Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack/Archive 2

Straw poll: Including Noam Chomsky support for Postol's claim
How about we also add Noam Chomsky, who has had an article written about his support for Postol in "The New Arab"? This could be worded like so :-

Noam Chomsky supported Postol's claims, saying "he went through the White House Intelligence Report in detail and just tears it to shreds."

This could be balanced by saying There has however been various technical criticisms of Postol's claims.


 * Support AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Noam Chomsky is not an authority on ballistics. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support EkoGraf (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to provide more than that, polling is not a substitute for discussion. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because he is a notable political activist/historian/philosopher that is an author of dozens of books on the topic of war and politics. EkoGraf (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can quote him on the subject of linguistics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The other views section is not a defense or a discussion about the fringe claims. Its simply a section noting that these skeptics exist. (the Chomsky thing does not appear to come from a reliable source anyway) LylaSand (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude. Are you seriously proposing cherry-picking Chomsky's opinion from an article that reports Assad's attack using sarin as fact, says Postol "has a reputation for dabbling in zany conspiracism", and uses Chomsky's "denialism" as a bellwether for the left's inconsistent defense of victims of atrocities? Your proposed 2nd sentence is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose to including claim by Postol. It was discredited as contradicting facts (see discussion in one of sections above). My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment VQuakr raises a reasonable and well considered objection regarding false balance. Would rephrasing to "Noam Chomsky has faced criticism for his support of Postol's suggestions" be more acceptable to address this issue? I do not think minor technical discrepancies "discredit" the thrust of Postol's thesis. Perhaps they detract from it and you are welcome to add something about them if you like. It seems like minor nitpicking to me though. I don't think a heavyweight like Chomsky needs to be an "authority" in ballistics on this one. He is a prominent anti-war voice and has been for decades, so I still feel his inclusion is a notable view that is warranted. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for freak sake. If we went out there and tried to include every person who supports the view backed up by reliable sources - that Assad did it - this article would explode. Doing the opposite is just the bad, even if you can't find as much material. These editors are literally trying to find every single person with a shred of notability who happens to support this fringe conspiracy view and add them to the article. It's a classic POV-push.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ridiculous false balance. He is a linguist and political commentator. He has no expertise in chemical weapons, ballistics, or Syria. Neutralitytalk 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll: Including Frank von Hippel and revised wording for fringe claim
I suggest the following wording or similar :-

''Other people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack include former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, former director of the Council for the National Interest Philip Giraldi, former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford and MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol. Postol has suggested the release of sarin was caused by an explosive charge being detonated on top of a pipe full of the liquid at the crater site and not from a chemical weapon dropped from a plane.''


 * Support Wording seems a factual representation of the report now. Titles could be corrected after result of poll above. Suggest a small mention of Hippel being skeptic seems deserved, without addressing Postol or his report as per VQuakr's suggestion. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its an extraordinary claim not backed up by any good sources, thus it's also undue weight. LylaSand (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose implying Hippel supports a conspiracy theory is not supported by any source I have seen and would violate WP:BLP. has also stated that the last sentence is not an accurate summary of Postol's position. VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't find Hippel mentioned anywhere besides that NJ article. Including him would be undue, IMO.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fringe on the top of fringe does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - Fringe, undue, based on Postol's widely disregarded/discredited six-page self-published report. Neutralitytalk 12:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll: Including titles of people in Other views section
Re Should Philip Giraldi's title of "former CIA officer" and Peter Ford's title of "director of the British Syrian Society" be included?


 * Support because it establishes their notability for being included to begin with.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support seems appropriate. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment We don't need to include every profession they ever had into the wording, this is not a biography. LylaSand (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No claims and no titles. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is just drudging the internet for views to support a particular POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of these men's fringe claims while using former titles to dress them up. Giraldi has promoted various conspiracy theories. As for Mr. Ford, see also, interestingly, The Telegraph ("Revealed: How Britain’s former Syria ambassador appeared on BBC to defend Assad... after quietly taking a job with dictator’s father-in-law" ... " Mr Ford had become a director of the controversial British Syrian Society. This was founded by Fawaz Akhras, a London-based cardiologist whose daughter Asma is married to President Assad, and is closely linked to the regime, frequently accused of acting as its mouthpiece in the west."). Neutralitytalk 12:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll: Including revised wording for fringe claim
''Other people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack include former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, former CIA officer and director of the Council for the National Interest Philip Giraldi, former UK ambassador to Syria and director of the British Syrian Society Peter Ford, and MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol. Postol suggested that the release of sarin was caused by an explosive charge being detonated on top of a pipe full of the liquid at the crater site and not from a chemical weapon dropped from a plane.''

Comment No problem at all with the changes. I already indicated they were appropriate. Well done. I also concur the video interview is relevant and would add value to the article. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support OK, Let's drop Hippel's mention and try just polling for the wording above. I would add that IBT is a good source, so is The Nation. Either one is fine with me. said "Theodore Postol did not claim that the chemical attack was carried out from the ground, so that will be to add a fact error." This is perfectly true. MSF source suggests some victims were affected by chlorine, so there were clearly two incidents. Erlbaeko and Postol don't consider the incident involving sarin that happened around the crater to be an "attack", so the wording I have used should resolve this without speaking about one. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I made some minor changes; I hope that's ok with you. I'm also in favor of using the RT video interview with Postol because it's relevant to his claim (in addition to the extant IBT link; indifferent about The Nation link).Terrorist96 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Once again Postol's claim is an extraordinary and ridiculous claim that is not backed up by quality sources. LylaSand (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sigh. How many times are we going to do this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Are there secondary RS mentioning Scott Ritter or Philip Giraldi? There should not be a sentence about Postol's ground explosion theory. Postol barely deserves mention at all. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's what I found. Ritter is mentioned here, here, here; Ritter and Giraldi are both mentioned here; Giraldi mentioned here, here, here, here, here and here. --unsigned comment by.
 * The only straight news sources there, Reno News Review and Dayton City Paper, are both opinion pieces. The other sources are either not RS at all or at least not for claims supporting the Russian/Syrian perspective. The last source is an uncritical interview with Giraldi. I don't think Ritter or Giraldi should be included even as mentions. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Terrorist96 - is this supposed to be this "consensus" that you are referring to you in your... "misleading", edit summary here? How about you stop edit warring until and when an actual consensus supports your edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is for including the sentence describing Postol's claim. Consensus can be found here. You should stop edit warring just because you don't like the result of the consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change over time, particularly as Postol as continued to make increasingly wild and contradictory claims. VQuakr (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is WP:FRINGE content. Wording does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - see my comments elsewhere. It's ridiculous to try and cram every person who supports Postol's ridiculous theories into this article, especially after they've been debunked. And the sources give above - alternet, consortiumnews, original.antiwar, sputniknews, liberarianinstitute - are all shit. I mean maybe daytoncitypaper, wtf that is, is not, but that's about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As explained, exhaustively, above, this is fringe content and belongs nowhere near an encyclopedia article in any form. The "sources" given above are, simply put, jokes. Neutralitytalk 12:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. RT has published the content as a news story, not just an op-ed. "White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack ‘Obviously False’ – MIT Professor", RT America, April 14, 2017. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Uqayribat sarin attack
It seems events in ISIS territory really do tend to keep in the dark. In December an apparent major chemical atrocity in the ISIS-held Uqayribat/Oqeirbat region of eastern Hama province, went virtually unnoticed. It seems the Uqayribat incident greatly resembled Khan Shaykhun, involving rockets carrying sarin gas fired from aircraft on civilian villages. There is little reason to doubt reports which suggest approx. 100 people were killed, including numerous children. Few people even heard of it. Evidently, the regime testing the limits of its impunity, this enboldened them into the similar atrocity in Idlib, the enormous media coverage and response this time being totally unexcepted. 188.67.96.168 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Another source for this here. The attack should be added to Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. I am unconvinced mention of it should be added to this article unless reliable sources have connected the two attacks. VQuakr (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bolivian Ambassador
I would like to request the re-insertion of this deleted text, despite it already seeming to have consensus from myself and Terrorist96. I thought I would check here before re-insertion. The text was removed on the geographical basis that Bolivia is not near Syria. This doesn't really make any sense. Bolivia is currently on the 15 nation UN security council and a perfectly valid country to commentate on the attack, wherever it's location. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The notion that the view of Bolivia cannot be added because "it is nowhere near Syris" is laughable. Of course we add it. Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no we don't. There has to be some compelling reason for why this should be included. Should we include the view of Fiji? And actually this isn't even "the view of Bolivia" which is a country, a collection of people with diverse opinions. It's just the opinion of some people in the Bolivian government.
 * (and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped following me around).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, you seemed to think that opinions of UN Ambassadors were noteworthy enough to be included. In the lede even .  Yet apparently not here. Khirurg (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quit it with the false equivalence and ridiculous "whataboutism". The key words are "several times". Also permament members of UNSC are obviously more noteworthy than rotating members. Should we include Ukraine's opinion? Uruguay's? Ethiopia's? No? Then you're just cherry picking because this particular opinion represents a certain POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Fiji isn't on the UN Security Council currently; Bolivia is.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So is Ukraine but I don't see you rushing to add their opinion into the article. Why is that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add it.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying neither belongs in here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There are way too many countries to include them all. There is nothing special about Bolivia in relation to this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am really not seeing any consensus to include in the discussion here or in the attempt to establish objective criteria at Talk:Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack. VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can revert the Bolivian paragraph if you like. I was mainly restoring the other views section.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, removed per your suggestion. In addition, the opinion of Amnesty was not correctly summarized per source. Removed also. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see a valid reason for removing this. Let me remind everyone that Bolivia is a memeber of the UN security council.  That alone means it warrants inclusion. Khirurg (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Bolivia does seem to stand out a bit amongst the other countries' references. I generally default to exclude such reactions by various countries, and I don't see any reason to make an exception here. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a very poor argument VQuakr.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bolivia should be mentioned. We should include all viewpoints of the security council countries, especially when it is different from most of the others as per NPOV.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Security council countries" seems a very arbitrary standard. can you clarify why you think giving extra weight to one specific viewpoint is the best way to comply with WP:NPOV? VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not giving extra weight; it's giving due weight. As it stands currently, Bolivia is excluded entirely which is untenable per NPOV. We need a standard on which countries to include; see the first section on this talk page. I think including security council countries' viewpoints plus any countries actively involved (like Iran) is a good standard. This addresses the argument "why not include Fiji" if we include Bolivia. Do you have a better suggestion on the standard we use for deciding which countries we include?Terrorist96 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Above you say "especially when it is different from most of the others as per NPOV." I do not see how that fits with WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that excluding Bolivia entirely does not achieve NPOV. We can reword it to achieve balance, but I don't think exclusion achieves balance. C/p from that section: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not about excluding specifically Bolivia. This is simply one of many countries not related to the subject of the page. Hence undue. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should also remove any mention of France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. They are all unrelated to the incident. Would you support their exclusion? And if not, why not?Terrorist96 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly, I would suggest that. All of that should also be removed as opinions that do not add any information on the subject of the page. Only opinions by representatives of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia might possibly remain if there is a reasonable connection between them and the subject of the page (I am not sure). My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WEIGHT requires us to summarize significant viewpoints, not to quote all adherents of each viewpoint. My view that listing quotes from a bunch of countries (regardless of security council status) is undesirable is mostly editorial not policy-based but it certainly is possible to have a neutral article without specifically mentioning the viewpoint of the Bolivian ambassador. VQuakr (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Violation of Consensus rule
I believe that Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes  have violated "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." They are re-adding challenged content without consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect. You haven't reverted an edit, since it was long-standing content developed over a long period of time, so they are not re-instating a reverted edit. "Consensus required" applies to reverted edits only, and age of the content is part of the determination of whether something is a revert. If anything, you violated the restriction by reinstating your removal of content after it was challenged. Also pinging and  for this next part. I am getting very tired of the behavioral problems on this article and other articles within the topic area. Getting in "your" one revert when an edit war has already started is just as disruptive as breaching 1RR. Waiting a few days after you believe someone's done something inappropriate and then reverting them without querying an administrator is not helpful either. I think administrators have been extremely patient and shown considerable restraint in this topic area despite the fact that we'd be more than justified in handing out quite a few topic bans. I'm about at the end of my patience, though. Quit the disruptive behavior. Quit gaming every single restriction put in place. If you believe someone has done something disruptive, take it to a noticeboard or an administrator who's active in the topic area - do not just revert. Discuss things on the talk page. General sanctions rely on administrator discretion, and if this behavior continues, my discretion will include liberal use of topic bans in response to disruptive editing whether or not bright line violations have occurred. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob, there are SO MANY instances of situations like this - where somebody runs in and tries to get their edits in without consensus - that if editors reported or sought admin intervention with every single one you guy would be doing nothing but analyzing scores of edits to these articles per day. And that's assuming that you would actually do that, which is doubtful, since in the past when these kinds of edits WERE brought to admin attention the response was usually either "why are you bothering me, this is a content dispute" or "if you think it's a violation report it to AE". But of course reporting something to AE, putting aside the fact that this would be considered trivial there, is time consuming, generates a ton of drama and is generally not designed to settle content disputes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Rob, are you telling that I was supposed to report this edit by Terrorist96 to a noticeboard or query an admin, instead of commenting on article talk page and making a revert? That was my first edit on the page during a week. Yes, I am very much willing to follow any clear instructions and report any violations instead of reverting. Can I ask you on your talk page if in doubt? Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. And just to clarify, do you mean querying something like that? That looks to me as a bad faith assumption at least. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your original revert was fine; I would not expect you to have reported a normal edit you reverted. Once it was reverted again, I would hope an admin would be contacted. I was pinging everyone involved to be thorough, but your conduct wasn't objectionable. You are definitely welcome to ask me if ever in doubt about an edit or if you just think admin eyes on a situation is a good idea. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So then how do you suggest we move forward? I obtained agreement to remove uninvolved countries from the article, but then when I actually remove them, people complain. And no one seems to want to provide their suggestion on what standard we use for deciding which countries to mention and which ones to exclude, so we can obtain consensus on the standard we use.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't link to any discussion suggesting consensus to remove countries in your edits, so how is anyone supposed to know that it exists? Feel free to link to it now and I'll take a look. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The last three paragraphs here then the follow up section here.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sections show consensus for the large content removal you performed, particularly the removal of analyses by various countries (as opposed to opinions contained in public statements). VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see nothing close to consensus for a large-scale removal in any of that. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said there was consensus, only agreement to remove irrelevant countries. And I thought we needed consensus to add info to the article, not to challenge and remove, which is what I did, same as how people challenged and removed the mention of Bolivia (a security council country). But the only distinction between removing Bolivia and my removal of irrelevant countries seems to be some vague age requirement, subject to interpretation, and that's not written down anywhere.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see such an agreement either. And per the DS you need consensus to undo long standing 'edits' (confusing, I know).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Countries to include and why
Any mention of viewpoints from other countries should be excluded as being irrelevant to the situation. If we are going to exclude Bolivia (a security council country) as being irrelevant, then we should also exclude France, Egypt, Canada, Australia, etc. unless some nexus can be shown. Please add any other countries that ought to be mentioned and what is their connection to the situation that merits inclusion.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Syria, obviously.
 * US, because they are participating in the conflict to some degree.
 * Russia, because they are involved.
 * Iran, because they are involved.


 * This seems reasonable to me. I would add Turkey, as their level of involvement in the conflict is at least as major as that of Iran. To clarify though - you are proposing removal of the "official viewpoints" by politicians and ambassadors and such, not publications from investigations performed by, for example, France? VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I retained Turkey as they are relevant as well. Which publications from investigations are you referring to?Terrorist96 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The French technical analysis of the chemistry that you just removed would be one example, sourced to . You also removed Erdoğan's assessment of the casualties in the same edit; any reason for that one? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it's still a statement coming from the French government. I can't read French, but Google Translate says the title of that article is "Damascus is responsible for the chemical attack, according to the French survey". Is it a technical analysis or a survey? We can rely on the analyses of international organizations (Human Rights Watch, OPCW, Amnesty International, etc.) tasked with making such assessments, not one conducted by a nation that is irrelevant to the conflict. As for Erdogan's assessment, I removed it because the source (2nd paragraph) never attributed that assessment to Erdogan, let alone even mention him in the entire article. It was mentioned after mentioning Nikki Haley, so I attributed to her instead.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My French is rusty, but "l'enquête" is an "investigation", not a "survey." I alluded to this sort of thing above specifically to avoid such a mass removal, which honestly smacks of WP:POINT. I think you should self-rv and remove more selectively. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how POINT applies here. I'm not trying to change any policy. We agreed that we remove all statements from all irrelevant countries. That "investigation" is a statement put out by the French government, not an independent investigatory body that happens to be French. If there was something put out by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), for example, then that would be admissible. I took the liberty of finding the actual report and it's basically an evaluation by the French government (specifically Jean-Marc Ayrault, Minister of Foreign Affairs) of what happened - exactly what we agreed on excluding. We don't care about the French government's analysis because they are unconnected with the event. I don't see how it's different from the statements by other irrelevant nations other than it's been put on paper.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No we discussed limiting the "we condemn this attack and want investigation" boilerplate responses from every head of state and their dogwalker. The French report claims independent analysis of medical samples, compares the attack with another recent alleged sarin attack by the Syrian govt, and evaluates the ability of other factions to have perpetrated the attack. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still the view of a government unconnected with the attack. I don't see how we can distinguish it from other governmental statements. Are reports from Human Rights Watch, OPCW, Amnesty International, etc. not sufficient? Why do we need a report from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France? It doesn't add any value. The article already is full of "Assad did it" claims from the aforementioned orgs, so adding "a French report also thinks Assad did it" is superfluous.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What other sources are there for the specific sarin chemistry that has been used by the Assad regime? VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OPCW? They're a better source vs the report written by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the discussion is about here. The opinions of the Erdogan regime which is engaging in a covert war with Syria are considered valid and worthy of note but not those of Security Council members? This entire thread is surreal. In any case the opinion of non involved countries should be given more credence than of those involved in the conflict. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the way the article is framed in terms of "reactions". Reactions take up more than half of the article, getting more words than what actually happened and what is known about it. What is presumably more important than all of these reactions is the investigations, which don't seem to be given due weight here, and the French one is now lost as it was only mentioned under "reactions". I think the article needs to at least mention the British forensic investigation and the French forensic investigation Should there be an "investigations" section after the "claims" section and before the "responses" sections? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I generally agree with removing certain countries, that edit goes way too far. What happens? We are leaving fringe views in section "other views", but remove views by nearly all government that are based on opinions of their "mainstream" military/intelligence experts. In particular, the involvement of France is important ("France called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council after the attack", etc.), and the removal of the whole paragraph starting from "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau..." is not appropriate because this paragraph tells about the overall reaction by the international community, which is actually something important. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The other views section has clear consensus for inclusion. The irrelevant countries do not have consensus. My initial suggestion was to keep all Security Council countries plus countries directly involved. There was no consensus for using that standard, so the current consensus is for including only countries directly involved. This is why we are where we are right now. You can't have it both ways: remove some countries you want but keep others, because reasons. If we can get consensus for including all Security Council countries plus those directly involved, we can re-add France. But until then, France stays out because they are not directly connected.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, the RfC on the page was not officially closed, so I am not sure about consensus. But even if we had consensus, that was before your edit, because your edit shits the overall balance on the page from mainstream opinions by governments towards fringe opinions ("other views"). Now, you should keep in mind that the "government opinions" were actually included per consensus and therefore should stay until there is a consensus to remove. Cutting some of that is fine, but not the massive removal your made because it shifts the overall balance from mainstream to fringe views. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your proposed standard we use for deciding which countries to include?Terrorist96 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First, let's talk about specific edits. This your edit (edit summary). Are you telling that your previous edit was a revert? If so, please self-revert because you just willingly violated 1RR rule for the page. But even beyond the technicalities, what you do is a massive removal of long-standing material without consensus. Please self-revert and continue discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again: What is your proposed standard we use for deciding which countries to include? And my revert of your edit came 4 days after my original edit removing the content, way past the 24 hour rule for 1RR.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That depends on context. I would not mind removing phrase "Other countries who condemned the chemical attack include ..." because it tells nothing on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not answering the question. What standard do we use so that people in the future can't say they want country X's views to be mentioned and that country Y's views should be omitted? I've provided two standards so far: 1. All security council countries plus any countries directly involved, and 2. Only countries directly involved. Please either pick one of these two options or propose your own.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What has been proposed, and what I support is that there should be some reason to include the opinion of representatives of any country. A boilerplate "We condemn the attack and want full investigation" adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the article. If France or Bolivia publicizes results of their own investigation and that investigation gets significant coverage in secondary sources, then per WP:WEIGHT we should mention that investigation. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. I can try to quickly fix this section per your comment. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

POV-tag
The article (as of 1 July 2017) do not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", as required by our Neutral point of view policy. As others have pointed out, both Postol and Hersh claims should be discribed. It's not, hence the tag. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirmed that inhabitants of Khan Sheikoun, in the Syrian province of Idlib, had been “exposed to Sarin, a chemical weapon”, during an attack last April.
 * The news that Sarin had definitely been involved caused a buzz on Twitter from people refusing to believe it. Many pointed instead to an article in a German newspaper last weekend which quoted an unnamed “senior adviser to the American intelligence community” as saying no chemical attack had taken place.
 * The article, by veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh, suggested that Syrian forces using a conventional explosive bomb had accidentally hit a store of “fertilisers, disinfectants and other goods” causing “effects similar to those of sarin”.
 * Hersh’s version contradicted evidence from a range of sources and, in the light of yesterday’s announcement from the OPCW, is clearly untrue. As far as some people were concerned, though, it said what they wanted to hear and, even after the OPCW reported its findings, they were still complaining that mainstream media had failed to take Hersh’s ridiculous story seriously.' Brian Whitaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.79.234 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, the OPCW confirmed that some inhabitants of Khan Sheikoun had been “exposed to Sarin” (or a sarin-like substance), but it is not that simple. You see, according to Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, the OPCW "is in no position to make the claim it did", ref. Ex-Weapons Inspector: Trump’s Sarin Claims Built on ‘Lie’ "One of the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such as the OPCW—namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime—is the concept of “chain of custody” of any samples that are being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples, the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means the integrity of the sample has been compromised—in short, there is no sample."
 * On top of that, still according Scott Ritter, the OPCW relied on the White Helmets to collect samples, "provided representatives to be interviewed, and videos and images" for the OPCW to review, so no, it's not "clearly untrue"(that is, Hersh’s version is not clearly untrue...). Nor does it matter, with regards to the POV-tag, since our Neutral point of view policy requires us to "not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Erlbaeko (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sy Hersh provided absolutely no evidence.


 * 'Multiple witnesses interviewed, none support Hersh's story, even those supplied by the Syrian government with different versions of events.'
 * 'There's a map showing where the victims came from, southwest of the crater in the road. No victims from around Hersh's mythical AQ HQ.'


 * Explain the sides fairly.  In proportion to the seriousness with which the more extravagant stories are treated by reliable sources. Overwhelmingly RS treat the OPCW findings as worthy of respect and  RS seem to regard their findings as credible readings of a reality that took place, and readings that rely on the OPCW being part of some vast jihadist conspiracy, and dupes in a jihadist deception at the service of those who seek to denigrate a humane and moderate  regime, are fringe, marginal, conspiracist   Explain the sides fairly. I'm not saying Hersh shouldn't be mentioned. Half a sentence - would be  in proportion, since die Welt saw fit to publish.


 * Reading about Scott Ritter on wikipedia, 'Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation". '.. Crikey, all the cream of humanity is against the jihadist conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.135.61 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We do explain the OPCW findings in the article. That is fine by me. If a half sentence is sufficient to describe Hersh view "fairly" then ok, but I doubt it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Btw, here's a video from the (not so) SMART News Agency, showing how to NOT collect sarin samples. Compare that to this video where a UN team takes samples in Zamalka after the Ghouta attack. What story did you call "ridiculous" again? Seriously. Wake up. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's not true that "Sy Hersh provided absolutely no evidence". Here is a transcript of a chat protocol betweeen a security adviser and an active US American soldier on duty on a key operational base about the events in Khan Sheikhoun. See also this article. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I notice a sort of perpetual pattern here (not just this article) of groups of users trying to keep well-sourced, clearly pertinent information out of articles that for some reason happen to always be relevant to the subject of US militarism and its enemies. Often this even involves information from the most acclaimed and renowned sources -- apparently American Trump supporters went through the Theodore Postol article and did quite a hatchet-job attempting to malign one of the most respected living scientists (including false or misleading descriptions, improper citations attached to unrelated information, repeatedly adding "citation needed" after basic information about Postol instead of noting the citation while not inline was already listed after the article regarding his faculty profile, and filling the article with red links to give it a poor appearance), there was a lot to clean up. Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for the US military-intelligence complex, our job is to inform readers impartially. Many good sources have covered the description of events by Hersh, which already had appeared in a major German publication. This alone is enough for inclusion. Wikipedia does not exist to silence all sources that contradict US regime propaganda. What we think happened is not relevant -- "I think this narrative is impossible because ____" is not relevant here. What is relevant: what are sources reporting? Sources we can use report numerous competing narratives. We are not doing our work correctly if we censor much-reported analyses by prominent journalists and scientists in sole favour of the line of the Trump administration. Adlerschloß (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Trump Supporters" "US regime propaganda". I'd have you know I voted for Clinton and was one of her genuine supporters. LylaSand (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What it comes down to is that Postol and Hersh make contradicting, ridiculous, fringe claims that are not picked up by quality sources and tend to be outright disproven by the findings of professional and serious organizations that investigate these matters. LylaSand (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So I take it you support Trump pivoting from his campaign stance to Clinton's position on Syria/Assad? Clinton publicly advocated bombing Syria mere hours before Trump went through with that. In any event -- whatever American faction is supported (which is sort of dueling right wings, in world context) is sort of beside the point, we should be including information according to what reliable sources say, not as a result of your personal support for Trump embracing Clinton's views on the Syria conflict and attempts to silence other explanations that contradict the Trump administration. Hersh and Postol making differing claims is obviously not a reason to not report both claims. Hersh and Postol are both highly-respected or legendary figures in their respective fields, it goes without saying they are both professional and serious sources. Many reliable sources have reported their accounts, meaning the accounts are not fringe, and obviously neither Hersh nor Postol are fringe as individuals. "Ridiculous" is a subjective description; your personal feelings are not relevant, but if you find a neutral, reliable source that describes either account as "ridiculous" we can certainly cite and include that. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hersh says 'There are those in the Trump administration that understand this, which is why I learned the information I did. ' - so it sounds like Hersh is close to some in the Trump administration, Anderschloss. What 'many reliable sources ' have reported Hershs ridiculous nonsense? Only die Welt. What else? you are hallucinating.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.135.61 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsure if it is worthwhile to respond to a crude Anon, but he/she/they are the one defending and supporting Donald Trump's narrative and behaviour regarding Syria. On sources, Erlbaeko already listed some sources in the previous section, scrolling through Google News searching syria hersh reveals numerous others. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, not 'some sources'.
 * Not sure its worth debating either with the kind of Alex Jones level of some editors here - will leave with this " for the OPCW conclusion to be wrong they would have to had been a massive conspiracy, "78.150.135.61 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If Hersh and Postol findings are "disproven by the findings of professional and serious organizations that investigate these matters", the we can add that too. Personally I have no problem with that. What I don't accept is the removal of well sourced content that is needed to explain the sides. And it is more than one side in a war. Keep in mind that propaganda has played a significant role in every war since World War I. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a few notable sources that cover Hersh's claims:

Salon has a couple of articles, Alternet covers it, Iranian Press TV covers it, etc. This is more than enough coverage to indicate the claims received enough attention to deserve discussion here. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing Boing: Leaked transcript: US soldier and security advisor aghast at Trump's reckless Syrian strike
 * Paste: It Makes Absolutely No Sense for Assad to Launch a Chemical Attack Inside Syria
 * Mother Jones: Did Donald Trump Invent a Chemical Attack in Syria? (Drum disagrees with Hersh's assessment, but still covers it)
 * The Nation: Media Contempt for Facts Grows Along With the Dangers of War With Russia
 * NJToday.net:Trump's Red Line (reprints Welt article in full)
 * The Canary: People should be tearing into the BBC for the alarming decision it just made
 * Telesur: Seymour Hersh Says Trump Knew Syria Didn't Use Chemical Weapons
 * Salon is probably the only news site that would even breach the list of the 1000 most notable news sites. You have listed sources, yes, but not notable sources. LylaSand (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am getting the sense that LylaSand is a single-purpose bad hand account, created in recent months and only devoted to scrubbing Syria-related articles from any evidence contradicting Trump regime claims (literally all edits amounting to this). But in any event I cannot imagine any literate or culturally-aware American stating that neither The Nation nor Mother Jones is a top 1000 publication. What liberal/progressive publications are more prominent? Even Boing Boing would seem to make the cut. All of the sources I listed are at least notable enough to be subjects for Wikipedia articles. I see no evidence aside from one recent user and one anon making arguments entirely consisting of illogical insults to regard these are anything other than good sources for our purposes. Adlerschloß (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this is besides the point regarding whether we should include Hersh's claims, but for those alleging the OPCW's findings would indicate that either Hersh's story is impossible or that OPCW would need to be in on a 'conspiracy' for Hersh's narrative to be true, this description from Welt should suffice:
 * The organization has become more careful since Syrian rebels took an OPCW team hostage in 2014 and after the April attack, an OPCW team traveled not to the location of the presumed gas attack, but to the neighboring country of Turkey. Team members were able to observe the autopsies of three alleged victims of the poison gas attack. An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like substances.


 * In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that all evidence be under the control of investigators at all times. That didn't happen in this case.
 * Adlerschloß (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How ironic. Hersh complaining about control of evidence when he himself solely controls the "evidence" he utilizes in his article by never actually disclosing it. LylaSand (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually:
 * As has always been his practice, Hersh has told Welt am Sonntag the identities of all the sources he quotes anonymously in his story about Trump's retaliatory strike against Syria. The paper was thus able to speak independently to the central source in the U.S.
 * I'm not sure if you are accusing both Hersh and the publication's editors of lying. Adlerschloß (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is the evidence is not disclosed to the viewer. For all we know the central source is a 23 year year old intern. Also in scenarios like this you don't have to compromise the anonymity of the source to release the evidence - just give the actual transcript and say what department it comes from. I -personally- think Hersh is embarrassed to tell us which department or affiliated organization it comes from. LylaSand (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And Talk is not really the place for speculation, but some are arguing that because the accounts by Hersh and Postol disagree, we should not include either. That obviously is not really sensible -- how many articles on Wikipedia contain numerous alternate explanations of unclear events? But just a theory on how both could be true: Syria bombs Khan Shaykoun, hitting building as specified by Hersh's sources (and leaked military transcript), that building containing a chemical stockpile, unleashing cloud of chlorine and other gases that sicken and injure civilians in the surrounding area. Al-Nusra Front sensing an opportunity uses the confusion to launch a small ground-based chemical attack in the same vicinity, killing civilians in the process (as suggested by Postol's analysis of evidence), with the motive of creating the impression that the entire event was a sarin attack by the Syrian government. So basically both accounts are true. I am not suggesting this is definitely what happened, merely that the contradictions between the accounts of Postol and Hersh are not irreconcilable, and their differences are no reason to derogate either account. Adlerschloß (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that Hersh and Postol disagree highlight the fact these a fringe claims - claims with a lot of thought put into their creation, but when it come down to it are entirely baseless and rely on extreme stretching of details provided by anonymous sources, or in many cases no sources at all. In other words their claims are paper tigers. LylaSand (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest inclusion of data from recent article by Seymour Hersh
An article by Seymour Hersh was published today, Sunday 25th June 2017 (in English) in the German newspaper 'Welt': https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

In the aritcle Hersh cites Trump administration and US intelligence community sources who claim that US intelligence agencies knew that the bomb dropped on Khan Shaykhun was a conventional 500lb bomb, but that the Trump administration chose to ignore the data.Seosamh1973 (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, he is only quoting one (anonymous) source. The article, by the way, is dripping with factual errors. See also https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/06/25/will-get-fooled-seymour-hersh-welt-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Hersh is not only quoting _one_ source. Hersh’s report is based on interviews with several US advisers and evidence they provided, including transcripts of real-time communications that immediately followed the Syrian attack on April 4. And Die Welt and the editor Stefan Aust could corroborate the statements ;-)


 * Quote: "As has always been his practice, Hersh has told Welt am Sonntag the identities of all the sources he quotes anonymously in his story about Trump's retaliatory strike against Syria. The paper was thus able to speak independently to the central source in the U.S. Hersh had also offered the article to the London Review of Books. The editors accepted it, paid for it, and prepared a fact checked article for publication, but decided against doing so, as they told Hersh, because of concerns that the magazine would vulnerable to criticism for seeming to take the view of the Syrian and Russian governments when it came to the April 4th bombing in Khan Sheikhoun. Hersh had met a few times with Stefan Aust when he was editor of Der Spiegel and followed his career. According to Hersh, he knew Aust to be someone who was unafraid of the priequences of publishing stories that, when verified and checked, he knew to be true. It was a natural move to send the story, as edited, to him."


 * Chat protocols https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165900177/So-einen-Scheiss-kann-ich-mir-nicht-mal-ausdenken.html+&cd=3&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de


 * ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/25/intel-behind-trumps-syria-attack-questioned: Trump was told that no evidence existed against the Syrian government but ordered “his generals” to “retaliate” anyway. --87.156.234.111 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Seymour Hersh is a famous investigative journalist (and an American so he isn't some Kremlin propagandist) who published this is Die Welt, a well establish German newspaper. All of this means (at least to me) that Hersh's investigative report cannot simply be ignored. In addition, it seems that a significant portion of this Wikipedia article's sources come from reputable news sites reporting on what was then breaking news so it is important to remember Wikipedia's policy on breaking news, which can be found here: Identifying reliable sources. The following Wiki policies and guidelines are also pertinent.
 * Sourcing News Organizations:


 * "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."
 * "Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy."
 * Importantly: "The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it."
 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (emphasis added)
 * "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy.
 * Identifying reliable sources
 * "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."
 * [Allowing time to pass] "gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements."
 * Recentism - "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view, and can result in: Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens...."
 * Getting back on track, since Hersh's article was published much later than the events, it is far removed from the events and since it also came about from professional investigative journalism, it is a secondary source rather than a primary source on these events and so should supersede other primary sources that it conflicts with (which includes breaking news sources as described above). Of course, any other secondary sources that are also the result of a professional investigation should supersede conflicting primary sources, even if they conflict with Hersh's article (in which case both articles should also play a role). So yes, Hersh's article should play a role in this Wiki article. selfworm Talk ) 16:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nouhhh, it's undue. Just kidding Erlbaeko (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Better (e.g. farther removed from the events) sources should have more weight than primary sources per wiki policy.selfworm Talk ) 00:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Defining sources as "better" and "farther removed" solely because they were written after more time has passed since the event is a bizarre misunderstanding of our reliable source policy and the definition of recentism. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you arguing for in terms of how the article should change? What do you want to remove and what do you want to add in? When you say Hersh "should supersede other primary sources that it conflicts with", do you mean mention of primary sources it conflicts with should be deleted? (Because that would mean deleting most of the article, as Hersh's account contradicts every other published account, primary or secondary, Russian, regime, opposition, American, OPCW, etc.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hersh's account contradicts every other published account, primary or secondary, Russian, regime, opposition, American, OPCW". To my knowledge, the OPCW is still conducting its investigation into this incident and they have yet to assign blame. If I'm wrong about this then I'd appreciate being shown a link to their report. And if you think that Hersh's account contracts every "Russian, regime" account then you and I are reading vastly different news sources. I have yet to see even a single article written by a pro-Russian or a pro-Syrian government news source assigning blame to the Syrian government; I've only ever read them saying that such-and-such governments are blaming the Syrian government, which is different from assigning blame to the Syrian government. Finally, maybe "supersede" wasn't the best word to use. I want to see as many as possible of the "breaking news" sources be replaced by sources that have done in depth investigations into this event and currently the only such investigation that I've seen has been by done Hersh. selfworm Talk ) 07:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It would have been nice if Die Welt's "extensive" fact-checking had included an indication of where this building with a basement full of neurotoxic fertilizer was located. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't fertilizer Quakey, apparently they use chlorine based chemicals to embalm Muslims in that part of the world. That's where they keep getting it from! I thought it was swimming pools. I added something into the article without even reading this and it seems to be standing, with minor corrections. Hopefully it'll read nicely for those who get to the bottom of the page now to give a more accurate, true and representative coverage of all the views on this event. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says "fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods". I do not see consensus in this section to add Hersh's theory to the article. VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "I do not see consensus in this section to add Hersh's theory to the article." And I don't see consensus to exclude it. Is consensus needed in order to include something in an article?selfworm Talk ) 07:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You need consensus to add material, but if the article fails to "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias", you can add it or re-add it as many times you like, since the Neutral point of view policy "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Erlbaeko (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer.<font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"><font color="#FBB117">selfworm <font color="#FDD017">Talk ) 12:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it should be included. It is notable and highly relevant.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. And we don't "explain the sides, fairly" if we exclude one side. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus here for removing Hersh. Everyone here seems to be indicating the information should be included. Even Bob did a minor amend and didn't remove it, indicating support. Until Marek and MVBW get here and do their thing, it looks like you're on your own Quakey and I'm not sure you've given a decent reason for the removal. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't favor including Hersh's latest story in the article. I don't think it is credible, because it doesn't specifically identify where the arms depot/meeting place was and it doesn't explain how exploded cleaning supplies, insecticides and fertilizers caused Sarin byproducts to be found in victims brought to Turkey immediately after the attack.(OPCW report) However, I don't want to get into a debate on that point. In general, I prefer for readers to know about competing claims and allow them to evaluate the evidence themselves, so I'm fine leaving Hersh's report in the article, even though I don't buy it personally. Although it should be a bare minimum mention due to the very limited amount of coverage the story received.

I do want to discuss a policy issue about 's interpretation of breaking news and primary sources. Admittedly, the guideline article quote "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS." at Identifying_reliable_sources is not helpful and I will suggest a change to that section following this post. A definition of "breaking news" in that section is needed. To me, breaking news does not mean a newspaper article that appears the day after an event. Breaking news means real-time reporting, such as a television reporter on the scene of an accident or an online story that is made up of short items with time stamps. Or social media postings. Basically, something that isn't edited.

I would be interested to know which sources in the article Selfworm thinks are "breaking news" and/or primary sources: "I want to see as many as possible of the 'breaking news' sources be replaced by sources that have done in depth investigations into this event and currently the only such investigation that I've seen has been by done Hersh." Which sources do you consider "breaking news" and how do you define "in depth investigations"? I agree with 's point above stating that just because Hersh's story came out well after the event, does not mean it is inherently a better source.

There is one clearly primary source cited in the article, and it is the transcript of the American soldier and Security Advisor discussing the attack. That is a text-book case of primary source. I'm going to delete that sentence and remove the heading to reduce the weight of attention Hersh's story gets in the article. The transcript is linked in Hersh' story, so readers can still access it if they want. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 19:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The transcript may be a primary source, but the intro in the article states that "Intelligence officials doubted the alleged Sarin gas attack at Khan Sheikhoun". That is what we use, and that is a secondary source. And also. Please, remember that you need consensus to remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That intro is just a one-sentence summary of the primary source material. The sentence is also redundant to the article written by Hersh, so it isn't needed. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And this article's special consensus rule is confusing, especially depending on who made the first edit, and whether the first edit is adding or subtracting material, but it is not that confusing in this case. You reinstated an edit I challenged. And it was clearly a problematic use of a primary source. So you need consensus to add it back. Which is just the usual get-consensus to add material rule. I'll try a modified edit. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 20:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not that confusing. It was consensus to add it, so now you need consensus to remove it. Or change it. And, btw, this is your second revert today. Please, self-revert, and be more careful in the future. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "it"? There was support for including Hersh's story in the article and I did not remove it. I took out a clearly primary source that was redundant and removed a sub-heading for two sentences that clearly fit into the main heading to comply with WEIGHT. You are the only one completely reverting edits. I am attempting to gain consensus by editing. Those are not the same thing. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 21:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "It" is the content added here by AssadistDEFECTOR and slightly changed by Adlerschloß and Bobfrombrockley here and here. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * there most certainly was not clear consensus to add the material, and your claim It was consensus to add it, so now you need consensus to remove it. Or change it is a rule entirely of your own making. As noted in the talk page header on this page, "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." Has this story been picked up or analyzed by any other sources that might help establish a level of acceptance as described at WP:FRINGELEVEL? VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "not clear consensus"? When you removed it here, it was six against two, in favour of adding/keeping it, and you didn't even gave a reason for your removal. You need consensus to "add, modify or remove material in articles". Erlbaeko (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing a vote/polling with consensus, and are misquoting WP:CON by taking that phrase out of context. I did give several reasons for the removal, here on the talk page and in the edit summary. You also have ignored the edit restriction on this article that I pointed out. Your attempts at lawyering are an unnecessary distraction; I suggest you focus more on the content discussion than "winning" via bureaucratic wrangling. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the sneaky, leaky leak should be excluded. There's loads and loads of weight to this side of the story and massive acceptance above WP:FRINGELEVEL that the event likely differed from the Turkish media's reported version of events, from the next UK Prime Minister to the world's leading intellectual. To answer the question regarding how sarin-like stuff found it's way into Turkey, that will be via the gang of Al-Qaeda/Turkish Intelligence that killed and dragged the goat into position, planted the birds and did the setup shots at Al-Bab hospital. The one guy that peed sarin that they wanted to pass the sample obviously got too close and died, or they likely murdered him. Under direct orders from the mad dictator Erdogan. You have to study the media in Turkey and things like that to really get this. Erdogan's as mad as a march hare and people believing his story that Assad did it are as likely to believe that an old man leading a moderate muslim group in Pennsylvania masterminded a coup attempt last year. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the place for you to peddle your personal conspiracy theory. None of this garbage matches the (already fringe) viewpoint from Hersh that is the subject of this section. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The only conspiracy theory here is why some people are seeing five fingers when there are clearly only four. Or, better put how some people can think something as huge as a KhAB-250 when they see something the size of a drainpipe . I am concerned how many on this thread seem to have taken some sort of Orwellian trip to room 101 to visit the rats and have consequentially given up pondering the magical, extra-terrestrial and extravagant theories people's brains must conceive to have made the KhAB-250 turn into a drainpipe. Your comments expose something of a lack of competence and lack of key reading in this area, Quakey boy. The goats and birds are in one of that kooky, MIT, conspiracy-nutter, top-pentagon-adviser, crazy-loon, respected-professor, fringe-mainstream Postol's "Magnificent 7" reports on the subject of the article. Your description of them as garbage leads me to suspect you haven't read them. I have listed them below for reference and your further reading and posterity to a true forensic expert and hero, who possibly just averted WW3 for all of us:-

Hope this helps give some real intelligence to the article. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * April 11th
 * April 13th
 * April 18th (This one features the goat and birds)
 * April 21st (This one gets more in depth about goat and birds - you have to see the video with the birds Quakey)
 * April 25th (This one draws many of the same conclusions as Hersh)
 * May 1st
 * May 29th

Hersh does not provide the transcript, or any evidence that he actually had a legitimate transcript. It is an extraordinary claim not backed up impeccable sources. Hersh might be a notable source, but he is not a quality, excellent, or impeccable source. LylaSand (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition, consensus was that the other views section denotes the other views, not list the arguments for or against them LylaSand (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you do here is problematic. First, it is consensus to add Hersh in this section. Secound, it is well sourced. Third, by excluding one side of the story, we are not "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias" as required by our Neutral point of view policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, no there is not consensus to include this material, as evidenced by the discussion above. Unsupported claims to the contrary aren't helpful to progressing discussion. Has this viewpoint been picked up, evaluated, or endorsed by any other reliable sources as discussed at WP:REDFLAG? VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Has this viewpoint been picked up, evaluated, or endorsed by any other reliable sources"? Yes it has:
 * Ex-Weapons Inspector: Trump’s Sarin Claims Built on ‘Lie’
 * Exclusive: Seymour Hersh dishes on new exposé upending the official story about Trump and Syrian chemical attacks
 * Hersh’s new Syria revelations buried from view
 * Seymour Hersh: Trump Ignored Intelligence On Syrian Chemical Attack, Bombed Anyway
 * Trump ignored intel, launched Tomahawks in Syria based on media – Pulitzer winner Seymour Hersh
 * Ron Paul: Seymour Hersh Reporting Trump Knew Latest Syria Chemical Attack Was False Flag; Bombed Assad Anyway; "A Shame"
 * Erlbaeko (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, most users commenting here seems to agree to include Hersh, so we have the required consensus to add it. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Most people seem to believe it should be mentioned. The real debate is whether or not it should have its own subheader. I think it can fit under the main section without its own subheader.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support adding "and Seymour Hersh" to the list of 'Other people who have expressed skepticism' in the last paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support descriptions of the claims by both Postol and Hersh. These claims are different from one another but both coming from well-established sources deserve mention. Adlerschloß (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These false flags claims are both a minority and a fringe view point. Putting elaborate descriptions would be undue weight. LylaSand (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What -I Would- be in favor is adding the following, and solely the following:


 * Other people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack include former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol, journalist Seymour Hersh, and former UK ambassador to Syria and director of the British Syrian Society Peter Ford. Both Postol and Hersh put out their own separate analysis and conclusions as to how and why the attack occurred. LylaSand (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving these from another section, including a couple of new additions, these are prominent sources that have covered the article by Hersh: Adlerschloß (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing Boing: Leaked transcript: US soldier and security advisor aghast at Trump's reckless Syrian strike
 * Paste: It Makes Absolutely No Sense for Assad to Launch a Chemical Attack Inside Syria
 * Mother Jones: Did Donald Trump Invent a Chemical Attack in Syria? (Drum disagrees with Hersh's assessment, but still covers it)
 * The Nation: Media Contempt for Facts Grows Along With the Dangers of War With Russia
 * NJToday.net:Trump's Red Line (reprints Welt article in full)
 * The Canary: People should be tearing into the BBC for the alarming decision it just made
 * Telesur: Seymour Hersh Says Trump Knew Syria Didn't Use Chemical Weapons
 * The Indian Express: Trump ignored intel claiming no evidence on Syria using chemical weapons: Report
 * Institute for Public Accuracy: Are Claims About Syrian Sarin Attacks Propaganda Leading to More War?
 * "Prominent". My local county newspaper gets more views than many of these. LylaSand (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to politely request that this single-purpose pro-America account (created in April, with literally all edits devoted to promoting the US administration's line on Syria -- maybe someone should do a CHECKUSER request?) stop harassing me by trolling everything I post with one-line insults. In the other section you displayed a seeming lack of basic political knowledge in depicting Mother Jones and The Nation (the single most popular liberal/progressive publication) as somehow fringe. Any literate high school sophomore with any interest in US politics would be familiar with both publications, even if their only outlet to the world was twitter. It obviously is not true that your local county newspaper gets more views than any of those publications, so your comment is self-evidently false, and just trolling. It is a false statement with harassing tone that adds nothing to this discussion. There are places online for that level of discourse, like 4chan. Why waste the time of people trying to do serious work here? Adlerschloß (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more major sources that refer to Hersh's claims: There appears to be a US corporate media blackout on reporting Hersh's article, as described yesterday by World Socialist Website: I am not suggesting WSWS qualifies as a source we can use in this article as it is clearly an ideological Marxist site, but their description here is useful in considering how a journalist as prominent as Seymour Hersh can be met with silence when reporting information damaging to the US imperialist project. See also Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman regarding the propaganda model of corporate media. Likely this will continue to receive more coverage abroad than from the US and its core allies. (WSWS asserts German coverage happening at all reflects recent tensions between US and Germany.) Adlerschloß (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * New Straits Times: Paralysis of sorts in peacemaking efforts
 * Arab News: Toxic debate over use of chemical weapons in Syria This is a negative reference, but this is a Saudi publication so that is not surprising.


 * Almost all the sources listed here as reporting Hersh are fringe sources. The Canary, Mint Press, etc are don't-touch-with-a-bargepole sources. Maybe it's nto that there is a corporate media blackout, so much as it's clearly fringe and non-notable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Just putting this here, in case is useful OPCW fact finding mission 29 June report on findings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.67.85 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And Eliot Higgins take on where the OPCW report leaves the  Hersh  story opcw just trashed hershs conspiracy theory 78.147.67.85 (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * and what [ https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/articles/2017/07/04/khan-sheikhoun-false-flag-conspiracy-actually-mean/ khan sheikhoun false flag conspiracy actually mean] article. 78.147.67.85 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A massive conspiracy Or 'Russia and Syria are simply lying, and Syria really did use Sarin in Khan Sheikhoun.'  78.147.67.85 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha someone believes in a sarin sample that passed through Turkey with no chain of custody wasn't tampered with ....hahaha... Turkey! Have you ever been there m8? I can't stop laughing you believe that. Please go learn some basic principles of investigation before commenting further. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualties
I think it's time to update and standardize the number of killed and injured. Currently, there are several different numbers and sources cited in the article. mainly due to early reports being updated:

Infobox: "Killed: 74–100+ Injured: 300–557+ "

Lead: "The release of the toxic gas, which included sarin, or a similar substance, killed at least 74 people and injured more than 557, according to the Idlib health authority. "

Casualties section (three quotes): "Medical sources in Idlib in the immediate aftermath of the attack reported more than 58 people, including 11 children, were killed and over 300 were wounded. "

"On 5 April, local doctors and rescue workers at the scene said the number of dead had risen to 74, with 600 injured, "

"In May 2017, a report from CNN put the number of fatalities at 92. "

(End quotes from article) Besides the CNN report, the other three sources are from April 4 and 5. OPCW and HRW published reports that included the following:

The Human Rights Watch report states "Human Rights Watch identified 92 people, including 30 children, whom local residents and activists said died due to chemical exposure from this attack. Medical personnel said the attack injured hundreds more." In other mentions, HRW says "at least 92." This was published on May 1, so may be the source of the CNN claim. (The report reference name is hrwreport. The quote above is in the opening Summary section, on page 2 of the PDF.

On page 51, the OPCW report states: "Based on records and testimony, the FFM identified approximately 100 fatalities and at least 200 other casualties who had survived acute exposure." (I named the reference opcwreport so it can be used more in the article. Currently there is only one citation.)

557 comes from an Idlib Health Directorate Facebook post on April 5. The 600 injured comes from the Wall Street Journal article, which based on the article text attribution, is probably rounding up the 557 from the IHD. But the article is pay-walled, so I don't know for sure. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 19:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, no one wants to even talk about this? This is a chance for collaboration. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 05:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When you have a source conflict, esp. regarding an incident reportage on which is confusing, and self-contradictory, your only option is to give the ranges from lowest to highest for deaths and estimated casualties. I.e. casualties range from 200-600. When you have a gap as great as this, then extreme wariness about all reports is obligatory. You can only 'update' the inconsistencies.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, My main issue is to use either "about 100" or "at least 100" as the killed number in all mentions. Since I didn't get any feedback here, I will make that change, citing the OPCW and HRW reports. If anyone knows of any other third-party investigations, especially from local sources, that mention the number of killed, please post them here.


 * Secondarily, I think the number of injured should go down to 200-300. I would like to see the WSJ article and any other reports people can find, but I think a Facebook post of the Idlib Health Directorate soon after the incident isn't reliable sourcing. I did just find one more source, the head of the IHD quoted in a Reuters article. "The head of the health authority in rebel-held Idlib province said more than 50 people had been killed and 300 wounded in the latest incident." This was also within 24 hours of the attack, but the third party source (Reuters) citing the head of the IHD is a lot more authoritative to me. And I think it should supersede the 557 posted on Facebook. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I found one more source. A joint press release from the IHD and Syria Civil Defence (White Helmets). On April 4: "this chemical weapon killed more than 50 people, mostly women and children, and caused symptoms of severe chemical weapons exposure in as many as 300 others." - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 19:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The simplest way out of the confusion is to select the strongest mainstream RS initial reports for the estimated deaths and injured in both high and low estimates. And then choose the best (independent reliable Human Rights NGOs for example) for the same after a month or so has allowed follow up 'innvestigations'. Just use 4 sources, two for each. I think it relevant to give even overestimates, since these figures had an impact on political decisions.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on Theodore Postol's views and responsibility for the attack
Should Theodore Postol's claims that the chemical attack was carried from the ground and a list of people who have expressed doubt about the Syrian government carrying the attack be included in the article? <b style="color:#ACA3BF">Stikkyy</b> (talk) (contributions) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

'''Note: A preliminary closure has been made below to provide temporary stability as this discussion continues. Please ensure you understand the current state of consensus before making edits related to this topic. ~ Rob''' 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I object to this note and urge Rob to strike it because the purported "preliminary closure" is not supported by any policy or guideline and is disruptive to the consensus-building process. Stability can be achieved through warnings, blocks, or page protection. See my comments below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What is a WP:PRELIMINARYCLOSURE? I don't think I've seen that guideline before. Khirurg (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * Support per NPOV and RS. Wikipedia does not take sides, thus all sides mentioned in RS should be included as per NPOV. It is not UNDUE because it is only one section, a couple sentences, amongst an entire article that predominantly espouses the the Western view. And there's already a consensus for mentioning such views.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning claims attack was done on the ground. First, it is notable that Russia Today is covering the “false flag” storyline as seen in this article: Idlib ‘chemical attack’ was false flag to set Assad up, more may come – Putin.  When you have Vladmir Putin publicly expressing doubt about the Syrian government carrying the attack and it was a false flag carried from the ground, the issue has to be addressed. In addition, Breitbart has a very big audience and they have an article entitled Putin: Syria Chemical Attack Was ‘False Flag,’ More ‘Provocations’ Coming.  And as another editor has mentioned, there's already a consensus for mentioning such views.desmay (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (with changes). Postol is a notable subject matter expert and his opinion has been covered by this The Nation source. I do not think it can be reasonably argued that the source is unreliable. There is broad consensus that The Nation generally publishes reliable articles, regardless of any bias, and the source is no more an op-ed than any other The Nation article. That said, as others have noted, Stickyy's summary of Postol's views are not supported, at least not by the The Nation source. We should hew closer to the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * : I would not consider Postol a subject-matter expert. He's a physicist and expert on ballistic missiles, yes. But no reliable source, not even his own institutional biography, describes him as an expert on chemical weapons, chemical warfare, or Syria. "The opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight...." Neutralitytalk 06:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't expertise in ballistic missiles highly relevant, at least as relevant than expertise in chemical weapons? Postol is questioned the delivery method, not the payload itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Postol has a substantial background in the air dispersal of chemical weapons, including how toxic plumes move through the air. He taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological weapons – at MIT. Papers that demonstrate this include Theodore A. Postol, ”The Prospects for Successful Air Defense Against Chemically-armed. Tactical Ballistic Missile Attacks on Urban Areas,” March 7, 1991. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, ballistic missile expertise is irrelevant. Neither Postol nor the mainstream view suggest that a ballistic missile was involved. Postol is not an expert on airstrikes (the accepted mainstream account of what happened) nor an expert on "ground attacks" such as artillery shelling (what Postol appears to claim). Neutralitytalk 18:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Postol does not claim it was a "ground attack" or "artillery shelling". The best way I can suggest phrasing his claim is that the release of sarin was caused by an explosive charge being detonated on top of a pipe full of the liquid at the crater site and not from a chemical weapon dropped from a plane. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That paper merely mentions chemical weapons; it is a paper about SRBM defense. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And that, again, is not within his area of expertise, it's not peer-reviewed, it comes from a six-page self-published report, it has no acceptance from experts, it is largely ignored by the reliable sources, and the few sources to even discuss it note that it is either speculative or outright fringe. Neutralitytalk 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable expert, quoted WP:RS. No reason to exclude. Khirurg (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Khirurg. Disagree that chemical weapons are not within the field of expertise of a WMD and global security expert. CWs fall within those subjects. Also that he was a top intelligence adviser to the Pentagon with various awards and expertise in evaluating genuine intelligence reports and distinguishing them from bogus ones. We shouldn't really need such an expert to tell the difference between a 122mm section of pipe and a minimum 325mm, 220kg chemical weapon. I would think even an apprentice plumber would be expert enough to tell you that from a photo. Indeed, I have a 3 year old nephew and if you showed him a 122mm pipe and a 325mm diameter CW, then showed him the remains in that impact crater, I have no doubt that he would be able to correctly identify it as a pipe. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Postol's evaluation of the incident is relevant here, given his expertise on the subject, and we need to represent both POVs in the article. I do, however, concur with Erlbaeko that the RfC's statement could've used some better wording. Fitzcarmalan (talk)
 * Support per Khirurg and Fitzcarmalan. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * A shame for democratic nationals from the US or the UK, who seem to dominate this site, not to honour rational arguments, based on the evidence presented by the White House (Trump-Administration). Postol was quoted by The Nation... and please study his assessment. Even the CIA is reluctant to honour the official Trump-Administration Version, did you notice?BestHealthGuide (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I Support including Postol's analysis, but think that Blix's comment should be included as well. I agree with and think editing behavior of constantly removing material editors don't like, even when that material is well sourced, is clearly disruptive. -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support (with changes), Theodore Postol did not claim that the chemical attack was carried out from the ground, so that will be to add a fact error. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Postol has claimed a lot of things, including which states, "In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4."
 * I do agree, though, that a specific proposed wording with proposed sources should be proposed in a new RfC. VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if he "accept the WH-claim" and assumes "that the evidence was not tampered with" then the WH-document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground. Note that he underscores that that is not his assumption, and says he thinks “it’s a big assumption”, so, no, he did not "claim that the chemical attack was carried out from the ground". Ref. interview (from 1:40 to 2:50). Erlbaeko (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Postol's analysis is a significant view that have been published by reliable sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose , should not be included because it is an extraordinary claim that isn't being backed up with quality sources. LylaSand (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Seems undue (see discussions above). In addition, it is not even clear what exactly Postol claims. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Answer: Even your foe will you tell sometimes the truth. And Postol was quoted in The Nation. BestHealthGuide (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, given that even Assad and Russia haven't had the guts to claim this, it seems aggressively unlikely. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Answer: He found, the attack did not happen as presented and not at the exact site a presented. The evidence is the official pictures and videos, presented by the Trump administration. Please read NYT and View History. It was quoted on this site, but removed... Old trick, to remove the evidence and then claim there is none here... BestHealthGuide (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - (1) it's unclear what precisely is being claimed by Postol; (2) extraordinary claim not backed by quality evidence; (3) undue weight given that these fringe view has not been given much attention in the reliable sources. Citing Breitbart and RT for the idea that this should be included, as one user did above, is not compelling, to say the least. Neutralitytalk 01:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion, obviously, per my comments below and those of others above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't like how this is worded. I'm fine with including a brief mention of just Postol (trying to cram everyone else in there is UNDUE). Like one sentence. Possibly alongside the fact that his conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked by Kaszeta and Higgins and others, in the case of this attack as well as previous ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Postol was the Pentagon's top advisor. Kaszeta and Higgins are diaper salesmen at best. Have a rethink. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He worked for Pentagon long time ago in a completely unrelated field. And you need to watch BLP with regard to Kaszeta and Higgins. Actually, the fact that Postol has partnered with Syriagirl pretty much destroys his credibility.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the two things should not be combined. As is, the RfC is mainly a litmus test on your POV, not the merits.
 * Postol's claim shouldn't be about the ground charge theory. Above in the Postol's claims section, I proposed a simple "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." Sourced to The Nation article. I'm fine including a rebuttal, but note that Higgins and Kaszeta have not addressed his recent reports . [UPDATE: Higgins has just published a post on Postol's latest report on the French paper, which I just saw. Postol made a completely stupid error thinking Saraqeb was the same day as Khan Shaykun. I no longer support including Postol in the article. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)]
 * Keeping other skeptics' mentions short is trying to prevent UNDUE. I see nothing wrong with it as long as the people are notable and are in RS.
 * I also discuss Hans Blix in a section above. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sure Postol will issue a correction if he got a simple date wrong, if he hasn't already. In the meantime, here's his debunking of Kaszeta . It accuses him of fraud (to which Kaszeta has pressed no charges). AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ehhhh. That means absolutely nothing. It doesn't "debunk" anything. Also, didn't Postol just completely confuse an attack in 2017 with an attack in 2013? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And you're an obvious sock puppet/trolling account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is funny that you refer to me as a "troll" as that is what Postol accuses Kaszeta of calling people "when they raise legitimate questions about your numerous false claims" in my previous notation. You are not Dan Kaszeta by any chance are you Volunteer Marek? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By chance, I'm not. The reason for similarity is just WP:DUCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Postol issued a correction to his misreading of the French intelligence report, ref. Media Lens. Not sure if Media Lens is an RS, but neither is the Bellingcat article. Have anyone seen this "story" in a real RS? Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bellingcat is RS for lots of stuff, though personally I'd be cautious with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also this wasn't a "simple error" about a date. His whole freakin' argument was based on it. Basically what it means is that he wrote multiple pages of complete nonsense because he can't tell 2017 from 2013.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not nonsense, it is a reply to nonsense for which mistakes can be expected when responding to incomprehensible, illogical pseudobabble. The source indicates for instance that the logic used by the French report is that "there is an unexplained attack, and without valid evidence concludes that a perpetrator who might have committed attacks in the past is with certainty the perpetrator of the unexplained attack". I found that sums up the French report nicely and the confusion caused trying to follow the logic behind it as there is none! AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What are the sources for this? Seraphim System ( talk) 23:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are a few: IBT, DW, RT, TheNation, pressTV, Truthdig, Consortiumnews. See also this interview. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Half of those are like a who's who of shitty sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a good one from FARS that explains in more detail aspects of the attempted fraud that "the British intelligence service and the Soros Fund" are attempting to carry out. They even suggest preparations are underway for the next one in Ariha in Idlib province. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, no way. No. Way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a good German one from KlagemauerTV. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * KlagemauerTV is not a good source - it's the YouTube channel of German Holocaust revisionists! The Nation article is an op ed, which is reporting Postol second hand. I think DW and IBT are the only vaguely reliable sources listed, but International Business Times is a bit borderline isn't it (it aggregates and uses press releases rather than actually does journalism)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * KlagemauerTV. The hell is this? No. Way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and don't miss the Scott Horton show. Warning: Duration 49 min. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. No. Way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I found one from NJ.com that looks reliable and mainstream from it's Wikipedia page. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And who the fedora is this? No way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Guys. All you're doing here is providing evidence that it's really a bunch of crazy people on the internet that take Postol seriously. Let's see. Holocaust denier youtube channel. Some obscure "Libertarian" (sic) radio host. Some dude in NJ that has a twitter account (holy crap! They got those in Jersey???) And an Iranian propaganda network pushing batshit insane conspiracy theories.

You're not actually helping yourself here, you know? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And you call Bellingcat an RS? Give me a break. Listen to Postol yourself. Maybe you learn something. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Compared to a Holocaust denier youtube channel, an obscure Libertarian radio host, some dude in NJ with a tiwtter account and an Iranian propaganda network? Yes, Bellingcat is reliable. Stop it with these stupid games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is covered in WP:PARITY. Bellingcat would be fine for counting these sources (were they to merit inclusion at all). VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is new official report by HRW. I think it closes all this conspiracy bullshit. It tells that "Photos and videos of weapon remnants that struck Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 appear to be consistent with the characteristics of a Soviet-made air-dropped chemical bomb specifically designed to deliver sarin.". My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have they used "the independent investigation conducted by Eliot Higgins" again, as they did in their "Attack on Ghouta" report? Ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Side note: HRW is partly funded by George Soros.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point? HRW was created in 1978. His donation was in 2010. LylaSand (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Who cares.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also your same source says that the HRW "Promotes a Palestinian “right of return,” which, if implemented, would effectually mean the elimination of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people." ... sounds like this is in direct conflict with the "HRW is pro-western" narrative you are trying to imply with the soros thing. LylaSand (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The HRW is full of such glaring holes and inaccuracies that it is hard not to laugh at it. The HRW report thinks the crater is 1.6cm x 0.42cm for instance and has no clue how such a weapon could make a crater. The weapon remnants look nothing like the filling cap of KhAB-250. . I really don't know why you give journalists with no expertise in the fields of study involved such undue weight in this article. And what's fedora? You lost me with that one. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to question HRW's reliability you'll have to go to WP:RSN but you'll need something more than wack conspiracy theories about Soros or some random guy's twitter musings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I never made any conspiracy theories about Soros and my musings are entirely my own and transparent flaws in a single report, I have no intention to question HRW's or anyone's reliability as you are so doing. I hope you will give them a more serious analysis before continuing such outbursts. Also the Princeton professor, Frank N. von Hippel from the NJ.com source that I added to the article who backs up Postol's work and declares him not to be a "kooky conspiracy theorist". I would appreciate if that could be considered and replaced? Frank is a highly respected professor on science and global security and I think his opinion worthy of note. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re von Hippel: all the NJ.com "source" says is another retired scientist says Postol is not a "kooky conspiracy theorist". Von Hippel is NOT quoted in the article as actually giving any credence to what Postol said, just agreeing that there was time for an investigation before Trump retaliated. It really adds nothing.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. His expertise on global security should be "taken seriously" as he remarks about Postol. That is the only quote I would like to see re-included. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The publication by HRW is significant because it shows that Assad was responsible not according to "just" US and a few other governments, but also according to international human rights organizations (such as HRW), and most important, according to facts. Everything else is "fringe" based on the poor sourcing and poor argumentation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot just "show" someone responsible by blaming them lots without evidence. That's not how responsibility works. 100 Nazis could not prove Einstein wrong. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure they can not disprove Einstein. Therefore, I would not place their fringe "skepticism comments" in WP pages, just like I would not place such comments in this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. So yeah, the fact that HRW and other human rights organizations put the blame on Assad is important. And the evidence is in the report itself. So I don't know what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh, Terrorist96, here - either I'm missing something or that's one helluva false edit summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing something. Lol.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to explain what then? Keep in mind that this is a sub-section of the RfC section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Current consensus
This has been the subject of edit-warring, and so I feel the need to provide a preliminary closure for this discussion to provide some direction until additional discussion makes things clearer. Because this discussion has not been open for very long, I'm not going to close it in a final manner. Discussion can continue, and if the tide of consensus changes, I may issue an altered close that is different. Until a final close happens, this preliminary closure is a description of the current state of consensus. Editing against consensus will result in a block, to be clear. I strongly believe that typical closure policies allow me to take this action, but if you do not, you can consider reverting edits that implement this preliminary closure to be disallowed as a general sanction to limit disruption to the page.

At this time, there is consensus against including information related to Postol's claims about the chemical attack as written in the article as of the date of this close (edit to add italicize for clarity). The key question here is not whether Postol's claims are correct, but rather whether Postol's claims have received sufficient coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources to warrant a "due weight" that is non-zero (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). In this sense, even coverage that indicates the claims are false may support inclusion in the article. As a result, I provide less weight to arguments that oppose inclusion on the basis of negative coverage about the claims. In examining the offered sources specifically addressing Postol's claims, most sources are lacking in reliability, neutrality, substantial coverage, or a combination of the three. provided the most comprehensive set of available sources, and I compare each of them in turn with our policies/guidelines on reliable sources and neutrality:


 * IBT: This is substantial coverage from a reliable and neutral source. However, as many opposing editors point out, the claims made in the article do not match the text proposed. In particular, according to IBT, Postol claims that a ground detonation is "more likely", which is far below certainty, and cites a lack of "concrete evidence", suggesting that claims of an aerial attack are not well-supported rather than affirmatively false. The substantial coverage weighs toward inclusion in some form.
 * DW: The coverage is a one-sentence mention and doesn't weigh toward inclusion.
 * RT: This source is not independent given Russian government support for the Syrian government.
 * The Nation: On its About page, The Nation describes itself as "a dissenting, independent, trouble-making, idea-launching journal of critical opinion". They further say "Nation readers regard the magazine as both lifeline and political compass, a like-minded community". This supports opposing editors' claim that the source is not neutral.
 * PressTV : PressTV is run by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, whose head is appointed by the Supreme Leader of Iran. It is not independent.
 * Truthdig : The article is written by Postol, and therefore not independent.
 * Consortiumnews : Postol's claims are covered in a small portion of a larger article that is framed as a rant against "mainstream media". This is rather plainly not neutral.

Other sources that have been offered suffer from similar problems. As a result, most editors in this discussion have concluded that no weight is "due" to this claim. Based on my analysis of the sources in comparison with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE, such arguments are strong.

I would like to again stress that this is a preliminary reading of consensus and is subject to change. In the meantime, edit-warring to add information about Postol's claims may lead to relevant general sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re I am fine with removing that, since it's not true. Postol did not claime that the chemical attack was "conducted from the ground". However, I do like to describe Postols view in the article. It is a viewpoint that is held by a significant minority, and Postol is a "prominent adherent". We should probably close this RfC and start a new one without a fact error in the statement. And btw, nobody says RT and PressTV are neutral, but they don't have to be. According to WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Imo both RT and PressTV are reliable for reporting what Postol said, and as long as we use in-text attribution, they can be used as RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be very clear, this isn't my opinion, but my reading of the discussion and weighing of the arguments based on relevant policies and guidelines. I'm acting as a neutral closer, and I have no strong opinion beyond thinking the edit warring had to stop. WP:FRIND requires that fringe theories be cited to independent reliable sources. This immediately rules out RT and PressTV through their associations to governments allied with the Syrian government. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To use that WP:FRIND guideline, we must first establish that it is a fringe theory. We can't just say fringe and exclude a MIT professor. Who says it's fringe? In my opinnion the only fringe theory here is that Assad bombed civilians with sarin in a bid to drag the US into the war on the rebels side. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the text is factually incorrect making this discussion null and void. I would also like to question if the NJ.com source is not eligible? The only objection seems to be a word I don't understand (fedora) and haven't been provided an explanation for despite asking. NJ.com was the biggest provider of digital news to a state of 9mil people in 2012 and say on it's Wikipedia page that "NJ.com's news reports are widely quoted by other news publications such as the New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, and other news organizations around the nation." I would suggest Frank von Hippel's opinion lends a lot of weight in this source. I would also add that anyone considering the viewpoint of one side in a war as "fringe" possibly lacks the experience and neutrality to be working on conflict articles. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it IS a fringe theory. A fringe conspiracy theory. The only way we can include it in the article is if we describe it as a fringe conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're gonna call something "bullshit", that's fine, but then it's up to you to actually provide evidence that it is "bullshit". Otherwise you're just ... talking out your butt (just like you did with your baseless allegations that editors who disagree with you have conflict of interest and then made up some... bullshit, when asked to back it up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Let's maintain decorum. El_C 11:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with El_C. Let's use evidence to show this is not a "fringe conspiracy theory" and not rude quips. I just added the weight of Jeremy Corbyn to the article in expressing doubts about the culprit. Jeremy's views represent a large percentage of mainstream in the UK. As do Ron Paul's in the USA. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not "evidence". That's an opinion. And no, neither Corbyn nor Paul's views represent a mainstream view (lol!) nor do these views have any evidence to back them up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And actually, Corbyn's comments have nothing to do with Postol! And all he said is that there should be a UN investigation. He is NOT expressing doubts about the culprit. You're misrepresenting the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Corbyn is very mainstream. Would you believe I turned on the telly the other day and he wasn't on it! Requesting an investigation is expressing doubts about the culprit. He clearly says "the US had acted before a UN investigation had determined who was responsible" in the source. There is no misrepresentation. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Being on the telly doesn't make one "mainstream". But ok, his opinion is probably notable. However, yes, you are pushing the "expressed doubts" line far past what the source or he himself says and ... this has nothing to do with Postol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re Corbyn: his comments were that the incident required investigation. He did not comment on Postol or other non-mainstream theories. His comment appears now in the article in the right place, where world leaders respond. It would not be appropriate in the section where Postol etc were discussed. Re NJ.com: whether or not it is a reliable source of news, this particular article is clearly flagged as an opinion piece. Its author is a conservative columnist with no expertise. There is no way it should be used to reference Postol's claims, only to show that a conservative columnist read his reports.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Bob. It's the opinion of Frank von Hippel that is referenced in the article by the journalist that I feel is more important and not given fair hearing. Frank effectively peer reviews Theodore's work, which is yet more evidence of Postol's opinions being in the mainstream. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * that's not particularly accurate; see my reply a little further down. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, I think completely redacting Postol's analysis from the article is not what anyone asked for. El_C 06:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But that isn't what the consensus summary above says, either. VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but it is what he did, ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree with BU_Rob13 that until we can figure out the proper way to include the Postol stuff (which most certainly should include the fact that it's a fringe conspiracy theory) we should keep it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion participants all seemed to agree that it is a minority view, with many saying it is extremely unlikely (even "aggressively" so). This was backed up by sources. That makes it a fringe theory based on our guidelines (no comment on whether it is a fringe theory as commonly considered in language). The question posed in this RfC was "Should Postol's claims be included in the article?" The answer (so far) has been no, with substantial doubt over what Postol is even saying and little independent reliable sourcing to back-up inclusion. If some alternative framing of Postol's claims is something editors feel should be in the article, they certainly can create a subsection as part of this RfC addressing that,, but based on current policy and guidelines, their argument would only be strong if they backed that up with appropriate sourcing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer,, seems mixed. And the RfC is not phrased as should Postol's analysis be mentioned in the article—if it were, I think we'd see different results than the confusing ones we currently have (for example, Erlbaeko voting oppose). I am tempted to start a straw poll that asks just that. El_C 15:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following could be used as the basis for a more accurate, alternative framing :-

with IBT sourcing sentence 1 and NJ.com sourcing sentence 2? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol has suggested the release of sarin was caused by an explosive charge being detonated on top of a pipe full of the liquid at the crater site and not from a chemical weapon dropped from a plane. Frank von Hippel has reviewed Postol's appraisal and suggested it be "taken seriously".
 * Its undue weight to an extreme-claim that is not supported by any quality sources. LylaSand (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the proposed source for the Hippel bit? Certainly not this, which states Postol is no kooky conspiracy theorist, said von Hippel. "He's very good technically," he told me. "Whatever he says has to be taken seriously." After reading the report and emailing back and forth with Postol, von Hippel concluded that there was plenty of time for Trump to have a thorough investigation before launching a retaliatory strike. That indicates Hippel's professional respect for Postol, but it would be a violation of WP:BLP to state or imply that Hippel has endorsed the conspiracy theory. Overall, I haven't seen evidence that Hippel's opinion is on point enough to merit any mention. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Rob's "preliminary closure" is totally inappropriate both procedurally and substantively and should be regarded as just another !vote. First, there is nothing in our policies or guidelines supporting the concept of a "preliminary closure," and it's far too early to say we have a consensus at this point. Second, this doesn't come close to following WP:CLOSE. The closer is to evaluate the arguments, not make novel arguments of their own. Rob didn't even bother to evaluate the arguments. Third, Rob's arguments completely ignore the widely-accepted and bedrock guideline that reliable sources need not be neutral. Many of the sources evaluated are not reliable--not because they are biased, but because they do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But there is broad consensus around Wikipedia that The Nation is a reliable source despite its widely accepted bias. The Nation is cited all over the mainstream media, as well as all over Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, Rob's more recent contention that "because Postol's view is a minority view, it is a fringe view" is complete baloney. Yes, it is a minority view, but that does not ipso facto make it a fringe view--otherwise there would be no need for our neutrality policy. Per our neutrality policy, minority views get minority weight. Minority weight does not mean outright exclusion. This is really pretty basic Wikipedia policy and it shakes my faith in Wikipedia that an admin would be unfamiliar with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true that most minority views are not fringe views. But Postol's view is a fringe view. It is absolutely telling that Postol's six-page, self-published "report" got very little attention from the mainstream media &mdash; it is so "out there" on the margins that he have no published piece indicating that any actual expert takes it seriously. If his claims were to be analyzed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or given any credence at all by academics or journalists, or even significantly analyzed by academics or journalists (even if it was to debunk it) then there would be an argument for inclusion. But as of now, we have a self-published, six-page report with no acceptance; the few commentaries/accounts to mention it in any substance harshly critize it and explicitly identify basic errors and the conspiracy-friendly nature of the claims. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is the RfC's phrasing is problematic and unclear—because of that, a lot of editors are excluded from it, their opinion not being counted. El_C 19:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a section titled something like Pressure for an Independent Investigation where views such as Corbyn's, Rouhani's and Llorenty's could be piped might be justified. Perhaps Postol and von Hippel could be re-framed as a minority view within that, with Bellingcat and Warontherocks detractions if you like. Perhaps the whole view is notable enough for an article to itself similar to WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq called Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike. There's probably enough reliable sources to support it. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Russia Vetoed the attempt for an independent investigation, so any section like that would have to go in length about the Russian veto. I disagree with the existence of such a section anyway. LylaSand (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Only because it was in a resolution that blamed Assad. Russia wants an independent investigation more than anyone. For once however, we agree on the existence of such a section. I'm going to have a play in my sandbox and make a better suggestion. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh- no, I -don't- agree such a section should exist. LylaSand (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I have made a bold edit instead in the other views section. Let me know what you think. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The arguments made by both supporting and opposing editors center around whether sources are reliable, neutral, and independent. Opposing editors asserted that almost all of the sources were none of these things, and the supporting editors failed to refute that argument. A closer is intended to weigh arguments based on which comply with relevant policies and guidelines, and to do so, I obviously must look at the sources. Note that if I did not look at the sources at all, things would have swung even more definitively toward opposing inclusion, as the opposing editors made policy-based arguments that the sources were not reliable and independent and supporting editors failed to refute them. As I noted in response to another editor above, WP:FRIND requires sources supporting fringe views – a label that the discussion above heavily supports applying to this claim – to be both independent and reliable, not just reliable, in order to support due weight. As far as citing FRIND while discussion participants did not, note the following excerpts from the closing instructions ... "Please also note that closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal"; "[the closer] is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant". I am expected as a closer to know even those policies/guidelines which have not been cited in the discussion and weigh arguments that blatantly contradict existing policies or guidelines less heavily. And finally, on the validity of a preliminary closure, the alternative was full protection until the discussion resolved (which I am willing to do still). There was non-stop edit-warring on this issue over a number of days, and some form of assessment was necessary to prevent having to fully protect a major article. RfCs are not required to run for 30 days, and it is within closer discretion to close them earlier. I didn't fully close the discussion so as to not cut off additional discussion. As I stated, if you disagree with the validity of that, you can consider this a general sanction action restricting editors from continuing to revert in support of text that there is currently no consensus to include, something which is clearly within the bounds of the general sanctions. Again, I have no opinion on this topic, so trying to count my reading of consensus as a !vote would be downright silly. Any editor theoretically could continue the edit-war, but if they did, they would be blocked or topic banned. The bottom line is that the edit-warring had to stop. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems you have a very poor grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, either content or conduct, and, therefore, should not have closed (or "preliminarily closed") this RfC. Moreover the suggestion that it would be appropriate to close such a contentious and highly unsettled RfC after 5 days is totally preposterous and antithetical to both Wikipedia policy and the spirit of Wikipedia policy. I am not an admin here but I know when I see an abuse of discretion. The non-stop edit warring would have been easily remedied through the normal administrative process, which, if it was as you described, would have been short-term full protection combined with a series of warnings for egregious violators. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's problematic, that based on a faulty, mixed RfC and after only five days, you've decided what the consensus is. Are you taking our concerns seriously enough? El_C 02:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said that based on preliminary discussion, there is no consensus to include the text that was previously in the article. No-one, as far as I can see, disagreed with this finding. They disagreed that the result is currently a page without any mention. That includes those supporting inclusion in some form. Given the edit-warring surrounding this topic, discussion is needed before further edits are made. I'm sure you agree with that. Have that discussion. I've provided my assessment that the text being edit-warred over clearly did not have consensus, and therefore should be removed, as an independent and uninvolved closer. I do take your concerns seriously, but I do not know how to communicate any more clearly than my repeated statements in my closure statement that discussion should continue and a different previously-unexplored result may emerge. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia there is a world of difference between saying "there is no consensus for A" and saying "the consensus is B." The former would have been perfectly appropriate; the latter is what you did and was totally inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It just feels like it has been decided already in favour of one side and we are just going through the motions. El_C 05:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made very clear that my assessment of consensus was preliminary, likely to change, and very much an emerging consensus vs. any type of final result. Perhaps you are correct and "no consensus for inclusion" would have been superior. The functional result is the same and I put no time into worrying about the distinction because the discussion is ongoing and the preliminary reading of consensus (or lack thereof) was merely to halt an edit war (cannot stress that enough).  That isn't the case and isn't supported by anything I've said. Quite the opposite, in fact. I said early, strongly, and repeatedly that this is a preliminary reading of emerging consensus to stop an edit-war. This is a bit blunt, but I cannot control how you feel about it. I can only control the level of disruption on the page. When the community placed this topic area under general sanctions, controlling disruption is exactly what they tasked administrators to do. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I sense that your preliminary closure has given one side a clear advantage in this discussion, but yes, maybe it's just my impression. El_C 06:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * El_C, you are not the only one to have that impression. The goal of reducing disruption is an important one. I just have never heard of an admin trying to accomplish that goal in this way. I think it would have been obvious to most experienced editors that it would disrupt the discussion. Rob, I'm going to renew my request that you strike your note at the top of this RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we conduct a straw poll, simply about whether Postol should be included in the article? El_C 07:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling is that the RfC should be procedurally closed and we start over. Even before Rob fudged it up, it was flawed from the start because Postol never made those claims, and by and large the quality of the !votes on both sides... left a lot to be desired. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should work on a halfway agreeable wording, before more votes. Rather that's done under this RfC or a new one doesn't matter very much. Postol's statements seem to rest primarily on criticism of the White House declassified report, stating that since he found the declassified release unconvincing the classified report must have been either unconvincing or nonexistent. That's at least the bit that we have reliable secondary sourcing for, but it is difficult to summarize. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have attempted that above and sorry if I pushed it too far trying to create a new page with the deleted text at this point. Won't happen again. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Old straw poll
Terrorist96's latest edit reminds us that we did have consensus for a brief mention of Postol as well as others (here). El_C 06:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on that, a quick mention does seem appropriate. I was unaware of the previous discussion. Combining the result of that discussion and what we have so far on this one, I'd say a mention without expanding on what the claims are is the current consensus. There has been substantial disagreement over both whether to include a description of the fringe claim and, if we do, how to word it. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It was only a few weeks ago, but it does seem like ages past! El_C 06:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Re  This has been reverted again, even though consensus was shown. And VM is the only person objecting to the mention of Bolivia, while three support its inclusion. I mention this to note the consensus for inclusion.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. After taking into account the previous discussion, there is currently consensus to include a brief mention without detailing what the claim is. I'm going to assume you didn't see that most recent comment here; please do not repeat such an edit again. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob, I did see that, but that "straw poll" is almost a month old. There's a newer RfC which supersedes it which clearly shows no consensus for inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob. The RfC below is about the wording of an explication, not about inclusion in general, thus it doesn't "supercede" the consensus for inclusion. Most opposition is due to the wording, not for omitting entirely. Thus, consensus is for inclusion. Consensus is pending on the wording of an explication, however. (18 days old = a month?)Terrorist96 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC below is about the wording of an explication, not about inclusion in general" <-- No, that is completely false. Here, let me quote it for you: "Should Theodore Postol's claims that the chemical attack was carried from the ground and a list of people who have expressed doubt about the Syrian government carrying the attack be included in the article". You really can't get more explicit than that. And only one of the "opposes" refers to the wording, the rest are about inclusion. You ... seem... to have this problem with accuracy. See WP:WIKILAWYER. So yeah, the RfC does supersede it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Cuz Erlbaeko and LylaSand who voted oppose both supported inclusion in the referenced straw poll. As did My very best wishes initially, but changed their vote thereafter. So, two-three of the 6 opposers are actually explicitly in favor of some sort of inclusion. Iazyges' opposition says that he has issues with the claim (no comment on inclusion in general). As does Neutrality's comment (taking issue with the claim itself; no comment on inclusion in general). And this isn't even mentioning the 6 votes in support. Wanna keep going?Terrorist96 (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored it. We spent a lot of time gaining consensus for that passage. One editor should not be allowed to unilaterally override it. Please stop redacting without consensus, Volunteer Marek. El_C 00:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't edit under these conditions (where we gain hard-won consensus and it is overridden like it's nothing), so I'm withdrawing from the article for a while. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, either. It also dosen't seem appropriate with it involving Volunteer Marek, who is also edit warring at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016), which I protected. My point stands, however. I thought the edit warring was over in this article—since it's not, goodbye. El_C 00:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You noted that the quick mention of Postol and others has consensus and you told VM not to make that edit again. Well, made that very same revert, leading El_C to withdraw. I'm considering withdrawing as well if people can just unilaterally go against consensus and go unpunished.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like it was evenly split on whether or not to include it (6 support to 6 oppose) LylaSand (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote to VM above and do not remove a simple mention of Postol again. A closer looks at the arguments made, not just the sections they were put in. Most opposes focused on the fact that Postol's claims didn't necessarily claim the things previously listed in the article. Other arguments focused on undue weight, and including a brief mention of Postol's name among detractors is far less weight than a paragraph about his supposed claims. I don't see the inclusion RfC as being directly in contradiction with the above RfC. In any event, if it was, the above RfC is hovering around "no consensus" and the status quo of inclusion would prevail if it were closed immediately. As I said above in this section, the two RfCs combined so far indicate that Postol be included but minimally with no discussion of the claims themselves. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it based on reply by NelN in this section above. I thought the opinion by Postol was included without consensus (the RfC was not officially closed by anyone at this point). My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a POV tag at the top of the article?
Should there be a POV tag at the top of the article? Please opine here as yes or no. This is not a discussion of individual points/edits or content; it is merely a question of whether the article should have a POV tag at the top at present. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * While relevant information is being arbitrarily removed from the article as a result of some editors' political biases, Yes, definitely it should be there. Adlerschloß (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you are not aware, the article is under the following sanction:


 * The removals have not been "arbitrary" or "a result of some editors' political biases"; they have been enforcements of that sanction as they have been removals of substantive edits which did not have consensus. If you want to get consensus for any removed edits, you are free to do so on this talk page. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What "substantive edits" are you talking about? It's a maintenance tag. It should not be removed before it "is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved".Erlbaeko (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the conversation. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be there until the issue has been resolved.. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus at present that there is no remaining issue to resolve. There is a policy-based consensus that Postol's and Hersch's claims are fringe and should not be mentioned in the article. Your placing (and edit-warring to retain) a POV tag on the article violates WP:CONSENSUS, GS, EW, and the additional sanction I quoted above. Softlavender (talk)
 * What is the "policy-based consensus that Postol and Hersch's [sic] claims are fringe"? Adlerschloß (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, . If you want a clearer consensus on Hersh, start a neutral WP:RFC. (By the way, people, please indent your posts to nest properly by using one more colon than the post you are replying to; I have done that twice for two different editors so far in this thread.) -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a vague consensus to not include a description of Postol's views as they had been written at that time, not consensus that his claims cannot be included. And neither link you provide regarding Hersh indicates any consensus that his views are "fringe" and should not be included. (In fact Erlbaeko remarks on this page that there is consensus for inclusion, even before I had commented.) Adlerschloß (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Erlbaeko is neither an administrator nor an arbitrator of consensus; in fact he is currently blocked for edit-warring against consensus. If you want to get clear on the consensus for Postol, read administator 's comments in the RfC. If you want to get clearer on the consensus re: Hersh, create an WP:RFC on that subject. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes there are definitely four fingers. I stand against the five fingerers and their consensus the world's most eminent professors and journalists are fringe. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No This is about whether or not the addition of content would be undue weight. As far as consensus is concerned, no undue weight is present, as much as I would personally like to disagree. That's the way the article was established thus far, with consensus. LylaSand (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No This article is fairly well balanced, based on the work of multiple editors of different views, and several difficult issues have been resolved by consensus. Although a small number of editors have disagreed with some edits and there is scope for improvement, there is no case for saying the article as a whole is slanted towards any particular POV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should stay. The article was written out on the basis of a flurry of reports, all from media that recycled a small number of government versions of the event. Several experts in either the ostensible armament delivery systems or government cover-ups later came out expressing their skepticism, each from a different angle. The discussions of these people Theodore Postol, Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter were vigorously strong-armed by WP:OR second-guessing about their reliability, consigning them to a WP:Fringe viewpoint that is wildly out of keeping with their records. I find the arguments of both Adlerschloß and Erlbaeko in particular to be compelling for their close attention to policy, regardless of POV implications. Hersh was subsequently removed, and a line or two was given to Postol and Ritter's dissenting viewpoint at the end, with Uri Avnery included. Avnery's argument is solid,and worthy of mention, but if so, all the more, Hersh. And, a substantial amount of information given concerning the possible dynamics of what may have happened, from their viewpoints, has been elided. So essentially, in my reading, the text has written the 'official' version, in contempt of reasonable doubts, something which, in the present climate of everyone with a political role unembarrassedly faking things, is deeply troubling.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Should Seymour Hersh get a brief mention?
Vote now.


 * Yes Of course. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. His absence is incomprehensible, and breaks NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't do voting. Adding a cited "and Seymour Hersh" to the list of 'other views' appears due. VQuakr (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: possibly a brief mention. His fringe views are really barely more notable than those of the hundreds of members of the commentariat who have written about these attacks. If they are mentioned, I would recommend also citing Elliot Higgens' thorough debunking of his single-source claims BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I.e. an investigative reporter with 50 years of achievement is fringe because Eliot Higgins 'an unemployed finance and admin worker' when war broke out in Syria, who 'has no background or training in weapons and is entirely self-taught, ' argued he was wrong on his own blog, Bellingcat. I'm not supporting Hersh and his views: I am stating that there is an anomaly in nervously erasing him, on the basis of arguments by people who have nothing like Hersh's record. Much of what I read here is simply absent: no trace of key issues, just an affirmation of the mainstream argument that was in place from day one. Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not why he's fringe (I think he's been considered fringe for a few years now, despite his impressive youthful record). I'm just saying if he's included (I'm not arguing for "erasing" him), then it would be good to cite the fact-checking of his claims against all of the other available information. I would be equally uncomfortable, by the way, with devoting more than passing mention to Higgins or Kaszeta or Monbiot any of the other numerous individuals who have had their theories on this attack published; I don't see why Hersh should get undue attention because of stuff he wrote in the 1970s.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in supporting any side's views here. Let that be clear. If I had to choose I would support Noam Chomsky's remarks here on that regime, but also on the importance of listening to views like those of Hersh and Postol. In most cases, on these issues, the truth is, so far, indeterminate. What is known is that intense pressure to win over a public to a view, which then had political or strategic consequences, has been endlessly documented over the last decades, and particularly from Iraq onwards (where Hersh's scepticism played a distinguished role, and the facts support his take, not that of the New York Times). One cannot bury this saying he was good back in the 70s etc. Look at his awards, which cover a much longer time frame.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes There is already consensus on including him here. The only disagreement is how in depth he should be mentioned (ie adding him to the list of Other views vs having a few dedicated sentences about him). Not a single person opposes excluding him entirely, as far as I can tell (which is what the article does currently). I support one sentence explaining his view.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Should Hersh and Postol get their own sections explaining their analyses?
Vote again.


 * Yes Naturally. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, especially not sections with separate headers. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I persuade you with a line or two in the other views section then? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No. They need more coverage, but not independent sections. I think the only way to handle that would be a fork that thoroughly covered the outlines of the dozen arguments made by these and of the several major analysts who disagreed, which could then be linked as to main article to the little said here.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinions expressed by countries on the UN security council have a single dedicated subsection. Elevating the theories proposed by Hersh and Postol to the same level of coverage would violate WP:DUE, because these theories have not received the same level of prominence in independent, reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's funny that you mention that, because some Security Council countries (Bolivia) are obviously excluded from that section...Terrorist96 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong no: Hundreds of members of the commentariat and various journalists, experts, academics and non-experts have had their theories on this attack published. There is no reason these two should be singled out for undue attention. At most a line a two in the "other views" section is appropriate. In terms of notability, due weight, and the fringe nature of their views, they should not have any more prominence than they do now, and absolutely should not have equal prominence to the positions of the UN or main actors. Giving them their own section would elevate them to above the OPCW, which doesn't have its own section, or France, which conducted independent forensic analysis and barely gets a mention here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * These are all non arguments. Postol is one of the world's foremost experts in this field, and ipso facto cannot be pared down to a footnote because the meme-replication machine is in full productive mode. I have never had trouble dealing with Postol's views regarding rockets and Gaza. All of a sudden, if there is an expert contradicting the White House (not the intelligence community) on Syria, he becomes fringe.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The question wasn't "should he be pared down to a footnote" but "should him and Hersh have their own section. That is what my arguments responded to. Not sure how the "meme-replication machine" is relevant to that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Postol is an expert on anti-missile systems as discussed at WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is policy. That does not automatically make him an expert on other subjects (such as this one), which is why inclusion of his self-published work is more likely to be contested here than at, say, an article on the Iron Dome system. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That policy reads:
 * "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"
 * Which means in this case the policy accepts the use of experts like Postol. (b) 95% of the sources for this article are written by journalists with no technical knowledge to evaluate the reliability of reports they synthesize as they come over the wire. (b) Saying am expert on anti-missile systems is not competent to evaluate evidence of a putative bombings strike, looking at the delivery system said to have caused this havoc, is like saying a motor mechanic is not competent to say anything about carburators.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No. One sentence would be fine. An entire section or subsection within Other views would be undue.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It take it this applies for this article. Is there any reason one cannot create an article Khan Shaykhun chemical attack theories, or something like that? outlining in detail the content of the arguments made by sceptics? I see one was deleted (speedy delete) but without any rationale. You cannot use the POV-fork to repress information that is sourced to people with authoritative backgrounds or careers, while refusing to allow their points of view to be heard on the actual page. That nis censorship. What is striking about this article is the exiguousness of material on the interpretation of the attack. Let's not automatically wave 'POV-fork' in reply. Wikipedia is supposed to give encyclopedic coverage, meaning everything said by serious commentators on a controversy like this, and examples of articles doing this are legion.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No Undue, has been explained much better than I can above. <b style="color:#ACA3BF">Stikkyy</b> t/c 23:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I pointed out above that we exclude competent experts and highlight either uninformed bloggers or cite several political statements by figures who have no competence to judge but express (legitimately)their government pov. This means you have a POV problem on the page already. Undue has been violated to created a POV imbalance. Eirther one irons out the contradiction, or the objection falls. If Haley can get such coverage, you cannot keep out the others as Undue. Please comment to the point, rather than vote while wagging a policy flag.Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Should Mikhail Ulyanov's interview get a mention?
This edit was reverted with the edit summary "not close", which seems very cryptic and makes no sense to me. Please comment below if you think this valuable material should be restored? I feel without the Russian viewpoint being fairly heard, the page deserves an NPOV tag until resolved and under these new circumstances the previous vote is rendered void about tagging. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed edit fails WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DUE by a wide margin, ie it is "not close" to acceptable. The Russian POV is already one of the longer subsections in the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the "consensus required" restriction and note the lack of a phrase saying "unless new circumstances have occurred". If you think these new circumstances warrant an NPOV tag, start that discussion. Until consensus is demonstrated, "consensus required" applies. I invite you to revert your addition of the tag so I don't have to deal with the violation. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I cannot see anything other than policy flag-waving here.
 * VQuakr says:
 * 'The Russian POV is already one of the longer subsections in the article.' That subsection has 25% devoted to the assertions of a British journalist Eliot Higgins, with no known competence in the subject, and essentially a blogger. More disgracefully, no one has objected to the violation of WP:NPOV in writing that 'Higgins has shown . .' 'Shown' here means 'demonstrated' 'proven', which is an editorial judgement espousing as the truth what a blogger has written.
 * (Anti-Assad)Flag-waving of policies without saying what they mean is vacuous.At the moment we don't want Mikhail Ulyanov's views on the page, though he is Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department, while we haveJean-Marc Ayrault,Michael Fallon, Jeremy Corbyn and last but not least Nikki Haley's views given. The last named example is particularly funny in context: No Hersh, a link to Postol, but we must give space to Ms Haley, because of the peculiar high profile she has since she graduated from Clemson University, with a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting. Jeezus.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Should User:AssadistDEFECTOR stop flooding the talk page with disruptive requests on issues that have already been discussed to death? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No I don't feel the issues have been thoroughly discussed. New issues keep arising such as Ulyanov and you can expect them to keep on coming with a controversial topic such as this which has been the subject of a media-frenzy without due diligence and practical, physical examination of the evidence. Until that sort of analysis is included, the article will not be complete. Nishidani is making some brilliant points of discussion in the absence of any debate for which I highly commend and thank for his/her efforts. It is an embarrassing sham that the US got taken for fools in this incident and you can expect more prominent minds to make exposes and make highly notable comments and jokes about it forevermore. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up getting page-moved to the Khan Shaykhun attack of pigs oneday. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Should Mikhail Ulyanov's removal warrant a NPOV tag?

 * Yes I think so. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What's this about? FallingGravity 05:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the OP is asking if a NPOV tag on the article is warranted because this edit was contested. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-litigating inclusion of Philip Giraldi
wishes to re-litigate the inclusion of Philip Giraldi in the article (a long-standing edit). See here for previous mentions of Giraldi. He claims there is consensus to not include him, but I can't find such a consensus for exclusion. The first straw poll was voted down because it mentioned Hippel and included an extra sentence about Postol's claims (even I voted against that poll). The second straw poll was for including their titles (2 in support, 3 against - hardly "consensus"). The third straw poll was 3 in support and 5 against, but that also was tainted with the extra sentence for Postol's claim, as that was the main point in contention. Also, VM, do you recall saying per the DS you need consensus to undo long standing 'edits'? So.. should Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and director of the Council for the National Interest be included in the article?Terrorist96 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The relevant straw polls are here and the next one after that. Both those rejected Giraldi. There has been no consensus for inclusion - indeed most users opposed inclusion although other topics were also being discussed. And Giraldi is a total WP:FRINGE source who associates with the likes of David Icke .Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They rejected including Hippel (which I also opposed including) and including an extra sentence for Postol. Giraldi was never contested.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Straw Poll

 * Support as notable (not fringe), covered by RS: The Nation, HuffPo. Additionally, he has opined on Syria previously see here which was cited by the book The Second Cold War (an argument against the fringe claim). Terrorist96 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS - there was discussion on this, it was decided not to include, then someone sneaked back here and put it back in anyway. This always happens with these kinds of articles - you stop watching it for a few weeks and the bullshit grows again like mushrooms after rainfall. There's no reason to go over this again. These are WP:FRINGE theories that have no place in an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only "discussion" on this was lumped in with other people (like Hippel and Postol). This is a long-standing edit, wasn't "snuck in", and you need consensus to remove it per Discretionary Sanctions, as you yourself admitted. And can you please just try to be civil? "Oh FFS" is not conducive to constructive collaboration.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I just don't see why his views are any more notable than those of all the other members of the commentariat, just because he happens to have a relatively fringe take on it. If he had written an op ed or been interviewed basically agreeing with all the other experts, nobody would argue for his inclusion: it is precisely the fringe nature of his views that makes him stand out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude - inadequate coverage in reliable, independent sources as described in WP:WEIGHT. I'd like to see the talk page diff in which consensus was achieved to include, as is claimed in the edit summary here. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Fringe material - and this certainly requires consensus if you want to include it, since it is not a "longstanding edit." Neutralitytalk 14:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per Terrorist. Didn't read what he suggested just know that he's no puppet. I support whatever he writes. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment 'Didn't read what he suggested - [but] support whatever '. Admins, for goodness sake, why is this clown not removed for the sake of the project. The attitude bespeaks contempt. It is wrong to believe endless indulgence and cosseting of pov pushers like this is not destructive.78.147.47.169 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Postol refs
So one Postol ref was added then deleted: Wired This was used to show Postol worked with Maram Susli. When this was deleted (by Jeremygbyrne, as "not responsive/relevant to the reference in the article") it was replaced with Gareth Porter in Alternet Jusitification given: "Adding ref. re. Postol's claims, from a detailed and heavily referenced article about the incident. (Please discuss any dispute of Alternet's WP:RS status on the appropriate noticeboard before considering reversion on that basis." This source only mentions Postol once, in passing, and is detailed and heavily referenced though the Postol bit isn't. I had a look at Alternet's WP:RS status on the noticeboard and the consensus appears to be that it is borderline and articles need to be assessed case by case. Keep one? Keep both? Delete both? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to the use of the Alternet source in any context per WP:RS and because it doesn't support the information in the article very well (it barely mentions Postol). I am also opposed to use of the specific phrasing shown in the diff for the Wired source, but am open to suggestions if there is a more neutrally-toned way to present the information. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support inclusion of the wired source, as it references, in some detail, reliable facts behind the Postol's claims (i.e. absence of his expertise in chemistry, and his reliance on pro-Assad and pro-Putin conspirationist Maram Susli). The AlterNet ref could perhaps be used for what it is worth, i.e. referencing details of claims made by Postol and/or other pro-Assad conspirationists/propagandists, if clearly described/identified as such.--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:DD14:BDB0:51AF:368 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given consensus here is to represent only the mainstream view (seemingly with little regard for the quality of any alternatives), I'm content that the Wired cite-and-comment has been removed. I'd like to see some of the material presented in the Alternet link addressed in the article, but don't personally have the time to help do so in a way which could fly here. &mdash; JEREMY 00:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Actors responsible written as (Disputed) in infobox ?? Oh dear
From the UN September 2017 'Government forces continued the pattern of using chemical weapons against civilians in opposition-held areas. In the gravest incident, the Syrian air force used sarin in Khan Shaykhun, Idlib, killing dozens, the majority of whom were women and children. In Idlib, Hamah, and eastern Ghouta, Damascus, Syrian forces used weaponized chlorine. Syrian and/or Russian forces continued to target hospitals and medical personnel.'

Disputed by whom? Hersh? by the Syrian regime ? By Sputnik? RT? infowars? global research? mintpresss? as long as "Disputed' is left here you look like you are a haven for freaks and conspiracy theorists, nutters and Fascists. I'm embarrassed for wikipedia, home for Fascist pov pushers . You look idiotic. 78.147.45.45 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have thought most people clever enough not to be Saudi stooges, but here we go again... Your quote isn't from "the UN" but a report prepared for the highly compromised UN Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia are on that UN Human Rights Council, so its no surprises "human rights" investigators would say Assad is behind the Sarin attack. Meaningless. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * calling other editors ' stooges' looks like a personal attack on others. If someone has a user page calling Assad 'god' i suppose what you write is explicable, if ludicrous. 78.147.47.169 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic reported that their own investigation into Khan Sheikhoun had concluded:

“In view of the above, the Commission finds that the claim that airstrikes hit a depot producing chemical munitions or that the attack was fabricated are not supported by the information gathered. On the contrary, all evidence available leads the Commission to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe Syrian forces dropped an aerial bomb dispersing sarin in Khan Shaykhun at around 6.45 a.m. on 4 April. The use of chemical weapons is unequivocally banned under international humanitarian law. The use of sarin in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April by Syrian forces constitutes the war crimes of using chemical weapons and indiscriminate attacks, and violation of the prohibition on the use of weapons designed to cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. The manufacture, storage, and use of sarin also violates the Chemical Weapons Convention and Security Council resolution 2118 (2013)”

The report also referenced the presence of hexamine in samples gathered the OPCW-FFM from opposition groups and the Syrian government:

“The presence of hexamine was not further explained by the OPCW FFM, but the chemical had also been found in environmental samples collected 2013 after the Ghouta incident. Two competing explanations have been offered in the past to explain the presence of hexamine — either the chemical might indicate the use of an artisanal explosive (RDX) for agent dispersion, or it had been used in the sarin synthesis as an acid scavenger. [-] the latter would be consistent with the chemicals declared by Syria in 2013 to the OPCW as part of their chemical weapons stockpile, as well as with the process used in the past by the Syrian army for employing sarin (binary synthesis shortly before use without subsequent purification of the agent for long-term storage).”

The final sentence highlights the use of hexamine by the Syrian army in its deployment of Sarin, consistent with Ake Sellstrom’s statement of hexamine’s use as an acid scavenger by the Syrian government.'

Conspiracy theories, fanatic adherence to the Assad regime, and Hersh, notwithstanding, it is important wikipedia relies on a preponderance of non-fringe material to write its articles. imagine what the reader would be faced with you if ASSadist and Terrorist wrote the articles. It would be mintpress, it would be RT, it would be propaganda pure and simple and propaganda statements backed by no evidence whatever. 78.147.47.169 (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Article on what the opcw un jims report khan sheikhoun tells khan sheikhoun opcw report on syrian regime sarin Dan the Plumber (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017
Jakovjedan (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017
141.136.179.205 (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 'The town was reported to have been struck/by an airstrike/ by government forces followed by massive civilian chemical poisoning.'
 * struck/strike, by.. by gov - That's really clunky stylistically. Repair to
 * 'The town was reported to have been hit in an airstrike by government forces,' etc.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claims re:Russia
The article states that: "Russia initially claimed the deaths were a result of gas released when a government airstrike hit a rebel-operated chemical weapons factory[64][65] but later agreed with the OPCW conclusions." There's no citation there for the latter statement.

Later in the article, it states that:

In July 2017, however, Russian delegates to OPCW agreed that "sarin or sarin-like substance was used" and said that there are "no grounds to disbelieve OPCW findings".[93]

This time, a Russian language article is cited.

I don't speak Russian, but the article had an embedded tweet from the British delegation (in English), which says that Russia "agrees that sarin or sarin-like substance used. Says no grounds to disbelieve OPCW findings."

So there are a number of problems here...

1. The article is in Russian, which makes things difficult for most editors here. And, if Russia had in fact stated that the Assad government was responsible, would that not be widely reported in the English language media???

2. The apparent source isn't a direct statement by a Russian government spokesperson, but rather a tweet from the British delegation.

3. Even if the tweet is to be taken at face value, its language is ambiguous. The part about Russia agreeing that sarin (or something sarin-like) was used is clear, but not the other part: Saying that there's no reason to disbelieve the findings - is this talking *specifically* about the findings that sarin (or something like it) was used, or is it referring more generally to *any and all* findings of that committee?...This is not clear from the context.

Therefore, unless better sources can be found, the sentence that "Russia initially claimed the deaths were a result of gas released when a government airstrike hit a rebel-operated chemical weapons factory[64][65] but later agreed with the OPCW conclusions" needs to be changed to eliminat the latter part and remove the "initially."

Also, the sentence that "In July 2017, however, Russian delegates to OPCW agreed that "sarin or sarin-like substance was used" and said that there are "no grounds to disbelieve OPCW findings"." is potentially misleading and conflates the issue of whether sarin (or sarin-like) was used with the issue of who actually used it and how it was released, so this needs to be fixed as well unless there are clear sources showing Russia endorsing claims of Syrian government responsibility for the attack. -2003:CA:83CA:2800:F19D:343C:8C63:9B66 (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Update, Re: Russia
I've found this article, in English, which outlines the Russian government position after the UN committee released it's report: https://www.rt.com/news/408059-opcw-un-report-moscow-syria/

Yes, it's from RT, which many feel isn't always the most reliable or impartial, but Russian state media is a very authoritative source **regarding the positions of the Russian government itself**.

So this trumps any of the other insinuations, and I will go ahead and edit the article accordingly. -2003:CA:83CA:2800:F19D:343C:8C63:9B66 (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody add context to this quote.
>> Assad stated: "You have a lot of fake videos now… We don’t know whether those dead children were killed in Khan Sheikhun. Were they dead at all?” According to numerous eyewitnesses and reporters on the ground, children did in fact die in the attack.<<

After reading this, I though he was desputing the existance of victims, but when I watched the actual interview, it turned ot he was just saying how it's weird how the US bombed them 48 hours after the incident without any investigations, they just saw those videos and photos (which really could have been staged) and fired 60 Tomahawks. And it really is weird, who begins an attack based on a photo of a pinpoint pupil? They didn't even test for sarine before attacking. The Turkish test results from the article were published on 4/11 and British on 4/13.

The quote is dishonest and paints a conpletely different picture and should be changed. Jakovjedan (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the cited sources, notes in the first paragraph, "Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has accused the US of fabricating last week’s chemical attack to justify a military strike, even as British investigators confirmed the use of toxic sarin gas." It goes on to note that "an American official countered that US intelligence had intercepted communications from members of the regime and its chemical experts talking about preparations for the bombing of Khan Sheikhoun." The claim that the US military response was based solely on internet videos does not appear to be consistent with the sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While Hersh states that anonymous intelligence sources implied the contrary re US intelligence. In any case, this farcical article won't tell the reader anything he might like to know. It is so structured that, uniquely, government or official bodies' views are showcased, then the 'other views' -those linked to intelligence specialists who dissent from the nationally self-interested viewpoints- are just linked without in-text explanation, save for Hans Blix. He is allowed a voice because he thought in the end there was more merit to the Syria's-to-blame- thesis. If Blix's other view is showcased, and the other views that challenge it merely noted, the carefully edited in bias from the top down is blurted out in this final paragraph. Congratulations.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the opcw has said the sarin has the regimes signature. Is the opcw also 'nationally self interested'. What 'intelligence specialists' challenge the opcw findings?

'The JIM report reveals that:

During the removal of the stockpile belonging to the Syrian Arab Republic in 2014, the OPCW collected samples from the sarin precursor methylphosphonic difluoride (DF) before the rest of the stockpile was destroyed. The Mechanism commissioned a laboratory to study and compare the impurities, and their formation, in samples of stockpiled DF. Five different samples from the Syrian Arab Republic DF stockpile were analysed for impurities.

These impurities act as the marker chemicals which the JIM uses to identify the presence of Syrian Arab Republic DF in the Sarin used in Khan Sheikhoun:

The samples from Khan Shaykhun contain the three types of marker chemicals described above: PF6, isopropyl phosphates and isopropyl phosphorofluoridates. Their presence is a strong indicator that the sarin disseminated in Khan Shaykhun was produced from DF from the Syrian Arab Republic stockpile.

In addition, the presence of certain chemicals indicates the level of technology and skill required to manufacture the Sarin used:

Based on the foregoing, the Mechanism concludes that the presence of the marker chemical PF6 is evidence that HF was used to produce the DF that was the precursor for the sarin released in Khan Shaykhun. HF is a very aggressive and dangerous gas and is, therefore, difficult to handle. The use of HF indicates a high degree of competence and sophistication in the production of DF and points towards a chemical plant type production.'

The cranks and conspiracy theorists and their followers are the 'farcical' aspect in this scenario. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not about cranks or conspiracy theorists or denialism. This is about to whom does one attribute the possession of sarin-type chemical stocks or their precursors. Syria had them: the Syrian state collapsed. Quantities are said to have ended up in the hands of rebels. There are two versions: one that Assad used hidden stockpiles, the other that groups like al-Nusra had stocks which may have been released when that site was bombed. There is no smoking gun either way, and the article should reflect that. Instead it adopts the institutional narrative, and relegates to a footnote what several authoritative dissenters stated. Unlike those who have dominated the way the page is edited, I don't know where the truth lies. I do know that Hersh, Postel, Ritter and others are, despite the dopey bloggers we use as proof the sceptics are confused, to be taken seriously. They are in no one's pocket. They may be wrong, internally inconsistent. But WP:NPOV technically requires a page to be neutral, where significant counter-narratives exist. We have per WP:Undue, wiped out the dissenting but authoritative minor voices as 'fringe' when they are not fringe. Tutto qua.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Postol. All the evidence has been assessed by experts at opcw and  the  overwhelming RS conclusions are that the 'dissenters' are mistaken in their, very various, though equally far fetched, theories. Your  dissenters, Hersh, Ritter, Postol, are briefly mentioned and that seems about right. You want to drag the article into a sputnik-mintpress-RT thought ghetto? -you want to give equal weight to opcw investigation and expert sifting of evidence, with  Hersh? , who , when challenged on his nonsense said that he 'had learned to just write what I write and move on'. you want equal weight for his nonsense? No, not if wikipedia cares about credibility. 'They are in no ones pocket' sounds pretty conspiracist, true believer kind of talk and Hersh  seems a poor expert to set against opcw on chemical weapons and analysis of their deployment anyhow. Hersh is 'fringe', on sarin , I'm pretty sure.

The opcw-un joint investigative mechanism ' undertook the following key activities: (a) obtained and reviewed information and material from the Fact-Finding Mission; (b) collected information from open sources; (c) submitted requests to Member States, including the Syrian Arab Republic, for information; (d) interviewed witnesses, including during visits to the Syrian Arab Republic, and obtained photographs, videos, documents and other materials; (e) obtained analysis and expert assessments from several forensic institutes; (f) obtained satellite imagery and analysis thereof; (g) obtained expert analysis in respect of medical effects, munitions and their delivery methods, aircraft configuration and capabilities, plume dispersion, and chemistry of toxic agents; (h) obtained information about weather conditions; and (i) attended expert briefings. Upon obtaining the above-mentioned information, the Mechanism conducted extensive analysis of the information and material it had obtained.' Pretty thorough, ( though I'm sure you think they are in the pocket of ? Who? Do tell. ) I think wikipedia is safe to set its main thrust of where the weight of RS analysis leads using this framework rather than your equal weight idea for the rickety structures designd by porter, hersh et al, the usual suspects, in fact. Dan the Plumber (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be rude, I'm on nobody's side, I know Assad is a POS and I know US has it's own interest. I only found out about this whole thing only a few days before. I was arguing with a friend that's very supportive of Assad and tried shutting down every piece of "evidence" he provided. I found most of the things in this article.


 * This quote I'm talking about was the thing that I used the most. "First Assad said those people died because they blew up rebels' sarin, but then he said nobody is actually dead was supposed to be my final blow, that was evidence that he was full of shit. But then I watched the entire interview and realized that's not what he's saying.


 * I didn't know those activites you listed happened. I'd like to see some evidence for that, but regardless of that being true or not, the quote is misplaced.


 * Whether Assad is right or not isn't the point, the problem is that he's not saying the childeren aren't dead, he's saying the US didn't know that.


 * You can leave the quote, but provide context so it's clear what he tried to say. You can even dispute his claims right after that by listing some of the things you listed before, but people reading the article currently get wrong information. Jakovjedan (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I left this for a different reply because it's not that related to my request, it's more of a discussion.


 * I checked your claims and found this https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1720662.pdf I found some very interesting things in here.


 * First of all, they haven't actually visited the site. Nobody that could have proved the existance of victims to the US visited Khab Shaykhun. White Helmets are the closest to that, but they're not "official".
 * 3.43 However, as mentioned previously, the FFM was not able to physically visit the locations of the alleged incident, and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to:
 * (a) assess the geography of the location of the alleged incident;
 * (b) visit the hospitals and clinics where the casualties were initially treated;
 * (c) gain direct access to records, including patient registers, medical files, treatment records, radiographs, laboratory reports, from those previous treatment facilities; and
 * (d) conduct on-site collection of testimonies and clinical examination


 * They didn't actually collect samples or bodies from the site themselves. Where's the guarantee that that wasn't "fabricated"? They had photos and videos as evidence. That can be "faked".
 * 3.47 In the absence of direct sampling at the location by the team, the FFM requested that any samples and sampling procedures provided by other parties be supported as much as possible by photographs, video footage, and witness testimony.


 * Only three autopsies were carried out before Tomahawks were launched. Where's the guarantee that that wasn't "fabricated"? Anyone can kill somebody with sarin and hand them over for examination.
 * pg60, table 1


 * Results couldn't have possibly come back before the missiles were launched.
 * 3.52 Specimens from autopsies carried out in a neighbouring country were taken by forensic laboratory staff with their equipment in the presence of the FFM team and remained in the FFM’s custody until transfer to the OPCW Laboratory personnel.


 * There's a lot more of the same. My point is that they didn't have indisputable proof of the chemical attack taking place, especially only two days after, when the US attack was launched. There was even less evidence of Assad being responsible.


 * Also, the first reports by OPCW were released on April 19th and the official report came only three months later.


 * My opinion is that Assad really is responsible for the attack, but the US didn't actually know that, they just wanted an excuse to bomb him becuase he was progressing. You don't launch an attack based on some indications. I'm not saying anything was faked, I'm saying it easily could have been. Of the things you listed, most took place after the US attack, some was covered above, and the only two things that certainly could be true are f) and i), but you don't launch an attack with such important consequences based on satelite images and expert briefings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakovjedan (talk • contribs)


 * It's okay! Ignore all the factual and practical details because I have a bit of paper with JIM written on it! You see the signature "JIM" is holy unto God and means that Assad definitely did it. With his own bare hands....the monster!! Or with a reconditioned Tupolev 22 he refurbished somehow and somehow rebuilt an old, decommissioned KhaB-250 with his team of oompa-loompa 60s-era, chemical weapon vintage-bomb-creating-elves. I'm still not sure how he did it but we have JIM's hard proof that there was sarin and it was Syrian sarin and definitely none of the Syrian sarin got into the hands of the rebels or the Turks or the Israelis or the Saudis or the British or any of the other spooks and gooks out there hiding behind IP addresses and claiming I can personally attack an IP address. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're clearly fightning several strawmen at once, but the neutral sources based on available sources merely say that the attack was performed by Su-22 aircraft of the Assadist régime air force, not by "Assad with his bare hands", however much more colourful your depiction (including elves) can be. And no-one here claims that "JIM" papers are better because they're by "JIM" - these are just the most reliable sources based on available facts, and there exists no reason to give undue weight to the Assadist, Putinist and other extremists' propaganda and unhinged claims. Please calm down and check also the article Occam's razor prior to further pushing of unsubstantied speculations on Israelis, Turks, Saudis, British etc. (not to mention elves). -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:CB6:5B17:9B10:2F2D (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s.:Hiding behind a nickname is perhaps more cool?-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:CB6:5B17:9B10:2F2D (talk)
 * The article cannot be edited because it is owned by a handful of editors who wish to prove a POV. As long as we have editors here who think every attempt at mentioning a significant minority dissent, even if it comes from experts, is a reflection of a 'sputnik-mintpress-RT thought ghetto?', there's nothing to be done. Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not giving undue weight to conspiracy theories and/or extremist propaganda claims is an established Wikipedia policy, AFAIK. Description based upon propaganda by fascist régimes of Syria and/or Russia, or those including elves, should be hardly considered significant, from the encyclopedical point of view. No offence meant.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:CB6:5B17:9B10:2F2D (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Crap. this has nothing to do with undue weight, nothing to do with Russia or Syria, fascism, propaganda. It's the only page I've worked where an absolute veto exists against clarifying what major experts who dissented actually thought or think, the only one where  a minor but significant body of dissent cannot have summarize a paragraph outlining the general points. 'They exist! See the link,' is all we have. It's not a Wikipedia article, but a carefully manicured WhiteHouse/Pentagon-friendly handout, thanks to the editors riding shotgun here.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani: Please do calm yourself down - no amount of your subjective support can change objective facts or remake pro-Assadist propaganda (either Russian or other) into a respectable/reliable source - so at least refrain from further profanities and personal attacks, OK? There's no "absolute veto" you've imagined above - just the same rules for wp:RS applies for all - you'd should perhaps accept that your personal warm feelings towards alleged "major experts who dissented" are just not as readily accepted as you'd like to imagine. Attempts to claim that Assadist propaganda (and assertions of its stooges and fellow travellers) is - somewhat - as just respectable as the fact based sources would lead to nowhere, and your crude and vulgar attempts at intimidation would just lead to nowhere. It's mean - and not particularly clever. We're not in fascist Syria or Russia here, mkey? Complaining that the objective facts are somewhat "too Pentagon-friendly" and should be "balanced" by fringe views suppporting Assad's régime just doesn't make any sense. Read also the golden mean fallacy article, please. Fringe claims are already well covered by the article, and it would not make no sense to push them further, and/or giving them the same weight as the fact-based ones, just because few individual editors just don't get what wp:UNDUE means. No offense meant.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:E01E:9198:C69C:71B6 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To regard giving (due) weight to the OPCW -UN JIM findings, nothing more than a WhiteHouse/Pentagon stitch up is ludicrous. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * “The analysis results of OPCW designated laboratories confirm the presence of sarin and some of its known degradation products (see OPCW document S/1521/2017, as well as United Nations documents S/2017/567 and S/2017/440). Moreover, '''the results confirm that sarin was produced by the binary route, in which DF is combined with isopropanol (iPrOH) in the presence of hexamine.

“The samples from Khan Shaykhun contain the three types of marker chemicals described above: PF6, isopropyl phosphates and isopropyl phosphorofluoridates. Their presence is a strong indicator that the sarin disseminated in Khan Shaykhun was produced from DF from the Syrian Arab Republic stockpile.”

Denial of all this is indeed the attitude of conspiracy theorists and marginal or ideological figures, the weight of the article should not be skewed at the behest of ideological friends of the Putin/Assad regimes. Ritter wrote that a chemical weapon was not used? But the 'major experts' demur. Hersh is not a 'major expert' on sarin. Who else? Peter Ford? a 'major expert'? Hardly. That's the real 'crap'. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The leader of the United Nations investigative panel that has found that Syria used chemical weapons expressed pessimism on Wednesday about his panel’s future, and he said Russian diplomats had warned him regularly that the Kremlin was prepared to reject its findings.

In an interview, the panel’s leader, Edmond Mulet, a veteran United Nations diplomat, also said he was mystified as to why the Russians had tenaciously defended the Syrian government when, in his view, the proof of its chemical weapons attacks was overwhelming.. ( So this article also should follow, the 'overwhelming', per due WEIGHT). Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember Hersh, one of your 'major experts' said 'sarin is easy to manufacture, you can do it in your back yard'. And here  is something from the OPCW JIM report 'Based on the foregoing, the Mechanism concludes that the presence of the marker chemical PF6 is evidence that HF was used to produce the DF that was the precursor for the sarin released in Khan Shaykhun. HF is a very aggressive and dangerous gas and is, therefore, difficult to handle. The use of HF indicates a high degree of competence and sophistication in the production of DF and points towards a chemical plant type production.”   No wonder your 'major expert' Hersh says 'I have learned to just write what I write and move on.'  The 'major experts'  being touted here are no such thing and the effort to push them is of ideological and not good encyclopaedic inspiration. Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When the airhead blather wanes, and some level-headed thinking returns to the page, let me know. The refusal to even parse what the critics say is an open sore to wikipediaì's neutrality.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the 'airhead blather'? Whats that, then . The OPCW -JIM reports words? 'wikipediais (sic) neutrality' is threatened rather by the pushing of fringe nonsense.  When that wanes, on wikipedia, as elsewhere, it will be a godsend. Alas the airheads are still numerous.  Here is Seymour Hersh getting 'parsed' will get fooled again. The 'great expert' Hersh proposed  an accidental chemical release; and no sarin; the OPCW-JIM report contradicted his propositions. Thats the blathering facts. Sorry. Level-headed thinking means pushing the Hersh story? Christ.Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It does strike me that our text describing the interview is accurate. The interview can be seen here:. Assad is saying he and the Syrian government believe the attack was a fabrication. In that context, he asks, "We don’t know whether those dead children were killed in Khan Sheikhun. Were they dead at all?" Here in our article, we introduce the quote in a similar way, noting that Assad stated it was a fabrication. So I don't think the quote is being taken out of context. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've no problems with that either.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The latest report is fairly comprehensive and should be read and used. It states the fatalities at around 100, and the casualties at 200, for example, meaning the lead figures require adjustment. It also assigns responsibility for the use of sulfur mustard at Umm Hawsh on 15 and 16 September 2016.(p.7) to ISIL, a fact neatly glossed over in our background charge sheet, etc.etc.

"7th report of the  Organisation for  the  Prohibition  of  Chemical  Weapons United  Nations  Joint  Investigative Mechanism, The United Nations Security Council 26 October 2017."
 * the OPCW report is 'fairly comprehensive' (!?), ffs, ( not as good as RT coverage though, I shouldn't wonder!) Its about time editors realised wikipedia is not here to pander to the mug punters who suck up and spit out every bit of  RT/Sputnik/mintpress nonsense on the merry go round of disinformation and distraction  but to write  decent articles based on RS. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article makes it look as if Assad is questioning those deaths when he was actually saying how the US didn't have the sufficient evidence of those deaths before launching the attack. The only piece of information they had were the videos which really are easy to fabricate. Nobody official visited the site (ever) because the territory was under Al-Nusra, there was no proof that sarin was actually used because the soil hadn't beem tested yet and the only three bodies that did go through autopsies were sent abroad for testing. Jakovjedan (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Associated Press: Quote
''The U.S. has no evidence to confirm reports from aid groups and others that the Syrian government has used the deadly chemical sarin on its citizens, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday....We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.''

user:Bobfrombrockley is unfit for serving as an editor for this page if s/he's going to remove contributions like these. Granted, this contribution was poorly written and needed editing, but there is no reason to remove it outright without a replacement. The contributor was, objectively, not misreading the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsielicki (talk • contribs)


 * In context, Mattis is clearly talking about allegations of sarin attacks more recent Khan Shaykhun: "We’re on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that [Khan Shaykhun], so they would be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention...". In other parts of his remarks he referred to Syria's use of sarin in Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun as fact. It was a selective quote of a poorly-written WaPo summary, and a good revert. Chill. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ""In other parts of his remarks he referred to Syria's use of sarin in [...] Khan Shaykhun as fact.""
 * Where? I only see him refer to "previous violations", which is vague and could be referring solely to the 2013 Ghouta sarin attack.


 * In the interest of avoiding bias introduced with derivative articles, let's just read directly from the source:Associated Press.
 * The U.S. has no evidence to confirm reports from aid groups and others that the Syrian government has used the deadly chemical sarin on its citizens, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday.
 * In his remarks Friday, Mattis alluded to the April attack, saying, “So they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating” the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
 * In his remarks Friday, Mattis alluded to the April attack, saying, “So they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating” the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.


 * I think it is exceedingly difficult to read this and reasonably come to the conclusion that Mattis was referring to some event between April 2017 and today. For the AP to glaringly omit something like that would be serious misrepresentation. Nsielicki (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read more and realize I am wrong, this is about more recent attacks. I am really sorry for the tone and incivility. Nsielicki (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nsielicki. Appreciated. I also want to stress I didn't edit out any references to an AP/WaPo news item (the ref here) but to the Newsweek op ed, as an op ed is a bad source for a controversial factual claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mattis misquotation
The Newsweek "citation" is to a reader-submitted op-ed by someone described as "an international lawyer, U.S. Army veteran and former intelligence community contractor," not a reliable source. No other source so butchered what Mattis actually said; see, e.g., Politico's accurately headlined "Mattis warns Syria not to use chemical weapons again." The author apparently did not even bother to read the full transcript of Mattis's remarks, in which Mattis explicitly states that Assad was "caught using [sarin]" during "the previous administration" and "used it again during our administration":

"Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?

SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.

Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?

SEC. MATTIS: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used.

We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?"--יניב הורון (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Did Mattis 'admit' that the U.S. has no evidence Assad ever used sarin? Of course not!
With regard to the recent dispute between and, a minimal amount of research makes it obvious that Newsweek's too-good-to-check clickbait completely distorts what Mattis actually said and cannot be considered a reliable source. According to Newsweek: "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency." I do not understand how something so blatantly false made it past the editors at Newsweek, but Newsweek's own source for this claim—the Associated Press—actually contradicts it: Mattis says it is clear that Assad's government has weaponized and used chlorine gas in the Syrian civil war.

"We're even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use," he said. Sarin is a colorless and tasteless toxin that can cause respiratory failure leading to death.

Last April, the U.S. launched several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in response to what it called illegal Syrian use of chemical weapons. President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to deter further Syrian use of illegal weapons.

In his remarks Friday, Mattis alluded to the April attack, saying, "So they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating" the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. Similarly, Reuters makes clear that Mattis was only referring to reports that Assad had continued to use sarin after the U.S. missile strikes in April 2017, specifically during the ongoing Siege of Eastern Ghouta—not upending the consensus of the entire U.S. intelligence community and the UN regarding Khan Shaykhun: "We are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, (but) I don’t have the evidence," Mattis said. "What I am saying is that other groups on the ground - NGOs, fighters on the ground - have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence."

Mattis did not provide further details on which reports on the use of sarin he was referring to.

However, the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC), an opposition group, said chemical weapons had been used by the government of Bashar al-Assad in Ghouta.

Rescue workers and medical groups working in the rebel-held enclave of Eastern Ghouta, near Damascus, have accused government forces of using chlorine gas three times over the last month, including early on Thursday.

"Chemical weapons are being used in Ghouta and we have proof," SNC spokesman Yahya al-Aridi told Reuters.

A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation is said to have been launched.

"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said. For this reason, I believe that AssadistDEFECTOR's edits need to be completely removed from the article. Also pinging, who was involved in a previous discussion on this topic.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This argument is based entirely on Elliot Higgins "opinion" that the time period Mattis referred to was post April 2017. I don't read it like that and don't expect most people would. I read is as Newsweek and Reuters as a non-temporal admission. Reuters even says he "stressed" they have no evidence of Sarin. There no mention of dates or times. Higgins is just making stuff up to suit his warmongering narrative, which is not one I consider should be extended to Wikipedia. It simply isnt'a neutral point of view. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 's quoting AP and Reuters here, not Higgins. The full transcript is below and it is very clear. Wilkie is a fringe opinion misquoting a single garbled comment in a press conference, and it would be absurd to rewrite our article based on that. There has been no official statement put by the US government changing its position. It is right to revert the article back to its previous wording.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)