Talk:Khan al-Assal chemical attack

Sarin or pool cleaner?
The article has two sources, one which identifies this attack as sarin, the other as pool cleaner "CL17". Which was it?

Also, what chemical is CL17? I have not been able to identify any reliable source that actually provides a name, chemical formula, link to a MSDS, etc (all of which would be readily available for a chemical or formulation in pool cleaner). VQuakr (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Was as it sarin or chlorine? Some sources say chlorine, a Russian investigation claims samples tested positive for sarin. There have also been claims (not specific to this attack, but more generally) that the Syrian government have tried to obfuscate things by mixing chemical agents, so who's to say it wasn't sarin and chlorine? I'm not sure whether you're genuinely expecting me to arbitrate the truth here, but I'm not in a position to. The only thing I have to add is that I did see an unnamed Reuters photographer cited as smelling chlorine in the air at the time - but the source wasn't very good and I couldn't find a better one. I've no idea what CL17 is specifically.


 * I've removed some rs tags you added, because it's pretty bizarre to claim that the Sacramento Bee, CBS and Russia Today are all unreliable sources for what the Russian Foreign Ministry says it reported to the UN. If you meant to say "I don't believe the Russian Foreign Ministry report is accurate", well that's not what the tag is for and I'm not sure there is one that would do that. Incidentally, isn't it funny how we don't believe the Russians when they say a sample tests positive for sarin, yet we do when they say a sample is antifreeze and not sarin, even when the claim is only available via third-hand reporting? (Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks). Podiaebba (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I told you before statements like "so who's to say it wasn't.." - means nothing, only RS and policy. As it is Syria has claimed its chlorine and there were witness statements that they smelled of chlorine like smell. As well as expert which analysed the photos and said that there was no visible symptoms of chemical Agents .... and UN investigation. All of which you are missing, basically this the first we see mention of sarin in regard to this incident, and you built a whole article around it. This has nothing todo with "believing" but with verifiability.--PLNR (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * VQuakr appeared to be asking my opinion, so I gave it; feel free to butt out of the conversation. The article can be improved I'm sure. Podiaebba (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The CL17 thing is very strange, I really cannot see any reference to it anywhere except in news sources related to this one release. I suggest removing it the quote, as without context it is effectively meaningless. VQuakr (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * CL17 is chlorine, its element symbol is CL and atomic number is 17.--PLNR (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PNLR read something on a talk page and said something helpful in response! Could this be the start of a trend? We can but hope. Podiaebba (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So the source is claiming you can buy atomic chlorine as a pool cleaner? No one refers to elements by their abbreviation followed by their atomic number. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a mistake and was supposed to be a reference to isotope Chlorine-37? But I don't see that having any relation with swimming pool cleaner. If we can't figure out the CL17 thing, better to remove it. Podiaebba (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Purified isotopic Cl-37 costs on the order of $10k USD per gram, and would be no more effective as a weapon than a natural isotopic mixture. I looked it up and found it interesting. VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More likely that pool cleaner(common product) contains chlorine which they macgyver into a bomb. The sources says this has been previously used in Iraq. Cl17 might be just an abbreviation used by lab guys, just as you can find military guys say CW instead of Chemical Weapons.--PLNR (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I kind of am a "lab guy", which is why I was suspicious of the abbreviation. Since I cannot find any reference to a chlorine compound with this nomenclature except in connection to this quote, it doesn't really add anything for the reader and I agree it should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the "known as CL17" really doesn't seem to add anything to the reader, and removing wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence one bit. Also now I know who is the resident "lab guy" to ask ;) --PLNR (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

POV statment
The whole article is based on the September Russian Foreign Ministry statement on their website, regarding the march incident. Providing only the alleged evidence in Russian statement, which they claim to submit in July. Ignoring the counter points in the same article. Ignoring earlier articles which provided statements and analysis contradict their findings. overall the tone of the article is POV. Also the UN already ruled on the this incident in July so at the very best this is "The Syrian government asked the United Nations to investigate,[4] and it was during this investigation that the much larger-scale 2013 Ghouta attacks took place on 21 August." violation of WP:SYN. --PLNR (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your link doesn't work for me, so I don't know what that actually says, but I've added a ref confirming that this was the case. If you have additional sources, or concrete suggestions on how to restructure the article, let's hear it. I'm increasingly uninterested in your accusations of "POV" yadda yadda as the cyplive incident you refuse to explain shows your own rather too clearly. Podiaebba (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry by "Ignoring the counter points in the same article" I meant this article, which was linked on the Syria Civil war page.(I certainly didn't accept RT to offer any counter points), other than that suggestions are the same add everything we know about the incident, which iirc can already found on the Syria WMD(most of it contradict Russian assessment)--PLNR (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the Sacramento Bee article, which is from McClatchy. I guess the information you want to add is the experts cited who suggest other possibilities. Richard Guthrie suggests "The messy mix described by the Russians might also be the result of an old sarin stock being used. Sarin degrades (the molecules break up) over time and this would explain a dirty mix." Which is a slightly odd statement insofar as it doesn't seem to exactly contradict what the Russians exactly said, which is that the mix didn't have chemical stabilisers (to ensure long shelf-life) in it. I would also question whether the OPCW-certified labs alleged used wouldn't be able to distinguish between old military-grade sarin degraded despite stabilisers and "cottage-industry" sarin that never had any and probably had other contaminants. He's speculating, since he no more has access to the full 100-page report or samples than I do. His speculation about RDX is just redundant - sure, it's not normally used, but that pretty obviously doesn't rule out the possibility that the Syrians might have used it anyway. It's not even a contradictory statement, it's just fluff. Jean Pascal Zanders, on the other hand, is cited contradicting a claim the Russians didn't make - as the RT article makes clear, it was the diisopropyl fluorophosphate which was described as being used by Western states for producing chemical weapons in WWII, not sarin. So, yes, I saw this and didn't consider any of it particularly helpful in shedding light on the credibility of the Russian report. Far more useful would have been an expert stating the obvious - we don't know what chain of evidence there was for the soil and rocket samples getting to the Russians and then to the labs, which rather undermines the whole "the lab found this" conclusion, even if the labs are OPCW-certified. Presumably the 100-page report describes that chain-of-evidence, but that still leaves us with the problem of trusting the Russians and their Syrian government allies; again an obvious point, but not one made and therefore not citable in the Wikipedia article. (Perhaps it's too obvious that it needs to be said.) Podiaebba (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions - but it would be a lot more helpful if they didn't largely consist of badly-edited copyright violations (copied from the news sources). I've fixed most of the resulting mess. I removed the Guthrie fluff and Zanders mistake as it was a copyright violation and you failed to respond to my comments about them above. Podiaebba (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't have time to add and ce everything, but it certainly better than your previous focus on soldiers,Syrian version and only Russian variant. As for your comment above, as before I stop reading when you start writing your analysis, presumptions and everything past RS.--PLNR (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits and comments indicate that (a) you're uninterested in discussion and (b) you're willing to use terrible sourcing when it suits your view and to deny good sourcing when it suits, and to place desk-based speculation on a par with actual on-the-ground investigations. I also have to make an effort to assume ignorance rather than maliciousness is responsible for the errors introduced which suit your POV. Well, at least I know where you're at. Podiaebba (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you talking about, you keep seeing what you want see, even though on several occasions several people hinted that you tend to rumble about anything other than RS and policy, which is as nice as I can phrase it. If you have any accusations or personal concerns with me, either use my talk page or Administrative notice board. Otherwise this is not a forum, I don't care what you assume, only issues relevant to the topic and policy based arguments.--PLNR (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

PLNR - You have written in the lead that "Both Syrian government, US and Russia submitted evidence to the UN." Besides the slightly faulty grammar :), as far as I know, only Russia has submitted evidence to the UN about this attack. Do you have any references for the US and Syria having submitted evidence? Hulahoop122 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I already added Turkey to the article, as for US its possible that I confused their June statement with evidence, I'll have to double check the sources on the main article.--PLNR (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

POV restructuring
This restructuring by PNLR is extremely and obviously POV. It makes a complete mess of the article apparently with the sole objective of downplaying the Russian investigation by placing it on a par with both immediate reaction to the incident and desk-based speculation which doesn't even involve access to the Russian report. The previous structure is far superior, and whatever concerns PNLR and others might have should be accommodated within it. Podiaebba (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (explanation is in the next paragraph, this is for Podiaebba benfit)Alternatively its possibly that you are little biased, after all you picked this incident out of six others, building the whole article around the Russian and government claims, ignoring every other view point. A more suspicious person might think this is a result of a previous failed argument in which you tried to add through synthesis that opposition have Sarin, which you coincidentally linked here. As for the POV accusation. lets just say its argumentative who is trying to downplay, after you labeled labeled the details of the incident and anylisis follow up analysis as "initial" reports, redacting and summarizing points you don't like, while separating the Russian analysis inside "investigation" (even though UN already received samples and ruled on this) coupled with the single official statement on this article article made by Syrian government official.


 * In this edit, I merely followed a ~standard structure for such conflict incidents, in this case: background\incident\"investigations"\independent investigation by the UN.(you can see a similar structure on the Ghouta attacks that you are editing as well.)
 * I changed "Initial reports" with incident, we don't have middle or final reports do we?
 * The Syrian military version was intertwined with the incident reports, while the opposition version was split in two. So I combined the opposition version into one paragraph and put it vs the military(Government) version per NPOV.
 * Last is the UN investigation paragraph, which pertains to chemical agents findings, including the US first assessment to the UN that Sarin was used, to which I added Russian first assessment to the UN, separating it from the actual report. Which I later put with every other analysis regarding the incident per NPOV. --PLNR (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, well firstly, thanks for making a substantive reply. Secondly, I didn't make a list of all the attack allegations and then "pick" this one. This one jumped out because it was the reason UN inspectors were there for the Ghouta attacks, and of course it was in the news that the Russians pointed out their previous investigation (which concluded in July). In working on the Khan al-Assal attack I've not seen any evidence that anyone has done this type of investigation, or that the alleged victim numbers were that large, for any other attack - but feel free to provide it if you have it. I should also point out that I'd previously suggested making Syria and chemical weapons as permitting a better examination of the issues across many allegations of small-scale attacks from December 2012 onwards (Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack), a suggestion you didn't support. Thirdly, I reject the claim that I "tried to add through synthesis that opposition have Sarin" - I wanted the fact that there were widespread media coverage in Turkey of claims of arrest in May of al-Nusra militants with Sarin, along with subsequent official denials, in the Ghouta article. You have abjectly failed to even attempt to justify your removal of that fact by relying on an appalling source claiming Turkish reporting of alleged Russian testing supposedly proving it wasn't sarin but antifreeze. I have no doubt that you will continue to fail to justify this, but feel free to prove me wrong. Fourthly, the initial reports (on the day or the next) are just that, and desk-based insta-reaction even from experts is just that. It is entirely appropriate to separate it from actual investigation that visits the site and claims to pursue a recognised UN process, as the Russians claimed. This absolutely different from "receiving samples" via an unknown chain of evidence (and I would point out that I haven't found any source talking about such samples from Khan al-Assal, except for the Russians. If you have one, please provide it - any detail about why the US also claims sarin at Khan al-Assal would be helpful). Fifthly, I'm not sure what else you're claiming other than a "standard format" I see no evidence of. What is clear is that you completely destroyed a very clear progression from people on all sides thinking it was possibly chlorine to people on all sides thinking it was probably or definitely sarin. Finally, you refer to WP:NPOV but I don't think you understand the concept. The concept is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views - the key word you're missing being proportionately. It is absolutely not proportionate to put the Russian investigation on a par with initial views of analysts looking at videos in the first 24 hours, which is what you've done. Podiaebba (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you suggested that article and people didn't agree with you, add it in the existing one. Leave the Turkish case to the Ghouta article(people didn't agree with your arguments there either).
 * Fourthly: The "initial" reports are important, since those give us indication if there was any Symptoms and or what were the extent of the exposure, if there was second hand contamination etc. I don't know what "clear progression" you were trying to build, but I find the terms "desk-based insta-reaction" as opposed to "actual investigation" POVish. As far as I am concerned the public info given us about the Russian analysis is just one more analysis, pending independent UN conclusion. Though it can use some ce to show some "progression" i.e. first paragraph is based on "intelligence reports and video coverage", second on "collected samples" or something like that. --PLNR (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely some independent observer can see what a complete and utter mess the restructuring has made - there is no concrete distinction between "Incident", "Versions" and "Analyses" - it's just a shapeless mishmash of contradictory views which rejects all sense of how all sides' views have changed and how evidence has developed in favour of trying to say (as much as any structure can) "nothing matters but the UN analysis". I may share that sentiment, but I deeply object to making a complete hash of what had been a clear and well-structured article in order to promote it. Podiaebba (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, I want to thank you for taking the initiative for creating this article. I found it disappointing that for so long no article existed about this significant attack. I thought your original article was good. But as the article got longer I think that it did make sense to create separate different claims about the attack into different sections (which I think was done by PLNR). The "Incident" section describes the first reporting. The "Versions" section describes the first claims made by the parties involved. The "Analyses" section reflects analysis done by outside experts. Having it all together would be a mishmash. I think this actually provides more structure. Hulahoop122 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I was surprised there wasn't an article already. I'll take another look at the structure. Podiaebba (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed" (Header)
I think that this article is in pretty good shape. Would those of you involved in working on and reviewing this article agree that we can remove the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" header? Hulahoop122 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I do dispute the neutrality of the article after what PNLR did to it... but I find those headers utterly useless, so I'm fine with losing it. Podiaebba (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, I have no additional concerns. --PLNR (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Abdeltawwab Shahrour
,,. A Syrian defector says he has additional documentation showing Syria's culpability in the attacks. I am not sure if this is reliable enough to add to the article though - Reuters has picked it up, but his documents do not seem to have been made public yet. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he is neither reliable nor notable enough to include in the article, nor has he made his documents public in the weeks since his announcement. Hulahoop122 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he merits a mention - to be expanded when hopefully more information becomes available. Turkish authorities claim to be looking into his claims. . Not sure where to put it in the article though. Podiaebba (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't. He has been sending press releases for three weeks now, with no real information released and no plausible reason given for the delay. With every day that does by, his story looks more like a diversion than real information. The Turkey news story dates back to his first announcements as well. VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The delay for details getting a bit long, but the Turkish authorities said on 6 Sep Our assessments and examinations are underway. This process will take some time. I think it best included. Podiaebba (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The guy was scheduling press conferences after Sept 9. Is there any particular reason to think this needs to be routed through Turkey rather than directly for public release? VQuakr (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea. He was in Turkey, and the Turkish authorities seemed to want to examine his evidence. One could speculate that maybe he had some other evidence that might indicate criminal actions that Turkey could prosecute. At any rate, it appears likely that the lack of publication is down to the Turkish authorities. Podiaebba (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Was there a dispute over exclusion of Russian and Chinese experts in UN inquiry?
Under the UN Investigation section there is the following sentence and 'unreliable source' tag; "There were also disputes over access to Syrian military sites and the exclusion of Russian and Chinese investigators from the UN team.[23][unreliable source?]"

I think that Russian Today is considered a reliable, although biased, source. I could not find the claim that there was a dispute over the exclusion of Russian and Chinese investigators, however, being made in any other reliable news source. I was going to rewrite this sentence to attribute the claim specifically to RT, but in investigating this more I found that the UN barred experts from ALL of the security council permanent members (US, France, Britain, Russia, and China) from being part of the inquiry team. See this AFP article; http://www.vivelohoy.com/loultimo/2013/03/un-excludes-major-powers-from-syria-chemical-arms-inquiry-4/ Therefor, I think that making this claim, in isolation, about a dispute of Russian and Chinese experts being excluded is somewhat misleading.

I was going to edit that claim out, but I wanted to give people a chance to discuss it here first. Hulahoop122 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't remove the claim, since the AFP makes clear Russia wasn't happy about that position, so it could have been a factor in the delays. However it should be made clear that the exclusion was all P5 members, not just Russia and China. I'll do that now. Podiaebba (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Carla Del Ponte UN investigator claims
In May, Carla Del Ponte, an investigator for the UN "Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria" investigating human rights abuses in Syria, stated that the evidence she had seen lead her to the preliminary conclusion that the opposition forces had use chemical weapons in Khan Al-Assal. Her evidence seemed to be based on interviews with victims and doctors who were outside of Syria.  

In response the "Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria" officially stated that it was too early to make any conclusions. 

Should her claims be incorporated into the article? Do you put her claims on the same level of notability and credibility as Abdeltawwab Shahrour (above), in relation to Assad government responsibility? Do you think they are more or less credible? Should they both be included in the article? Should they both be excluded? Hulahoop122 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK del Ponte's comments were not specifically linked to Khan al-Assal. And also no specifics were ever provided. Podiaebba (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe her claims should be incorporated into the article. Her claims have lately been strengthen in a report by Seymour Hersh (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line). Even if aspects of his report have been criticized, the part about Khan al-Assal, makes it highly likely that her statement was about Khan al-Assal. Later investigation has also confirmed that the Khan al-Assal attack was the only relatively large scale attack in March/April. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Incident Section
Eribaeko, thanks for all of your work on this article. The timeline you created is helpful.

I noticed that you have been working on the "Incident" portion of the article, and added the following sentences, which I have removed; "Samples taken at the impact site showed, according to Russian experts, that the object was an unguided rocket of the Basha'ir-3 type. The analysis clearly showed that the shell[15] was not factory made and proved that the sarin was not industrially manufactured.[16]"

This section has been used to put basic information that all parties agree too. The Russian report belongs in the "Analyses" section, where it is already extensively discussed. Also, I don't know of any source referring to the delivery device as a "shell", and the link you provide merely shows one of the photographs of the device remains, which is not a proper citation. Cheers, Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Feel free to expand the timeline, if you are able to verify when and where things happened, e.g. when the first victims arrived at which hospital.


 * Regarding the delivery device; a “shell” is in ammunition terms a payload-carrying projectile. It is the correct term for describing the “bullet” or the “grenade” fired from an artillery cannon. In rocket artillery (like the BM-21 Grad) the rocket consists of a rocket engine and a payload-carrying shell, also referred to as the rockets warhead. The shell/warhead may be high explosive, smoke or as in this case chemical. A good illustration is found on page 24 in this report. http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf Instead of saying that the rocket was homemade, Churkin specified that the part of the rocket known as the shell was “not factory made”.


 * Regarding the context of the Incident section; I removed some text written at a time where few facts were known, and replaced it with a description closer to the description in the final UN report. WP should not, however, be based on a single source. The investigation done by the Russian Investigation team, which arrived on the ground four days after the attack, seems more reliable to me than some analysts relaying on images they have seen on Internet.


 * I therefore believe the sentences should be included. It may be rewritten to something like: “Samples taken at the impact site showed, according to Russian experts, that the object was a modified unguided rocket. The analysis of the samples clearly showed that the warhead was not factory made and proved that the sarin was not industrially manufactured.”. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification about the shell. That link is informative. I suspect that this type of rocket, what some refer to as a "Volcano", may have been used in this incident. When the Russians studied the remains of the rocket, this type of rocket was still unknown. It is was only later documented to have been widely used by the Syrian military. I think the novelty of the rocket, led them to describe it as not factory made. I'm not sure I understand the difference between "factory made" and "industrially manufactured".


 * In relation to the proposed addition to the "Incident" section, the first sentence I think is ok, but I think the second sentence is misleading; "The analysis of the samples clearly showed that the warhead was not factory made and proved that the sarin was not industrially manufactured". The March 2014 UN report found that the sarin was consistent with the sarin in Syrian military stockpiles, and therefor would appear to be industrially manufactured. This claim is also criticized in the analysis section. In general in this section, I think it is ok to use conclusions from the December 2013 UN Report, but using the still unpublished and much earlier Russian report is misleading, because so much of it is now outdated. Hulahoop122 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In his speech at the UN, 9 July 2013, Churkin used “not industrially manufactured” for both the “ordnance” and the sarin, so the difference doesn’t seem to be significant (or intended).


 * Do you have a link to the March 2014 UN report? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess you mean the report dated 12 February (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session25/Documents/A-HRC-25-65_en.doc), which I understand was published 5 March. Knowing the short shelf life of sarin, the UN report are most likely talking about the components used in production, while Churkin is talking about how the sarin was made/weaponized. I therefore don’t see any contradiction between the Russian report and the UN report. The sentence may be rewritten to "The analysis of the samples showed that the rockets warhead and the sarin it contained were not industrially manufactured". Erlbaeko (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The referenced NOW article
The referenced NOW article, Where the UN Inspectors won't be going, claims that “there are several glaring omissions in most news reports about the UN mission, and about the Khan al-Assal attack, that would stand as evidence that the Assad/Putin alliance is lying”. The problem with that statement is that the author, James Miller, draws his conclusions on several fact errors:
 * The Syrian Information Minister did not report that a rocket was fired by rebels from a town 50 kilometers away, but 5 kilometers away. The article uses the range of the homemade rocket “as evidence that the Assad/Putin alliance is lying”. Ref. Distance Measure
 * The Russian government did not refuse to make the details of its proof available to the public. The Russian Foreign Minister said "If the [U.N.] secretary agrees, the evidence can be made public". Ref. Lavrov
 * The Russian and Syrian governments have not “gone out of their way to make sure that most people have never even heard of it.” In fact the Russians are the only foreign investigators that have been at the site and investigated the incident and they have publicly delivered its findings to the UN. Ref. Final UN report.
 * The article claims that “The first tweets about Khan al-Assal that day mentioned a long-range rocket hitting the town. Soon after, opposition sources reported that there were dozens of victims suffering from symptoms consistent with a chemical weapons attack in Khan al-Assal. Many hours later, Syrian State TV reported the incident.” Compared with the timeline in the article, this chain of incidents is simply not true.

Should we allow an article, with so many fact errors, to be used as a reference? Erlbaeko (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't read much about this incident - hopefully brown moses will write more about it. just write it as 'according to a NOW report -' - after the conclusions about the sarin and 'unique hallmarks' isn't it implied the regime mis-fired with this and were the actual elements behind the attack? your credulity about the Russians is childish imo. why don't they put all they have right out front? brown moses says they haven't - you'd think they'd be very eager to- the Russians are an ally of the regime, do you get that, ? like over CRimea, they admit they are brazen and outrageous liars - you are saying NOW is wrong like you know exactly what happened.Sayerslle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the NOW article has too many fact errors to be considered a reliable source. The reference and the text which is based on it should therefore be removed. Regarding the sarin and the 'unique hallmarks'; I do believe we agree that the two attacks most likely had the same perpetrators. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. At the time this comments were made, the "Initial Claims" section contained this statement: "The first tweets about Khan al-Assal that day mentioned a long-range rocket hitting the town and opposition sources reported that there were dozens of victims suffering from symptoms consistent with a chemical weapons attack in Khan al-Assal. Many hours later, Syrian State TV reported the incident. Some opposition reports said that a rocket missed the opposition-controlled area and landed in territory controlled by the regime.", and the timeline contained this information:

{{Quotation|

Tuesday, 19 March 2013
07:00: A small rocket landed in the southern part of Khan al-Asal. The rocket released sarin gas on its impact. The gas drifted southwest with the wind.

11:45: Press TV, published a breaking news article about the attack.

11:50: RT, published its first article about the attack.

12:17: Al Arabiya posted the first tweet about a Scud missile hitting Khan al-Asal.

12:32: SANA published an Arabic article with video and images from the attack. }}

Ref. old revision Erlbaeko (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Lead
Sayerslle, I rewrote the lead to take out a confusing reference to an unrelated suspected chemical attack in Aleppo, and to restructure the sentences into more standard English. I did this a while ago, and I noticed that you reverted my changes. You accused me of pushing a POV by using the word “experts” (used by Reuters), and in this rewrite I have used the word “specialists” instead. I hope you find that an agreeable compromise. If you look at the history of my edits on the Syrian conflict, I don’t think you will find that I have ever pushed an anti-opposition POV. If you have a problem with a certain phrase or term, can we discuss it here, rather than revert the whole thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulahoop122 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of February/March 2014 UN finding that perpetrators had access to sarin in government stockpiles
I notice that the editor Jiofrax has edited the article to delete the UN finding that the the perpetrators of the sarin attack likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military. In the edit section he justifies the deletion by stating that the statement relates to the Ghouta attack, and not the Khan al-Assal attack. I believe this is a mistake. The February/March UN report is about human right violations in Syria in general, and there is a section on Chemical weapons which I have cut and pasted below (paragraph 128 is key):


 * C.	Use of illegal weapons


 * 1.	Chemical weapons


 * 127.	In its report, the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic confirmed that chemical weapons, specifically sarin, had been used in multiple incidents during the conflict. The commission independently collected information, confirming this finding in the case of Al-Ghouta (21 August), Khan Al-Assal (19 March) and Saraqib (29 April).


 * 128.	In Al-Ghouta, significant quantities of sarin were used in a well-planned indiscriminate attack targeting civilian-inhabited areas, causing mass casualties. The evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used on 21 August indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents. Concerning the incident in Khan Al-Assal on 19 March, the chemical agents used in that attack bore the same unique hallmarks as those used in Al-Ghouta.

It seems clear to me that the report writers are claiming that the Khan A-Assal sarin bore the same unique hallmarks as the sarin used in Al-Ghouta, and that they believe that both came from military stockpiles. That last part was not repeated in the last sentence solely because to do so would have been redundant.

Does anyone disagree with that reading? Hulahoop122 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Jiofrax on this one. According to WP:SYN: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Erlbaeko (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Erlbaeko, thanks for providing that link. I'm not totally convinced that this would fall under Wikipedia's "No Synthesis" policy. The examples provided in that article you link to are of a different nature than this. Also, at the bottom of that article is a link to the article "What SYNTH is not". Some of the sections in that article would indicate that this does not fall under the "no SYNTH" policy. Common sense deductions are allowed. I notice that the Reuters article about the UN report, [|Chemical Weapons used in Syria Appear to Come from Army Stockpile - UN] makes the same logical conclusion that the report is referring to the sarin used in both Ghouta and Khan Al-Assal.


 * I agree though that there may be some ambiguity in relation to WP policy, so perhaps there is another way to include that relevant information that would not even come close to violating the SYN policy. How about in this article after the statement that the UN report found that the sarin used bore the same unique hallmarks as the Ghouta sarin, we can also state that the same UN report also claimed that the Ghouta perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military? Jiofrax, feel free to chime in. Hulahoop122 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the report, they indicated it base on available evidence concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used on 21 August. They may think so, but the don't have any proof. In my view, it's a faulty assumptation. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The UN HRC report asserted: (1) that the sarin used in Ghouta likely came from Syrian government stocks; (2) that the sarin used in Ghouta had the same "hallmarks" as that used in Khan-al-Assal. It's misleading for the WP article to say simply that the UN HRC report "found" that the sarin used in Khan-al-Assal came from Syrian government stocks without spelling out that this is based on the UN HRC's opinion about the Ghouta attacks, not on any separate evidence about the likely source of the sarin used in Ghouta.  This sort of elision should be avoided in WP, even if media like Reuters aren't so careful.  Otherwise we end up with a sort of echo chamber, in which the UN HRC's "finding" that the sarin used in Khan-al-Assal came from government stocks is cited as evidence that the sarin used in Ghouta also came from government stocks.   I don't think there's any problem if both assertions (1) and (2) are spelled out separately, with a link to another article that covers the controversy over assertion (1).  The reader who has a different opinion about the Ghouta attacks is then able to draw a different conclusion about the source of the sarin used in Khan-al-Assal.

My edit also notes that the UN HRC report's assertion (2) about "unique hallmarks" can only be based on a comparison of the OPCW analyses of sarin from Ghouta with the Russian analyses of sarin from Khan-al-Assal. It's left for the reader to note that this implies that the UN HRC report accepts the validity of the Russian chemical analyses but not the Russian conclusions about the source of the sarin. Jiofrax (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with what you wrote above, and your (and Erlbaeko's) edits to that final paragraph. Cheers, Hulahoop122 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to Video showing rocket manufacture by Basha'ir al-Nasr
Vqakr: thanks for fixing the embedded links. Can you explain why you consider the passage about Basha'ir al-Nasr brigade and its video of rocket manufacturing irrelevant to this article? The Russian report claimed that the rocket used in this attack matched those made by this group. It's clearly relevant that five days before the Russians produced this report, the Basha'ir al-Nasr brigade had uploaded a video showing the manufacture of small rockets in their workshop. It's likely that the Russians simply matched the rocket remains in their possession to the rockets seen in this video. I left this point for the reader to infer, but it can be spelled out if you think that's appropriate. The twitter account is relevant only in that it authenticates the video as from Basha'ir al-Nasr. Jiofrax (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless there is a reliable source that links the rockets in that video to the chemical attack, we cannot link the two per WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Vqakr: You cite the WP rule: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". No new conclusion is reached or implied in the passage that I wrote - maybe it needs rewriting to make this clear.  The Russian report (summarized on the MFA website and by Churkin in the press conference) explicitly stated that the rocket used in the attack matched those manufactured by the Basha'ir al-Nasr (BAN) group.  The video explicitly stated (and showed) that BAN was manufacturing rockets around this time.


 * This is relevant background information that helps the reader to interpret the Russian report. Otherwise, as there is no WP page on the BAN group, the Russian assertion about this group is just left hanging, with nothing to help the reader find out if this group existed and what was known about it.  For the same reason I think it's relevant to link the article in Foreign Policy, which briefly describes the BAN group.  Again no new conclusion is implied.  Linking to sources that provide background material on anything mentioned for the first time on a page is standard practice.


 * I think it's important to provide background information about BAN, but I'm happy to consider some way of doing this that doesn't appear to imply a new conclusion. For instance the summary of the Russian report could embed a link to another page giving background information about BAN.  Maybe some of the other contributors to this page would like to comment on this Jiofrax (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created a page called the Basha'ir al-Nasr Brigade. Feel free to update it. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Vquakr: would you like to comment on this proposed resolution of your objections? I think the argument for including this is simply that, given the Russian assertion that the rocket was manufactured by the BAN group it is relevant that the existence of this group, and its manufacture of rockets, had been documented.  Relevant information should not be withheld from the reader.  Jiofrax (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Per our policy on synthesis, connecting the two needs to be done by a reliable source, not us. VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * VQuakr: can you be more specific? Are you saying that it's unacceptable to add this information to the new page on the BAN group, and to embed a link to that page in this article at the point where the BAN group is mentioned? Jiofrax (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * problem solved - I have found a source from last year that made the (obvious) link between the BAN videos and the Russian report, so will restore the passage and add the source. Jiofrax (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Jiofrax: I removed the text you added regarding the Basha'ir al-Nasr Brigade. The TheInterpreter article written by James Miller contains several fact errors (similar errors are examined here), and therefore I do not see it as a reliable source. Nor is blogger Eliot Higgins comments a reliable source by the Wikipedia standard (ref. WP:USERGENERATED).

Regarding the Basha'ir al-Nasr Brigade. A group with that name was fighting in the countryside west of Aleppo in 2012/2013. This video shows them after the Khan al-Asal Police Academy, located 3 km southwest of Khan al-Assal, was captured by the rebels in early March 2013 (and this video taken at 36.15453°N, 37.01007°W). The name of their Facebook account indicate that they came from Idlib. However, it is unclear whether this group is connected to the group in Deir ez-Zor or not. The logo they use in their videos indicates that they are affiliated with the Ansar Brigade of the 19th Division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlbaeko (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Detailed description of sarin manufacture
I removed the paragraphs in the Russian investigation section that described (in great detail) the chemical process by which the sarin used in the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo Japan subway attack was derived. I did this for several reasons. The section was hard to follow, its significance not clear, and most significantly it's connection to the Khan al-assal attack is unsupported by external citations. The first part described the sarin used by Aum Shinrikyo in Japan. It is then claimed that the sarin used in Khan al-assal was similar to that used in Syria, but there is no external citation to support this. (I believe that the anonymous "WhoGouta" blog was earlier used in this section as a reference to support the connection, but it was generally agreed that an anonymous blog was not a sufficiently valid source.) Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Russian investigation from incident section
Hi Volunteer Marek, I reverted your removal of the text related to the Russian investigation from the incident section. I do not agree with your rasonale for removal. Imo RT is a WP:RS for this info. Please, also make yourself familiar with this discussion. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that RT (a propaganda channel controlled by the Kremlin:       ) is a reliable source. If the Russians' investigation is independently notable, you should be able to find a less compromised and more reputable source than RT to present its findings. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudzu1, it was already established here that RT is neither universally reliable or unreliable. Here, Volunteer Marek has removed RT content and sources without in any instance explaining why the specific content and source is controversial and unreliable.


 * In his edit summary reverting my returning of the content Marek states, "please actually read that discussion. If it's contentious, RT shouldn't be used. You can use it to source Putin's statements and such."


 * This is ironic because there is no discussion of why any of this is contentious or unreliable, meaning that Marek is asking editors to figure out and explain for him why each text might conceivably be contentious, and then argue the reverse for inclusion. It is also ironic because most of the text removed constituted statements by Syrian or Russian government officials; their statements might be contentious (as contentious as a civil war), but their existence and relevance has not been challenged. -Darouet (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, there is no reason why an investigation and report by the Russian government that is attributed should be simply removed - blanket removal would be a highly partisan approach assuming a priori that Russian and Syrian government actions, perspectives, etc. are mendacious, wrong, non-notable and cannot be shown to readers even with attribution. It is extraordinary to me that you would view this perspective as the neutral or actionable one, even if you quite understandably objected to Russian and Syrian government positions and policies. -Darouet (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

" it was already established here that RT is neither universally reliable or unreliable"  - No. You are misrepresenting the discussion. What was established there is that RT is not reliable in general although there might be some limited circumstances, where the text is uncontroversial, where it might be. This isn't the case here.

If there's no consensus that RT is reliable then you can't use it to source controversial stuff. So please keep this junk out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Marek, I've participated in plenty of the discussions about RT, as have you, and while that has been your position, it has not been the position of everyone, and is certainly not the conclusion brought by discussion closure. If you think your edits are justified by that particular interpretation of the discussion's outcome, the only solution would be to have another long, arduous discussion with, once again, the same conclusion: a huge waste of time.


 * I asked above how the existence of statements made by Syrian or Russian government officials, reports by these governments, or their relevance, is controversial. You didn't answer that question.


 * Your blanket objection to RT and inability to understand community consensus on the source is an obstacle to improving a whole host of pages, representing various global perspectives, and is a drain on community time. I don't see the point of taking this to RSN yet again because it's been covered so many times, and I'm not sure where to go at this point. -Darouet (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is clearly no consensus for RT to be a reliable source for controversial subject matter. That IS the closure of that particular discussion, so no, my characterization is entirely accurate, while yours is (purposefully?) misleading. Previous discussions about RT underscore that interpretation. It cannot be used. The burden of proof is on you if you wish to include this contentious material. It is up to you to find secondary reliable sources. If this is something which is notable and legit, then you should have no problem finding sources OTHER than RT to support it.


 * You can take it to RS again if you'd like. But until you can get consensus there that it's reliable, this junk stays out.


 * And don't insult our intelligence by claiming that RT represents a "global perspective".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * RT is a discredited propaganda source when it comes to international affairs. It should not be used on contentious political pages, such as that one, although I think it can be used for non-political subjects. Therefore, I removed it here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These are my humble thoughts. During the last two years I've worked to improve this article and ensure that it is balanced, and I think many uses of RT in it are legitimate. The blanket deletions of sections of the article have decreased the quality so much, that parts of the article no longer make sense. I believe that a compromise can be found that everyone might be ok with. I understand that RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian government, with no independence. Nevertheless, where RT claims are made that are contradicted by other sources, those contradictions are pointed out in the WP article.


 * More so than the Ghouta chemical attack, Russia has been at the center of the investigation of the al-Assal attack. They carried out the first and only on-site analysis of the Assal attack. The later UN report on the Assal attack relied on elements of the Russian report. RT reported more completely on the un-published Russian report than any other media source.


 * This article is improved by including some of RT/Russian State reporting of the attack. Like it or not, RT and other aligned news outlets have shaped how many people around the world (esp. those outside the US and Europe) view the attack. By including the RT/Russian state reports, and pointing out in the article how they often don't always make sense, we do a much greater service to those interested in learning about this attack. If we don't do this, and someone who is familiar with this counter-narrative comes to read the article, they can easily dismiss it as one sided, and representing only a biased (perhaps US/Western European) point of view.


 * Let me give a small example of legitimate uses of RT reporting, that was deleted in the recent purge. Volunteer Marek deleted RT's reporting of the Russian Foreign Minister offering to make the Russian investigation public online to the world. It is then pointed out in the WP article that the Russian government never followed through on the offer. This allows the reader to evaluate the sincerity of the Russian government claim, and their confidence in their report.


 * In summary, I would really like us to work on sections of the WP article, taking into account Volunteer Markek and My Very Best Wishes, and others' underlying concerns, rather the just carry out blanket deletions and re-insertions. Later tonight I will try reworking a section or two, to better address Volunteer Marek, and some others' concerns about using RT as a reference. Let me know what you think. Hulahoop122 (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it, I shortened it because it was being given UNDUE weight. The article is so full of crap that it does need good chunks of it to be deleted in order to bring it up to encyclopedic standards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there was anything important in the investigation by the Russian specialists, this had to be reported to UN or at lest reported by more reliable media. Here is the problem: many "news" on Russian TV are simply staged. I am not telling that everything was staged, but the chances are it was if the claims contradict other, more reliable sources. Once again, I think that RT can be used on more neutral/nonpolitical subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Russian report and other Russian claims generated a lot of Western media attention at the time, but RT reported on it in more detail. Other media is prominently referenced in this section of the WP article, especially in relation to criticizing the Russian report, and describing how other states reacted to Russia's announcements. RT, although biased/unreliable in many ways is still often the best source to get official Russian state announcements. I just ask that you look at the use of RT on a case by case basis, and see if the reference is helpful in explaining the attack and world reaction in a balanced way. Do you think my specific edits so far are ok? If not, maybe briefly explain why it is not helpful here, rather than just delete it. Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes, actually whole this section is undue, given that Russian government did not allow UN to release the report to public, and that people who have seen this report tell it does not change anything. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be doing a great dis-service to this article about the attack and world reaction to it, and to communicating how RT and the Russian government have a biased view of this attack. At least half of the section of the WP article is dedicated to criticizing the Russian report and Russian government handling of the report. That sections as it stands nicely illustrates how world powers viewed this event differently. It is interesting that the official Chinese media (Xinhua) mirrored the Russian reporting. By eliminating that section, you are eliminating reference to how more than half of the world population has been told by their state media about how to view that event.Hulahoop122 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not unsympathetic to where you are coming from, but I think it would be best if we could find reliable sources reporting on the, ahem, novel approach RT, Xinhua, and their ilk have taken to journalism in this case -- rather than citing the unreliable state media productions themselves. We do have an obligation under WP:V to make sure our sources are of sufficient quality, and I definitely do not believe that Kremlin-controlled news is of sufficient quality to back up claims made by the self-same Kremlin, any more than I would encourage us to cite press releases from Altria for information about the health effects of smoking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I did not study this particular controversy (that would require a lot of reading), but I occasionally watch "official" Russian TV with relation to Ukrainian and other international events (not counting the only independent TV channel in Russia, Dozhd, which is excellent and broadcasts from a private apartment). The official Russian propaganda has nothing to do with "biases" (oh yes, one could tell that Bill O'Reilly is "biased"). This is an outright disinformation and promotion of hatred and xenophobia. In essence, they create their own non-existent "reality". This is something Soviet propaganda also did (people committed suicides when the falsehoods were discredited, there is a book "Enchanted by Death" about this), but the modern-day Russian propaganda is actually worse. I would not use it here or on other similar pages. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed some posts (see diff) after a request on my talkpage. They are still visible in this old revision) Erlbaeko (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RT is never the best source for anything, especially anything controversial. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't dis-agree with your point that RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian state. It is not just a bias. Your most recent edit to the Russian section, however, has purged some important information that helps the reader understand the attack, and the Russian report. For example, you cut out what the Russian report used as evidence for claiming rebel responsibility. You kept the criticisms of the evidence used, but they now do not make as much sense, because you cut out what they were responding to.


 * Perhaps because you lack a deeper familiarity with this attack, you may not be aware of how important some of that information is. What is ironic about the Russian report, is that while they blame the rebels, it appears now that they are describing a Syrian government "Volcano" rocket, which was unknown to the world at that time, but was later used in the Ghouta attack, as both are a non-standard grad type rockets, with non-standard RDX explosives, etc. This information is significant for understanding this attack.


 * Is your objection to RT or do you object to some of the content? I think that I can find some non-RT sources for some of this, but in some cases RT may need to be used, as they provide more of that information. Sincerely, Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Markek, I reworked that section to keep the important information WITHOUT using any RT references. I was about to add a McClatchy Media reference, when I saw that you reverted the whole thing! :( You state UNDUE weight. What is left is a stub, that in comparison to what I re-edited, does not make a lot of sense. That section is not UNDUE weight. Please Google "Khan al-Assal chemical attack" who will see that there are MORE news reports that mention the Russian report than the UN report, likely because the Russian report has existed for a longer period of time.


 * If you still disagree, I think that we may need third parties to chime in to give their opinion on which version they think is better, and whether one version is undue weight or under-weighted. Please (Eribaeko, Kudzu1, Dahouret, whoever, please chime in). Note: I am going to re-instate my version, with the McClatchy reference I was not able to add before you reverted what I was working on. If you still think you must, revert it. It was just incomplete without that reference, and I want the others to see the complete version. Volunteer Marek, please discuss your thinking here. Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1, you removed the text shown in bold below together with two references as "rm contentious Russian claim given undue weight; rm RT as there is no consensus to use it on this page". Ref. diff.

{{Quotation|

Incident
The incident took place in the early morning of 19 March 2013. Between seven and half past seven, an object filled with sarin landed in Khan al-Asal. Samples taken at the impact site showed, according to a Russian investigation report delivered 9 July to the UN, that the object was a modified unguided rocket and that the rocket's warhead and the sarin it contained were not industrially manufactured. The rocket landed near a living quarter with farming areas around the houses, and released sarin gas on its impact. The gas drifted southwest with the wind into the Haret al-Mazar neighborhood, wounded 124 persons and killed 20 along with an unspecified number of animals. Several witnesses reported seeing people scratching their bodies and observed people lying in the streets. Some of the wounded were unconscious; some had convulsions and foamed from the mouth and some complained of vision problems.

Local civilians and Syrian army personnel rescued and evacuated those affected to six hospitals in the area, mainly the University Hospital in Aleppo. According to witness statements given to the UN investigation team, first responders were exposed to contamination from the chemical rocket. A Reuters photographer was quoted as saying that he had visited victims in Aleppo hospitals and that they had breathing problems; he also said that people had told him that the air smelled of chlorine after the attack. }}

Firstly, can you clarify why you believe the Russian claim is given undue weight? Erlbaeko (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Russia is an ally of Syria (which is not mentioned in the context), and it is the only country making these claims. This section should and must deal with the established facts of the incident. It is undue to present Russia's "investigation" as undisputed fact and place it in this section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with this and since this is already covered, I fail to understand Erlbaeko's (apparantly bad faithed) requests for "explanation on talk". Explanation has already been provided.
 * Also, here . I think my edit summary is clear enough, so I'll just leave it at that: this is all PRIMARY source based original research. It also does not fit in with the purpose of the section. Coverage of the news is not news itself. Also, WP:NOTNEWS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement is not presented as a fact. It is attributed to "a Russian investigation report", and it is an important piont that should be included in this section. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And also, as you may know, Russia is the only country that have been at the site and investigated the attack, so it is only natural that these statements come from them. I see no need to specify that Russia is an ally of Syria (in every context), but you can include that if you like. Please, also note that this has been discussed before. See Talk:Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Kudzu1 and Volunteer Marek on this one. There has been a long consensus (as indicated in the talk section you link to above) that the "Incident" section should only be used to present basic facts about the attack that all parties involved (opposition, government, Russia, West, etc.) agree upon. The findings of the Russian report are contentious, not accepted by some parties (opposition, West) and belong in the Russian Report section. I thought you had agreed with this last year (see your link), so I am kind of surprised that this is becoming an issue now.Hulahoop122 (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you remember that discussion correctly, or if I misunderstand something. You said "In relation to the proposed addition to the "Incident" section, the first sentence I think is ok, but I think the second sentence is misleading". To be clear, if I am not mistaken, you agreed to "Samples taken at the impact site showed, according to Russian experts, that the object was a modified unguided rocket.", but found the the sentence "The analysis of the samples clearly showed that the warhead was not factory made and proved that the sarin was not industrially manufactured.” for misleading. I then suggested a different wording, "The analysis of the samples showed that the rockets warhead and the sarin it contained were not industrially manufactured.", which you did not commented on. I therefore included that in the section, and it was unchanged until VM removed it a year later. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is basically right. But in that discussion, I did state that "In general in this section, I think it is ok to use conclusions from the December 2013 UN Report, but using the still unpublished and much earlier Russian report is misleading, because so much of it is now outdated." I still believe that is ture. I didn't contest your later addition of some of the Russian report information, because to me it was not a big enough issue at the time to get into a debate about.Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 173.31.7.139 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I argued against that in my last post in that tread, and I suggested another wording which you did not reply to, so don't say you thought I had agreed with you. I still don’t see any contradiction between the Russian report and the UN report, and even if it was, the view of the Russian "side" is still a significant view that should be included. To quote from the neutral point of view policy, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Erlbaeko (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Lavrovs citation from the Russian investigation section
This quotation can be verified by watching the video in the source. It was removed by Volunteer Marek on 26 May 2015. Ref. diff. Why was it removed? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Quotes should be avoided and it's also WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should this quote be avoided, and in what way is this undue? Erlbaeko (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quotes should be avoided because they're not encyclopedic writing. Additionally they tend to run afoul of WP:NPOV as they give undue prominence to particular views. Why quote Lavrov? It's not necessary and it makes it seem like his opinion is somehow more significant than that of others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree, and I find it difficult to comprehend such an obvious thing as this actually has to be explained to certain editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is important because some people claims the Russian government did not allow the UN to release the report, e.g. above. Quotation: "given that Russian government did not allow UN to release the report to public". Erlbaeko (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I understand, the statement "the Russian government did not allow the UN to release the report" is true. The Russian government can release their report at any time without anyone's permission. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Having a single standout quote that would lead someone to think the contrary is confusing. I'm ok with using the quote in the article, and then contextualizing it (see my comments in the above section).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulahoop122 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe evidence is hard to find, but if you (or anybody) are able to find a quote by someone high in the UN system saying something like, "the Russian government did not allow the UN to release the report", or some official UN document saying something similar, I would be happy to include that too. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I rewrote the statement to:

You reverted me again, together with six of my latest edits to the page, (ref. ) only stating that they are "undue" and based on "unreliable sources". Ref. Difference between revisions Do you have a problem with the statement in this form? (Please, see the video in the RT article to verify it.) Erlbaeko (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This particular Lavrov quote does not add any substantial information to the article. I see no reason to include it except to bias and POV the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Vitaly Churkins speech at the U.N. Security Council from the timeline
Volunteer Marek, you removed this statement from the timeline: Ref. diff.

In your edit summary, you only stated that it was "undue" and/or based on "unreliable sources". Do you have a specific problem with this particular edit? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the whole timeline section should go. Right now it looks like it's being used as a way to sneak in fringe views and unreliable sources (in violation of WP:PRIMARY, see my comment above). At the very least, the timeline should focus on actual events not coverage of these events by media, or commentary on them by politicians (unless this commentary actually led to some action).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether to keep, delete or merge the section is another question, but I agree that the timeline should focus on actual events. The statement above, however, does describe an actual event, and before you removed it the first time, it was sourced by this article, a secondary source. I can re-add that if you are worried about the sourcing. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping the timeline. I think it is helpful. I think though, as it has got several screens long, that it might be better placed at the end of the article. Right now, it is in the middle of the article, and new readers who reach it might think that they have reached the end of the article, and stop there. Its placement seems somewhat arbitrary. What do you all think? Are there any objections to moving it to the end of the article? Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Moved it. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khan al-Assal chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331160800/http://sana.sy/ara/336/2013/03/19/473348.htm to http://sana.sy/ara/336/2013/03/19/473348.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214081227/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F2013%2F172 to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F2013%2F172
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928055915/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130326/un-excludes-major-powers-syria-chemical-arms-inquiry to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130326/un-excludes-major-powers-syria-chemical-arms-inquiry

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khan al-Assal chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203231014/http://www.todayszaman.com//news-308777-report-syrian-opposition-fighters-kill-115-policemen.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-308777-report-syrian-opposition-fighters-kill-115-policemen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203231014/http://www.todayszaman.com//news-308777-report-syrian-opposition-fighters-kill-115-policemen.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-308777-report-syrian-opposition-fighters-kill-115-policemen.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)