the editing policy, including UNDUE, and as such it is "effectively preventing a policy-based resolution". The edit sentence "According to US administration, Russia bears responsibility for the chemical attack" is anothor such example as was without source to support such a claim or context, vioalting VERIFY and SYNTHESIS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * L.R. Wormwood: It's not a new position. CNN and theGuardian faked it. They took a piece of the statement, twisted its meaning and had some experts to comment on their faked version. I believe Sputnik is more reliable for presenting the Russian and Syrian side. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Sputnik, RT TV and other similar media, which are directly controlled by the Russian government, are not RS for anything controversial and political, such as this matter. Same can be said about Facebook (your link). On the other hand, CNN and the Guardian are RS. If in doubt, please ask on WP:RSNB. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. I just stated after Sputnik that the Syrian goverment said "blablabla." That is to use a secondary source in the simplest way. Even SANA would be an RS for that. Go and ask at RSN if you like. The Facebook link was, btw, included in a BBC article. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, "Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists". OK. But this "explanation" was already included in the body of the page. Should it also be included in the lead? Hardly. It is enough to note the denial by Assad. But it is already noted in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be blind, but I can't see no denial by Assad in the lede, ref. current revision. I am not saying we must include the whole statement, but we should explain that side too, not only a denial. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, it was included. However, it is enough to tell that it was denied by Assad in the lead. The details of the denial should be provided in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the word "NOT". It was not included. But no, to tell that it was denied by Assad is not enough to explain the Syrian governments view (or to summarize it). Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion about lead in the discussion below "Lead section".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes, partially agree to your remark about Erlbaeko consideration to put it in the lead, but I note you for a second time that your edit RS/VERIFY. Do not ignore that. The same issue (VERIFY/OR/SYNTHESIS) goes to first sentence ("The attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government") in first paragraph .--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, the RS overwhelmingly attribute this to Assad. This is like saying grass is green. But if you want to be pedantic about the precise wording of "widely attributed",here you go: the Washington Post uses this very same wording. As of Postol, we shouldn't be using him at all. His self-admittedly hastily written paper is pure WP:SPS. I don't really are about it for now: if it claims that the chemicals belonged to the rebels, it will eventually be debunked once someone gets around to reading it (this is the inevitable fate of such conspiracy theories). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here. Maybe someone can use it. Not sure how, though. ansh 666 23:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is trash. Ritter says "reports" of a " 'pungent odor' " and " 'blue-green smoke' " indicate a chlorine gas attack, but does not bother to cite a source . He's quoting someone, but does not say whom. This is elementary journalistic malpractice. If you do a google search for "“pungent odor” idlib", all you'll find are a bunch of non-RS citing Ritter and no original "reports". Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, googling "smell Idlib" yields several reports of a rotten smell and bleach smell, which would seem to vindicate Ritter. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Article by a reliable and notable Scott Ritter was previously used in the article. It is a secondary and well written source (compared to others which are more-like primary as quote U.S. or Syrian establishment claims). Above was proposed content change with the source and quote used to provide neutrality to the "Responsibility" or "Lead" section. However, it is constantly ignored because it is clearly pushed WP:IMPARTIAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * explain yours revert because until now not a single editor appropriately substantiated their revert&consideration based on editing policy, sources or common sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll just quote myself from a few lines up: ::::::::::::Please, the RS overwhelmingly attribute this to Assad. This is like saying grass is green. But if you want to be pedantic about the precise wording of "widely attributed",here you go: the Washington Post uses this very same wording. As of Postol, we shouldn't be using him at all. His self-admittedly hastily written paper is pure WP:SPS. I don't really are about it for now: if it claims that the chemicals belonged to the rebels, it will eventually be debunked once someone gets around to reading it (this is the inevitable fate of such conspiracy theories). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a specific and valid substantiation. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Responsibility/attribution
The section currently states: "The attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government." This is too vague. We should specify *who*, specifically, has attributed the attack to the Syrian government. In the interests of brevity we probably should confine the list to significant entities such as nations and international organizations. 2601:644:0:DBD0:E873:D864:F261:C6D6 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact is the attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government, even if it maybe shouldn't (before there is an investigation, like Tulsi Gabbard is arguing). El_C 10:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government, but by whom? Is it widely attributed to the Syrian government in Russia? China? India? Canada? Sweden? Should Wikipedia be written from a western mainstream medias point of view? Should we exclude sources that dispute their POV? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point. El_C 11:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article (though a mess) does provide an outline of the Russian and Syrian position. Most WP:RS attribute responsibility for the attack to Syria, and therefore the article must reflect that. And yes, Wikipedia is (and should be) written according to what is reported in "mainstream" sources. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also a fair point. Question remains: qualify in any way the "widely attributed" that open the sentence, or not. Perhaps a survey is in order...? (What we would do in case the result is no consensus may be equally problematic—but one crisis at a time.) El_C 11:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should be written according to what is reported in "mainstream" sources, but we should not restrict it to western mainstream sources and discredit non-western sources just because they are biased, or "by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." as the Neutral point of view policy puts it. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion should have been over days ago. There was not provided a single reason to not include neutral and reliable consideration&sentence and reference by Scott Ritter (the edit I made or proposed numerous times), which could be supported by other RS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The context of "widely attributed": Andrew Wilkie "Mr Wilkie, a former senior intelligence analyst, said there was no doubt the attack occurred but Australia should not blindly accept assurances from US authorities", "Australians should be cautious…and not too quick to automatically endorse US claims";  "which Western powers have attributed to Assad's forces";  "Western statements place blame at the feet of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, an accusation Damascus and Moscow contest". Basically, what Western powers or allies claim is a literary topos of what U.S. claims. If you check article sources it is clear that the statement "widely attributed" is related to international reaction for which we have a separate section, but not as some editors argue to be related to RS&UNDUE. Current section paragraph violates IMPARTIAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You state that "Most WP:RS attribute responsibility for the attack to Syria, and therefore the article must reflect that." The problem with that reasoning is that media sources cannot be considered reliable sources for claims that they themselves are making.  For example, if The Washington Post directly asserts that Assad was responsible for the attack, then this is a claim being made by the Post and needs to be attributed as such, not accepted as fact. 2601:644:0:DBD0:745E:5E83:A8BC:FA49 (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of sarin by terrorists in Syria
Do we need to have a section about this? How does it directly relate to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack? El_C 07:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The incident directly relates as it was a similar terrorist attack in the same area with the same deadly chemical, demonstrating sarin's use in similar incidents. This is not covered anywhere else on Wikipedia. The American and EU governments and most of their media do not seem aware of the fact that Al Qaeda has this access to sarin, so I figure it's inclusion is relatively essential to help prevent any of this nasty stuff drifting through our bedroom windows anytime soon. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake doctor
This edit was made by someone who cannot distinguish a fake doctor from a real one and continues to call suspected kidnapper, Shajul Islam a "doctor" in his edit summary. This editor clearly hasn't read the source and does not understand the source if he is continuing to claim this person is a doctor. I would be grateful if someone could revert as I think I have used mine for the day. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Speedy closed as a WP:POINT violation. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack → Khan Skaykhun air raid – Move the article from a title that suggests an attack using chemical weapons has taken place (supported by no reliable sources at all) to a neutral title per WP:NPOV. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, this event is notable as a chemical attack, not as an air raid. If it was just a raid, no one would pay that much attention; there would be no the missile attack in response, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep "Chemical attack" is supported by numerous reliable sources - so this nomination is flawed. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No Absolutely not. This tendentious and an obvious abuse of process. The suggestion that the use of chemical weapons is "supported by no reliable sources at all" is false and should be withdrawn. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment On further investigation, this would appear to be a rather petty response to a similar proposal made for an article which User:RaRaRasputin created several hours ago (Hatla chemical attack). Is it possible to terminate this request? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, obviously. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy move close?
Why was this done? Do you seriously believe the opinion of a game show host on chemical weapons munitions analysis as a reliable source? RaRaRasputin (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. El_C 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that this was a "chemical attack". This article should be moved to a WP:NPOV title until the claim can be adequately sourced. RaRaRasputin (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming consensus is against your position, that's why it's disruptive. El_C 23:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus does not have WP:NPOV so it is not. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus determines what is or isn't neutral; what is or isn't based on reliable sources; what is or isn't verifiable. El_C 23:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've already been warned on your talk page about disruptive editing. At the moment (with your recent contributions and childish edit summaries) you're heading for a topic ban. Please let this WP:DEADHORSE go and perhaps find something less controversial to edit. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are quickly approaching the point of a topic ban, RaRaRasputin. El_C 10:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the consensus will need to be changed. I will continue to unleash the horrors of qualified and experienced engineers, medical doctors, professors, chemical weapons experts and the likes on you without end until you repent. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you here to right great wrongs, you are probably going to be dissapointed. El_C 23:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer to consider that I am here to create great rights and more like a mutual self-defense mechanism. RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

International reactions
According to the template I rewrote the list of quotes as sourced prose at sandbox. Please update accordingly the "Reactions" section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. Disagree it should be in the form of fluid prose. The format we currently have, with flags separating each country, is preferable, in my opinion. El_C 08:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a clear violation of WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE - edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But your version has just as many quotes—the only difference is that it is shorter and mentions less reactions. And it is in prose, which I disagree with. El_C 01:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will re-edit the accidentally removed sources which were related to the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Governments that have attributed the attack to Syria
Which countries/governments have officially attributed the attack to the Syrian government? Might be useful to compile a master list. The lead mentions the US, the UK, Turkey, and Israel. Other sources mention France, Germany, and a number of Middle Eastern countries. As far as I can tell, most other countries have not made specific accusations. 2601:644:0:DBD0:1EE:C4B2:29F8:A514 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You and LylaSand, and others, please make or agree on a list or sentence in the paragraph before doing too many edits with which are removed references or violated WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Coverage"
Can someone please remove the new "coverage" section as soon as possible. You'll understand when you find it. I believe I am entitled to ignore the 1RR policy when enforcing overriding policies (such as deleting paragraphs which obviously violate WP:POINT, WP:UNDUE, and which cite UNILAD), but I want to avoid being taken to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What does any of this have to do with the chemical attack? Why does whether or not a doctor there had proper credentials to be a doctor matter for this article? LylaSand (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For your benefit,, the article is supposed to be written in a balanced and consecutive fashion, giving WP:PROPORTION-ate and WP:IMPARTIAL coverage to all relevant aspects of the event. Creating a new section titled "coverage", and devoting it exclusively to rubbishing the claims of a single person, with no attempt to establish WP:NOTABILITY, presumably to imply the event has been covered improperly in the press, fails WP:PROPORTION, and also WP:SYNTHESIS since you are insinuating, given the emphasis, that the coverage has been unreliable, which is not what the sources suggest. If this had been part of some wider scandal, and you could demonstrate that it meets the criteria for WP:EVENT, then it could be given due attention. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true the coverage of that doctor issue was probably disproportionate, certainly as a separate section. But let's not pretend this kind of thing is not potentially a big problem: see Nayirah (testimony). Podiaebba (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to LylaSand above in case you missed it. The section is not devoted exclusively to rubbishing the claims of a single person but rather the claims of CBS News, Fox News, McClatchy, the Daily Beast, Voice of America, The New York Daily News, the New York Post, CBC, Euronews, Middle East Eye, The Mirror, Metro, The Daily Mail, Politico, The Independent, Vocativ, Bellingcat,The Sun and NBC News that this guy was doctor in the first place. I made no reference to any of Islam's personal claims about the attack. The terrorist case he was involved in was highly notable. It is highly irresponsible to withhold this guy's Al Qaeda connections from the general public for any amount of time and I would suggest any attempt to do so endangers your fellow citizens. RaRaRasputin (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to inform "the general public" about these concerns, write a blog. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion but there are already hundreds and thousands of people doing that. We are here as editors to represent the people and not just the views of one particular section of corporate journalism. There are an increasing number of sources covering this as an WP:EVENT as you suggest we head that direction. Chris York, Senior Editor of Huffington Post has done a nice expose of Islam and other contetious issues with the coverage here that we could start from? Also The Times . I am going to start an article on this guy as he is notable enough. RaRaRasputin (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Request edit
Since I have already performed a revert, I request that the following be inserted at the bottom of the second paragraph in the lede. The Russian position has changed twice and the lede has not been updated. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

[The Syrian government has since claimed that the attack was a "100 per cent fabrication" intended to provide a pretext for the airstrike on the Shayrat Airbase. The Russian Defense Ministry initially said that Syrian aircraft bombed a warehouse belonging to rebels which "may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile". The Russian government has since claimed that the chemical attack was a "false flag" attack carried out by "jihadists". On April 14, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that there was "growing evidence" that the attack was "staged". ]

Why is this page all skepticism and conspiracies?
The bulk of this article seems to be trying to defend the regime, and cherry picking the statements of a few second-rate sources to try to fit the conspiracy narrative. LylaSand (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To which regime do you refer? I am confused. RaRaRasputin (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because POV-warriors flock to pages like this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate with specific examples? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you removed my update. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry L.R., its just that the statement you put was repeated down in the main body of the article under Russian government claims, that's all. LylaSand (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been working to keep "POV-warriors" from soiling this article. The Russian position has changed twice since the 6th - the article was inaccurate before I made those changes. If you're concerned about NPOV, there's something for you to look at below this section. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're now using explicitly non-NPOV language (and haven't formatted the refs properly), and you've violated the 1RR rule. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see how inserting the phrases "The Russian government has since contradicted its statements by" and "further contradict the Russian government's claims" improve the lede, beyond making it explicitly non-WP:NPOV. Your changes would also appear to fail WP:SYNTHESIS. I can't undo these changes, so someone else will have to. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its literally in the title of the New York Times Article. LylaSand (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy explicitly does not permit editorialising in articles. Could you please restore the first sentence to how it appeared in my edit, and rephrase your addition in a way more consistent with NPOV. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the use of the word "contradiction". LylaSand (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reinstated the "Skeptical individuals" section. These kind of views in principle merit a mention, not least because many visitors to Wikipedia will be coming precisely to see what the mainstream hasn't been telling them. So that means not repeating every rumour, but when there are serious people in reasonable sources giving alternative non-government views (perhaps a better section title) that absolutely merits a carefully curated section. Podiaebba (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not have a WP:CONSENSUS to restore those paragraphs, which are clearly contentious. They were moved to the talk per WP:PRESERVE, and you will find them in a section above this one. Please self-revert.
 * Wikipedia is explicitly WP:NOT a forum where people can find "alternative views", as you put it. Please read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:BALANCE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any valid arguments for removing the section, and the Editing policy says we should fix problems if we can, and flag or remove them only if we can't. I think we can fix it. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can fix it on the talk page. You are welcome to re-write it in a way that is vaguely encyclopedic, and then restore it once you have done so. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I like to fix it in the article. It's called achieving consensus through editing. You can read more about the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle here. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The skeptic view should not make such a huge proportion of the article, especially if it lacks quality, reaching consensus at least fixes that. LylaSand (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in an article on a current event. We'll achieve a consensus on the talk page before we potentially give WP:UNDUE attention to fringe views. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. LylaSand (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the "fringe view" fronted by two former UN weapons inspectors? Sorry, but that is a significant view, and it have been published by reliable sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He was once a UN weapons inspector, 20 years, ago, but his current position is a foreign policy critic. LylaSand (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that argument irrelevant with regard their expertise on chemical weapons. They have not "lost" their expertise over time. Most people would regard Hans Blix and Scott Ritter both as the two foremost experts in their field. In a Meritocracy, these voices should be given the louder voice than non-expert opinion. Perhaps such a model is not one we wish to follow? RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is now included in "International reactions". This is not international reactions and usually not included in such sections on other pages. The sources ("consortiumnews) are also questionable for the strong "red flag" statements. I think some of that could be included, but only very briefly. Giving that so much space is simply WP:undue. And what did they actually claim? Only two things. (1) That the evidence of Assad conducting the chemical attack was weak, and (2) that US was provoked by jihadists to accomplish action that actually does not do any good. So, I fixed it accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Kareem Shaheen's visit to the warehouse be placed in the lead?
Should Kareem Shaheen's visit to the warehouse be placed in the lead? The following sentence would be placed as such:

The source for it is this.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey
Yes: Has anyone disputed his testimony? Not that I am aware of. Russia basically conjured a hypothesis out of thin air right after the attack, claiming — with zero evidence — that the SAF struck a chemical weapons stockpile (or even a factory — which is preposterous). There is no reason to rush to turn the lead into a he said she said. This article not about "official reactions" to the Idlib attack, but about the facts of the attack itself. The most pressing issue is inserting reports from reliable sources into the article to tell readers what is actually known. The article is still developing — there will be plenty of time in the future to litigate the lead. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes: On what basis has this been disputed? I can't find a discussion on the talk page, and I'm not sure why this has gone to RfC. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. No objections to this edit, but I think it would be better to make it shorter in the lead and simply tell something like "The attack was reportedly conducted by the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad" instead of "The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Turkey and Israel blamed the attack on the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad". The latter is simply wrong. Not only governments of many other countries tell the same, but more importantly, that is what nearly all WP:RS on the subject tell. Perhaps it worth mentioning in the lead that the chemical attack was prepared by the Assad government in advance, according to intercepted communications . My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I emphasize that personal consideration by some editors is clearly WP:IMPARTIAL and violation of WP:NPOV i.e. WP:UNDUE and WP:ASSERT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No: According to editing policy - MOS:INTRO "should briefly summarize the most important points", "should avoid ... over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article", based on WP:UNDUE "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject", as well WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Vote to move and close RfC I initially voted against moving it, but just moved it and trimmed the lead. I agree that it's too much detail for lead. Anyway, really stupid to be litigating trivial shit like this right now. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not in the lede. Yes in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead as per MOS:INTRO. This will avoid endless “litigation” of the lead. But put it in the body of the text.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not in the lede As above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Responsibility"
There is a recent interview in which Bashar Al Assad refers to the Syrian Government responsibility in the attack. He said that the gas attack blamed on his government was "100 percent fabrication". This is a more direct and reliable source of the Syrian Government position than the "unnamed Syrian government official" cited by the MiddleEastEye.net webpage. Should we add it to the article? --Forich (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is the full transcript of the interview. --Forich (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I updated the section a few minutes ago with the new Syrian government position (referenced AFP, who conducted the interview). The MiddleEastEye.net reference supports our claim that "On the day of the attack, a Syrian government official told Reuters that "the government does not and has not used chemical weapons, not in the past and not in the future."", for which it is sufficient (though the original Reuters article might be better). Someone might want to re-write the section in the light of recent developments, however. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT means that we should give this the space proportional to its coverage in reliable SECONDARY sources. Our job isn't to repeat everything that some official says. Only if it receives widespread coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you're removing "opinon" unless it is "widely reported" or "UNDUE", while reverted the "opinon" by a journalist which is not "widely reported" nor "UNDUE" and probably "propaganda". Explain your edits with editing policy and sources, otherwise your edits were anything but disruptive editing.-Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the first edit, I removed something ridiculous. Also, not RS. For the other two, quite simply these opinions were not widely reported on AFAICT so they don't belong in there. On the other hand the Kareem Shaheen appears to have consensus for inclusion, though not in the lede, and also WAS widely reported on, , .Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First edit: there's a sub-discussion on Theodore Postol and after research check, it is alright. Second edit: Jerry Smith's opinion(s), beside source by Radio New Zealand, was reported by ,, (The Guardian) and  (ABC News (Australia)) thus it does belong to the article. Third edit: also alright. Hence, constructively and appropriately (citation style) edit these (Jerry Smith and Kareem Shaheen) claims and sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You just removed a number of reliably sourced and important views that condemn the chemical attack by Assad here, but suggest to keep a ridiculous and poorly sourced conspiracy theory by Postol. This is not consistent with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Postol appears to be a serious researcher: I'm not sure calling his analysis a "conspiracy theory" is fair. El_C 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that he was a serious researcher in the past. However, what he is telling here is an opinion piece, not a scientific research: he just looked at a few photos and expressed his opinion. Perhaps for that reason his letter was mentioned seriously only on RT TV, Russian state propaganda channel. Should this be included here? I do not think so, however if there is a consensus to include (I do not see it), then let's include, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes, your comment is not related to this discussion yet "International reactions". The edit was done according to older revision and I will re-edit the accidentally removed sources. I did not suggest anyhow to keep Postol, I said "alright" in the sense Marek's removal was "alright". I need to check the researcher reliability to make any statement about him.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Howcome there is a negative comment added after Bashar's claims about babies in this article that reads " According to numerous eyewitnesses and reporters on the ground, children did in fact die in the attack."? I tried to add this redactive statement to balance this flagrant abuse of WP:NPOV standards :-

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, including senior members - Leif Elinder and Lena Oske have revealed videos taken by the White Helmets that have been clearly faked for the cameras and propaganda purposes. The doctors have made the horrific revelations "that the life-saving procedures seen in the film are incorrect – in fact life-threatening – or simply fake, including simulated emergency resuscitation techniques being used on already lifeless children." One of the videos shows the White Helmets repeatedly stabbing a baby in the heart with a hypodermic needle without depressing the plunger in a staged medical procedure.

...and it was removed. Why was that? Surely the opinion of medical doctors should be included to balance the opinions of the eyewitnesses in Al Qaeda territory and maintain WP:NPOV in the article? RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. I will warn you again, your editing patterns are clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS, and you are close to being referred to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice regarding WP:SYNTHESIS. I have read this, absorbed it and get the point. This material has been dispersed correctly onto other pages where those constraints do not apply. I totally disagree that my editing patterns have been in any way WP:TENDENTIOUS however. This is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. My editing is entirely neutral and in line with WP:NPOV. I simply better informed than the consensus and will attempt to address this with further information in future edits. RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listening to my suggestion. You are clearly trying to present a perspective which you feel is not being given due attention in the article. This isn't the problem. It's your style of editing - your requested page move, for instance, and making contentious edits without discussing it first on the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted (here is the previous revision to easly check the info and sources). I consider that your edits are in good faith, but have to agree with L.R. Wormwood - it is tendentious to the point the edits could not be accepted because of misunderstanding your pattern of editing. I would like to call WP:BRD on this revert because, for start: 1) Is there any current section this information can be included? If not, what kind of spearate heading should it be? I do not agree with the heading style. 2) Can we check and find more RS to substantiate the information? 3) Can we check if is there any violation of editing policy? 4) RaRaRasputin, be patient, because this BRD can only improve your edits and the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created a new section called "Prominent Individuals" in reactions. You can add all those fellows back in at your leisure after proper debate if required. Please let me know any sourcing problems and I will try to provide better or correct. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @RaRaRasputin, I doubt your edit uses a reliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubted it a bit but Friends of Syria are listed, I read about them and they seem reliable. Their website has over 4,000,000 hits. Charles Shoebridge, the source of the claim certainly is and I thought it best to pick someone notable like him to highlight the smell problem. I think he was the first to spot it. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In what way do the SWEDHR revelations about the White Helmets directly relate to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack? RS, please. El_C 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't. It's WP:SYNTHESIS. They only relate to the White Helmets and Sarmin chemical attack pages. I am over that one. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just add information to the article with Wordpress as the source? VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have improved it with one from the Washington Standard . RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Kareem Shaheen claim -- undue weight?
The article currently cites Kareem Shaheen, reporting for The Guardian, as having examined a warehouse near the site of the attack and not found anything. This is apparently intended to counter the claim put forward by Russia of bombs striking a rebel CW stockpile. It seems like this is giving undue weight to a single anecdote reported in a single publication. 2601:644:0:DBD0:745E:5E83:A8BC:FA49 (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Prominent individuals
I'm a bit concerned that only one point of view (anti-war) is represented by the position of the various individuals in that section, in contravention of due weight. El_C 00:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed it to Skeptical individuals, because that's what it is. Added bit about Tulsi Gabbard to section op. El_C 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now the list of individuals is longer than the Countries section. This is a problem. Maybe we need a sub-article. El_C 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How about we create a new page called Khan Shaykhun air raid and move most of them over there, then put Theodore Postol back with my recent unclassified State Department documents revealing the previous use of sarin by terrorists and leave this page to talk about the chemical attack? ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was more thinking about Opposition to US position on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This new whole section are poorly sourced claims by individuals; undue. It should be removed and re-included only if there is consensus to re-include. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Bit I added about Tulsi Gabbard is worth keeping, as she is now leading the skeptical current in the US. I haven't reviewed the rest too closely, however. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think it is worth keeping. She is only one of 47 members of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. When you include the opinions of many of the other members, then we can include her. LylaSand (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, she is leading the skeptical current in the US—that's why she is worth mentioning, not because of being 1 of 47. El_C 06:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we add in Ron Paul
And his opinion on the attack? He claims it was a false flag. Might be a good idea to edit his take on the events in. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support it as Ron Paul is a highly notable, reliable source. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would oppose, commentary from public figures is not useful here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support, he is a notable figure. However, problem is we need somekind of separate section and more notable figures who had a similar opinion, reported in RS. Thus partially agree with L.R. Wormwood, currently is not useful.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Independent expert claims" and "Skeptical Individuals" to talk
I propose we remove these sections from the article and amend them on the talk page (per WP:PRESERVE), since as they stand they are clearly very problematic, and pose numerous WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS concerns. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, they need a discussion (for start ) and quality editing. Also, the talk page is hard to follow with so many new discussions, or the article page with so many edits which were not discussed or basically contradict previously mentioned violation of LEAD, NPOV, UNDUE, CONSENSUS, BRD... People, the article or content is not going to run away if it is discussed a day or two. When I check the revision history of the last 100 edits, I doubt there was no violaton of 1RR. I think we need to slow down. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have pasted it below. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Independent expert claims
Theodore Postol, an American professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), analyzed the evidence referenced in the 4-page "dossier" issued by the White House and concluded that the assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” and that photographic evidence used in the assessment pointed to an attack by people on the ground using a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it.

Patrick Martin (who is not an expert) has supported Postol in an article claiming “any serious examination of the NSC document reveals it to be a series of bare assertions without any supporting evidence". Martin highlights how the language used lacks any substantiating proof, saying things such as “The United States is confident” … “We have confidence in our assessment” … “We assess” … “Our information indicates” … “It is clear” … and so on. In other words, “this is the US government speaking, trust us.”

Skeptical Individuals
Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard said she is "skeptical" the Assad government was behind the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun.

Former UN weapons inspector and Weapons of Mass Destruction expert, Hans Blix has criticized the evidence for the attack, saying "I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."

Another former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has suggested that the alleged attack is an instance of how Al Qaeda is "playing" Donald Trump and the American media, saying "the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the "White Helmets," the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message". Ritter explains the situation on the ground saying "Khan Shaykhun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, it was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population".

Iran-Contra investigative journalist Robert Parry has placed blame on Michael R. Gordon and Anne Barnard of the New York Times for obfuscating evidence, using unreliable sources like the White Helmets and covering the event to push for an outdated, neocon concept of "regime change". Retired U.S. intelligence officer Colonel W. Patrick Lang has argued that due to the agreement to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents, Russia contacted the United States and informed them of a planned attack on a weapons storage warehouse. Lang suggests the Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons and instead of a massive secondary explosion, chemical smoke began issuing from the attack site and spreading out over the area. He suggests that Tahrir al-Sham (previously Al Qaeda in Syria) used Khan Shaykhun to store chemicals including chlorine and organic phosphates that flowed with the wind and killed civilians.

I removed the content above again from the article due to overriding policy concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE), as is consistent with WP:EW. can you move your obviously contentious changes to talk where they can be discussed to avoid further edit-warring. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really hope to avoid edit-warring and am around to chat if there are any issues to discuss. I just replaced the fake doctor segment after my 24 hours expired on that one, I hope. I do not mean to cause any edit-warring and will take your advice into consideration as to how to best prevent this. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem may be that not many want to discuss any issues with these edits with me yet as per the fake doctor case above. I am most willing to help if and as required. I want to replace the previous use of sarin section as well if that's not a problem. I consider it directly relevant and not a case of WP:SYNTHESIS as I have also discussed and left here for almost 24 hours without any reply. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does the criminal history of one person pretending to be a doctor matter for this article? LylaSand (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comments in the section at the bottom of the page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not his criminal history that is of primary importance when presenting this information. It is the fact that he was reported by so many as a Medical Doctor and then revealed not to be one. It is an absolute scandal and an outrage, noted in various reputable sources. His connection with terrorist kidnappers and head-choppers is of secondary importance. Failure to reveal and highlight this sort information will inevitably lead to us continually being presented on Television and in the press with other very dodgy individuals who are misrepresenting their credentials and clearly unreliable sources. If you would like to keep on being lied to then please continue to watch, read and maybe even write the sources cited in this edit. I hope the supposedly "Free" encyclopedia would be at liberty to present the information clearly and without corporate narrative bias that is clearly evident in this case. RaRaRasputin (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

should I temporary remove the "Other views" section because I hardly can confirm any consensus about it on the talk page, is not sufficiently well-written, citation style is not good, there's a duplicate source, and there's probably a violation of several editing principles. Should it be removed until these issues are resolved?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should move it to the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done -, ,  please be patient, constructively discuss and propose content change&reliable sources, and do not revert the section(s) until the issues are resolved on the talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OPCW
"Incontrovertible evidence" of the use of sarin according to the OPCW. Could someone please include this, currently on phone. Thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I made mention of it.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed it slightly diff. I don't think we have to hedge it anymore. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake
How do we explain this? It's posted 13:18 on April 3 (twitter time). I believe that is 00:18 on April 4 local Syrian time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvRud (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need to; see WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Type
Re: This article is about a chemical attack, and I think we agree that sarin were used. I also believe we agree that there was airstrikes on or near the town of Khan Shaykhun that day. However, I don't think we agree (nor do RS) on how the sarin was delivered. When you state in the infobox that the attack type was "Air-strike, Sarin attack (or a sarin-like substance)", you insinuate that the delivery method was an air-strike. That has not been proved, and even if you can find a source that claims it to be the case, it is easy to find sources that say it wasn't. I believe the info box only should include info that we all can agree on. I therefor like to ask if you can remove that "Air-strike" part. It will be a self-revert for you, so don't worry about the 1RR rule. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we include some mention of an air strike in the infobox - something like "alleged airstrike" or "airstrike (disputed)"? VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with airstrike (disputed)Terrorist96 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Both the US and Russia agree there was an airstrike which initiated the chain of events. LylaSand (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I have not seen any sources at all that do the analysis on the Russian claim of timing you did above. Do you have any source at all? Where do you have it from? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delivery of sarin via airstrike is what's disputed. The article is about the sarin.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, LylaSand, Russia do not agree there was an airstrike which initiated the chain of events. The Russian Defence Ministry said "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions." The sarin attack took place around 6:30 a.m. local time, app. 5 hours earlier, so that strike could not have "initiated the chain of events". Ref. And Putin said the attack could be a provocation, but that several versions were possible. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Russian claims of the airstrike timing are debunked by timestamped radar returns, spotters near the airfield, and eyewitnesses to the airstrike. But the claim that the airstrike was not the source of the sarin is still plausible, hence my suggested wording above. Thoughts on that? VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Alleged airstrike" or "airstrike (disputed)" is still an insinuation. If a UN report says it was an airstrike, then we can add that. So far we only have an OPCW report that indicates that victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. Do you have a source that says the "Russian claims of the airstrike timing are debunked"? Erlbaeko (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Airstrike (disputed)" is not an insinuation, it is a description of the claim and its status. Requesting a UN report is an artificial goalpost. I have not seen any usable sources that do the analysis on the Russian claim of timing, but I was not proposing adding that to the article either. I was just pointing out that the Russian claim on timing isn't particularly believable, so the argument that the mainstream explanation of the attack can't be described as disputed due to the strength of Russian claims, is a weak one. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it's a decription of a claim, but it's not the only claim. Articles must not take sides, but should.... Read more...
 * I would support "Airstrike (disputed)". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there was an analysis of it on Bellingcat. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Link?Erlbaeko (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter Ford

 * Here you removed this, only saying it is "undue": "The former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford deems it unlikely that Assad was responsible, saying that Assad were not mad and "it defies belief that he would bring this all on his head for no military advantage." He made comparisons to the false evidence presented in the runup to the Iraq war. Has also criticised that by attacking Assad Trump has "given the jihadis a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations"."

I believe it's a significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Why exactly did you remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's clearly not a consensus that we should have a section devoted to quoting people who have raised sceptical murmurings in relation to the attacks. Address this first. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

One of these things are not like the others, can you guys guess which one?
 * The American government : the Russian government : the Syrian government : A former United Kingdom Ambassador

LylaSand (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I agree with edit by TTAC (edit summary) . Yes, this is fringe source and fringe opinion. Secondly, I agree with L.R. Wormwood. The title of the section tells "Other significant views". No, we can not declare these views as anything "significant". This is POV-pushing. I do not think we should have such section. Now, speaking about the opinion by Peter Ford, it does not provide any specifics or factual information. I think he might be simply noted along with others as " ...,...,". Telling something like "this is not possible because Assad is not mad" does not improve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it should feature at all. An encyclopaedia should list the details of the event, as reported, the official positions of governments, any official investigations or reports, and published independent investigations and reports. It shouldn't provide a laundry list of unpublished speculation and commentary from individuals who cannot have access to adequate information. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree with removal of this entire section per WP:FRINGE. I kept it in my edit only as an attempt to compromise.My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. LylaSand (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is suppression of notable content because it does not fit the US mainstream interventionist viewpoint. El_C 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * partially I agree with your revert and consideration, it is a notable content, but per there exist issues which need to be resolved and few editors currently do not agree with the temporary inclusion of the section. However, it's another thing when some of those editors completely oppose the inclusion - then we're dealing with "Anglo-American focus" which is contrary to NPOV and violation of WP:IMPARTIAL, about which I previously warned. For start, I will try to find more RS, this is the first point which needs to be resolved, and if the section is included or will be included, think we need a better title.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is "suppression" of content which conflicts with a "US mainstream interventionist viewpoint". For my view, I will refer you to my comment above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what it amounts to. But I think consensus is for inclusion of views that dispute the mainstream interventionist viewpoint, already overrepresnted. El_C 01:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "overrepresentation" of "mainstream interventionist viewpoints". As I said, we describe the event, the official positions of governments, the findings of official reports and investigations, and of published independent reports. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time ATM, but I will soon add the debunking of these alternative theories to the article (unless somebody beats me too it). I am afraid these theories have gained too much notability to be excluded entirely. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with we should not WP:CENSOR dissenting views. They are notable and have been covered in many news outlets. Tulsi Gabbard has been on CNN several times. The International Business Times has published the three reports by Postol, Thomas Massie on CNN, etc. If the issue is with the wording, that can be fixed. But summarily removing the sections amounts to censorship and viewpoint discrimination, IMO.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is not a valid objection. WP:CENSOR clearly does not apply. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that's your opinion. I think it is a valid objection. It meets the notability requirement as it's been covered on CNN, IBTimes, Huffington Post, BBC, etc. Maybe we should have an RfC on how to keep the article neutral since the regular rule of being covered in WP:RS thus making it worthy of inclusion and thus Notable is obviously being challenged.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
 * WP:CENSOR applies to things which might be deemed offensive, or to which the subjects of articles may object, but which should nonetheless feature on Wikipedia. It does not apply to minority, WP:FRINGE, or otherwise WP:UNDUE positions, which some users might imagine ought to be given prominence for the purposes of achieving balance, when giving such positions undue prominence would in fact achieve WP:FALSEBALANCE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE says: we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Including this information is not "legitimizing" it; it is merely acknowledging the dispute and different views on the topic. I am not asking for half the article to showcase it. I just want one sentence stating it as such, for balance. I want the article to mention the statements, which, again, have been covered in many WP:RS news sites, in the proper context. Omitting the information entirely does not support WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its undue because it creates and entire section by cherry-picking the statements of a few professors or commentators out of literally hundreds to find one that fits the Russian/Assad claim and only the Russian/Assad claim. LylaSand (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to locate other reports by other professors with differing conclusions and I'll be the first to defend their inclusion into the article. The point is that the the western POV (US, EU, Israel, etc.) is mentioned several times throughout the article:
 * The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, and Israel attributed the attack to the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
 * Many governments, such as the United States and those in the EU and the GCC have attributed the attack to the Syrian government.
 * According to the US government, the Syrian government under Assad was behind the chemical attack.
 * Yet including one sentence about the reports of an MIT professor whose area of expertise is weapons technology and missile defenses is undue?Terrorist96 (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with LylaSand. The "other views" section is at the moment a list of quotations from individuals who have questioned the official line. Some of these, such as the subject of this section, are just uniformed commentary and speculation. Treating these at length would achieve WP:FALSEBALANCE by strongly implying that they carry an authority which they in fact do not carry. My suggestion is that we only include official comments from governments, uncontroversial reporting, and any published official or independent reports that appear later. This will avoid having to edit-war over a section that will only feature selectively sourced speculation with no consistent criteria for inclusion. I will address this further in a few hours. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have the official line stated numerous times throughout the article, thus we should have dissenting views about the official line when they are notable enough to be included in reliable sources. Having the "official line" without including dissenting voices is a violation of NPOV and they are not WP:FRINGE because, again, covered in WP:RS. I think the views of Peter Ford, Theodore Postol, Tulsi Gabbard, Thomas Massie are notable enough to be included. If you can find notable people in Syria and Russia who have been covered in WP:RS that argue in favor of the US' POV, then I would support their inclusion as well, since they are dissenting voices in respect to their governments.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, we can't have the article devoid of those views. It's a matter of due weight to include views that contravene the mainstream interventionist position. This does amount to suppression of dissent and, though a service to the White House, is a disservice to our readership. El_C 03:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "mainstream interventionist position" - also if you haven't noticed pro-russian/assad claims make up a simple majority of the article. An undue one for that. LylaSand (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What counts is the lead; and, those whom you are not mentioning. The article should be global in its balance and reach, and not be monolithic in presenting views from the West. El_C 03:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the Ghouta chemical attack page devotes an entire paragraph on Theodore Postol's report of that gas attack. I don't see why a single sentence should be opposed in this article.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * More than that, I think this foremost expert should be mentioned in the lead and the body. El_C 04:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Postol is definitely not a "foremost expert" in this subject area. He is a nuclear engineer and physicist with expertise in anti-ballistic missile systems and non-proliferation strategies for nuclear weapons, . He also has a remarkable and admirable willingness to express his opinion even when dangerous to his relationships and career, . VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Turkey, Israel, Saudi ect are not Western sources. LylaSand (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the UK, USA and France all have good reason for providing so much info - they are permanent members of the UNSC. LylaSand (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia are all allies of the West (US, UK, France, etc.).Terrorist96 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with LylaSand that 's suggestion that non-inclusion "amount[s] to suppression of dissent" does not appear to be a valid objection according to Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Wikipedia is not a news website or blog. There is no ""mainstream interventionist position" presented in the course of this article, only media reporting on the event, and official statements issued by governments. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I agree with you and LylaSand, as already explained above. I was an "inclusionist" when joined the project. Not any more. Maybe that's because WP accumulated a lot of garbage during last few years. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with LylaSand, MVBW and L.R. Wormwood. This whole "well, this shitty source is RS for what so-and-so said" is really just being used as an excuse to cram this article full of WP:FRINGE views. It's WP:GAMEing of Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not Sarin
The CIA considers that the chemical incident at Khan Shaykhun was caused by the dispersion of sarin gas. However, photographs published by the CIA’s unique source, the White Helmets, shows people taking samples from the deposits in a crater created by a Syrian bomb. But it is not through inhalation that contamination by sarin gas takes place. The gas actually enters our system through the skin. Sarin takes several weeks to degrade when it comes into contact with the air and light. Thus if the photo were authentic, as the CIA claims it is, then sarin gas could not have been used. For if sarin gas had been used, the people picking up the samples and the onlookers would immediately be seriously infected. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 21:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A basic of Wikipedia is, that unless you can attribute this to reliable sources, it stands as your own original research. El_C 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The OPCW has confirmed that sarin was used, and on this basis alone, this discussion is closed. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. They said "the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance." That is not to confirm that sarin was used. Ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is sufficient to support the claim that sarin was used for anyone without an agenda to pursue. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you could mean to say by that. We accept that there was a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun; the OPCW have concluded from "incontrovertible" laboratory results that the victims of this attack suffered from exposure to sarin or a similar substance; therefore, yes, sarin was "used". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or a similar substance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh... such as? Anyway, without a reliable source, this is pointless. And btw, 1) yes, sarin can be absorbed through the skin but it DOES NOT "take several weeks to degrade", it's actually like minutes, and 2) the sources report that in fact many of the first responders DID in fact get sick. But like I said, no point to this discussion without reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Such as Chlorosarin, like the results of biomedical testing in the Darayya attach on 15 February 2015 suggested, ref page 53. Why is this important? Because sarin are not stored "mixed", so if the rebels sarin store was hit in an airstrike, as suggested, it's likely that the victims was exposed to sarin precursor rather than sarin. Yes, it's OR. No, I don't have an RS for it. No, I don't suggest to include it in the article. So, we should say "Sarin or a Sarin-like substance", as the OPCW report and not only sarin. And we do. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We do use the phrase, "or a similar substance" - in the lede at least because I included it. Yes, it could have been some kind of sarin derivative. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC for "Other views" section and "Executed by" field in the infobox?
I would suggest that the persistent and long-term edit warring over these two areas of the article would call for an RfC (or rather, two RfCs). This dispute is getting tiring. Thoughts? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Obviously, the phrasing is key. What did you have in mind? El_C 21:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. Right now the text is simply WP:UNDUE and it's an obvious attempt to poison the well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @L.R. Wormwood. Yes, two RfCs. Khirurg (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but its pretty clear its disputed for the time being. There was a bombing by the Syrian Airforce that is undisputed, what is not clear is whether it was a chemical attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The chemical attack is only disputed by the perpetrators, and their defenders. The responsibility for massacres will always be disputed by their perpetrators, so why bother saying "disputed"? Should be a given that the perpetrators won't accept blame. LylaSand (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh bullshit. Anything can be disputed. I can dispute whether or not the earth is round. Whether or not you're a human or a marsupial. Of course those who have been accused of carrying out the attack are going to "dispute" it. The occurrence of, say, the Armenian Genocide, has been "disputed" So what? Doesn't give you right to run to the relevant articles and add "disputed" in there. All that matters is whether this is disputed to a significant extent in reliable sources. And it's not. This is just false equivalency and special pleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your hostile attitude is not conducive to a constructive environment.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My attitude is fine. What's not conducive to a constructive environment (whatever that is) is bad faithed attempts to make things "disputed" when sources actually agree on something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So are you admitting to violating WP:AGF then?Terrorist96 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * People suggesting an artillery shell full of sarin fell from a plane and then had something explode on top of it clearly haven't read the sources and have my doubts regarding their WP:COMPETENCE to comment on the matter. Same those considering the mainstream viewpoint 20 mil Syrians, 82 mil Iranians, 144 mil russians (and most of the rest of us!!!) are WP:FRINGE and not part of a mainstream POV in their countries, I would suggest suffer from a similar competence issue. 91.103.26.189 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, weren't you just sock puppeting on another page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Straw man. No RS's have described this event as an artillery attack or an airstrike using artillery weapons. In evaluating if something is a fringe theory or minority viewpoint, we evaluate its level of coverage in reliable, independent sources - not by its promulgators and not by its level of acceptance in a general population. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove Hans Blix from Other Views
Based on this more recent statement,, Blix says it is probable the regime perpetrated the attack. He does still call for an investigation, but that doesn't merit inclusion in this section of skeptics. Also, the clause about the cruise missile attack makes it seems he supported the US strikes. He does not. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 22:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The two statements are not diametrically opposed, but accurately reporting a living person's statements on a conspiracy theory is a WP:BLP issue that we must get right. Does this edit address the issue? VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would leave out the part about the missile strikes completely and give a short paraphrase for his view rather than a quote. And Blix isn't addressing a conspiracy theory, he is just making general comments about plausiblity. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 02:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason why the opinion of Blix should be excluded, but opinions by others in the same section should not. Per WP:NPOV one should either include opinions by every person who appears in this section or remove them all. This is because all these people and their statements received very similar (rather insignificant) coverage in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what NPOV means. Each person's views can be treated NPOV independently of whether they get a long quote or a mention in a list. The issue is UNDUE. Which is why I prefer a shorter Blix mention than VQuakr's edit. I also prefer a shorter Postol mention as I suggested above. These views received little coverage in RS, so should recieve short treatment in the article. If one was covered more than others, then there is no problem treating their view in more depth and detail than others in the section (Note, these views are significant enough to merit inclusion, UNDUE isn't a reason to exclude them, but rather how they are treated.)
 * I think Erlbaeko has made a similar point about describing all views equally. I don't think the article needs to spell out exactly what each person says, mentions in a list are fine if the sentence accurately reflects their view. Interested readers can always just click the reference if they want to know more. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't object to shortening the Blix coverage as long as it still accurately reflects his views. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Other views
Was this content present in any halfway stable version of this article? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think it was ever a part of any stable version of the page. This content was included for the first time probably by the indefinitely blocked user RaRaRasputin . Since then this content was continuously removed, reinserted or moved around by different contributors. I guess this is something "challenged by reversion". So, should it be excluded and reinserted only if there is consensus to include? I would rely on your judgement here, whatever this might be. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Countries
What should we use as our inclusion/exclusion criteria for the International reactions/Countries subsection? VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, lot of countries were omitted when the prose version supplanted the flag one. I went with the prose one, in the end, but am still not 100 percent. El_C 04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ^This version is much better than the existing version.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is two fold: 1. do we want flags to serve as bulletpoints or do we want fluid prose? 2. And do we want the additional countries redacted from the flags version, in any case? El_C 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I don't feel strongly about either. But I would like to see more countries included to get a better global perspective since not everyone who reads Wikipedia is from the US. Though it also shouldn't include every single country in the world.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The flag icons don't do much for me. back to the OP, how do we determine what represents a "better global perspective"? VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By including statements issued by major countries based on their media coverage. I don't have a surefire way of going about it.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As some countries are democratic, others not so much, we should add at the USA, important voices of members of Congress. Not only the Trump Administrations position. Also Ran Paul, former Republican running mate of Trump could added here as one more sceptical dissenting voice (see discussion on sceptical individuals == of US political significance). Or we should title this section not "countries", but actual "Goverments of Countries" What do you think? KR, --BestHealthGuide (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Propose change for infobox field
Can we change "allegedly by Assad government" to "Assad government (Disputed)". There is no change in meaning here, it just looks better. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. El_C 05:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Theodore Postol
I've been reading papers from this guy for some years because every time there is a discussion on rocket and missile technology, and the Iron Dome, he is cited for his views, I cannot understand the reluctance of editors to accept that he is as perfect an RS source as wiki can get. The way rockets behave is his particular field of scientific competence. Since there is a criticism section, and the lead lacked any acknowledgement that serious doubts are thrown on the attribution in meme recycled by numerous media, which all go back to the White House's documents, it should be mentioned per wiki lead summary style. That is not to say Postol is right. Wiki must be neutral as to the claims, no matter how many sources repeat the same drum beat. The lead indeed stated outright that it was dropped by Syrian government aircraft, which Postol says is an extremely odd inference to make from the photographic evidence of the point where the bomb is said to have released the gas.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The united states view is stated, and both Russia's false flag view and Russia's chemical warehouse view are stated. The lede is not meant to cast doubt or support the views stated - which is exactly what postol is trying to do - cast doubt. LylaSand (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence for or against the claims of responsibility do not belong in the lede. If you do however put something like that in the lede, I would just take measures to balance it out with other sources.LylaSand (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, the lede is for the claims, not the arguments. LylaSand (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Claims like that would be outright rejected for inclusion per WP:MEDREF. Yes, Postol was a notable scientist. However, this particular claim is not something published in a peer-reviewed journal. Neither, it was republished as something significant by CNN or other major news outlets. The "best" news outlet which mentioned the claim was Russia RT TV: . Given that his claim contradicts a lot of other more reliable sources, I would only briefly mention it in the body of the page, but definitely exclude from the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What has medical sources to do with Postol? No, the lead should "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article." "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," "including any prominent controversies, whitout giving undue attention to less important controversies". Erlbaeko (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, is the controversy that a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says the White House assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I think so. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ... its a controversy about a controversy (the white house documents). So no, it doesn't belong in the lede. LylaSand (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources per WP:Verifiability, but the sources like RT (TV network) are not exceptional, to say it politely. Neither is a claim by a retired scientist that was not taken seriously by any of his colleagues, or at least we do not have any proof that it was taken seriously by other scientists in the same field. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, the exceptional claim that Assad bombed civilians with sarin in a bid to drag the US into the war on the rebels side? Yeah, that require exceptional sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to current version of the page, he claimed that "photographic evidence used in the assessment pointed to an attack by people on the ground using a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it". He is telling that was an artillery attack, not an air raid. That is an exceptional claim which contradicts to nearly all other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that mean and artillery rocket, possibly a BM-21 Grad used as an IED, detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it at the impact site, but yes, I agree. It is a claim which contradicts nearly all other sources (at least if we discredit all sources that contradicts it...) Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, he tells about multiple rocket launcher that could be loaded with chemical munitions. But it's not what other sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he is not talking about a multiple rocket launcher attack. He said it's possibly "an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe", "that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated". Erlbaeko (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it would be inappropriate to include it in the lede, per WP:MOSINTRO. I am detecting strong WP:NOTHERE behaviour from at least one contributor here. Open an RfC if you must. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack article. It is not a forum. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages or start a discussion about the editor at ANI, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I might be in the minority of the mainstream, but it's not obvious to me. We can mention it briefly in the lead, then more in depth in the body. I, for one, consider Theodore Postol, himself, to be a reliable source—I think his analysis merits inclusion. El_C 04:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Re. This RT article is an RS for that statement. That article is important since it also contains an interview with Postol. Executive Intelligence Review is also an RS. 5 cites may be overkill, but don't remove the best ones. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RT is not a RS for anything Syria-related. EIR is a reliable source for nothing except itself, and your claiming otherwise is more than a little concerning. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A weekly newsmagazine founded in 1974 is an RS according to our guideline. That "RT is not a RS for anything Syria-related" is just bullshit. Go an ask at RSN, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Founding year or publication frequency are both irrelevant. EIR does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking; it is LaRouchian craziness. If you think RT should be included then get consensus that it is reliable. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Who says "EIR does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking". You? Do you have a source? RT is reliable for reporting what Postol said. They even have him on tape. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So when referring to the two sources I removed as the "best ones" you are saying that you are defending this source as the best available for the information? Why don't you go ahead and explain why, other than the source's viewpoint, you find this so stellar? Again, you have the burden of establishing the verifiability and reliability of the sources you propose to add or restore. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that image your source? Did you conclude that they "do not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking" based on a front page image from june 2009? And no, I don't have the burden for establishing verifiability and reliability. That is, I don't have that burden after providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You should re-read note 2. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an example. The LaRouche crowd is famously, laughably woo. You are confusing verifiability with reliability. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not confusing verifiability with reliability. Give me another example then. You can't just say they "do not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking" and remove refs you don't like. Anyway, the RT article is more important since it also contains an interview with Postol. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Choose any issue of EIR if you want another example. It is antisemitic, anglophobic garbage. RT is a source for Russia's viewpoint, but we already have that in the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * An RS saying they have a poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking would do. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * How about you just review previous questions on EIR at the RSN, and let me know which discussions lead you to believe this source is stellar? Please also review this ArbCom case, which finds, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." You are being silly. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they are basically reporting what Postol are saying. I believe they are an RS for that, but we have other sources. The RT-article contains an important interview and should be re-added. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think editors are being a bit too hard on RT, removing it for not being a reliable enough source—but it certainly can have a role to play in attribution here. El_C 08:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are the WP:NOTHERE editor, and that provocative comment will be copied over onto the AN/I report if I choose to file one. I don't see how an account used almost exclusively to POV-push on three articles related to chemical attacks in Syria (about 70-80% since the new year) can be WP:HERE for the purposes of building an encyclopaedia.


 * RT is an RS for certain things, like elaborating the Russian position, for instance. There are clear instances where we wouldn't cite it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you think about me. As I said: take that part to ANI, if you like. This discussion have nothing to with the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack article, so stop it before I fill an ANI-report myself. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A line addressing the perspective of one individual (where it is not clear what information they have access to) in a lede which (due to the nature of the article) is concerned with describing the event and the positions of various governments would obviously be undue. You would have no basis for filing a report of any kind. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Theodore Postol has issued a series of three reports, saying the attack was staged, ref. IBT. You should read them. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: The source says "three reports" so that is what we should say too. However, I can't find "Retired" professor in any of the sources. Is he? If so, do you have a source for it? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He's described as professor emeritus, so technically retired, but we should use "emeritus". And since the source describes it as report vs document, we shouldn't second guess the source.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Another report from Postol; says "Russian Explanation of the Mass Poisoning in Syria Could Be True". Erlbaeko (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These are getting increasingly far-fetched. The claim linked is not plausible, but it is a good indicator of the level of reliability we should assign Postol and truthdig. VQuakr (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Nation article
Can please someone add the following reference: The Chemical-Weapons Attack In Syria: Is There a Place for Skepticism?. The Nation, of course, should be considered a WP:RS.


 * This artice can serve as a reference for Theodore Postol in the "Other views" section, in particular it contains a link to the new report of Postol.


 * I propose also to add the link to the report of Postol given in the article: Postol report on scribd.com (The Nation, a reliable source, links to it, and it was uploaded by RT, which was agreed to be a reliable source concerning Postol).


 * It can also used as an additional RS for Peter Ford and Philip Giraldi.

217.83.251.244 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re Note that the report dated 18 April, 2017 contains an error that was fixed on 21 April. Ref. With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing. Anyone having a problem with www.truthdig.com as an RS? One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what truthdig has to do with The Nation, but this seems to be a self-published source by Postol himself. FallingGravity 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Moon of Alabama as a RS
Re, is moonofalabama.org a reliable published source as discussed at WP:WEIGHT? VQuakr (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re The source here is Theodore Postol. It's a reliable source per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several issues with that line of reasoning:
 * Postol is an established expert on nuclear weapons - particularly delivery systems, ballistic missile defence, and the game theory of deescalation, . He is not an established expert on chemical weapons in Syria, coverage of which has been in news sources but not the same level of academic sources as those linked above.
 * Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable... (emphasis added)
 * You clipped much of the policy section at WP:SPS. Immediately after the part you quote, the policy crosslinks to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and then goes on to note, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 02:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would like the report, that we have multiple reliable sources refer to, be included in the article, even if it is hosted by source that on its own would not be deemed reliable. El_C 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Theodore Postol is a nuclear engineer and physicist, with a specialism in anti-ballistic missile systems and nuclear non-proliferation. He frequently intervenes to "debunk" US intelligence claims, though neither I nor anyone else here is in a position to say whether his interventions are valid. Since he is one individual, whose claims have not been corroborated by other researchers, it would be WP:UNDUE to give his views more than a cursory mention. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that while Postol is a notable commentator, his analysis shouldn't be included unless it's referenced elsewhere. And that elsewhere can't be the Moon of Alabama blog, unless discussion at WP:RSN determines that it can be used for attribution of Postol's opinion (which I'd consider unlikely). -Darouet (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We now have a better source to the report—do we not? Here ("With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing") El_C 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Better" is a low bar in this case. That's not synonymous with "inclusion worthy". Has there been independent coverage of this separate, second theory per WP:FRIND? A bit of a red flag that Postol was 180° off on the wind direction and that detonation location was upwind of a populated area per his own analysis, yet he didn't change his conclusion, no? In my experience, RSs don't typically caption every image with "MEDIA IS HIDING THIS FROM US!". VQuakr (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Moon of Alabama is not a reliable source. Neither is truthdig.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Postol's claims
I see two Postol claims in a recent version of the article. One is that the attack did not occur from the air but was set-up on the ground (based on the appearance of the "middle of the road" detonation point), and the other is that the attack did not occur at the "middle of the road" location (based on... something?). Aren't these two claims mutually exclusive? VQuakr (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to look over these (perhaps check the dates), but I suspect we are lending too much credibility to this man. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this, Postol tells that the report by White House was fabricated and﻿ the report is completely undermined by a significant body of video evidence taken after the alleged sarin attack and before the US cruise missile attack that unambiguously shows the claims in the WHR [White House Report] could not possibly be true. But here is the problem. If the report was so obviously fabricated, there must be other experts and sources telling exactly the same as Postol. But I do not see any. All other "concerned" people only tell about some generic concerns; they do not claim that the report was so obviously fabricated and do not explain what evidence show it was fabricated. Not mentioning that all other governments who supported US have their own experts to look at the evidence (phot0, video, etc.). In other words, the claim by Postol is a typical "fringe". My very best wishes (talk)
 * This, of course, is the basis of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't understand how Postol can look at an image of one crater and determine that the chemical clouds from all of the weapon impacts couldn't have caused the casualties claimed by the US/rebels, but I'm getting away from specific improvements to the article I suppose. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The current sentence is a mess. Mainly because Postol's reports are not focused either. The earlier claim assumes there was a sarin release at the crater, and explains it was caused by a sarin tube exploding on the ground. While the last report says there was no nerve agent released at the crater. The basic message is he doesn't believe the White House report. I would prefer just stating that instead of mentioning both the ground theory and it didn't happen there theory. It is confusing. Interested readers can read the reports if they want specifics. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unconvinced the 2nd claim should be mentioned at all per WP:FRIND. VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

How about: "Based on publicly available photos and videos, MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol claims the White House report is not an accurate description of the attack." - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * VQuakr seems to be right with the FRINGE and EXCEPTIONAL comments, his comments would have been repeated much more if they weren't. Stickee (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I no longer support including Postol in the article. His recent mistake on the date of the Saraqeb attack is too much for me. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New editing restriction
I am placing a new editing restriction on this article: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe add that to the page notice. El_C 15:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added to article edit notice and the top of this talk page below community sanctions notice. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I just violated the new restriction. I challenged an edit here, and reinstating it here. (No, I did not do it on purpose.) Erlbaeko (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Next time, if you realise you've violated a restriction, just self-revert. Note that reinserting can also mean reinserting a removal of something. (Say an editor makes an edit removing a passage, then this is reverted by re-adding said passage—now there needs to be consensus to re-remove.) El_C 05:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

, please note this restriction. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Noted. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Image of Colin Powell
I thought this illustrated the section about the Bolivian Ambassador well and added value to the encyclopedia and suggest it is replaced so readers can understand the subject matter better. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Colin Powell has nothing to do with this article and you know it. The purpose of the image you tried to put is to say "Hey readers! Remember the Iraq war! Protest against intervention!". LylaSand (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's undue.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the text. The Bolivian Ambassador held it up. Terrorist96 might be right about undue but I didn't know that applied to images. I thought they just helped people understand. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentioning it in the text is ok with me. But the image doesn't improve the article.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is straight up WP:POINT and "AssadistDEFECTOR" is borderline trolling. This is why 1RR on these articles shouldn't apply to brand new accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike
I am not here to illustrate a point. More to represent a viewpoint that us currently minority, fringe, conspiracy or whatever you want to label it. I have made a page where this is now the majority viewpoint and hope it can be linked here somehow? I suggest it's re-inclusion somehow. It's clear to me at least this is a repeat of the Iraq WMD scam and will be interesting to see how this page evolves into mine over time if I am right. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted and editor warned. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proper wording for dissenting views
Since it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude WP:RS that cover dissenting views, I would like to obtain consensus on the proper wording to include in the article so as to not provide WP:FALSEBALANCE or violate WP:FRINGE. I think the following single sentence would not be inappropriate to add to the article:

Other notable people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack are former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix, MIT professor Theodore Postol, ex-UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and Congressman Thomas Massie.

Please offer your suggestions so that we may keep the article balanced and neutral. (See previous discussion in the Peter Ford section).Terrorist96 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Notable views in the West, skeptical of the mainstream interventionist view, also merit inclusion. Per due weight and per reliability of sources. El_C 04:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good start, but not enough to fulfil the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, which says we should "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic ." Note that the NPOV-policy "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (My emphasis). The first of this principles, which was drafted by Larry Sanger in the spring or summer of 2000, says:

""This requires that, for each controversial view discussed, the author of an article (at a bare minimum) mention various opposing views that are taken seriously by any significant minority of experts (or concerned parties) on the subject. In longer articles, of course, opposing views will be spelled out in considerable detail. In a final version of the article, every party to the controversy in question must be able to judge that its views have been fairly presented, or as fairly as is possible in a context in which other, opposing views must also be presented as fairly as possible. Moreover, if objections to any particular views are offered (which will be an essential component to certain articles, e.g., those on philosophy and public policy), the most serious or relevant objections to other, opposing views must be offered as well. The reader should, ideally, be given the tools for deciding the issue; or, failing that, the reader should be introduced to the problems that must be solved in order to decide the issue. On any controversial issue, it is usually important to state which views, if any, are now (or were at some time) in favor and no longer in favor (among experts or some other specified group of people). But even this information can and should be imparted in such a fashion as not to imply that the majority view is correct, or even that it has any more presumption in its favor than is implied by the plain fact of its popularity. To present a subject without bias, one must pay attention not just to the matters of which views and arguments are presented, but also to their wording or the tone in which they are mentioned"."


 * So, it doesn’t matter what you say, I am gonna revert you anyway... (not you El_C, but you get the point.) Erlbaeko (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Battleground much? Our job as editors is to report on minority viewpoints in rough proportion to the weight given each viewpoint (not individual). We don't need to list every person that has such a view, and we do not need to provide a false sense of balance to minority viewpoints. We also don't give any weight to viewpoints that have not been published in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * we should lost the term "notable" here; it is used a lot on-Wiki per WP:N, but in article space and in the encyclopedia's voice it is making a assessment of validity. I think you have the wrong source for Peter Ford? VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I fixed the links for Peter Ford.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:VQuakr. Peter Ford's comments have no place here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sake of compromise, I am happy to have an "other views" section, but it ought to be expanded, and we should have some criteria for inclusion. It certainly shouldn't be short paragraph listing external links, as above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have rescued the old section and pasted it below. For the sake of avoiding edit-warring, could we please not restore it until we have a consensus on what it should include, or indeed if it should appear at all. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter called the attack an instance of Al Qaeda "playing" Donald Trump and the American media, saying "the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad". Several other commentators, including Tulsi Gabbard, Hans Blix and Peter Ford criticized the evidence that the attack was conducted by the Assad regime as weak.

A retired scientist Theodore Postol criticized analysis of the data provided by the White House. Based on his own analysis of the photographic evidence, Pistol has argued that the chemical attack was not an air raid, but conducted from the ground using a multiple rocket launcher, most probably a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it.


 * Easy for you to say—how about you don't remove it while discussion is ongoing? Totally redacting alternate views from the West is grossly one-side's point of view, without compromise. El_C 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * because the relevant policy, WP:ONUS, says that the responsibility to achieve consensus is with the viewpoint for inclusion. The exact wording of that policy is currently being discussed on the policy talk page. I don't think the discussion has direct bearing here, but just in case, this is the version that is current at this moment. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it has already been taken down (as of many hours ago). There are also concerns that it is not consistent with policy. You haven't yet responded to our arguments, only repeated the "suppression of dissenting views" line without reference to policy or guidelines, so I won't comment any further for the time being. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, I did mention due weight and reliability of sources. El_C 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have another look later. WP:RS wouldn't be a response to my comments at least; the fact that something is published in a reputable source does not mean that it should necessarily appear in an encyclopaedia. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But when it is expressed in reliable sources by experts and other notables from the West, due weight applies. Yes, even if the views expressed are not the mainstream interventionist position—even then, L.R. Wormwood. Even then. El_C 17:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that mentioning these "other views" would have precisely the opposite effect; it would give them WP:UNDUE prominence. I feel that my position has been elaborated extensively, so I won't waste time re-phrasing it here.
 * Though I understand this dispute is frustrating, there is no need at all for sarcasm; it will only made the editing environment more difficult. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But why should your version stand while we are at an impasse? Don't mistake exasperation with sarcasm—I think I nailed it, actually. El_C 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because my "version" does not potentially include material contrary to WP editing policy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute that, by it's absence, it does. El_C 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think L.R's concern of not providing prominence is valid. However, a single sentence amongst a mountain of paragraphs stating the opposite (see) is not giving it prominence. It's acknowledging that other viewpoints exist, and those viewpoints have been mentioned in reliable sources. Considering this, I don't see how you can continue to oppose including this one sentence when the Ghouta chemical attack page devotes an entire paragraph to Postol's report on that attack. And here's a direct link to the discussion on retaining that paragraph. Long story short, it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not; if it's in an RS, then we can use it. It's just a matter of how we use it. Thus, complete exclusion seems to be off the table to me.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ghouta page has had similar problems with POV-pushing (by editors who have also contributed here); for instance, the article devotes two paragraphs to Seymour Hersh's discredited December 2013 story here, but I don't have time to deal with that now. I'm not convinced that this is something that should appear alongside the opinion of governments and intelligence agencies (per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE). Request an RfC if you like.
 * User:El_C is continuing to pursue the rather bizarre stance that by requesting that people accept the status quo until the dispute is resolved, I'm violating Wikipedia policy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I have already said that I would compromise, but we will have to separate Postol's report from the rest of the section, which is essentially just commentary from notable figures. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * POV-pushing is a nice way of saying that we want to abide by WP:NPOV. Noting that the other article has two paragraphs dedicated to Seymour Hersh only hurts your position, so not sure why you'd mention that. When you call him discredited, that's not a fact; that's your opinion stated as a fact. Nowhere is it mentioned he is discredited. It says Hersh's argument received some support,[160][161] but was dismissed by other commentators.[162][163] Considering how much more balanced the other article is due to it having more time for edits and for reaching consensus, it just shows how inadequate this article is in comparison. I never said this single sentence I would like to add has to appear alongside the opinion of governments and intelligence agencies; it can go into its own section. And for the record, I haven't had a single edit on the other article. And since it seems we may have found some semblance of consensus, I will add a statement in the article about Postol's reports. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again the fringe "other views" do not deserve their own section, and some straight out don't belong in the article. LylaSand (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For example the professor's "it was a rocket" claims is an -extraordinary- claim. It literally flies in the face of the claims and evidence provided by America, UK, AND Russia. A professor -no matter what university he is from- cannot overtake the claims of literally every party in this conflict. LylaSand (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the article is discredited, having provided a misleading summary of the evidence, as the source shows. I have no idea why it remains in the article, and once I have time to wrangle with the POV-pushers on the talk page I will do so. By "alongside the opinions of governments", I meant in the same article, not in the same section of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary is also misleading, since it implies there is a consensus for its inclusion when it is not clear that that is the case, but I will leave it for now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You said you're willing to compromise on including Postol's study. So feel free to offer a different wording or offer a suggestion on moving the statement to a different section if you like. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine for now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll
Let's get a quick sense of the room on the addition of this sentence. This isn't a vote; note my removal of the word "notable" mention of Peter Ford per the discussion above. Just a quick yes/no, one sentence of reasoning, and relegate any replies to the "discussion section" if that's ok with everyone. I understand that not everyone will see this as an end state; that's fine.

Other people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack include former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix, MIT professor Theodore Postol,, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and Congressman Thomas Massie.


 * Yes, this seems to meet the requirements of WP:DUE without giving massive coverage to a minor viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a simple sentence that acknowledges the reality of the situation without being WP:UNDUE. I had the word notable because notability is a requirement for an article, and these are notable people. Hence, we don't mention Joe Blow and what his thoughts are on the situation. But removing the word notable isn't a dealbreaker for me.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per VQuakr's reasoning. LylaSand (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Looks good, still. Good compromise for summary; the rest we can figure out later. Total redaction had me losing faith. El_C 03:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first three. Gabbard's response has been more widely circulated than Massie's, and I'm not sure the latter qualifies for WP:DUE any more than Ron Paul's comments would. Could we perhaps separate the opinions of Ritter, Blix and Postol from those of the two Congressmen? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, I would not even object against a slightly longer version, as reflected in my latest edits on the page . My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * However, this should be noted only very briefly. These are poorly substantiated claims. Speaking about Postol, for example, the inability to publish his claims in mainstream sources indicate that the claims are almost certainly wrong, but we include them only because they can be attributed to something and because he was a notable expert in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. After looking at more recent publications and this subject in general, there is no doubts the attack was conducted by the Syrian government, essentially as a matter of fact. Therefore, all this stuff qualify as WP:FRINGE. If I edited this page alone, I would remove this paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and this is irrelevant and outdated as there's an RfC down below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
I agree that notability of the claimant is a useful tool to determine inclusion of an individual in an embedded list, which is basically what this sentence is. But that is meta-information that belongs on the talk page, not something that our readers (who generally will be ignorant of the Wiki-concept of notability) will care about. Particularly since notable means something slightly different in the real world. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's some more news sites that discuss Postol's report: RawStory, NJ, Washington Standard, Yahoo (via IBT)
 * Rawstory isn't a RS; NJ.com is an opinion piece, and the Yahoo.com link is, as you note, a duplicate of the IBT. None of those contribute to or inform a discussion about due coverage. I guess the Washington Standard shows a bit of coverage re WP:DUE, though it doesn't have any secondary interpretation about Postol's analysis so it really wouldn't be worth actually including in our article. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Washington Standard" isn't even close to being an RS. It's actually interesting that it's popping up here, since someone was trying to use it somewhere else, and it's an, um "peculiar" source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just illustrating the extent of coverage for the report.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that we can always have an article about the US position: like U.S. Government Assessment (etc.). El_C 04:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Challenging to do without running afoul of WP:POVFORK. Usually valid splits would be about a specific notable document, ie U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013, or with a lot more historical perspective ie Rationale for the Iraq War (note that neither of those are perfect as model articles). VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how listing individuals who "have expressed skepticism" explains "the sides, fairly and without editorial bias", as required by the Neutral point of view policy. What are the opposing views? Why have former weapons inspectors, professors and congressmen expressed skepticism? Note that opposing views also must be presented as fairly as possible. That is one of the principles the NPOV-policy is based on. The statement attributed to Theodore Postol helps a bit, (the one added her) but does not explain why he believes it was "conducted from the ground". Again, we should simply explain the sides fairly. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. However‌, if we attempt to explain them, we'll get accusations of UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE. This is why we had to compromise to just a single sentence. However, I would be in favor of providing direct quotes from each individual highlighting their thoughts/reasons so as to explain their position. Otherwise, our readers will just have to follow the cited reference and find out for themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes from all these people would violate WP:DUE, because we no longer would be covering their viewpoint in rough proportion to the level of coverage in RSs. VQuakr (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes from the sources?Terrorist96 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. Direct quotes are easy to overuse in any case, but their use also does nothing to ensure compliance with WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should overuse quotes, but at least one or two quotes to explain. If we paraphrase what the sources say, then people can claim bias in the wording. Stuck in between a rock and a hard place it seems.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Copy/paste from the Quotations page: In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".Terrorist96 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

However, the "Article structure" section in the NPOV-policy says: Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, and Thomas Massie view could be included in the United States reaction section, while former UN weapons inspectors and MIT professor Theodore Postol, could be included in a section about the munition? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Anyone object to this?Terrorist96 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reservations. A draft might be helpful. Going back to quotes, again the issue is one of weight. VQuakr (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What's the specific reason we are excluding former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford from this sentence? Also, I would be in favor of moving the Postol sentence to the beginning, and removing the repeated mention of Postol from the sentence, and replacing him with Peter Ford.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to moving postol anywhere outside of the other views section, for two reasons: First he is just a professor regardless of his alma mater or area of study, he just has commentator status. Second of all, his claim is an extraordinary one -being that it goes against the claim of BOTH the USA and Russia. LylaSand (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The specific reason was the lack of consensus for inclusion in the "Peter Ford" section above. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was for three sentences that describes his claims. I'm just asking it to be included in the list like the other people. There wasn't consensus for the three paragraphs (including Tulsi Gabbard, Ted Postol, etc.), but there was consensus for mentioning them. I think the same would apply to Peter Ford.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder
This is a courtesy reminder that this page is subject to the consensus required sanction. If an editor introduces content and their edit is reverted, this content may not be restored by anyone until it's been discussed on the talk page and consensus has been reached. If in doubt, ask an administrator to assess consensus. I plan to start enforcing this, as there are a number of issues which have been subject to low-rate edit wars over the past week. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Countries
What should we use as our inclusion/exclusion criteria for the International reactions/Countries subsection? VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, lot of countries were omitted when the prose version supplanted the flag one. I went with the prose one, in the end, but am still not 100 percent. El_C 04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ^This version is much better than the existing version.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is two fold: 1. do we want flags to serve as bulletpoints or do we want fluid prose? 2. And do we want the additional countries redacted from the flags version, in any case? El_C 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I don't feel strongly about either. But I would like to see more countries included to get a better global perspective since not everyone who reads Wikipedia is from the US. Though it also shouldn't include every single country in the world.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The flag icons don't do much for me. back to the OP, how do we determine what represents a "better global perspective"? VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By including statements issued by major countries based on their media coverage. I don't have a surefire way of going about it.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As some countries are democratic, others not so much, we should add at the USA, important voices of members of Congress. Not only the Trump Administrations position. Also Ran Paul, former Republican running mate of Trump could added here as one more sceptical dissenting voice (see discussion on sceptical individuals == of US political significance). Or we should title this section not "countries", but actual "Goverments of Countries" What do you think? KR, --BestHealthGuide (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think any countries on the security council deserve mention. And any countries actively involved (like Iran).Terrorist96 (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Quit it with the stupid straw polls
There's an RfC above. It's pretty obvious it's gonna end with "no consensus" for including Postol. That's gonna make including all the fringe people who said something in his support moot. The straw polls seem to be an excuse to edit war Postol into the article in the meantime.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is becoming a joke. This page is subject to discretionary sanctions, and it would do for them to be applied less cautiously. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As much activity as there's been on the talk page, there haven't been many edits on this topic recently on the article itself. The one that did occur was from an editor who hadn't been notified of the general sanctions (now done). There's not too much to apply general sanctions based upon at the moment. Having said that, I've warned one editor about bludgeoning the process and will note that spamming new discussions on highly-similar topics is likely to result in sanctions in the future. I certainly agree the number of Postol-related discussions at the moment is getting ridiculous. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)