Talk:Saraqib chemical attack

Requested move 12 June 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is clear consensus that "alleged" is not needed in the title. bd2412 T 12:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Saraqib chemical attack → Saraqib chemical attack allegations (2013) – The main RS on which this article is based is from the UN Mission which concludes "In the absence of any further information, the United Nations Mission was unable to draw any conclusions pertaining to this alleged incident". Since the source itself describes the incident as 'alleged', and since WP guidelines say 'articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations"', and given that it is usual in most countries that respect the rule of law to describe allegations as such, the title should make it clear that it is an alleged chemical attack, until the appropriate legal body confirms or rejects the allegations.

This will also help to distinguish this attack from another notable Saraqib chemical attack that took place on 4th Feb 2018. On this occasion, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission confirmed the likely use of Chlorine. so I suggest that a separate article be created to cover the more recent, confirmed attack, and that this should be called Saraqib chemical attack (February 2018).

It is also to be hoped this approach will help to address concerns about neutrality Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't need to disambiguate with the year until (if) we have another article that could cause confusion. As of this writing, we do not appear to have articles on the 2016 or 2018 attacks. If those later attacks are indeed notable and we end up with articles on them, moving this article to the equivalent title starting with the year (ie, 2013 Saraqib chemical attack) will be uncontroversial and shouldn't need a new discussion. I am therefore boldly changing the proposed move target of this discussion; if anyone disagrees please let me know and I will self revert. VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Other editors should be given time to consider the proposals and make their own suggestions. I suggest at least two weeks. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've self-reverted my removal of "2013". VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose insertion of "alleged" into the title lead, titlebox, etc. Intact unexploded sarin bomblets were collected at the site. Yes, the UN was not able to independently verify the chain of custody of the samples presented by France (how could they?), but we don't need to put on blinders and pretend that claims this event never occurred are anything but a fringe conspiracy theory. The UN did note that the autopsied victim of the attack clearly died of sarin exposure, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also oppose this proposed move because the addition of a year is unnecessary at this time per WP:CONCISE. As I note above, if in the future an article is created about another chemical attack in Saraqib, disambiguating this page with a year will be uncontroversial and a move discussion unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the actual French report. It rests on a number of unproven or false assumptions - that the rebels are incapable of making or being supplied with chemical weapons that resemble those of the Syrian government (unlikely), that the rebels did not capture any chemical weapons from government bases (untrue), that the rebels did not possess working helicopters within flying range (untrue), that witnesses did not give evidence under duress (untrue) or were not voluntarily lying. In any case, not being able to verify the chain of custody means it cannot be taken seriously. The UK Foreign Office said it was essential for the OPCW FFM to visit the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma as soon as possible. so the same principle applies to Saraqib. Also France is a combatant in the war, so is obviously not neutral and therefore not a reliable source. Its intelligence report should be ignored. I would suggest it is WP:FRINGE to regard an official UN report as a conspiracy theory or that it would allow for the possibility of one. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of your reply appears to be your personal analysis of the French report, which we disregard. If that analysis has been done by a reliable source, then it could merit mention in the article. Yes, of course a report by the French government is reliable. Even if the source was identified to be non-neutral (which hasn't been done), it still would be usable for the reasons described here. I didn't suggest the UN report supports the fringe theory that this attack didn't occur; indeed it says no such thing. You are asking for something exceptional in this requested move, namely that the conspiracy theory that this attack was faked be cooked in to the article title. That just isn't how we handle titles of articles about events. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept that. Obviously I realise that a personal analysis has no place in an article, and WP:NOR refers to articles, but I suppose it makes sense to avoid a personal analysis even on the Talk page unless it helps to move the discussion forward, so fair enough.
 * The French government can be a reliable source in the right context, but I don't think it is here, because it is used to support the contention that the idea that a chemical attack (rather than say, a rebel false flag or fabrication) did not take place is WP:FRINGE. If the UN report was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not a genuine chemical attack took place (because there is insufficient evidence to suggest that it probably did), the view that it did not cannot be considered WP:FRINGE.
 * I agree, but I didn't say you did or that the UN did. I chose my words carefully. I said "I would suggest it is WP:FRINGE to regard an official UN report as a conspiracy theory or that it would allow for the possibility of one." The report's conclusion necessarily implies that the possibility that there was no genuine chemical attack as claimed cannot be excluded, so the idea that the claimed event did not take place cannot be regarded as a conspiracy theory or WP:FRINGE.
 * I really don't see why you think I am asking for anything exceptional, The possibility that this attack was faked is not one that the UN was prepared to rule out, so the description of it as a 'conspiracy theory' is your personal analysis, unsupported by the UN report. If the UN report could not exclude the possibility that the event took place as described (and it is clear that it could not, because it was "unable to draw any conclusions") then we are not entitled to make a judgement in lieu of the UN. Moreover the UN says it was "unable to draw ANY conclusions pertaining to this ALLEGED INCIDENT", so it could not be made any clearer that we are dealing with an allegation. It is also abundantly clear that Wikipedia guidelines support my position. See WP:NON-JUDGEMENTAL DESCRIPTIVE TITLES '(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if all sources indicated that this was a false flag attack, the existing title would still be preferable. No, the topic is not "an actual accusation of illegality under law". One that is, such as Woody Allen sexual assault allegation is about a specific living individual that must be approached cautiously as required by our policy on coverage of living persons. That's a wildly different situation than we have on this article about an event. Anyways, we've both said plenty. Suggest we both sit back for a few weeks and see if anyone else !votes. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see how something that might be false or fictional according to sources might have a 'real' title, for example the Bowling Green massacre you mentioned earlier, but these are cases where the event is generally known or believed to be false or fictional. Chemical attacks in Syria do not fit into that category, and the seriousness of the allegations are such that we should take care to be as accurate as possible.
 * A chemical attack investigated by the UN/OPCW is "an actual accusation of illegality under law", albeit international law, because the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. The fact that it is not (although it might be eventually) covered by the WP living persons policy doesn't really alter this.
 * I agree we should sit back for a few weeks and see if anyone else votes. Can I vote as the proposer? Please revert if I can't!


 * Support Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant instruction is at Requested moves: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Dekimasu よ! 01:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Our policy and guidelines don't deal with this as well as they should IMO, but it's not logically possible for this less concise name to be more common than the more concise (current) name. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NPOVTITLE deals with this directly. When we choose to use descriptive titles they don't need to reflect the WP:COMMONNAME or be the most concise construction (concision is only one of the five criteria, after all). But at the same time, when we do use the common name, we do not automatically avoid non-neutral words. I do not think there is much "concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue", per WP:POVNAME, and there is no possibility of the WP:BLPCRIME issue that the exception in WP:NDESC is intended to address. Thus my conclusion is the same whether this is treated as a common name or as a descriptive title: Oppose. Dekimasu よ! 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well analysed. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


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

Some questions
1) I have no specific knowledge or sources about this chemical attack on Saraqib, but it's my impression that as of 12 December 2018, the city has undergone more than one such attack. If so, the article should probably be updated, and possibly renamed to reflect attacks, plural. 2) It seems to me, as a reader, that this entire article would more usefully be incorporated into the separate article Saraqib under the existing subhead Syrian Civil War. At present there is not even a See reference from that page to this one. 3) This is nitpicky, but I did a double-take at the sentence The 52-year-old woman was severely intoxicated. In a strictly literal medical sense this statement would be correct – the woman was severely disabled by a toxin. But the word nearly always implies alcohol intoxication. Surely a less misleading term could be found, or the sentence rewritten to clarify her intoxication. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)