Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:09, 21 September 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghouta chemical attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghouta chemical attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghouta chemical attack at the Reference desk.

A news item involving Ghouta chemical attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 August 2013.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghouta chemical attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Requested move 05 September 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved. Note that Sopher99 moved the page to 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks while this discussion was ongoing. Whack! --BDD (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks → Ghouta chemical attacks – We discussed this some at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Pre-discussion - title change?, and I think there is enough support there to merit a full discussion. I think the new name would be better because it matches the current title's neutrality, while adding a key descriptor (chemical) and removing an unnecessary disambiguation year. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Support per my page move nomination. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support but have a suggestion: Ghouta chemical attacks, plural, as multiple sites across Ghouta were targeted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding the plural to the nom since there are not other !votes. VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, I agree with summary in the nomination reason for the suggested change.--PLNR (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's nothing wrong with the current title. Don't rename things unnecessarily and especially don't spend time endlessly discussing it. I also think, for an article about an event, that it's better to have the year in the title - it's quite helpful as a key signifier eg in categories. If it's absolutely necessary to rename, then at least 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks. Podiaebba (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per VQs reasoning. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Support : Method of attack and which weapons are used, it is important for headline. See: 2013 North Korean nuclear test and most importantly Halabja chemical attack in Iraq. Besides, many resources available on this subject :United Nation, NATO, Organization of Islamic Cooperation and more... Maurice07 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support: as being descriptive and closer to common descriptions of the topic. Boud (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sub-proposal: singular 'attack' in the new name

The discussion section below seems to almost (but not quite) reach consensus for attack (singular) rather than attacks (plural). For that reason I'm posting a clarification with calls for support/opposition + short summary reason here - otherwise the person closing the request may end up unintentionally making a move to a name that is opposite to the de facto consensus. The sub-proposal is: attack (not attacks). Boud (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - (proposer) The majority of reasons below + I think the mainstream media usage of the singular is because the evidence so far is that the attack/attacks happened over no more than about an hour or two. In terms of the whole Syrian civil war, this is one "event", so one "attack". Boud (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As the original instigator of the discussion of the issue, I see nothing that changes my original argument. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• No objection to the singular if it is preferred by the team. Either one is equally acceptable to me. VQuakr (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I strongly disagree and think the Ghouta incident may have been an accident. Credible sources have claimed this, including the actual victims. See these sources: and . The best title IMHO in the face of uncertainty is "Ghouta chemical weapons incident." Frankly, not having the phrase "chemical weapons" or similar in the title is very odd.Haberstr (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC) copied from above by VQuakr to concentrate discussion.

In my opinion, based on the scale of the attacks (spanning miles with a dozen separate areas with chemical casualties) and the preponderance of opinions from chemical weapons experts, the hypothesis that the Ghouta chemical poisonings were accidental is firmly in fringe territory and merits no mention in the title or lede. The antiwar source gets its info from the same disputed Gavlak/Mintpress source, and the IBT source was published the day of the attack - at which time the scale of incident was not well known. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no consensus for including this fringe theory in the lede. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who think it was some kind of accident that happened in multiplie location at the ~same time, should take a hard look at the map.--PLNR (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If we simply accept the U.S. allegations as true, then we 'know' that the scale of the 'attacks' was 'wide' and, of course, we can look at the U.S. State Department map. But until and unless an independent body, such as the UN inspection team, confirms or denies U.S. allegations, we can't put those allegations into an encyclopedia article as if they are truth. At a time when the estimated dead range from 281 to 1729, we 'know' little and the entry should allow any plausible hypothesis that hasn't been disproven by concrete, verifiable, public evidence.Haberstr (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple ways it could have been a government-perpetrated accident, even with multiple launches in multiple locations. In particular, the munitions could have been mislabelled, or it's been suggested that a mistake was made with the mixing, and the chemical was supposed to be relatively weak and it turned out not to be. Nobody really knows except those who did it. However, accident doesn't seem very likely, and if evidence to that effect turns up, the article name can always be revisited. Podiaebba (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Podiaebba's concern about having a year in the title, I do not see anything at WP:TITLE that would imply having the year is desirable unless it is necessary to disambiguate from a different Ghouta chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Pierre Piccinin da Prata

hm. I await with baited breath the reasons this can't be mentioned in the WP article. Podiaebba (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, would you mind to explain what exactly you want to mention and at what capacity? --PLNR (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, I can't see any evidence in the article history that you added this material, only to see it removed. If you're able to make a short and reasonable contribution on the basis of this article please do so: if there's a problem then we can all discuss it here afterwards. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I really want to see a "short and reasonable" contribution. That says what those guys claim they overheard, and keep in mind what they said:

• "I do not know if this is true but nothing tells me it is,"
• "I have no evidence to confirm this theory and I do not know who these people were or if they are reliable,"
• "It is impossible for me to say if this conversation was based on real events or on rumours and hearsay. It is not my habit to hold true conversations overheard through a door."

I can think of a one word reasonable summary, maybe you can top that.--PLNR (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't tried to add it, but based on recent experience, I wasn't feeling optimistic. Here an attempt now. It's as short as I can make it whilst covering all the necessary information. It needs putting under an "Other" heading because the structure of the article is basically one of a prosecution case trying to argue that Assad carried out a chemical attack, instead of being an overview of what is known about the incident. (I've put off complaining about this because the UN report, when it comes, may change everything.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@podiebba - you want only 'what is known about the incident' - - so you add this? and why? - because it suits your 'outlook' doesn't it - and all the while you make snidy remarks implying others are dead set on twisting things - while you are holier than thou. are you agf? no - makes me sick. Sayerslle (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you like me to quote some of your helpful remarks you've made on this page? If I'm expressing my frustration, it's because of the demonstrated willingness of people to exclude information, and to dump everything that doesn't fit their view into a shapeless "Media" section (as if everything else wasn't reported via media as well). As for my "outlook" - well whenever I start talking about it people tend to stick their fingers in their ears, but nonetheless: I don't trust any of the actors here as far as I could throw them. Assad is a dictatorial shit and a lot of the rebels are pretty bloodthirsty Islamist types, and there's all manner of outside agencies pursuing outside agendas with boatloads of money and weapons (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to name three). As far as I'm concerned the fog of war should preclude judgement until the nearest thing we have to a neutral party, the UN, reports, and excluding things that don't fit the US narrative (and shaping the whole article around it to the detriment of clear structure and balance) is not only POV but just generally unhelpful to the reader who's willing to actually spend the time to read what we've collectively written. Podiaebba (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed your addition. This is nothing more than tabloid quality and going into details about an incident where some guys can't confirm if its "based on real events or on rumors and hearsay", or who said it or if they are reliable, is undue.

Also honestly @Podiaebba I am soo sick and tired of your walls of text about everyone being biased and your feelings of persecution. Make good arguments, offer constructive suggestions and base them on RS and policy, and see how everyone experience improve. --PLNR (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of you making claims about what I'm saying: "everyone being biased" and "feelings of persecution"?? And every time you offer such misleading comments and unconstructive replies, I'm going to say to you: cyplive.com translating vz.ru reporting the Turkish Ambassador citing unnamed Russian sources. I haven't forgotten your willingness to rely on questionable sources as sufficient reason to remove mainstream media reports, and neither should anyone who thinks you're a goodfaith editor. Podiaebba (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

La Repubblica is Italy's largest and most reputable newspaper, just FYI. PLNR, if you simply and wholly remove content from a newspaper like that and justify yourself by writing "removed unreliable rumor," how can other editors accept your good faith or competence? -Darouet (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good edit. It may be a RS, but the material it imparts is useless in this case. A conversation heard in another room. even the copy itself is cautious as to its reliability. It has no place in the article on content grounds, imo. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This useless material originally published by La Stampa concerns culpability for the Ghouta attacks (the subject of this article), and has been picked up by AFP , Le Soir , La Repubblica , Corriere della Sera , the Kansas City Star , VOR , and a host of smaller news outlets. So obviously this is notable. The articles don't repeat Piccinin's surmisings as fact and our text should reflect that. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So what is the point of including dubious material which just happens to have been picked up by RS which appear themselves to reflect skepticism? It just takes up important mainspace bytes. It does not belong and has no utility to the progress of the article. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's first hand witness testimony; while I'm skeptical I can't say it's any less convincing that classified intelligence reports that nobody's allowed to look at. There's already a bunch of material on the "false flag" attack theory, and adding a sentence or two about Piccinin won't harm, but will probably improve the article. We don't have to endorse the story (we shouldn't).

On that note, since it was mentioned above, the "Media" section of this article is a disaster and has little to do with media. We should probably created sections for relevant material. That could also give people incentive to actually edit the material carefully, rather than dumping everything there... just a thought anyway. -Darouet (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree the media section is a train crash. Would suggest pro assad media reaction, pro uprising media reaction, pro assad media reaction (international) and pro uprising media reaction (international) or some structure which somehow differentiates the "media" flood of good stuff and bollocks. The reader can decide where the preponderence lies. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's because it was never a Media section to begin with. US intelligence assessment and Motives are included there and those are not media. Perhaps if we moved some of that information to other places where it belongs, things would be much clearer. USchick (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems like you are arguing for the sake of the argument. Lets try something more constructive, take a look at the article again. There are no mentions of "false flag" there, and while it is a "first hand witness testimony" the question is of what. ALL it says that "Assad didn't use any gas in Ghouta". In the article we have dozens of experts that analysed relevant material who says that some kind of chemical substance was used in Ghouta, so where do think its appropriate to add a hearsay of two journalist who overheard someone speaking with someone else, saying something that they are not certain if its real or reliable?! and how writing a whole paragraph about that incident here is not the definition of WP:UNDUE?! --PLNR (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's just stop and point out the takeaway from this episode: a number of rebels appear to believe that Assad was not responsible for the Ghouta attacks. This is factual, because no-one doubts that the hostages heard what they heard, or that the individuals were rebels; and this fact was widely reported in mainstream media in many countries. No matter how you dress it up in equivocation about not knowing who the individuals are or why they believe this, that fact is significant and worth putting in the article. And the choice is then between putting it into the article in some one-sentence form that makes the point bolded in the previous sentence, or a paragraph which describes the context and lack of information of who and why. Podiaebba (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

adding to my previous post, i'd be ashamed to even suggest adding anything based on that article, regardless of what they claim to overhear. My only take away that this is POV pushing, and that anyone supporting it, his contributions on this topic should be triple checked.(p.s. it say there isn't official confirmation on who their captors were or why they were released.)--PLNR (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

cyplive.com translating vz.ru reporting the Turkish Ambassador citing unnamed Russian sources. Feel free to explain your willingness to rely on this sourcing to exclude mainstream media reports any time. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have any reason to support this inclusion, I think that this discussion is over. Keep inmind this is not a forum and I don't care for your reasoning dissonance. If you would like to provide some policy based argument on some other topic, please use the appropriate section.--PLNR (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason for inclusion is self-evident and has been explained above as well. On "the other topic", #Accepting poor sources as reason for excluding information is just up this page, if you'd like to explain yourself in the appropriate place. Podiaebba (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that culpability is an important issue, and some of the more important papers in Europe have published on it. I'll propose a few sentences when I have time. I've still not seen an argument for omitting the information, besides, "I don't believe it." That's too bad, because reliable sources think it's important, whatever any editor's opinions may be. -Darouet (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said from the start, if you can come up with something that isn't completely useless, that is WP:DUE please do.--PLNR (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

has the writer denied he said it? theres a story on foreignpolicy about how assad wooed the American right and won the Syria propaganda war' says he denied saying it - - imo in a way this article and talk are a kind of echo of what the story is saying - (its Quirico who says its mad to say they could know who attacked Ghouta with CW) - Sayerslle (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That source mentions neither Piccinin nor Quirico. Are you in the right section? Podiaebba (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

blimey, it doesn't mention them by name but it mentions the story - but now pro-Assad media outlets have found a new way to influence the American debate. Assad supporters' claims have repeatedly been republished unquestioningly by right-wing commentators in the United States, and their epigones right here I guess -

and Here is the bit about the writers The website contains an editorial by the editor-in-chief lauding Hezbollah, and another article reports that a kidnapped European writer said that the rebels launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack (the writer has denied making such claims). Sayerslle (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, not mentioned by name, so difficult to identify quickly. Piccinin's claims were reported by mainstream media; maybe he's backtracking a bit over his professed belief of the veracity of what he heard in light of Quirico's position, but both are clear about what they heard, and pretending otherwise, as well as pretending that these claims weren't reported in mainstream media, definitely casts the blog and its author in a bad light. Propaganda isn't just going in one direction here.... Podiaebba (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

from you it is though. if something can't be 'identified quickly' does your mind explode or something. Sayerslle (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have to do undergo training to be this rude and obnoxious, or does it come naturally? I was about to go out and skimmed your source quickly, and then with Find in Page couldn't find either hostage name - a very reasonable expectation in the circumstances. Podiaebba (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments brought up why it should be add, nor a consensus to add it and yet it has been re-added.--PLNR (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be added because a significant number of mainstream sources in multiple countries have reported an obviously significant significant claim. In these circumstances consensus should be required to deny readers information, especially when prior to removing it you wear your POV on your sleeve by pretending that there is some doubt about whether these people were actually held hostage. Podiaebba (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How much it was mentioned is meaningless, since the problem is with how "it" is relevant to this article i.e. being useless information, since they can't substantiate it as more than a rumor, and reporting the whole incident is WP:UNDUE. Certainly in the way you phrased it(hiding the fact that nothing in that statement is reliable) when you sneaked that edit the other day and after that, which I consider as edit warring.--PLNR (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've not hidden anything - right from the start I was careful to be as clear as possible about the hostages' caveats. The fact remains that the conversation they overhead is significant and has been reported by multiple mainstream media. Your personal opinion about the veracity of what the hostages heard is entirely irrelevant, and in no way, shape or form justification for removal of the facts about what was heard. Podiaebba (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again it doesn't matter how much it was mentioned their release was mentioned in RS, no one disputed that. The issue is with the reliability of what their hearsay, considering what i highlighted in the second post here and overall that the details of the paragraph you try to add is completely WP:UNDUE. Both issues that I haven't seen you address. @Darouet offered to provide some phrasing that will address those issues, which is constructive suggestion. You on the other hand decided to skip this and just re-add your variant to the article on your own volition.--PLNR (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay? You appear to be under the mistaken impression that this is a court of law and that the prosecution is using this evidence to try to prove that the rebels did it. It isn't a court of law, and the only fact the evidence tells us with a high degree of certainty is that some rebels believe the attacks were carried out by rebels. So in insisting that this is WP:UNDUE to the point that it cannot be included in the article, you are claiming that this fact is insignificant. With all due respect, no neutral observer could possibly think that. Also, allow me to doubt that if the people overhead claiming their side was responsible for the attacks had been Syrian government jailers that you'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep the report of the overheard conversation out of the article. Think on that, perhaps. Podiaebba (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has added this content to the article. I do not see consensus here for that addition. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I propose, based on the sources:

"On 9 September, journalist Pierre Piccinin, recently freed from captivity in Syria, told La Stampa that prior to his release he overheard conversations among rebel soldiers implicating rebel forces in the attack on Ghouta. Journalist Domenico Quirico, who had been imprisoned with Piccinin, cautioned that they were not even sure who the interlocutors were, and could not verify the story: " they were saying that the gas operation in two suburbs of Damascus was carried out by rebels as a provocation to force the West to intervene militarily... I am absolutely not able to say if this conversation was based on real facts or on hearsay.

More could be added, but I think that's perfectly sufficient, and lets the readers follow the links if they want to learn more. -Darouet (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your version is 106 words; my version is 205. Mine gives important details (like the conversation being in English), and gives space to Quirico's emphatic "we don't know". I can cut down my version to 130 words like this:

On 9 September two hostages who had been held captive by the rebel Farouq Brigade for five months were released. Belgian writer Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quirico said that they had overheard their captors saying that the Assad government was not responsible for the Ghouta attacks, and that it had been carried out by rebels as a provocation to precipitate Western involvement. The hostages, who heard the conversation through a half-closed door, described it as a Skype conversation in English involving three individuals, one of whom had previously introduced himself as a general in the Syrian Liberation Army. The hostages were however unable to identify any of the individuals, and Quirico stressed that he had no confirmatory evidence or knowledge as to the reliability of the individuals overheard.

That would be nearly as short as yours, but much clearer as to the facts. Podiaebba (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Podiaebba - that all looks fine. -Darouet (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That edit was quick attempt to show you why your edit was unbalanced. Here is more preferable variant:

On 9 September two European hostages who claim to had been held captive by the opposition were released, said that they had overheard their captors saying that the Assad government hasn't used any gas in Ghouta. The hostages, claim to overheard the Skype conversation through door, described it as a Skype conversation, between three individuals, one of whom had identified himself as FSA general. However, the hostages didn't "know who these people were or if they are reliable", or if the conversation was "based on real events or on rumors", additionally no official details have been released on who was holding them or how they were released.

I removed most undue detail about this incident like their time spent in captivity. I even removed their names, since they are not making expert opinion, though I put "European hostages". Added "claim" before "held by opposition" because there is "no official details...on who was holding them"(a statement which I added at the bottom). Removed the opposition provocation part, which I couldn't find in the source provided and added their reservations as direct quotes to avoid vagueness. --PLNR (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing preferable about your variant. Here, in no particular order and probably incomplete, is a list of the problems your version introduces

1. Loss of names, making it harder for readers to link the crucial "who" with reports they might read elsewhere (these are hardly the only European hostages ever taken in Syria
2. Loss of fact that one of the hostages is a journalist (actually a veteran war correspondent, but I guess that's not essential to have), which ought to dispel any doubts about the claims the hostages make as to what happened and what they heard
3. "claim" because there's no official confirmation? These people are not tourists, and should know well enough who had them captive.
4. Loss of time held captive and who by, which gives instant sense of context
5. Loss of fact that Skype conversation was in English
6. Wasting space with direct quotes. If we're trying to minimise the wordcount, that's not necessary.

Podiaebba (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

On the upside, you made me notice a problem: IB Times has the alleged general as "Free Syrian Army" while La Stampa and La Repubblica have "Syrian Liberation Army" ; since Quirico works for La Stampa I went with that. Except that the Syrian Liberation Army supposedly dropped that name in mid-2012 and the Farouq Brigades affiliation of the Abu Ammar Brigade anyway makes the Syrian Liberation Front a more likely connection. On the other hand, the Le Soir report says the pair were kidnapped by the Free Syrian Army and handed over after 2 days, so maybe IB Times is actually correct. If we can't resolve this, we can just drop that part of the sentence. Podiaebba (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading both proposals, I actually think that Podiaebba's is more useful: his paragraph relates exactly what the journalists said alongside their own uncertainty, whereas I think the second paragraph has an editorial presence that just isn't necessary. Nobody who reads Podiaebba's paragraph will become convinced, based on Piccinin's account, that the rebels used gas. But adding extra layers of doubt - not mentioning the hostage names or professions - "claim" they were captives - "claim" they overheard - this only begins to obfuscate the story. The Misplaced Pages manual of style (see WP:CLAIM) specifically cautions against using the word "claim" because it is a synonym for "said" that casts editorial doubt on the saying.

One thing that PLNR's statement does, however, is point out that the knowledge of the captors may itself have been limited. A way of introducing this into Podiaebba's paragraph would be to change the last sentence to "The hostages were however unable to identify any of the individuals, and Quirico stressed that he had no confirmatory evidence as to the reliability or knowledge of the individuals overheard." -Darouet (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused for a moment with your suggestion, but then I saw that it involves adding or knowledge to the final sentence of my version after "reliability", which makes good sense. Podiaebba (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Date of UN's official request to visit Ghouta

As noted in previous version, "he U.N. made its request to visit al Ghouta on August 24 and the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit attack sites on 25 August."

Sopher99 has deleted this and asserted U.N. made its request on August 22, apparently not reading the three references cited for the (correct) date of August 24, and giving as reference asserting August 22. As noted in the three references provided, the UN later clarified that its official request was given to Syria on August 24. It is not surprising that the reference given by Sopher99 states that the UN "is asking the Syrian Government" which was indeed, a press conference telling the public what the UN was in the process of doing. A press conference announcement what the UN "is" in the process of doing, is not the same as making the official request.

Diplomatic protocol works though official requests, not through a statement made at a press conference.

No one would be impressed for example, if Syria's government gave a press conference saying "ok with us" if Syria did nothing diplomatic, to actually back up their press conference "ok with us" to legally and officially ok the visit, after all. Well, countries give formal legal diplomatic responses in response to formal legal diplomatic requests, and that official request came on the 24th.

This is what a UN representative clarified, admitted (squirming just a tad) but fully conceding: press statement on 22nd that the UN's formal request "is being sent" (sent on its way) and that request arrived, was actually made, on the 24th, Had makes those two statements, and dates, clear) if you like, that is exactly the date on which the diplomatic step was carried out. As noted the previous version has 3 references but for those who have not taken the time to look at them, here is a key part of the later statement by the U.N. clarifying in response to a reporter's question which includes a video of the exchange with Haq (U.N. rep):

• Reporter Matthew R. Lee asked: "On Syria I wanted to ask you, the Syrian Foreign Minister held a press conference he said that the U.N. only asked for access to Ghoutta on Saturday that's what he said, I wanted to know when the U.N. team actually asked for access? "

• U.N. Representative Haq: "regarding your initial question, I just want to read to you a paragraph from a statement that we put out and

gave to all of you on the 22nd of August..which says the following 'The Secretary General now calls for the mission presently in Damascus to be granted permission...A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the government of Syria..' That was issued on the 22nd of August."

• MRL: But as the Secretary General himself sometimes says: "there's public statements, and there's actually receiving it, "so, I just wonder, can you say when, formally, legally, the request to go to Ghoutta was made?

• Haq: Well, I just read you that request, which..was issues on Thursday (22nd), Angela Kane was immediately dispatched

and then she arrived a in in Damascus on Saturday (24th)..but, but , as you see, we made that request on--

• MRL: The Press Statement is the Request?

• Haq: It's not just a request..as the statement makes very clear, a formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the government

or Syria in this regard--

• MRL: And it arrived on Saturday, in the form of Angela Kane, I just wanted you to respond to that?

• Haq: It's, it's, that's basically a question of sematics.

But Haq admits the formal request was delivered by Kane on Saturday the 24th, while Aug 22 was a press statement that a request "is being sent"

Incidentally, this whole exercise (by Kerry, inter alia) to pretend the request was delivered on the 22nd is kind of silly at this point, since it was part of a "the Syrian government waited too long, now it's too late to detect" narrative, a scientifically false statement which the United Nations did shoot down decisively stating that chemical agents such as sarin "can be detected in biomedical samples for months" after their the use of the weapon[http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/in-rush-to-strike\ -syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe/] so the exercise of pretending it was on the 22nd rather than 24th when the official request was actually given to Syria, is a bit of a silly exercise really, for politicians at this point, since that throws any "too late" (or "deliberate delays so we that the chem weapons can't be detected") arguments completely out the window (not to mention Syria often the one first initiating the request that UN investigate) -- however -- be that as it may, wikipedia should be accurate - as the Secretary General himself has observed in the past, "there's a difference between a press statement, versus actually receiving the official request" - and as the U.N's rep admitted reluctantly (it's understandable given all the heat given to the UN to not look like it was it's fault for taking that long to actually make the legal request -- countries give formal legal diplomatic responses in response to formal legal diplomatic requests) that the acurate answer is: the official request (not the press statement) was diplomatically given to Syria on August 24.. Harel (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

a RS for the 22nd delivers this - 'A formal request to the Syrian government to allow UN inspectors to investigate the latest alleged gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus was sent tonight, according to a statement from the office of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.' - if that was wrong - cite RS that say it was wrong - whatever, on the 22 it also reports, a Syrian foreign ministry official was talking with members of the inspectors team and saying the regime had 'logistical and security issues' with allowing access - so practically, it made no difference, - access would have not been allowed - on Friday Ghouta was shelled by the regime - that's facts , no? - and it also says in the indy article for the 22 -'munitions used to carry out the attacks could be removed' -( Human rights Watch : two types of projectiles were used to spread the nerve agent in attacks on eastern and western Ghouta. The first was a 330mm rocket "that appears to have a warhead designed to be loaded with and deliver a large payload of liquid chemical agent - the other type, used in the western Ghouta attack, was a Soviet-produced 140mm rocket that can deliver three possible warheads, one of them specifically designed to carry 2.2kg of sarin -Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weapons in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack or their associated launchers," Bouckaert (HRW) said ' -) whatever, - your 'bureaucratic' explanations of things reminds me of the 22nd report in the independent - permission to gain access is being 'delayed by realpolitik and bureaucracy' - RS should find a way to express the events of these days - though why use Xinhua - if I see a passage supported by Xinhua, press tv, Russian stuff, I just cant stand it - maybe i'm in a minority - but some political cultures are more degraded and corrupt and totalitarian than others. just my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OT comment Sorry for butting in, but the "140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack" part caught my eye. It is an interesting piece of info, that iirc we don't have in the article, if its came from an RS source i'd love to see this addition, which present us with first specific details on the rockets that I seen.--PLNR (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Todays Guardian ,its reporting a Human Rights Watch assessment - the ref is in the lead for the moment, but only to mention HRW think regime the likely perpetrators. Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sayerslle, you asked for a reliable source that says what I said. The answer is: the United Nations representative Mr. Haq himself, is the reliable source. By the way if you read your own sentence, carefully, it gives a clue: it was "sent" on the 22nd, not "delivered" and not "arrived". I can send you an envelope today but you receive it several days later. With legal documents that is critical.

The InnerCityPress web page includes a link to a video showing the U.N. representative himself stating it. I typed a partial transcript above (and took forever to get the formatting right..I hope someone read it?) in from that video of what the official U.N. representative Mr. Farhan Haq said, but if that's not good enough, I gave the url, so you can watch it with your own eyes..the link again: go to and click "play" on the video if you wish. Yes, folks, the United Nations is a "reliable source", particularly about matters concerning itself. He says per the transcript, there was a press statement on 22nd and yes it was "sent" on its way on the 22nd and, yes, he confirms (reluctantly) yes it arrived on the 24th, it was delivered to the Syrian government on, the 24th. That's the first date when Syria received it. As I said, governments can't respond to press statements. Just like we would NOT be impressed if Syria just made a press conference saying "ok, inspect us" we demand Syria give official diplomatic legal "ok" and to do that it must receive the official legal diplomatic request. Again you can skim the partial transcript of click "play" in the embedded video at the ICP web page I just included a few sentences ago here..clear now :-) Harel (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Postscript: I noted earlier, since the information (send on 22nd, delivered on 24th) is said in a video by the UN itself, there is not contested, so should not need "consensus" but I will add: if there ever was a need for consensus, the person who now against deleted it, is the one who should have gotten it. It did not change a 22 to 24. No, the version I edited said "got ok on 25th" and nothing else. I then added info that was not in that version, I added "request arrived on 24 and got ok on 25" but without any consensus, someone changed the new number I introduced, 24 to the (completely false - as acknowledged by Haq) claim of "delivery on the 22" Harel (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Harel, in this modern post-snail-mail world in which we live, isn't it unlikely that something sent on August 22 would not be received until August 24? Isn't an alternative possibility that one proposal was sent on the 22nd and Syria rejected it, possibly because it was too broad-based and intrusive (we've seen this before from the UN). Then perhaps the UN talked things over with Syria and made a new more limited request on August 24. Anyway, "made a request on the 22nd or 24th, or on both dates" (all of whihc is non-speculative and is confirmed by RS) is my rough idea for how to modify things. Trying to find a compromise that works for everyone and stabilizes the lead.Haberstr (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Access for investigators, in the context of a war, and months of preceding negotiations, isn't as simple as opening an email or responding to it. In this case the U.N. sent representative Angela Kane to negotiate access, which she did successfully upon her arrival in Damascus. This issue has been covered a dozen times above. -Darouet (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Haberstr, no, in this "modern post-snail-mail world" the United Nations does not make a formal request by email. And honestly, speculating like you do about "Isn't an alternative possibility" isn't our job. But, obviously, you Haq in that exchange (I hope that by now you have read the transcript above if not watched the video) Haq does not say "it was initially rejected" but tells us exactly what happened, namely that the press statement was made on the 22nd and also "Angela Kane was immediately dispatched" and then "then she arrived a in in Damascus on Saturday (24th).." We have to report what we know. What we know if the official request was delivered to the country on the 24th. I'm not sure why the U.N. didn't get here there in 24 hours, but again, I'm not going to speculate since in this case we have the date given by Haq, who tells us that although she was "immediately" dispatched after the August 22 press statement that a formal legal request "is being sent" (is in the process of being send) he tells us she "Arrived on Saturday" the 24th.

As an aside, because we should focus on the facts: press statement on 22nd, and "dispatched" to Syria, and "arrived on the 24th" -- but this whole thing was created when Obama said it's "too late" for inspectors now, trying to get the inspectors not to come, for reasons that are obvious and I will not state, concerning what the White House intended to do -- but the U.N.'s own same representative Farhan Haq said that's not true, adding that "“the passage of such few days does not affect the opportunities to collect valuable samples,” among other things, "sarin can be detected in biomedical samples for months after its use." Now we all try not to comment on fellow editor's "point of view" so I will not comment on intent, but on effect - the effect here is to mislead readers, that's the effect - in parallel to the fact that Washington was misinforming the public claiming it was "too late". So as far as that false statement it doesn't matter whether it was delivered on 22nd or 24th, on that narrow issue, the UN getting the OK from Syria on the 25th means there was and is plenty of time. But regardless, our job at Misplaced Pages is to give readers the correct facts (not just not to end up misleading) so to those who will say "no, it's not misleading the very easy reply is: putting aside issue of misleading, just looking at the issue of factual accuracy, there is a video recording of the UN's own official representative Haq saying the UN's rep arrived to deliver the official diplomatic request on the 24th so there it is...so we need to be factually correct and not say "22nd" when it is in fact the 24th"

just to bend over backwards to accommodate, I put in an edit stating there was a press statement and sending off of the UN's rep, on teh 22nd" as well as saying, it was delivered on teh 24th. For my blood pressure's sake I'm going to look tomorrow not tonight at what the page says, but if anyone keeps changing the date of the request being delivered to the Syrian government from 24 to 22 despite the video recording of the UN rep saying it arrived on the 24, they should be reported to the noticeboard, and I will do so if others have not. Harel (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

RS - for part of the picture on the 22nd "Officials in Damascus have continued to strongly deny that the regime was responsible for the use of a weapon of mass destruction, claiming that video footage of dead and dying men, women and children was “terrorist propaganda”. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said discussions had been held for the UN team to be taken to Ghouta, but he could not say when this would take place as there were “logistical and security issues”. you want to prioritise a youtube video it seems to me but there are exact contemporary RS that should be used to fend off a Stalinist-Putinist-Iranian- re-writing of what happened - the regime was in no doubt the UN inspectors wanted access as soon as possible- a definite picture emerges of access wanted as soon as pssible from RS from the days 22, 23, 24 - your tone of wanting to report people to the police if they don't submit for the sake of a TEheran world view and your blood pressure, is totalitarian -minded imo, and it is a portrait of a pro-TEheran pov rather than a great scrupulous care for all RS that emerges imo. Unless you are saying the foreign ministry spokesperson quoted on the 22 is fictional, it is clear the regime was resistant on the 22, so the 'formal' nature of a request was not the problem anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

this guardian article for the 22 , has something of the role played by the totalitarian terrible twins Russia and China in maybe buggering up the swift absolute formal request - "On Wednesday, the security council expressed "strong concern" and called for more "clarity" on the use of chemical weapons, but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach backed by the US, UK, France and 32 other governments that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access to the site of the attack, and to be granted greater latitude by the Syrian government to carry out their enquiries. - so if yu are right that an absolute 100% formal request was not delivered til 24 - and printRS are better than a youtube video surely, - I expect you will fully detail also the prevaricating tactics of the russia/china axis as revealed by this RS also - scrupulosity - RS - not just 'the view from Moscow-teheran' is needed in the lead. Sayerslle (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, see my note below. Your addition of "Russia and China prevaricating," i.e. acting evasively, essentially accuses them of a deceitful foreign policy... in the lead of an encyclopedia article. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, 1. You seem repeatedly to not understand several basic points, including your repeatedly asking for "RS" when in fact, the MOST RS possible is the one I gave..yet you ask for "RS are better than a youtube video surely" Are you kidding? This is not a youtube video of me, it is not a youtube video of you, is it not a youtube video of a random blogger, etc -- it is a video taped recording of the official United Nations representative, Farhan Haq, saying the quoted words, it is the most primary source you can get: directly from the source itself. It trumps, easily, any newspaper report *about* what the U.N. says. It trumps what the NY Times says about what the UN says, it trumps what any newspaper says about "what the UN says" because it is directly a video of the UN representative saying the words themselves. It is not only a RS it is stronger RS.

2. You also seem to be confused about a second issue. You are trying to "prove" that Syria knew on August 22 that people wanted to visit the site. First, my own text says that a Press Statement was made of course Syria knew. Second, Syria (of course!) knew even earlier, on August 21, as soon as it saw the attacks, of course the officials realized that the UN would want to look into it, that would have been obvious to them. That's not relevant, that they knew, 2 minutes after that attack, on 21st that "UN will want to visit" and for the same reason it doesn't change a thing that you have a source talking about the next day, the 22nd, and I myself had the source talk about the 22, that we all agree, that Syria knew on the 22nd that the UN wanted to visit. None of that is relevant to when ((Syria gives official legal diplomatic "ok")) this thing in ((parentheses)) can only happen *after* Syria ((receives official legal diplomatic request)). It can't give official legal "yes" until it first gets official legal request. This is simple enough (but you seem to think this has to do with "we didn't know anyone wanted to visit" which was *never* what I or anyone else said).

3. My "bloodpressure" comment was exactly anticipating more comments like yours about you saying you are working to "fend off a Stalinist-Putinist-Iranian-" etc. I and others have avoided calling your work as "Stalinist-Fascist-Pro-Al-Qaeda-Rebels" so perhaps you could do the same courtesy and avoid such characterizations of disagreements?

4. That Russia and China wanted to "water down" according the blank-check-to-bomb that the US asked for, has this much relevance to the discussion here about what date the official legal diplomatic request was delivered: none, zero (I'm sure if it is proven that rebels did this, that you, and Washington/UK, will strongly call for arming Assad or for the US bombing the rebels, or for US bombing the countries who funded the rebels who did the chem attack, right? Right? Yes? - but that too is not relevant to the discussion of dates) Harel (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

innercitypress.org , accuracy.org

are these RS? Sayerslle (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Only if they carry RT articles :) USchick (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The first is Inner City Press and the second Institute for Public Accuracy. The former is perhaps not "RS" in the sense you mean ("X is true" - footnote to RS proving it), but potentially worth using as an "X says" type source. The second, I've no idea, but it doesn't look promising. Podiaebba (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Folks. I know we're all busy but the links are there, as I said, to the UN press conference itself. Therefore, the issue is not relevant whether ICP is itself a RS because the innercitypress.org is not asking you to trust it; the ICP web page includes a link to a video showing the U.N. representative himself stating it. I typed a partial transcript (and took forever to get the formatting right..I hope someone read my transcript above?) in from that video. But go to yourself and click "play" on the video if you wish. Yes, folks, the United Nations is a "reliable source", particularly about matters concerning itself. He says per the transcript, there was a press statement on 22nd and yes it was "sent" on its way on the 22nd and, yes, he confirms (reluctantly) yes it arrived on the 24th. That's the first date when Syria received it. As I said, governments can't repond to repss statements. Just like we would NOT be impressed if Syria just made a press conference saying "ok, inspect us" we demand Syria give official diplomatic legal "ok" and to do that it must receive the official legal diplomatic request. Again you can skim the partial transcript of click "play" in the embedded video at the ICP web page I just included a few sentences ago here..clear at least? :-) Harel (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be much better if we could get a written transcript direct from the UN. Don't they normally provide them of press conferences? Podiaebba (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As I explained above, several times, but will repeat again: you don't need to trust my transcript, and you don't need a U.N. transcript, because you know how to "click" on the "play" button, to watch a video, yes? good, then you can do that to see the embedded youtube video in the innerCityPress reference, repeated yet again here: Harel (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Weapons expert finds 'accident hypothesis' plausible.

I'm considering using the following quote from a Rod Barton essay published on 26 August 2013. Rod Barton was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He is the author of The Weapons Detective: The Inside Story of Australia's Top Weapons Inspector. The essay is published by the Lowy Institute for International Policy website. Lowy is ranked as Australia's top think tank. I want to use the material below to support putting the widely discussed 'accident hypothesis' into this Misplaced Pages entry. If Rod Barton finds it one of the plausible possibilities, it is not a 'fringe' theory.

... "While the use by a rogue chemical corps commander is a clear possibility, it would be a daring officer who would conduct the recent attack when the country is under close international scrutiny with a UN chemical weapons inspection team just a few kilometres away.

"Perhaps a more likely scenario is that the recent attacks were an 'accident'. It has been widely reported that. Because of early rebel advances in other parts of the country, chemical weapons have been moved from several storage sites for safe-keeping. It is possible that, in the to and fro of battle, some chemical weapons became mixed up with conventional munitions. Occasionally this occurred in Iraq during the chaos of the Iraq-Iran War.

"Although chemical weapons would have distinctive markings, the meaning of such markings would, for security reasons, only be known to chemical corps personnel. Since the munitions themselves would otherwise be indistinguishable from high explosive rounds, they may have been used by the regular army by mistake.

"The confusion of conventional munitions with chemical ones would also explain some reports that high explosive rounds were used at the same time as chemical rounds, a practice which would be unusual because it would reduce the effectiveness of the chemical. But it may also be argued that the use of high explosives was intended to break windows and cause disruption, thereby exposing more people to the effect of the chemical."

I do not see any problem with using this source. We should of course make clear, as the source does, that this is speculation by a think tank (ie, there is no actual evidence that this occurred). VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely worth using. The fact that mixups actually happened in the Iran-Iraq war is particularly helpful in making it a possibility worth talking about. Only problem I see is where to put it, since the entire article is structured on a "can we prove it was the Syrian government doing it on purpose? yes, no, maybe..." basis. Podiaebba (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is biased in favor of the claims by Western powers, who just happen to be allies in an effort to overthrow Assad. The article needs to be condensed and completely revised, possibly along the lines of Khan al-Assal chemical attack. That article begins (emphasis added), "The Khan al-Assal chemical attack was an alleged chemical attack in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, Syria, on 19 March 2013, which resulted in at least 26 fatalities including 16 government soldiers and 10 civilians, and more than 86 injuries. Immediately after the incident the Syrian government and opposition accused each other of carrying out the attack, but neither side presented clear documentation. ..."Haberstr (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

is it condidered in RS - I don't mean amongst uninformed public opinion and pro-regime loyalists - I mean in the consensus of informed RS - is it considered 50/50 who was responsible? what do you reckon? Sayerslle (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Haberstr, there is no serious debate about whether the Ghouta incident was a chemical attack. As such, "alleged" is unnecessary. I do not think there is consensus that the article is biased in favor of the claims by Western powers either, which should be obtained before attempting to rewrite the article from a Syrian/Russian/Iranian POV. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is biased in favour of the claims by Western powers. While gas was used sure, no one can prove who fired the shells. There is a whole thread above about bias. There is no mention of who would gain most, Rebels, if its allegded Assad did it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, my plan (remember the Misplaced Pages instruction to assume others' intentions are honorable) was to rewrite the entry so that the strong 'pro-Western/pro-rebels' POV is reduced and hopefully, eliminated. I.e., NPOV is the goal. Also, the quote from Barton, an expert, indicates that there is a serious debate regarding whether or not the incident was an attack or an accident. There is certainly disagreement over whether to take the 'accident hypothesis' seriously, and that point of view should be included when the accident hypothesis is discussed.Haberstr (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There is not serious debate regarding whether the incident was an attack, there is some speculation that Syria might have fired chemical shells by accident. Does the article state as fact the "Western" (Japan is western?) POV anywhere? Because that would probably violate NPOV at this stage. What specific sections need to be rewritten in your view, and how? VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There is not serious debate regarding whether the incident was an attack - indeed there isn't as of now, but I have sneaking suspicion that with the current diplomacy efforts the possibility might suddenly gain some prominence. It's not just that it makes sense of so many different claims about the attacks, but it would make it easier to accept a Syrian disarmament plan if it was agreed it was an accident... Podiaebba (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added this now, in the Motivation section as I couldn't see where else to put it. Podiaebba (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/10/323066/un-says-syria-attack-videos-fake-russia/

Russia gives UNSC proof of chemical weapons use by militants http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/11/323284/russia-passes-chemical-proof-to-unsc/

Syrian Children Kidnapped By Rebels Identified As Gas Victims By Obama Administration http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/09/syrian-children-kidnapped-by-rebels-identified-as-gas-victims-by-obama-administration-video-2448536.html

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Any reporting in sources that would meet our reliability requirements? Otherwise, there isn't much point in bringing them here. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Theres likely an entire bought press corp determined to keep it buried. The point is to start to challenge the idea that the article has the right slant. I would lay money on 'The rebels did it' and if me and Putin are right, time will prove that we are correct. But as for the 'our reliability requirements', the 'our part' thats subjective is a worry. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Ours", as in "Misplaced Pages's". They are laid out at WP:RS. Feel free to raise the issue at WP:RSN if you feel the sources are not getting a fair shake here. Please forgive me for being uninterested in your "everyone is bought off" conspiracy theories. If presstv claims the UN HRC said something, then please link to it on the UN HRC web site. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr can you show me where you said I said quote, "everyone is bought off", my eyes must be failing me. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not your eyes. Immediately above. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The PressTV report is nonsense, it's just Russia telling the UN that videos and photos were fake - there's certainly no official UN agreement with that claim. As for the "kidnapped children" claim - this seems only to have been made by questionable sources, and seems entirely implausible: why would rebels do that as part of staging an attack, when it would obviously massively increase the risk of detection? Are there not enough civilians in Damascus to kill?? Podiaebba (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also implausible for other reasons. What about the thousands of injured treated at area hospitals? Were they kidnapped too? How will they be kept quiet? VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

well without pausing to think deeply two rational possibilities emerge. 1/ the rebels used sarin but had pre empted their video library for quick release of high impact footage with children they kidnapped, gassed and filmed. Yes they are nasty, they have also done Cannibalism. Remember that? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer my question, but you did manage to make yourself look even sillier. Somehow it is the saintly Syrian government that is getting called out on the majority of human rights abuses by the UN. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

it is crystal clar that blade of the south is a pov warrior who is here to push a certain view, set in stone, impervious to RS - is wp the right place for this sort of moronic spewing out of 'views' on the events and invented scenarios. bring RS or sod off that's my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you've just been rather rude (again), allow me to point out that the internet is full of this kind of speculation and fringe sourcing - and that consequently, Misplaced Pages does more of a source for its entire readership (including quite a few people exposed to that) if it at least attempts to engage with that. A good example is finding the Brown Moses Blog responses to the "Saudi tunnel accident" report: having both is more helpful than having neither, especially to people who've only heard the much-repeated Saudi tunnel tale and not responses to it. So please let's not imagine that the best possible service to readers is photocopying the New York Times. Podiaebba (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

POV tag attached because of pro-rebel bias

I have tagged the article POV because it is written 80-90% as an accusatory brief against the Syrian government and by the rebels' allies, and yet it never mentions that the accusations and 'intelligence' (if it really exists, but we can't allow RS skepticism into the article) that damn the Syrian government are entirely the product, as of today, of the rebels' allies. In fact, the article doesn't even mention that the rebels have allies, or that that status might bias the work product of their intelligence and propaganda services. Finally, as I've said in various locations, we need to be much more tentative and much less accusatory, because the independent report by UN experts has not been produced yet, and the public has not been allowed to see or hear any of the evidence that pro-rebel states say underlies the accusations against the government.Haberstr (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

80-90%? Let's start at the beginning. What specific phrases and sentences do you find non-neutral in the lead? VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with this edit, since the term "bombardment" does not rule out the possibility as some analysts have hypothesized, that this was an accidental use of chemical weapons by Syria due to poor ordinance inventory management. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For the time being I agree, and I'm fine if that is changed.Haberstr (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree the article starts off ok in the lede, not too bad, but it then is pro western storyline. Heres some good background info. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/09/05/2743604/russia-says-it-has-compiled-a.html Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been a contentious fight to make the lead section somewhat non-POV. After that you walk into the "anti-Assad brief zone."Haberstr (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevance? That article discusses the March attack. VQuakr (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

One arguing point of the 'govt did it' hypothesis is that the rebels did not have access to sufficient chemical weapons. Circumstantial evidence that they did have such access is indicated by the discovery by Turkish authorities of sarin gas in rebel-occupied sites.Haberstr (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clarifying, but that would be a violation of WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:SYN since there are RS that express the entire contention.Haberstr (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be careful not to interpret WP:SYN in a way that forces us to exclude facts from an article just because they contradict what some sources state and no source has explicitly linked the facts and the statements. (If we did interpret WP:SYN that way, then WP:NPOV would surely require us to exclude both the facts and the statements.) Podiaebba (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be careful to give undue weight to incidents. It's already one of the three articles linked at the background section. In which we only know that USA/RUSSIA accuse each other, and there is nothing conclusive about it, including in the recent UN report. It is also one of several reported incidents, of alleged chemical weapons use, so please little bit NPOV. Just because you think that based on this incident the opposition have capability to deploy an attack on such scale, which is ten times stronger than all other alleged attack combined and probably the worst attack in decades. You shouldn't get that in the way of RS experts who are aware of this and more, when you edit.--PLNR (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because you think that based on this incident the opposition have capability to deploy an attack on such scale - I love it when you tell me what I think, but whenever I try and tell you what I actually think, you give some variation of "yadda yadda your opinion doesn't matter". Well here's another yadda yadda opportunity: I actually think the "accidental launch" theory an expert suggested as a possibility above fits the best: fits the reports about the multiple non-exploding rockets, fits with the panicked phone call intercept, fits "why would they do it with UN inspectors and the world watching", fits lack of evidence of rebel capability, fits claims of previous but small-scale use which particularly with French support I give credence to. Fact remains though that whilst the JIC mentioned that rebel groups are trying to get CW capability but don't have capability for attacks on this scale, there's remarkably little mainstream willingness to consider what capabilities the rebels do have or what they might get in future. (Some exceptions exist, eg Telegraph, April.) Chaos produced by bombing or even threats of bombing also makes it more likely that CW falls into the hands of Al-Qaeda-linked groups like Al-Nusra. OK, I'm done: yadda yadda away and don't forget to repeat at every opportunity that I think the rebels did it. Podiaebba (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I don't care about your theories, because they pop in every discussion where you lack policy based arguments. I am sorry my post was unintentionally misleading, the second part was directed to @Haberstr, previous comment trying to provide example which would explain why its WP:SYN.--PLNR (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have specific issues, please voice them out. As it is, I see many partisan edits and various reoccurring issues we have discussed before which are reinserted into the article. Many of those are supported by dubious sources and seem to have little value outside of presenting Anti Opposition POV.(case and point your recent Intel break down)

I just noticed that you tagged the whole article, I have to insist that unless you provide more specific examples which we can address(as opposed to never endless accusation of POV), this tag should be removed. For example your comment about the 'rebels allies', iirc it was removed from the to avoid noting the Syrian Russian backers.(maybe even by you?)--PLNR (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you have your facts backward. I may have removed the 'govt allies' characterization in order to balance the fact that the U.S. and so on have so far never been characterized as the 'rebel allies'. Don't you think it is a good NPOV rule either to talk about who the allies are of both sides, or to not talk about it?Haberstr (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Background section

(Let's start the specifics with the first subsection.) I have repaired the first paragraph, I think; the pro-rebel may begin in paragraph 2, but definitely begins by paragraph 3 and continues to the end. In addition, Paragraph 3 to the end offers material that likely should be either deleted or moved (if it is not duplicative) to a different subsection.

Paragraph 2 implies that the suspected 'four incidents' were by the government.

Paragraph 3 is about prior circumstantial evidence regarding use of chemical weapons in the war. It is 90% accusatory toward the Syrian government and almost entirely from the viewpoint of rebel-allied countries explicitly in favor of regime change. The final two sentences make no sense, connecting disconnected events, using "however" to raise suspicion of government actions, and for no apparent reason characterizing a Syrian government action as "unusually requested."

Paragraph 4 is okay, but note that the circumstantial case against the rebels has been skipped: we have jumped from the 'government did it' to the 'not clear who did it' point of view.

Paragraph 5 is more circumstantial evidence for the 'government did it' case.

Paragraph 6: Sentences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are more circumstantial evidence for the 'government did it' case, while sentences 6 and 7 are a rebuttal. Sentence 8, by the way, is not 'Background', since it is a Sept. 9 report on the Ghouta 'attacks'.Haberstr (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, lets compare notes. We agree, no issue with paragraph 1 as it stands now. Paragraph 2 assigns no blame to either side, so no changes needed there. Para 3 could use work, since it focuses almost exclusively on US reports (which fairly could be characterized as either anti-Syria or anti-everyone). Para 4 looks fine once para 3 is fixed. Para 5 is eyewitness accounts by reporters, not in any way circumstantial. Editorially, it might be merged into a longer paragraph, but from a NPOV standpoint we have attribution and it is very relevant. Paragraph 6 does not cite evidence - it cites reports and rebuttals by the US, Russia and France. The source of the opinions are clearly identified. So, we agree that paragraph 3 needs work and disagree on paragraphs 2, 5, and 6. Do we agree on where we disagree? VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Attack

Paragraph 1: Note the specific and confident assertions here, despite the tremendous fog of war, which even the pro-rebel U.S. intelligence brief map recognizes. That map states: "Note: Reports of chemical attacks originating from some locations may reflect the movement of patients exposed in one neighborhood to field hospitals and medical facilities in the surrounding area. They may also reflect confusion and panic triggered by the ongoing artillery and rocket barrage, and reports of chemical use in other neighborhoods." Despite that very wise RS advice, we have this in our article: "The attacks had affected" -- -- "two separate opposition-controlled districts in Damascus Suburbs, located 16 kilometers apart." The two sentences that follow also disappear the uncertainty about where the missiles struck and when. This confusion is well-stated by journalist Stephen Starr (paragraphing removed): "According to a preliminary report carried out by the opposition Syrian National Coalition, the first chemical-armed rockets were launched ... towards Eastern Ghouta shortly after 2.30 am, and on Modamiyeh southwest of Damascus several hours later from the same position. But testimonies from activists and residents on the ground when the attacks took place differ from the National Coalition’s report. Mohammed Saeed of the Local Coordinating Committees—a grassroots activist network—said six rockets struck Douma at 3 am on August 21. He believes over 1,000 people died in the attack on the town, located five kilometers northeast of Zamalka, the perceived central target of the attack on Eastern Ghouta. ... Activists in Modamiyeh say the chemical attack started on the town an hour after Eastern Ghouta was struck."Haberstr (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC

Timing

This section should be incorporated into the preceding paragraph. A consolidation should make clear that there is significant uncertainty, varying reports, about the timing (and location) of the 'attacks'.Haberstr (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Motivation

Two sentences? This is a major factor in the 'govt didn't do it' side of the case. Countless experts and analysts have found it implausible that the government, which most RS accept was winning the war, would do the only thing (U.S. entry into the war) that would cause it to lose. The experts should be in this section, along with the pro-rebel perspective, that for some reason the government had a motive to use chemical weapons a few days after the UN inspectors had entered the country.Haberstr (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Government attack and Rebel attack

First of all, what are these two sections exactly? If they are supposed to be the case against one side or another, then the 'Government attack' section is a very confusing mishmash. Anyway, 'Government attack' is 650 words, while 'Rebel attack' is 238 words, which is straightforwardly biased weight given to the pro-rebel argument.

Delivery method

Paragraph 1 misquotes the Guardian: "the remains of 20 rockets found in the affected areas. Many mostly intact ..." The actual quote (bold added): "The remains of 20 such rockets have been found in the affected areas, activists and local residents say. Many remain mostly intact ..."Haberstr (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 has analysts speculating that conventional shelling may have hit stockpiles of chemical weapons. Why is this plausible speculation buried here, in 'Delivery method'?Haberstr (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 4 reads like a brief for the 'govt did it' case. That speculation should be balanced by speculation from the 'rebels did it' and/or 'it was an accident' perspectives.Haberstr (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 5: more anti-government allegations from a pro-rebel source. HRW has no independent investigative capacity. It alleges certain projectiles were used, but this is based on the trusted (by HRW) videos and statements of the rebels, not on any HRW or other independent investigator on the ground seeing that weaponry. (Such independent investigators are called "the UN.") Finally, where's the response to HRW's contentions by a pro-government source?Haberstr (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 6: more anti-government allegations from a pro-rebel source. Where's the response by a pro-government source?Haberstr (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Motivation

Two sentences? This is a major factor in the 'govt didn't do it' side of the case. Countless experts and analysts have found it implausible that the government, which most RS accept was winning the war, would do the only thing (U.S. entry into the war) that would cause it to lose. The experts should be in this section, along with the pro-rebel perspective, that for some reason the government had a motive to use chemical weapons a few days after the UN inspectors had entered the country.Haberstr (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Government attack and Rebel attack

First of all, what are these two sections exactly? If they are supposed to be the case against one side or another, then the 'Government attack' section is a very confusing mishmash. Anyway, 'Government attack' is 650 words, while 'Rebel attack' is 238 words, which is straightforwardly biased weight given to the pro-rebel argument.

Video

Not POV, just strange. First of all, the title is completely mystifying. What video? In any case, this section is part of the vastly over-belabored 'case' for sarin gas. Neither side in the information battle now questions that sarin gas was likely used. Couldn't we put all of this, after it has been greatly condensed, into a 'type of gas' section?Haberstr (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence

Another odd title and odd section. This entire section should be moved, to the "Intelligence reports" subsection. None of the alleged 'intelligence' in this section has been released to the public. So, what intelligence? That these tapes and recordings exist is entirely based on whether you trust the pro-rebel intelligence services are telling the truth. At the very least we need some balance. Russia has blasted these reports, and many prominent individuals have pointed out that none of the alleged intel has been released to the public.Haberstr (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Other

"Other"?? Why not 'Accidental release'? And why cite one reporter and not the other? Another odd section, apparently an attempt to bury an on-the-ground report in which alleged eyewitnesses state the release of toxic gas was a result of rebel mishandling of chemical weapons materials. And, over half the subsection is devoted to a non-RS source attacking the credibility of mintnews.com in a sometimes bizarre fashion. Haberstr (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

UN investigation

In brief, this POV section is riddled with accusations -- paragraph 1: "U.N inspectors were denied access for a second day" before they had made a formal request to visit the Ghouta area; paragraph 3: the government ordered out investigators after 90 minutes with no mention of the likely explanation, which likely was related to their investigations being delayed by gunfire for 4 hours; -- by the rebel-sympathetic sources that the government attempted to slow or stop UN investigators from doing their jobs. Where is the balance? For example, should it be noted somewhere that the UN has not made any such complaint? I'd say yes.Haberstr (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The final paragraph reports without counterbalance an allegation that RS have shown is nonsense.Haberstr (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence reports

This section is gigantic, 1,513 words, but no where will you see reference to the fact that the "intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom, Israel, United States, France, Turkey, and Germany" are all very strong allies of the rebels, and all have, since 2011, called for the ouster of Assad. In addition, there is little or no time in these 1,513 words to point out that none of the direct 'intelligence' has been released to the public, and that what has been released is entirely circumstantial and based on statements or videos by pro-rebel sources or by the rebels themselves. In any case, this section needs to be greatly condensed and some prominence, perhaps a subsection, needs to be given to the numerous RS who are skeptical of the evidence provided by the pro-rebel intel services for the reasons outlined above.Haberstr (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with all the issues on that list or that its a complete list. However, I very much appreciate the effort in compiling it, its good to work with some one who can make constructive comments. Note that there are several discussion already concerning those issues.--PLNR (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Haberstr (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Strong NPOV in your edits. I am against Wiki being used as it stands in the article, it degrades the encyclopedia to be sneeringly POV political. There is no hard evidence Syria did it. If you want to go political POV have at it and then I would see more on Prince Bandars role as well. Better to just make it fair, NPOV, dont you think? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

bias

• Here is my problem with POV claims, for example this edit by @Haberstr, was intended to fix allegedly "very POV unbalance toward 'govt attack' hypothesis", todo so you copy&pasted this paragraph from an article :

The “rebels” are known to have acquired stocks of sarin gas. They used a chemical weapons compound in a home-made missile attack on a military outpost at Khan Al-Assal in March this year that killed dozens of soldiers and civilians. In May, Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that investigators had evidence that the “rebels” had used sarin gas. Also in May, Turkish police seized sarin gas along with handguns, grenades, ammunition and unspecified documents from apartments where rebel Al-Nusra Front members were living in Adana and Mersin. Early in June, the Syrian military seized two barrels of sarin gas from a “rebel” hideout in Hama.

You didn't bother to put imply, or alleged as you said above that other biased edits use. Nor did you care that it's not factual i.e. the UN issued a clarification about "Carla del Ponte" statement, saying that they "has not reached conclusive findings", which what their final reports said. Nor that the media report about Sarin in Turkey, was dismissed on the same day, with most involved released. iirc Nor that that the last thing was a report posted by Syrian national news and wasn't confirmed by anyone.

You just placed the whole paragraph in quotation marks, as if its a direct quote and nominated the writer of the article to the position of expert and when I removed the false info about Carla, specifically noting its false in the edit summary, instead of discussion, you just ignore it and "repaired" your experts section.

So I would like to note that only because some section doesn't seems balanced to you, its not a violation of NPOV, in this case it only present how both hypothesis reflects in Reliable Sources. So I would appreciate everyone (including my friend @Podiaebba) to avoid "making up for" by unearthing and shoveling unreliable claims and half truths, due to misguided idea of NPOV. Also please fix that. --PLNR (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jeremy Salt is an actual expert (something you apparently didn't bother to check), being an academic with relevant books like this published by University of California Press. Salt's remarks about Carla del Ponte's comments are perfectly accurate - she talked about "evidence", it was later stressed that it wasn't conclusive, but it wasn't dismissed or denied or anything else that would make citing the original remarks false or misleading. The many media reports about Al-Nusra being caught with sarin in Turkey were, as you know very well, dismissed by Turkish officials. Turkey supports Al-Nusra in the Syrian civil war, so a hurried official denial means very little, and certainly doesn't outweigh the widely reported information which must have come from police sources in the first place (it's not like the Al-Nusra members were arrested by journalists, and it's not like Turkish media sources from a wide range of political perspectives are in the habit of all getting together and inventing the same claims). Podiaebba (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally this edit by @Haberstr should be reinstated, with reworded text. The edit summary says "word-for-word copy" sentence, which didn't stop @Haberstr from copying a full paragraph in the above edit, when it suited him, but its a reason for deletion when it doesn't. The second claims in the edit-summary about Damascus is incorrect, in fact it seems that all the effected hoods in this attack was clash points in the last year, which are both individually named and shown on the map, which is also stated in the first source.--PLNR (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

PLNR there is POV bias in the article, get onboard fixing it or do better refuting all of @Haberstr points (if you cant he should enact them) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous POV biases in favor of the White House..I just haven't had time to address them all. One I am right now addressing is the false statement that the request was delivered on the 22nd when I have a video recording of Farhan Haq saying a press statement/press conference announcement, and the "immediate dispatch" of the UN rep took place on 22nd and she (the UN rep) arrived on the 24th. I will take that to noticeboard if it keeps falsely claiming that it was delivered on the 22nd, see this page at section But that's not even the most major issue. Other places (2 or 3 of them) falsely say that the German intelligence said that "Syrian Army, but against Assad's orders" carried out the attack, that's just false, the German intelligence said one thing is certain, namely, over the months and months of monitoring with our ships off the coast, Assad always rejected chemical weapons use any time the issue was brought up by his commanders (the articles I've seen do not say what 'chemical weapons are' - it would be Sarin, it could be white phospherus which the US and Israel have used, it could be Tear Gas which is legal in most countries for use by police, illegal under CWC for "war", here we have both) be that as it may, whatever the generals brought up in conversation, the one certain fact the German intelligence units said, is that Assad always (in all calls over those months) rejected using them. Then, the article and/or German intelligence speculate and the Guardian for example uses a phrase like they said it "lends credence to" or some such language, to the possibility that it was the Army (but without Assad's ok) well, if you want to quote someone saying it "lends credence" fine, but we should not falsely say that "German intelligence says the Syrian Army did it but without Assad's ok" that's NOT what they said, they just said, all the times it was brought up, he said don't use it. The articles I've seen, which is more than a few, none of them, give any evidence that the Syrian army used it. We know (like Israel) Syria has chem weapons (including milder like tear gas) so it's not a surprise it was brought up. Let's not lie to readers and say "Germany says the Syrian Army did it, but just against Assad's orders" no, "Germany says Assad always rejected use whenever it came up" is what the intelligence said and maybe, maybe, if you make a good case for it, might add "some analysts think this lends credence to maybe it was Army rather than rebels" etc. Lots of other examples

The case of Pierre Piccinin and Domenico Quirico is another. No we should not say it "proves" the rebels did it, but the constant efforts to either delete, or undermine or downplay evidence that rebels were behind it, is remarkable. My time is limited at the moment but I hope the following information will be useful to the voices of sanity here, and that they can work to have the full information included

• a Skype phone conversation in which an FSA rebel commander spoke about having launched a chemical attack and that it was on purpose to get the U.S. to attack the Syrian government, that is, to pin it on Assad's government.

• Both former hostages heard the same thing, and both reported the same thing, about this conversation by their captors. There have been some extraordinarily misleading media reports that Quirico "could not confirm" what Piccinin said. In fact, Quirico had the same account:

"During our kidnapping , we were kept completely in the dark about what was going on in Syria, including the gas attacks in Damascus", Quirico said. "But one day, we heard a Skype conversation in English between three people whose names I do not know. We heard the conversation from the room in which we were being held captive, through a half-closed door. One of them had previously presented himself to us as a general of the Syrian Liberation Army. The other two we had never seen and knew nothing about".

"During the Skype conversation, they said that the gas attack on the two neighborhoods in Damascus had been carried out by rebels as a provocation, to push the West towards a military intervention. They also said they believed the death toll had been exaggerated," Quirico said in his statement.

The western media have bent over backwards to say that Quirico "can't confirm" or has a "sharply" different interpretation, etc, misleading people to think that Quirico does not agree, but in fact, the above quotes are from Quirico himself. Quirico was responding to something else Piccinin said which is "it's my moral duty" to tell the world that Assad did not carry out the attack. Well, Quirico is correct that we can't be 100% sure about what they heard, one can even hypothesize, "maybe both rebels AND government forces used it" etc etc, so no, we're not 100% sure, so if Quirico wanted to say it would be "madness" to say we're sure that Assad, that's his right to have that commentary, just like it's Piccinin's right to comment that " Assad did not do it" and that it's his "moral duty" (he had been "firecely" pro-rebel before, in case anyone's missed the story) But we're risking losing the forest for the trees:

• Both Quirico and Piccinin: 1) were held by rebels, kidnapped by FSA and 2) both agree they overheard through a half open door a skype conversation in English 3) both agree one of the people speaking was someone they already knew was not just FSA but a commander and 4) Both former hostages heard him tel others that gas attacks had been carried out by rebels - not "we're planning to carry them out" but "had been" carried out and 5) they both heard him say that it was done to provoke the west into attacking the Syrian government

This is what we know, and this is what we should report, in addition to reporting as NYTimes online did that previous reporting by Quirco had been "symapthetic" to the rebels so both hostages used to be sympathetic. If the Italian paper wants to act like Pravda and bury the above two paragraphs (quoted directly from their paper) in the middle of a 6 paragraph story two thirds of which are statements they made or quote Quirico about "you never know" and "I can't be totally sure" and "it's madness" to be 100% certain that Assad didn't do it and on for two thirds of the article, the middle two paragraphs of which actually tell us what both hostages heard, and what both agree upon, that's the paper's right to do, it doesn't affect that wikipedia's job is to report what both hostages agree they both heard, period.

Can you imagine it two formerly pro-Syrian government hostages both heard their Syrian Army captors say the analogous thing? We would not water down that, or put 100 disclaimers, we'd report the facts (above paragraph in bold) and that's what we should do (some might also take it 100 steps further to say it "proves" the government did it - which we shouldn't do, and likewise, we should not use the word "proved" about the rebels having done it, just report what the two former hostages incidate they both heard)

In any case that La Stampa is here is one of the articles in La Stampa. There are others, e.g. in Italian, with more details. The quotes above are from this link though.

From RT and IBT: Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene. "In this conversation, they said that the gas attack on two neighborhoods of Damascus was launched by the rebels as a provocation to lead the West to intervene militarily," Quirico told Italy's La Stampa. "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."

As for Piccinin: "we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army.." reports IBT adding "Piccinin said the captives became desperate when they heard that the US was planning to launch a punitive attack against the regime over the gas attack in the Damascus suburb. 'We were prisoners, stuck with this information and unable to report it,' " because they were still captive

Even though they became desperate about the prospect of a US strike when they knew what they had heard, they still didn't have all the details, of the exact chermical weapons attack that did happen exactly at Ghouta, until they were released: "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus." See also All the time I have for now. I haven't even quoted what both now say about the madness of the west supporting the revolution - actually Quirico who is more reserved about not knowing 100% sure that it as rebels not Assad, he is actually using stronger terms about what the "rebels" and "Revolution" today are, jihadists and bandits, but that's for another time, the main focus is, what they heard, and the background, items in paragraph in bold above..all the time I have for now, hope others will focus on these facts and can use these extra links, and add Harel (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is pretty long - perhaps you could split your remarks about Piccinin/Quirico out and move them to the section above about that subject? (If you do, you can just delete this comment suggesting the split.) Podiaebba (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Harel thanks for all the hard work. I will go over it later today. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Blade-of-the-South, glad my work gathering up these links is appreciated and much more importantly, that they will be useful to you for updates. Podiaebba, please feel free to copy/paste from my comments to that section yourself - or just the three links in the paragraph just above, plus the La Stampa link a bit further above those. Each of us has limited time, by working together and splitting up work helps.

Final note: I hope someone can or did correct the false summary of German intelligence in the article (not lede)? German intel decisively stated without ambiguity that Assad always said no to chem weapons, but did not make any (in any of the several articles I saw) anything clear cut about Army did Ghoutta attack, absolutely not..just "analysis/speculation" that "well, Army did "bring up the subject of chem weapons" (again, they don't even say what those are? white phosphorus? sarin? tear gas?) and that "lends support" to the possibility that Army did Ghout attack, is the most that could be said, and is the most any article summarizing German intel ever did say. Regards, Harel (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press summary

I'm not entirely sure what to do with this AP summary, but the heading and subhead are Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility: The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence produced by U.S. intelligence - no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications - connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.. At the very least, editors here should read it. Podiaebba (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What a great article. I think there's material there that could be added into almost every section. The AP reporters must become frustrated repeatedly querying everyone and getting no response...-Darouet (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

another source (Reuters): Exclusive: U.S. total of Syrian gas deaths could include bomb casualties - sources Podiaebba (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria prepared to hand over chemical weapons

Im not keen on 'Reactions' as a subtitle in the article, bit limiting, but this could go there. A fallout / resolution / consequences section may be an improvement.

“Syria is handing over its chemical weapons under international supervision because of Russia,” Assad said in an interview with state-run news channel Rossiya-24. “The US threats did not influence the decision.”

http://rt.com/news/assad-syria-russia-proposal-773/, or

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2013/09/12/375--Syria-to-hand-over-chemical-arms-Assad-.html or

http://news.yahoo.com/assad-says-syria-hand-over-chemical-arms-russian-130936091.html or

http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/assad-says-syria-hand-chemical-arms/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is International_reactions_to_the_2013_Ghouta_attacks#Chemical_weapons_UN_plan. Needs expanding there and summarising here. Podiaebba (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia and China "prevaricating"

User:Sayerslle has made this edit to the lead, adding the phrase "with Russia and China prevaricating to a degree" as further detail to the UN's call for an investigation, citing this Guardian article as a source and explaining his edit by writing "role of Russia in muddying waters."

Google says that to "prevaricate" is to "speak or act in an evasive way." The Guardian source actually writes, "On Wednesday, the security council expressed "strong concern" and called for more "clarity" on the use of chemical weapons, but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach backed by the US, UK, France and 32 other governments that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access to the site of the attack, and to be granted greater latitude by the Syrian government to carry out their enquiries... Moscow and Beijing have consistently backed Assad throughout the civil war, and the Russian foreign ministry on Wednesday accused rebels of staging the massacre to trigger intervention. China issued a statement saying it opposed the use of chemical weapons but called for the UN team to "fully consult with the Syrian government and maintain an objective, impartial and professional stance, to ascertain what really happened"."

Writing that Russia and China are speaking/acting evasively is a very bold editorial decision, but it's not neutral language, and certainly not supported by the source provided. -Darouet (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

well, - 'but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access to the site of the attack', - is great, - 'prevaricated' was a perhaps too inexact way of seeking to précis Sayerslle (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also Sayerslle, this section of the lead is basically describing calls - by Ban Ki-Moon - for access to the Ghouta sites. It's not dealing with resolutions proposed by the U.S., U.K., France, or other countries. Perhaps the appropriate place for this would be in the article body, where such resolutions are proposed (and changed by Russia/China).

Otherwise, In the end, we might put the entire article into the third paragraph of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think the details of that early diplomatic wrangling really needs to go into the lead. But I really think that it needs to be explained properly in the body, so we can say exactly what it is that US/France etc wanted and what Russia and China wanted, and then introduce a summary in the lead if necessary. The Guardian source isn't specific enough, more info is needed. Podiaebba (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

fine , I am all for specific info - its why I like to see a day to day unfolding , supported byRS, in the lead ideally, summarized and précis-ed - its the slurrings over, the disinformation and misinformation landslides - so evident elsewhere in the article I fear, - that I most detest. Sayerslle (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, it seems that the information you're adding refers not to Ban's calls for access - what was in the lead beforehand - and instead to security council resolutions. Is this what you mean to put there?

As far as I can tell, there's no consensus to place that specific information in the lead right now. -Darouet (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

my edit wasnt zeroing in on ban ki moon 's calls no, it was about the Russian and Chinese attitude, though there is a ref dated 22 isn't there that says he wanted access for the inspectors - i'll go and check - is there consensus for anything - is there consensus for that 'motivation' bit that reads quite biased to me, - focuses unduly on fringe stuff, Sayerslle (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

the latest from ban ki moon _ report will be released on Monday probably - reuters

'UN chief Ban says expects UN experts' report will confirm use of chemical weapons in #Syria & Assad committed many crimes against humanity' Sayerslle (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Its not lede material. A good Lede is broad and sets things up, not POV detail interpretation like this journos article quoted. Mention and expand in body in a NPOV manner if at all. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time at the moment to look at the attitude of Russia and china in the immediate days after the attacks but there will come time - today 15 September ali haidar Syrian minister 'hailed the deal on the Assad regime's chemical weapons as "a victory … won thanks to our Russian friends, Ali Haidar, paid fulsome tribute to its longstanding ally, praising "the achievement of the Russian diplomacy and the Russian leadership". ' -Russia has been there right through, totally aligned, 100% KGB trained lavrov-putin cynicism, - needless to say I regard blades regard for npov as a joke in very poor taste. Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2013 Ghouta attacks

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2013 Ghouta attacks's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "frenchInt13":

• From Syria and weapons of mass destruction: Willsher, Kim (2 September 2013). "Syria crisis: French intelligence dossier blames Assad for chemical attack". The Guardian.
• From Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-crisis-french-intelligence-assad

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish prosecutors indict Syrian rebels for seeking chemical weapons

This is going in. I dont care who does it.

The prosecutor in the Turkish city of Adana has issued a 132-page indictment, alleging that six men of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham tried to seek out chemicals with the intent to produce the nerve agent, sarin gas, a number of Turkish publications reported.

http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-chemical-weapons-850/ http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,4224285.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,5823494.story http://www.albanytribune.com/13092013-turkish-prosecutors-indict-syrian-rebels-for-seeking-chemical-weapons/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job Blade! And it says "including the Aug. 21 incident outside Damascus" so no one can say it's Synth. :-) USchick (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that Chicago Tribune falsely says "The United States and its allies say the proof is overwhelming that it was forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad who unleashed sarin " in this Sept 13, 2013 report since it's been some days now when in fact even back on Sunday Sept 8 White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough said they do not claim to have "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence." but rather a certain test, called the "common sense test". But thank you Blade for this update! Maybe here suggest which section(s) to put it in? Harel (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I already added this to the "Capability" section, on the assumption no-one would complain about adding an update to the May incident based on mainstream Turkish (but English-language) and US sources. Podiaebba (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The alleged ring never manufactured sarin, a potent nerve agent, according to Turkish media. This is wholly irrelevant to this article, which is on the Ghouta chemical attacks. It may be useful in the Syrian Civil War article. Blade, you may not be aware that your declaring "This is going in" does not make material more suitable for the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence summaries have made it clear that determination of culpability rests significantly on the claim that rebels don't have the capability to launch CW attacks as seen in Ghouta. Discussion of rebels' capabilities is therefore extremely relevant to this article. NB one detail that may be worth adding is that the indictment says the suspects ordered 10 tons of chemicals. Podiaebba (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes its extremely relevant as you say Podiaebba. VQuakr re "This is going in" call it a hunch then, a Eureka moment, that 'Ahha' feeling you get when you see some contrivance that isn't making sense start unraveling. Also VQuakr you may not be aware but apparently 'its' already in. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It always made sense to me... I rather assumed that the Turkish government was leaning on police and/or prosecutors to quietly drop the investigation (see eg Şemdinli incident). Well if they did try that it clearly didn't work... NB The Syrian opposition is embarrassed enough about the episode to suggest it's a false flag operation by the Syrian government designed to embarrass the opposition and Turkey! Podiaebba (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the lack of any attempt to mask your blatant POV, but why would it matter how many tons of precursor they ordered? Some (very wealthy) yahoo can order 10 kilos of Pu-239 from a reference lab in milligram aliquots, but they ain't gonna get them. It already being in the article just means that someone added it without consensus and is not germane to a discussion about whether it should be included. So, framing your reasoning in the context of Wiki policy rather than rhetoric and conjecture, what is the reason that you think this is relevant to the Ghouta attacks? VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the lack of any attempt to mask your blatant POV - what the hell? You appear to be both clueless about recent Turkish political history (Ergenekon/Susurluk!) and unwilling to make the effort to read a relevant article when its provided to you. If you think what I suggested is so unthinkable you won't even look into it, then it's you who has a blatant POV - apparently that a Middle Eastern state with a weak democracy couldn't possibly do something dodgy in order to support its foreign policy interests just because it's a US ally. Podiaebba (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba: I rather assumed that the Turkish government was leaning on police... Blade: a hunch then, a Eureka moment... these are things someone says when they are attempting to twist information to fit their preconceived idea of what happened rather than neutrally reflect the most reliable sources available. Again, I agree it is better to be straightforward that you are not attempting to be neutral than to try to hide it, so thanks for that. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr - I attempt to write neutral articles. I have views, and so does every editor, and anyone who pretends they don't is fooling themselves and/or others. For example, your view is clearly that the Turkish government is incapable of doing dodgy things - presumably because they're a US ally. (And you appear unwilling to make even minimal efforts to educate yourself on the matter, which is somewhat irritating). In short, distrusting everyone equally is closer to neutrality than elevating the official pronouncements of one nation and its allies to the status of the Gospel, and I'm closer to the former position and you appear to be closer to the latter. Podiaebba (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You probably will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree with your assessment of my beliefs and knowledge, and am similarly unsurprised that you are unwilling to admit your own bias. I am also unsurprised given your stated disdain for our policies that you are so eager to violate WP:NPA. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not have "disdain" for Misplaced Pages policies - where do you get this from? What I've meant by recent references to how people use/abuse them is that they provide a broad framework within which we work to discuss facts. When people suddenly veer away from facts to demand discussion of policy, this is generally an attempt to avoid discussing facts they don't want to, since detailed discussion of policy cannot speak to facts. Note the distinction between introducing policy that is relevant and applying it to a situation or discussion (eg "is that really a reliable enough source for backing up that claim in that way? let's talk about that...") - it's the demand for unspecified policy to be introduced into a discussion which is the problem. As to so eager to violate WP:NPA - well that's ironic, since I didn't make any personal attacks as far as I can see (I was describing what your views appear to be) whilst alleging a character trait of making personal attacks is in itself an actual personal attack. Podiaebba (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You probably will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree with your assessment of my beliefs and knowledge - well if you are in fact willing to countenance the possibility of Turkey doing something dodgy to support its foreign policy then you could perhaps do me the kindness of conceding that my willingness to countenance that possibility isn't evidence of bias. On the other hand, if you're not, perhaps you could explain why and/or concede that this constitutes an actual bias. Podiaebba (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Governments lie. None lie all the time, but all lie some of the time. But what you are suggesting is to use reports that a terrorist group failed to make sarin months ago as evidence that terrorists used sarin in another country. My response - that terrorists attempting to make sarin in May in Turkey is not relevant enough to mention in an article about August attacks in Ghouta - is neutral. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Insisting on backing up arguments with reference to "wiki policy" is generally a red flag that someone is trying to deny the obvious conclusion arising from the facts. I already stated what those facts were: the Western conclusions about culpability for the attacks are (by their own admission) based significantly on the belief that the rebels have no significant CW capability. Therefore analysis of that capability is not just relevant, it's highly relevant. And yes, there are good independent sources making this obvious link between the Turkish arrests and the strength of the Western conclusions (see article, section Capability). Podiaebba (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Relevance, lets see,(do you mind colloquial?). Hmmm how about Intent, track record, history, form, as they say. Or simply put, 'they be caught red handed guvnor, see what business they got with da chemical weapons when them being denying they have any interest atall. Makes one wonder it does guv'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources you linked do not say what you want them to say. A terrorist group allegedly tried and failed to obtain precursor chemicals that could have been used by a capable entity to make sarin. In a neighboring country. With no evidence of a delivery system and certainly no evidence of a connection to Ghouta. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you want the serial numbers of the delivery system as well, what about their tax file numbers? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, UN inspectors were able to retrieve some serial numbers from the weapons used. Third party sources discussing the provenance of those weapons would be very relevant to the article. Tax info may have to wait, though. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

you seem very indulgent to the regime, (not big on NPOV at all, fine, at least theres nothing sneaky about your bias) -'when them being denying' they had any chem weapons at all - and, meanwhile, -'scepticism about its real intentions was deepened by reports that an elite group fiercely loyal to President Bashar al-Assad known as Unit 450 has been dispersing his chemical weapons stockpile to as many as 50 different sites all across the country, just one day after the regime said it would join the Chemical Weapons Convention.' Sayerslle (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's well into the topic of the international reactions article, surely. Perhaps we could begin to try and separate these topics. Podiaebba (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle 'reports' you say, why not bung them in the lede without discussion. What reports? Wheres the reliable refs if they are that good? Re ' theres nothing sneaky about your bias' again why not bung your stuff in the lede without discussion. You want personal have at it. I have my reasons for doubting the US version. I wont divulge them here. But as long as there is counter evidence with refs it should be mentioned. Its called NPOV. What you dont like are things that cast doubt on the US POV? Why? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blade...we have to be especially careful not to have a US/West-POV. Yes this is the English language part of wikipedia, but it is not the Official Western View part of wikipedia, is it? (yet people still post comments here that "you can't trust RT" and forget how US media repeated lies over and over again about 2003 Iraq "WMD" and that's just the most famous case. I would not trust RT on things like Russian crimes in Chechnia as well as civilian casualties etc..in any case, multiple countries, multiple media, with references, backing up, is the way to go) By the way another article on the Turkish indictment just the other day: which then goes on to mention other lines of evidence, Piccinin/Quirico, and Del Ponte (on earlier attack) and Russian analysis of previous attack (which unlike the White House analysis of this one, actually gives technical details, some are cited here) and more.Harel (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Update on MintPress report: Military.com takes allegations seriously

The characterization of Mint Press News as a "Shia advocacy site" is inaccurate. The article that sentence references refers to it as an "advocacy journalism" website whose editor-in-chief is reportedly a Shia Muslim. The website itself appears to publish U.S. and world news from a progressive or left-libertarian perspective, and doesn't seem to involve anything about Shia Islam, much less advocate for it. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Another SPA - the PJ MEdia article is titled as it is titled and you cant deny it or censor it or shove it down a Stalinist memory hole. ' progressive or left-libertarian perspective' - where did you get that? - your own head? which RS describe it as that. OR is no use , and 'self stylings' of the MINt press are what they are. It looks like it wants to keep its backers hidden, whether they are 'left-libertarian' who knows. one rather doubts it. the story it is well known for was the one saying rebels gassed themselves in ghouta. that is not 'leftist' - it is what it is. Sayerslle (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The PJ Media post doesn't call it a "Shia advocacy site," it calls it a Shia "advocacy journalism" site -- with the quotations marks appearing as such, surrounding "advocacy journalism" but not 'Shia.' Based on the content of the article, it is clear that "advocacy journalism" comes from a self-description from Mint Press News interview, and "Shia" refers to what the article claims is the religious background of the editor-in-chief. Any attempt to link "Shia" to the word "advocacy" is clearly misleading. Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that claims to be factual while adopting a certain social or political purpose, and Mint Press News does not characterize itself as advocating anything related to Shia Islam. Instead, it says on its About Us page that it "covers national politics, foreign affairs, energy, the environment and civil liberties through the lens of social justice and human rights," and the PJ Media article cites no evidence that the website has "advocated" for Shia Islam, beyond the reported religious backgrounds of certain staff members. Moreover, allegations about the religious backgrounds and alleged views of the site's editor-in-chief have no bearing on the content of the article in question, which is by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

we can add as much about what is written about subjects of articles by others as what the subjects themselves say. indeed they are motivated to paint themselves in the best possible light are they not. self praise is no praise. the PJ media story is linked to, is relevant to the subject of the article, you are a single purpose account saying the ideology of people has no bearing on their activities - and if they are anti-Syrian rebel, that is not relevant but the GHouta story says it is relevant and has been commented on as such by PJ media. Sayerslle (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, not even the PJ Media post indicates that Mint Press News is a "Shia advocacy site." It indicates that it is a self-described "advocacy journalism" website with an editor-in-chief who apparently is a Shia Muslim. No matter how you spin it, the current wording is not factual. Beyond that, it remains unclear how the religious views of Mint Press News' editor-in-chief have anything to do with the content of reporting by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh (which, moreover, consisted of interviews that amount to hearsay; the article is not even the authors' personal claims) any more than the religious views of any other non-religious news outlets' editors-in-chief have any bearing on the content their respective organizations publish. That the interviews in the article, which was not written by Mint Press News' editor-in-chief, contain allegations that appear to be roughly in sync with the Assad regime's claims, in no way makes the entire website of Mint Press News a "Shia advocacy" organization; assertions to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Spotting such deceptive, erroneous information strikes this brand-new Misplaced Pages account's owner as as good of a reason to start an account and begin participating in Misplaced Pages editing as any. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

But who cares, it's just a blog, right? Well, no, it turns out that advisory board for military.com includes two former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and whose president is a retired U.S. Navy admiral. Furthermore, they spoke directly with Jordanian freelance journalist Yahya Ababneh, who along with the U.S. reporter (Dale Gavlak who has written for BBC, NPR, and for the Associated Press) did the investigative report. The Sept 10, 2013 article in military.com is here: They quote Ababneh's responses to how the interviews were uncoached, but spontaneous, and: the rebels "did not prepare" their remarks but gave them off the cuff while "complaining" about the situation to him, etc. Military.com is not "vouching" for it being true, but with its hefty miltary background, the very fact it takes the reporting seriously is Noteworthy - certainly for our including the MintPress report in this entry but perhaps also to mention that Military.com interviewed Ababneh himself and are taking the report (which to those coming late, had interviewed local rebels in Ghouta say that they (accidentally) released the chemical attack) by Mintress, quite seriously. Harel (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's just re-reporting of the same unreliable source. I see no evidence for your characterization that they take the report seriously. VQuakr (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence for your characterization that they take the report seriously. - other than the fact they heard about the "widely circulated report" and made the effort to interview the journalist who did the actual interviews? Geez Louise, don't you realise how it sounds for you to respond like this? Podiaebba (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The report gives no indication that the mintpressnews might have any particular allegiances does it ? it does seem clearly written from a very pro regime pov,- or do you disagree ? you think it is a balanced piece of journalism? and does it really take the story further?Sayerslle (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Military.com doesn't have a pro-Syrian-regime POV (does it??) so their interest in the actual journalistic work done by this mintpressnews freelancer is relevant. Maybe military.com doesn't know about the mintpressnews background; maybe their judgement of it is that it's not enough to dismiss the report out of hand. Either way, it does add something, both in detail and in the fact of them taking the report seriously enough to interview the key author. Podiaebba (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What details does it add? I would agree that military.com is not particularly terrible as a source from a POV perpective; looking over their other news articles I would describe them as representing US military members and veterans from an anti-quagmire perspective. My issue with the presented article is that there is neither critical review of the plausibility of the information presented, not any attempt to independently verify the information. So, no increase in reliability. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

no increase in reliability - sorry, what? Since when do we demand that every secondary source does primary research verifying the first? The mere fact that a reliable secondary source reports the first is generally considered to carry some meaning. What meaning is debatable, but you seem to be tying yourself in knots to make that meaning be zero. Podiaebba (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the mintpress 'story' . the writer Bryant Jordan - In September he was tweeting - ‏'@BryantJordan 2 Sep UN official also saying now that rebel group, not Assad, behind sarin gas deaths.' -and he links to a may 2013 article. he has his views doesn't he. the blind leading the blind if you ask me.Sayerslle (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NEWSORG, though with your stated disdain for our guidelines I doubt you will give it any credence. The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Misplaced Pages is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. and Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source. All military.com did was confirm that Ababneh did indeed contribute to the report, which as far as I know was not in question. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What defines a "rumour"? As so often, Misplaced Pages guidelines are a thing to be waved as a substitute for engaging with facts. So, to the facts: Bryant Jordan has been a journalist since 1979 ; military.com provides news, but it's not really clear what its status as a news source; the military.com article doesn't add much (if any - I haven't put them side by side) factual detail to the original Mint Press News article. So in sum, the military.com article can be added in as an extra ref, primarily to document that the mintpressnews report was "widely circulated", which helps justify mentioning it and the Brown Moses Blog response to it. I've done that. Podiaebba (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They did a little bit more than confirm he wrote the story...they asked for and got a little bit (not a huge amount but not irrelevant) in term of more details about the interviews and the context in which the rebels made the comments they did. That's the first point. Second point: it is still relevant that they have the military "heft" that they do (their President and Advisory Board), and that they take the report seriously. That a military site takes this seriously is more interesting. They are not some random website or blog. Third, responding to SAyerslle, as for the criticism of the writer, that " he has his views doesn't he?" It's not a bad thing to have views, especially if one bases it on evidence, facts, and logic. What else should one base one's opinions on? Or have no opinions at all? One bases them on logic (who was winning? who would gain?) and on facts, or "facts to the best that we can discern at this time based on lines of concrete evidnece" which is de facto facts, just like scientists do the same, based it on facts (many months of German secret monitoring: Assad always said no to chem weapons) and on facts (pro-rebel journalists both kidnapped, both hear rebel captor on phone say they, the rebels, carried out chemical attack, and did so to pin it on Assad) and on facts (reporting what Syrians in the area are telling you is one of the facts we want to have, which MintPress gave us) and so on, not basing opinions on "we want to overthrow the regime" or on "Assad=Hitler, Rebels=NiceAlQaedaGuysYoudWantYourSisterToDate" etc etc. I hope the humor helps....make the point...it's silly to criticize him for having opinions...if he based it on what a random blogger posted, that would be one thing, if he is basing it on real and multiple lines of evidence, that's not a bad thing. Even the Senators and Representatives in congress said, both Republicans and Democrats, said, "we looked at the 'classified' report...it is not stronger, it is weaker than the public statements, and even the classified report, says 'trust us!' but gives no data, no transcripts, no direct quotes, etc") Harel (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have little doubt that military.com is cited in numerous places on Misplaced Pages. It is managed by retired military higher-ups and writes with a focus on military matters, but it is certainly not official. This source still makes it clear that all information was gleaned from the same source, Ababneh, and it makes not attempt to critically assess the claim provided. Re your comment on the author's opinions, yes we want journalists to think - ie not base opinions on reports issued before the attack. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "t makes not attempt to critically assess the claim provided" on the contrary, the questions that they chose to include in their interview with Ababneh are exactly, "an attempt to critically assess" - as I said it is not as extensive, as I would have liked, but the couple of extra details Ababneh shared, by answering their questions, is exactly the result of Military.com "attempt to critically assess" the investigation by Ababneh with Gavak. Hence the info about the context of the interviews in which the confessions were made (in particular, their inquiry or implicitly question about why he is confident that his sources were straight with him, which he replies to in the military.com article, which is not part of the original MintPress article) which military.com has included, are very much, in response to Military.com "attempting to critically assess" That's the first point. Second point is that obviously one can not run the story, or one cadn run the story and say it is nonsense, or one can run the story and ask, hmm, "we wonder could this possibly be true?" or any number of places along a spectrum. Here Military.com is giving a fair amount of respect to it, including their choice of headline. But back to first point, yes, new information in response to an attempt to assess the strength of the evidence. I do not think it is worth a big, long addition, but a brief mention that military.com interviewed Ababneh and gave a few more details on the interviewed rebels, and a few more details on the context of the interviews and confessions, in its story "White House Mum on Rebel Chem Weapons Use" Harel (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, all that has been used from this source in the article is the "widely circulated report" citation, which is pretty uncontroversial and, given how much internet that report has gotten, wholly accurate. What specific additional changes to the article do you propose? VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Harel 'Assad always said no to chem weapons' - 'the facts we want to have, which MintPress gave us' - and then the mocking, 'Assad=Hitler, Rebels=NiceAlQaedaGuysYoudWantYourSisterToDate' - on the first, well, yes, in fact the regime didnt acknowledge having any did it, and on Saturday 14 sep, 'reports that an elite group fiercely loyal to President Bashar al-Assad known as Unit 450 has been dispersing his chemical weapons stockpile to as many as 50 different sites all across the country, just one day after the regime said it would join the Chemical Weapons Convention' - on the second, mintpress, odeh muhawesh, check his facebook page a virulent pro-Assadist - its a propaganda rag - 3rd yes, great mockery, a position like that would lack sophistication, but then so would a pro-Iranian regime pov masquerading as critical and impartial editing - and tat journalist for military.com seemed confused about his dates even, maybe past his sell by date - Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Rebels=NiceAlQaedaGuysYoudWantYourSisterToDate" is more or less what the politicians and most of the mainstream reporting wants us to believe, and has been telling us, yes, and I stand by the point that we need to break out of that mold, for accuracy sake, on WP. As for muhawesh he was not co-author of the MintPress piece so I won't waste time looking him up, it was by Gavak and Ababneh. If you want to talk about bias by the way, try "pro-rebel" bias, that is what both Piccinin and Quirico had (confirmed by NY Times which had online piece stating Quirico having had past articles very sympathetic to rebels etc etc). So their sharing with the world the overhead conversation of rebel commander admitting rebels used chem weapons. is yet another interview.

Fascinating to read "skcepticism about its real intentions was deepened by reports that..." Report by whom? From whom? and I kept reading that paragraphs and 3 others in the first 4 paragraphs for them to tell us where these "reports" came from...in vein...I guess that was not important enough to tell us. They are insulting your intelligence with such articles saying "reports that" and not telling you or us what the source is..

We in the west are in an environment drunk with fear or with ideology to the point we fail Logic 101. It would be the dumbest thing in the world for the government in Syria to have chemicals that rebels can use in a false flag...May I remind you that Saddam who used chem weapons in 1980s did not use them in 1991 when he was invaded even as his troops were slaughtered? Remember the Western media told us he is "mad, mad, insane, irratioanal! did we mention crazy?" but he was sane enough to know not to use chem weapons in 1991 when he had them.

Germany intelligence, that's not some unknown "reports" but very solid known source. We know they would be screaming from the rooftops if they had one iota of evidence pointing at Assad..they kept mum...until finally this leak that after many "months" of secret monitoring of the top Assad communication, he "always" (and see similar by Guardian) always rejected use of chem weapons. They don't say what his commanders brought up...sarin? or white phosphorus that US and Israel used? Or tear gas, not legal in "war" but legal by police for "civil disturbance...they didn't say what his general brought up just that Assad "always" rejected it. That's BND, the German intelligence service...that's the facts..as for logic, no wonder..he knew he had everything to lose, and nothing to win, even someone who is badly losing (1991 Iraq, Saddam) knows it would be suicidal to use sarin etc...Someone who as report after report shows, was winning? Come on... No wonder the German intercepts show Assad "always" rejected use....even tear gas that the US would use in civil war, or white phosphorus, he probably knew would be used to drum up support for missile attack, so no wonder..

I think deep down in their heart, even those who want a US war on Syria, based on the above, deep down, people know that if they had to place a large financial bet on whether the rebels used it, given all the reasons and facts for Assad not to use it and all the many many reports by rebels, on top of Turkish police finding a cell trying to make Sarin, and the MintPress, and the Puccinin/Quirco....I can't be 100% sure some rogue army officer didn't use it, but it's very unlikely..but I would place a large personal bet that one or more rebel groups or dupes hired and paid by rebels to carry stuff for them (MintPress story) did use chem weapons, on purpose or by accident...that's just looking more and more extremely likely as more and more evidence comes out.... When will we honest with ourselves where the logic (who would benefit? who was winning the war) and where the facts and the evidence (not just MintPress but Carla Del Ponte and now Piccinin and Quirico) point very strongly...when will we be honest? Assad is not a nice guy, and from his father he inherited a brutal regime...Assad first actions in office was to free political prisoners, allow indep newspaper and radio and allow a private bank etc..if the west was interested no in controlling Syria and dominating, this former opthamologist Bashar could probably have been prodded, some pressure plus encouraged with a few positive reactions and carrots to have democratic elections but no, US would not control who got into power, so we're shredding the country to pieces, 100,000+ dead, and look how well it turned out when "we" funded extremist brutal jihadists in Afghanistan, it's not like that came back to bite us with Taliban and Al Qaeda and 9/11...and Iraq turned out "so well" too? And now this. Brilliant. Anyway, polite but frank exchange of views, now back to wikipedia.. Harel (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

the gramophone mind. mintpress is directed by muhawesh and his daughter, your lack of curiosity about who controls mintpress is a pov lack of curiosity- the suburbs where the rebels are in control are being shredded , - you don't mind Assad/Russia/Iran doing shredding of a country? ' with MIG’s firing S25 missiles, each carrying 400 pounds of TNT, into apartment buildings in Homs or Aleppo.

In the meantime, it is important to stress that it is the regime that is imposing a “military solution” on a massive scale';- just read that on Louis Proyects blog,- thought is relevant as you are going on about a US war on Syria. Sayerslle (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Citing all relevant reports and preventing an omission

A citation of the Russian intelligence report must appear in the article, alongside the UK, US, French and German reports, in order to cover the topic from all angles.Lenmoly (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We need a source in order to report it; has Russia published an intelligence report that we can use? Right now the article has a very awkward structure where we talk about "allied" intel reports in the Evidence section and then later have an Intelligence reports section. One the article settles this will need to be restructured. VQuakr (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A Russian report from July about the sarin attack in Aleppo was given to the UN . This means that Russia collects intelligence about such attacks in Syria. If a report about the attack in Ghouta is still not available from Russia, then it should be at least mentioned that they, like the other powers, collect intelligence and that they submitted the July report about Aleppo to the UN. Lenmoly (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They don't routinely do such investigations; their investigation of the Khan al-Assal chemical attack was at the request of Syria due to delays getting the UN investigation started. Podiaebba (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Their Aleppo report is, to my knowledge, not publicly available (yet?). It also is not relevant to an article about Ghouta. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again: a key claim for dismissing the possibility of rebel attack in Ghouta is lack of capability. Prior attack by rebels clearly speaks to analysis of capability. Honestly, when you go to the doctor do you deny any information about your medical history, because it couldn't possibly be relevant?? Podiaebba (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Four points.

1. Russia will always be doing inteligence reports, the question is when do 'we' see them.
2. Two, Russia has a robust intel service and its in action re Syria as evidenced by this from the link below. 'Meanwhile it was reported that Russia has dispatched an intelligence ship to the Eastern Mediterranean'.
3. Three, so when they say this 'US intelligence on Syria gas attack 'unconvincing', says Russia' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10280017/US-intelligence-on-Syria-gas-attack-unconvincing-says-Russia.html they mean it based on their intell reports and until they release them this could go in as its the Russian response that refutes the other intel reports, which btw wont show us their data.
4. Even US sources are questioning this lack of US proof. 'A declassified report by the White House does not divulge all details of the evidence the United States is looking at. And it remains unclear what the "streams of intelligence" cited in the report may be and how they were collected'. Russia insists there's no proof. Russian President Vladimir Putin said he wants to see evidence that would make the determination "obvious." from. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/world/syria-us-evidence-chemical-weapons-attack/index.html. Also dont forget this older report which is good back ground as it shows the Rebels have gassed before according to Russia. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/05/russian_report_blames_syrian_rebels_for_earlier_chemical_attack_in_aleppo.html. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A succinct Russian Intelligence section has been added using above refs based on discussion above. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted because your bold addition did not actually contain any information on Russian intelligence. Re your list above, 1 does not appear actionable, 2 may be useful as a sentence of background but is really not very relevant to this article, 3 is just one of innumerable examples of Russia naysaying whatever the "west" claims (to be fair, that activity is 100% mutual), and 4 is relevant to the article but not to a "Russian intelligence" section since it is not related to Russian intelligence. VQuakr (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your revert is unjustified but not unexpected based on your past comments. However I will revert it. Why? Putin is the president. There is no way he would be saying what he says without good intel. Too much is at stake Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. "I didn't provide support, I won't provide support, but I jusk know it is correct!" No. I tagged the disputed section since you did not even attempt to address my concern; what do other editors think? VQuakr (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Im beginning to wonder about you VQuakr. You are saying Putin is acting from a position of ignorance. The President of the Russian Federation is invested with extensive rights to implement the state's foreign policy. The President determines Russia's position in international affairs and represents the state in international relations, conducts negotiations and signs ratification documents. He is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Amoung other things he will

1. Determine the main directions of military policy of the Russian Federation;
2. Enact regulations of war and cease their action, form and abolish executive authorities for a period of war in accordance with federal constitutional law on martial law;

While you revert an edit of Putins clear statements because you VQuakr didnt get to see the reports he saw. Do you think this is a game? That he shoots off at the mouth? This is high stakes VQuakr. If the US strikes civilians will die. I am annoyed at your continuing attempts to maintain the US POV. Any continuing revert is bordering on vandalism. Dont do vandalism or I will escalate. You should be aware the USA has backed down from Putins challenge to present their intelligence. The supposition the US intel would not stand scrutiny is one conclusion and the refusal of the USA to front up merely verifies Russias intelligence assessments Putins words are based on . Any other conclusion is puerile. Im frankly disappointed in you, I took you as having more class Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you could substitute Cameron's or Obama's names with Putin's and get similar results to above. I have no doubt that you would rightfully object if I attempted to use your "he's the president, he must be right" argument. We report what has been verifiably published, not what you think Russia's intel reports must say based on Putin's actions. I disagree with your assessment that the article is biased towards a "US POV" (good luck coming up with a singular POV accurately described by that phrase!), and you make it apparent that you could do with a rereading of WP:VANDNOT. Personal attack noted. VQuakr (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your right about the vandalism label. My apologies. You are doing something else. Ill get the right label for it, when I have time. But your wrong about the main point. Putins verified statements in response to US intelligence reports do fit where I put them, maybe I will tweak the title, maybe not. The title I made had no 'report' in it, same as the German one, different from the UK US Fr ones. So its fine, its not citing an intel report same as the German one its citing articles about it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the word you are looking for "Wikilawyering"? I am trying to be through as a means towards the end of slow but stead progress. I think Putin's responses to other countries' reports should go in the sections on the reports, not in a "Russian intelligence" section. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats not the word. It may be part of the mix. So might obfuscating. Its still too early to tell. No its best where I finally put it, since the bulk of the others are reports, as you were at pains to point out. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? We had a clear distinction between intelligence as Evidence (i.e. evidence derived from intelligence work, like phone intercepts) and Intelligence Reports (various countries' summaries). We now have intelligence reports under the Evidence section, even though they provide no evidence distinct from intelligence or other evidence present in other sections; and an Intelligence Reports section which is the remnants of the mishmash of intelligence reports from before I started splitting them by country. We also have a strange "Russian response to US" section, even though this would most obviously just be a paragraph in the US report section. Surely we can do better than this. Podiaebba (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a point but as the neutrality issue persists the Russian response assuredly needs mentioning to balance that section. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? Do we need to include an American rebuttal every time we publish a claim made by Assad or Putin? Russia's response is and should be in the article, but it does not need to be repeated everywhere. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "repeated everywhere", but it needs to be mentioned. Can we drop the separate section? It looks silly being so short. Podiaebba (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Russian reply to US claims needs to be in because the US claim is so strong and if the USA is wrong again and like Iraq WMD there is fraud in the intel its Iraq all over again and thats significant. So the other view Russia is vital. I put it back where VQuark had it. Not isolated. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

People changing the lede with no discussion

"On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta,the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta, and the U.N. called for a ceasefire." User:‎Sayerslle reverted an edit and insists on saying "the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta" and listed this article as the source. I don't see where the source says anything about "the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta." I propose to delete this statement. It doesn't add anything to the understanding. ""On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta and the U.N. called for a ceasefire." USchick (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

12th para -"Speakers at Friday prayers at each of the mosques had been denouncing the poison gas attack in Syria's Ghouta region, which came as the Syrian military launched a major advance into eastern areas of the capital that it continued to shell on Friday." you don't see anything - that's true - well, that's not true , rather you are one of those people Malcolm Muggeridge spoke about who sees and hears only what they expect, and want, to see and hear - closed minds. Sayerslle (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Relax man! :-) I still don't think it adds anything because "On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta" well, they clashed. Both of them were shooting. USchick (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

your tone is , what the hell, its all the same , but it isn't all the same - so , like tonight again, - "Usual artillery booms in #Damascus but tonight also seen rockets fired with flat trajectory into rebel suburbs. Regime upping tempo of war" - that's 4 hours ago - (I find your asinine smiley symbols btw utterly inappropriate and disgusting) -- shelling rebel held suburbs and a Palestinian refugee camp which rose up against the regime. Sayerslle (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle discuss first, this article has been flagged, The neutrality of this article is disputed. lede edits need discussion and consensus. same warning to Sopher who is worse at it 23:28, Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick said she didnt see something in n article - but it was there - so that was the end of the discussion. I don't think you are in a position to say who is 'worse' because people don't all think the same - I regard your edits as amongst the 'worst' I've seen on the Syrian civil war , and your contributions utterly useless. its all subjective. Sayerslle (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, this is not a news article. It seems like you're way too close to the subject matter to edit objectively. If I read the lede and don't understand something, that means you didn't explain it well enough for someone who comes to read the article and is not following the story play by play, about who fired the last round. Any changes in the lede need to be discussed. Ok? Thanks! USchick (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I will admit this confuses me a bit. Are you saying that this should be an encyclopedia article about a recent event rather than reading like a news item? VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle Please refrain from being uncivil. Look up the protocols. Thank you. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Civility is not synonymous with uncritical reading of other editors contributions, very stupid to think they are synonymous, - the 'protocols' do mention npov I believe, but all you seem to do is push a pov, and you don't pass the test of a writer it is difficult to discern whose side he is on -Russian regime pov is just one pov, not the whole story obviously, and putin locks up pussy riot, so you know, its a tyrant pov he has, and it is a news article really uschick, what else can it be at the moment? Sayerslle (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be finally getting the point. If all sides are represented and its worded thus, its possible to be NPOV. When neutrality is absent because one side is getting too much space its POV. You have been resisting the adjustment in the article to NPOV status as the US POV is compromised in the media and refs become available. Then I read your pussy riot views. Oh dear do you have to drag that in here? What to say about pussy riot? Was it a psy op? I didnt raise this and the allegation Putin is a tyrant and anything I say further is off topic sadly. You are here as an editor and what you say says more about you and why you dont like non US views esp from Russia. Geo politics is deep involved and complex with many layers of false facades. I dont think I can help you son, its a steep learning curve to get above the US 101 'Putin is a tyrant, Russia is evil' mindset. Still: Very few can do this, but: If you can go to a totally fresh empty mindset, lose all previous beliefs bias etc, have no preconceptions at all and employ critical thinking and research, on everything, everything knowing there are reams of lies to filter out. Then you may get a totally different view on the US and Russia and the vast high stakes game that is the Syrian conflict. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No dont hide this, it appears solved but appearances cant be misleading. It is a discussion that relates directly to the tag on this article re neutrality. Due to time differences it will not have been read by all. Attempts to hide it are premature and of dubious benefit indeed will only perpetuate the Non POV problem. Do not obfuscate these matters with a hide, its coming across to me as a tactic and could be interpreted as disingenuous. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what specific improvements to the article do you want to discuss here? VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page thread which is attempting to create the atmosphere whereby editors can discuss NPOV edits and enact them. It is a precursor to such a positive result that any blockages like this 'Putin is a tyrant = all Russian input is bad' be laid bare and rejected. Thus its value lies in being widely read as a salient point on that which disturbs good NPOV writing. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not what the talk page is for. Please review WP:TPG and WP:SOAP. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I already know where it is, please review yourself. WP:TPG Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion. Keep that in mind maybe Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you finally read it. Now, in the interest of following the section you just quoted, what specific improvements to the article do you with to discuss in this section? VQuakr (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you may be acting in a passive aggressive manner? I mean 'Glad to hear you finally read it.' cmon srsly ! I didnt start this thread, BTW I merely replied, the fifth post then the ninth I think before you came in. Read the title, I cant see a proposal or specific improvement can you? I believe it started as an attempt to stop an edit war over shelling Ghouta refs, which if that was it, worked. Quite legitimate. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My specific request from the beginning was to point out that changes are being made to the lede without any discussion and for someone to explain the need for this statement "the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta" in the lede. The entire sentence is "On 23 August government and rebel forces clashed in Ghouta,the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta, and the U.N. called for a ceasefire." USchick (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The continued shelling (along with, of course the fact that it is a combat zone in general) has been identified as a factor that made investigation of the chem attack allegations more difficult. Multiple sources have claimed that Syria increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence. So, in the lede we have a balanced sentence that mentions the Syrian shelling but puts it in the context of the fact that there is a war on, and go into the specific contentious claims later in the article. It seems reasonable to me since the lede is meant to summarize. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr Where are the multiple claims, not from rebel sources, that Syria (specifically) increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence. Not conjecture, but specific claims from NPOV sources that exclude other reasons for the increased shelling if it occurred. I have been involved in a GA review and according to the senior editor the lead is for a summing up of parts the articlc. Its not therefore the place to attempt to sway the POV from get go. The lead is not the place to create a case. Thats done in the body. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if you subscribe to wacky conspiracy theories, I have to say that personally I think the context that Ghouta was under attack by the government before, during, and especially after (when shelling could have corrupted or destroyed evidence of a chemical attack) the sarin gas attacks is very important to understanding this event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again. Where are the multiple claims with reliable refs, not from rebel sources, that Syria (specifically) increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence. Not conjecture, but specific claims from NPOV sources that exclude other reasons for the increased shelling if it occurred. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

it was under attack before, during , after - "The regime has been throwing everything he has at the Ghouta, but it remained a thorn in its side." a Middle East based diplomat said.- huffington post - the general picture is clear from RS, multiple sources depict this general scenario - Sayerslle (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats a weak ref, - . It quotes ' a Middle East based diplomat said'. Who? . It says, 'diplomats and rebels interviewed by Reuters'. Who? Later a name crops up, 'said Moaz al-Shami, a prominent activist who witnessed fighting in Ghouta'. A rebel !!!! And this POV nonsense, 'To the West, in Mouadamiya, activists said at least 80 people were killed when the district was hit with nerve gas an hour after the attack on Irbin, Ain Tarma and Jobar' This is POV hearsay. Not good enough, please edit out the POV> Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

'The Syrian news agency, Sana, said the operation carried out in the early hours of Thursday was the largest launched since the civil war began. It said it aimed to clear the east of the capital and then pave the way for a push towards the Jordanian border, which remains bitterly contested by both sides.' - what are you denying anyhow? that there were any attacks at all? what are you asserting? that it all went quiet on Thursday and Friday? Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Read more carefully. I am denying reliable refs exist to back up this blatant POV claim by VQuakr who did not reply could not reply? 'Multiple sources have claimed that Syria increased the intensity of the shelling in an effort to destroy evidence.' BTW why not reply about your awful Huff post ref? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Really Blade, you couldn't just look this up yourself? Delay in allowing the UN inspectors access to the scene of the attacks, and heavy shelling before they were able to get there, appeared designed to destroy evidence. - here. You could also try here, here, here, here, and here. Of course, Blade as near as I can tell you only consider Russian state-controlled media reliable, though of course here I just said "multiple sources" so that should not be a factor in your response. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Secretary Kerry seems to have been sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number of deaths

Figure in article needs explanation re this. "Secretary Kerry seems to have been sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number," said Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the U.S. Defense Department.

Now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he writes on the CSIS website, "Put simply, there is no way in hell the U.S. intelligence community could credibly have made an estimate this exact."

Britain's Joint Intelligence Organization, meanwhile, says at least 350 people were killed. It does not say how the figure was determined. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/world/syria-us-evidence-chemical-weapons-attack/index.html. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the Kerry's (and by extension the USA's) casualty number is over precise. Casualty estimates by all sides in all wars have been classically inaccurate, but Kerry's estimate has drawn criticism essentially from all quarters. I am actually surprised that we do not already mention this, either here or at International reactions to the 2013 Ghouta attacks. Am I missing it somewhere? VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Kerrys numbers seem odd. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As I already noted in a previous section: Reuters has Exclusive: U.S. total of Syrian gas deaths could include bomb casualties - sources. Arguing about the total deaths seems a bit distasteful though; no-one seems to dispute that it's quite enough to get upset about. Podiaebba (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

undue amount of space given to fringe verbiage

the UN report said the attacks went in south south east direction from Qasioun?, regime territory , so in view of that shouldn't the US right wing fringe politicos assertions be done away with - they are undue prominent, the lunatic-al view of marginal figures , held for political convenience, pushed by their epigones here, to no good purpose for the article. Sayerslle (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle the rhetoric is not helping anyone. The UN report was careful not to assign blame to a party but stick to the objective facts. This means that analysis is needed to determine where the rockets probably came from, and that analysis needs to be published by others before we can use it per WP:SYN. Such analysis is probably already available from a variety of sources, though. Theories about underground weapons accidentally releasing in rebel territory appear to be contradicted by the UN report; does anyone disagree? VQuakr (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

accidental release is certainly contradicted, yes. Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The presence of stabilizers in the sarin analyzed and the manufactured nature of the rockets used for delivery rules out "home grown" manufacture of the sarin and delivery system as well. Furthermore, the use of multiple weapons systems makes the accidental use by Syria scenario less plausible - it would have required multiple, simultaneous mixups. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think some of that is in the Appendices? They wouldn't load for me, perhaps you or someone else could add those details. Podiaebba (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I gather you're annoyed, but still this, linking "fringe" to WP:FRINGE and "ridiculous" to WP:NPOV in the article, is quite going off the deep end. Can we talk about this? Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want to provide a link to policy in-article for a section that you believe violates policy, use the appropriate in-article tag. We do not Wikilink to our meta-content in the article text. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

rhetoric isn't helping, but overloading the article with fringe verbiage is? none of this stuff is ever discussed on channel 4 news or BBC News, except glancingly to mention briefly that putin blames the rebels, - its undue weight, makes the article look like a fringe theory home. Sayerslle (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There will no doubt need to be some changes based on today's UN report and the resulting published reactions and analysis. But there is no deadline, and making other editors feel steamrolled or violating our stylistic norms to make a point is not going to help. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there need to be changes based on the report, and we should really focus on those changes that need to be made, and leave other things that might be changed for later. I've started a UN Report subsection. A description of the report is an obvious place to start! Podiaebba (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not as far as I know a wikipedia article solely for the US /UK English speaking nations. But one could be excused for thinking that. This from Sayersville is disturbing. ' none of this stuff is ever discussed on channel 4 news or BBC News,'. The so called verbiage is actually in part the attempt to get NPOV 'in' the article in what is a continual struggle against the view held by some editors that the thrust of the article must reflect what they see on the news. sadly UK / USA TV newspaper western news is often strong POV. example. Russia, at the same time, said that the report is “very technical” and did not contain exact details or conclusions that would indicate the Assad regime was involved in the attack. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

did not contain exact details or conclusions that would indicate the Assad regime was involved in the attack. - other than the "military-grade" sarin with chemical stabilisers, the rocket types the opposition isn't known to have, and rocket trajectories from areas controlled by the government? Russia's response to the report may be significant, but we need to know exactly what they say after some time to digest it, since very early reactions and paraphrasing may be misleading. Podiaebba (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are the Russian opinion given so much weight

Why do we have this paragraph:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said ‘US intelligence on the Syrian gas attack is 'unconvincing'. He went on to say, ‘What we were shown before and what our American, British and French colleagues sent us more recently absolutely does not convince us’. Russian President Vladimir Putin insists there's no proof, and added, he wants to see evidence that would make the determination ‘obvious’.

For a rebuttal this is just plain weak. We don't need to counter everything a Westerner says with a Russian saying "oh, I don't believe you". That doesn't add balance or anything useful a person could analyze. Even in the Russian opinion of the ROKS Cheonan sinking where they basically blames the South Korean's for sinking there own ship, and they ignore the blatant evidence of an exploded North Korea torpedo, it has more substance than this paragraph. Have the Russian been correct on so many issues that their pure opinion is encyclopedic? --MarsRover (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is discussed in a section above (#Citing all relevant reports and preventing an omission); but it's from before the UN report, so things need updating anyway, once Russia responds to that. Podiaebba (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As to your general question: Russia is Syria's key ally, so whatever they claim to think matters, even if it's something silly. Podiaebba (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

even after the UN report has been delivered ;"Russia argued that the western powers had "jumped to conclusions" and said claims of rebel use against their own supporters to provoke foreign intervention "should not be shrugged off". " ! no-one could argue they have proved honest or reliable for decades I don't think - eastern Europe was treated disgracefully for decades, show trials, invasions, repression, - katyn was denied for years even, - its a cynical, degenerate political culture - but its views have to be mentioned of course.- I agree with what I read on Louis proyects blog - what is going on inside Syria should be the focus. - The article should try and keep its focus not on 'the great game' aspects, the side of the war Robert fisk and patrick Cockburn focus obseesively on, so that it becomes all about Russia and the US, but should focus on the attacks for what happened within Syria, what is known of what happened, the UN report section just started, - these should increase in size imo, - the opinions of KGB trained mindsetputin, lavrov, both soviet-era appartchicks, , their pre-determined positions, these should decrease. Sayerslle (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia's opinion is given much less prominence than the US's - which is as it should be since Russia hasn't provided any coherent position document that can be analysed, whereas the US has. Podiaebba (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It adds a phony balance to include even what you have. What evidence are the Russians providing? (answer: nothing) As for the UN report, I hope with the now obvious fact that it was Sarin gas and the Syrian government admittance of having stock piles of Sarin gas, we can remove a lot of obvious incorrect tone and weighting. Sarin needs to be in the lede sentence. Any text saying the rebels did this to themselves really need to be only included with actual evidence. (eg. did the rebels break in and steal the Sarin from the government then launch the rockets at themselves?) The burden of proof has shifted in my opinion. As for the Russian opinion, just for utility value, I would only include it if there were some ramifications. Have the Russian vetoed anything yet at that particular time they said those opinions? --MarsRover (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle Re Russia you say, 'no-one could argue they have proved honest or reliable for decades I don't think'. How POV I could say the same thing about the USA and find good refs. NSA / Iraq / Contra / Central America in general and on and on. Stay with NPOV please. Re UN latest report, the report does not say who those surface-to-surface rockets belonged to – rebels or government forces. Its not a fact if the US is convinced Assad did it. They were also convinced about Iraqs WMD. Look at Iraq today. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The UN report identified the launch azimuth, and third parties have plotted those azimuths back to Syrian territory. Yes, both Russia and the US have lied at times, and neither lies all the time. VQuakr (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses Blog provides some background on the munitions which suggests they belonged to the government. I'm not sure what the UN report says as the Appendices didn't load for me yesterday and my time is now limited. Podiaebba (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. This article has become an example of the worst sort of WP:VALID. Every single evidence-based assertion by first the Syrian opposition, then the West, and now the UN doesn't need to be "balanced" by the Russians or Syrians saying "nuh-uh!" Unfortunately, the loyal cadre of pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin editors here insists on dutifully adding to the article every time a Russian or Syrian official reiterates their government's insistence that the attack was caused by malicious gremlins or whatever conspiracy-minded excuse they're peddling this week. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

the loyal cadre of pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin editors - these sorts of comments are extremely unnecessary. Is there any reason to describe people who believed the official US narrative from day one despite lack of published evidence as "loyal pro-Free Syrian Army/Syrian Liberation Front/Al Nusra/etc and pro-White House"?? Stop it. We now have the UN report - this is not vindication for those who were ready to believe poorly-evidenced US claims, it's an opportunity to move forward and improve the article. Podiaebba (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about you. I was referring to several other editors who have been active on a number of Syrian civil war articles consistently working to slant content in favor of the Syrian government and/or to discredit the Syrian opposition (which it's becoming increasingly apparent makes for a grotesquely oversimplified "umbrella term"). I think most editors who have been active on this page and others relating to this ongoing conflict are doing so in good faith; I think a minority (on both sides of the issue, but particularly in support of Assad) have not been doing so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Attack was almost certainly performed by Syria

Secondary sources have now had time to review the UN's report, which contains much more detailed information than had previously been released to the public. Many sources mirror the analyses of the report stated here and here, that this was almost certainly an intentional chemical attack by the Syrian military. The key pieces of information include:

• Rocket trajectories originating from Syrian-controlled territory, specifically one Syrian military base associated with chemical weapons
• Use of large quantities of military-grade sarin
• Use of 140mm BM-14 and 330mm rockets, which are launched from bulky, vulnerable launchers and not associated with rebel forces.

I think this summary needs to be in the article, and the viewpoint of the article should present this as the mainstream POV, with the Russian/Iranian/Syrian version mentioned as a minor viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree for the reasons you stated. As more facts surrounding this incident are reported, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the mainstream perspective here, supported by the preponderance of available evidence, is that the Syrian government fired several rockets containing sarin gas into populated areas controlled or contested by rebel fighters, causing several hundred civilian deaths. This article far more than adequately presents the minority point of view that is skeptical of the official (UN-endorsed) version of events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the totality of evidence available from the UN and other sources needs to be brought together; as I said repeatedly before it came, the UN report changes everything. It would also be good to watch out for comments from some of the US commentators who suggested "false flag" possibilities (eg Ron/Rand Paul) as they might well change their minds now. To some extent, the entire article needs rewriting around the UN report. Podiaebba (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree that the UN report need to be the core of the article. A lot of opinion that contradicts without proof that report just needs to be purged. --MarsRover (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a swag at improving the UN report section and added a sentence to the lede. I think the "intelligence reports" sections should be pared down into a single section of two or three paragraphs, and the underinformed hypothesizing from both sides of the issue over the last few weeks should be reduced even more. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for developing the UN report section. I'm reluctant to simply lose pre-report content though - not least because it may lead to a lot of argument about what to lose and what to keep. Would it be possible to dump a lot of the suddenly-less-relevant early stuff into a separate article, like Early reports on the 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks? That would have the advantage of rapidly getting the content out of this article without deleting it, and making it easier to achieve a brief summary of it (subarticles help with that, I find). Podiaebba (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I support not dumping all previous information. The report does not claim who is responsible, so any information related to responsibility needs to stay. USchick (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

dis/misinformation you mean - still, you should be very happy "the affair has proved to be largely a sideshow in a conflict in which conventional weapons have killed and maimed vastly more people, and continue to do so. In one sense, Assad has gained the tacit go-ahead to prosecute the war, so long as he eschews nerve gas. In the wake of this dubious deal, the high tide of pressure for direct western action peaked, then subsided.' Sayerslle (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

tacit go-ahead to prosecute the war, so long as he eschews nerve gas - that was always the (official) political and legal position. People all around the world have been and are being killed by conventional warfare, and mostly nobody does anything about it except write reports. Arms Trade Treaty, anyone? Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's not get personal. But stuff like this is the first paragraph The Syrian government and rebels have blamed each other for the attacks. is just plain misleading. It's as if we have no information to figure it out. Or we have equal information each could be responsible. In reality we do have a ton of information that only Syrian government could only be responsible. --MarsRover (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that needs updating. Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not like this idea per WP:POVFORK. Either the information is germane to the Ghouta attacks, or it is not. I also disagree with USChick - clearly outdated information need not be kept. VQuakr (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It needn't be a POVfork, and it would be helpful for restructuring. If long-term it becomes a POVfork, it can be dumped then having served its purpose. Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If its function is just for convenience since navigating the history can be clunky, it should be saved in either the Talk: or User: space rather than article space. I have no objection to someone doing this if they find it useful. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A talk/user copy still forces a discussion now about what is kept in the article. A substantial part of the point is avoiding that, because deletion is avoided. Efforts are better spent elsewhere right now, and over time it'll become easier to delete and/or summarise those things. Podiaebba (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Better to just keep them in the article then, and address them individually and remove methodically. We are not under any mandate to react to news instantaneously. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that outdated information should be removed. However, BOTH sides are still blaming each other. To suggest that I should be happy about an attack is very mean and uncalled for. Considering that the US is the largest manufacturer of chemical weapons, you better check the label on those rockets Sayerslle. USchick (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant happy about the misinformation/disinformation campaign in creating a miasma.Sayerslle (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, it was Britain. USchick (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The US does not manufacture chemical weapons, has signed the chemical weapons convention, and has nearly completed destruction of its legacy stocks. The 140mm rockets used in Ghouta were Russian. So far, the Russians and Syrians still blame the rebels but are notably short on backup for this claim - we do not need to provide equal coverage to their unsupported and minority viewpoint. Agree that it was uncalled for to imply anyone here was happy about this event. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sodim Flouride is in your toothpaste. The fact that Britian sold it in industrial quantitites to Syria may indeed be inexcusable, but you seem to be under the impression that this is somehow evidence that the Assad regime is not responsible for its chemical attacks? I would still personally assign criminal blame to the people who manufactured CW, and those that then used it in combat in areas populated with civilians. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Quite simply, you need fluoride to make sarin." We wouldn't have so many terrorists if our government(s) didn't create them. USchick (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flouride salts are common chemicals with very, very broad legitimate usages. There are multiple synthesis pathways to manufacture sarin from other flouride compounds, making regulation of precursor chemicals a great challenge for the UN and related regulatory bodies. Are you now referring to the Assad regime (who was the ultimate recipient of these particular chemicals) as terrorist? What exactly is your point here and how does it relate to this article? VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I already made my point. Both sides are still blaming eachother. Do you have a reference for your comment that those are Russian rockets? USchick (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is already cited above and in the article. The 140mm rockets are BM-14's. Both sides are blaming each other, but that does not mean that their opinions are equally credible. VQuakr (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The ones that "can be fitted" with chemical agents? Don't forget to cite where the chemical agents came from. The other 330mm rockets "have been used rarely, and always by government forces." Any one familiar with these? USchick (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite where the chemical agents came from. A Syrian-run manufacturing facility? Analysts have noted that the sarin used was of a military quality, implying its origin is manufacture by the Syrian government. What is your point here? The 330mm rockets had been noticed pre-Ghouta by some bloggers; the consensus seems to be that they are manufactured in Syria. I have not seen any particularly good sources discussing them in detail. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. USchick (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Rebels have such rockets and you dont need bulky launchers for them, you can actually launch them from your backyard or roof.( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZaJZOD2ZmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30VCUNoqEc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb8QI8Giwpg ).they captured many military bases, and hardware so military grade sarin means nothing.(here for example a scud facility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntOBy56tYU where are scuds there are cw. or they could have it from the captured chlorine factory on the outskirts of Aleppo) 95.223.49.193 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The UN report trumps this WP:OR. These are not even the same weapons as was positively identified. --MarsRover (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

and 'hard to explain how they managed to carry out the operation from several points inside regime territory'. Sayerslle (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

it is a fact that rebels use tunnels for weapon smuggling in Damascus, so smuggling rockets into the city is no problem for them(hamas is doing that for years).Setting up in a backyard and firing will take one minute, where is the problem? 95.223.49.193 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source states that it is plausible that the rebels tunneled several kilometers into Syrian territory and launched chemical rockets on themselves from possibly the most heavily fortified position in Syria, that may be worth including in the article. Multiple sources state that 140mm and 330mm rockets are not weapons the rebels are known to have used. We are not using youtube as a source here; please review WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

1)It is a speculation just like the theory that it is impossible to launch a rocket from government controlled territory(and they have the tunnels ) 2) they are they are either wrong or lying ,

"The Free Syrian Army - as well as the Al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and other groups - have also been using increasingly potent captured artillery."from 95.223.49.193 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Im in the Southern hemisphere so time differences mean, well lots go on while I sleep. But there are no reliable refs for NPOV objective evidence Syria 'did it'. Its opinion and conjecture, essentially more of the same POV (more later things to do) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could share what you would, hypothetically, personally accept as convincing, reliable evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the Ghouta attacks? I think very few neutral observers could possibly agree that there is no evidence or reliable references documenting that evidence. VQuakr (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

that's an invitation to a load more 'opinion and conjecture' -you might as well ask a Japanese Nationalist what it would take for him to accept the nanking massacre. only RS should be brought forth as a basis for discussion imo. What RS body forth, explain, the basis in the known world of reality, the Russian/regime/infowars.com/fansofodehmuhaweshmintopress hypothesis?Sayerslle (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr there is NO clear objective evidence who did it. Until there is (maybe never) we put all options on the table in NPOV style. This sums it up for me. '"We want the events of the 21st of August to be impartially, objectively, professionally investigated," Mr Lavrov said.' http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/russia-and-france-clash-chemical-weapons-blame/4964360. For what is worth to me its clear the rebels had everything to gain by framing Assad so the West attacked Assad. Game over for Assad. Thats powerful Motivation esp as they are losing lately. Assad had very weak short term gains if he did it and mid term long term a huge loss, game over in fact. Plus Syria would know that so it makes no sense Assad did it. So I think in time hopefully the truth will emerge based only on the motivation factor. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You quote Mr. Lavrov who regularly spouts opinion with zero evidence. And you give us your opinion the rebels gassed their own families with zero evidence. Yet we have the unbiased UN report that plain as day points to the government and you think we have NO evidence. You do seem a bit biased to be editing this article. --MarsRover (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

MarsRover Please follow the thread. I was asked by VQuakr this. 'Perhaps you could share what you would, hypothetically, personally accept as convincing.' I replied. Two other things you mentioned. 1/ Can you please supply the refs where the rebels own families were gassed at Ghouta. Which rebels and the breakdown of the dead into pro neutral and anti Govt. Thank you. 2/ Perhaps I read the wrong report. Can you show me the part, the hard evidence, where as you say 'UN report that plain as day points to the government'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Blade, Lavrov's response today is certainly relevant to the topic, and indeed included in the article. But it is, following a pattern consistent with the Russian response, a flat out denial without any explanation as to why the Russians would not interpret this as a Syrian attack - not evidence. You mention that you do not believe Syria had adequate motive to execute this attack, which particularly in hindsight seems to be the case. But a motive is not evidence of guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, as noted and cited in this section and in the article we have a plethora of reliable sources (if you believe the New York Times is not reliable please take it to WP:RSN and see what response you get) indicating that the information in the UN report points squarely at Syria (in the case of rocket trajectories, literally!). Making obviously false statements such as "there is NO clear objective evidence who did it" is unproductive could be interpreted as intentionally obstructive behavior worthy of a topic ban. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

a motive is not evidence of guilt or innocence - sure it is; presence or lack of motive is often a part of legal cases. It's not proof, but evidence of motive is often evidence of guilt, where motive is in dispute. Podiaebba (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Still not the same thing as evidence. Of course this is not a court of law, but even so a motive is an investigative tool to provide clues as to where to look for evidence. Lack of motive can never prove innocence, and even a very strong motive can never prove guilt. VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The HRW assertion that the insurgents did not have 140mm BM-14 rocket launchers is a mistake which went viral, and I know the organization was challenged on the error by journalists who relied upon the briefing (which came with a graphic). I know YouTube may not be the best but this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRH9nQFSda8 is a video of a BM-14 being used by persons other than the regime's forces. The insurgents have captured dozens of 140mm BM-14 launchers, they are very cheap and are ubiquitous in this conflict. I have one email from one of the major newspapers involved, to HRW querying the error. The HRW assertion in relation to 140mm launchers only being in the hands of the regime's forces was a mistake. It is one of the key reasons the Russians are able to maintain their present position. Tazia2890 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The video you linked is a smaller system than a BM-14 - among other things, it has the wrong number of launch tubes. I think it is a 107mm system but I am not sure. In any case, we would need publication in reliable sources that HRW was incorrect in their assessment before we could modify the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any BM-14 mentions that are relevant. The nearest thing is the Taliban having used BM-14s. . Podiaebba (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

and "Russian sources also state that these missiles are still being used by the Afghanistan, Yemeni, and Egyptian armies, all nations where al Qaeda or terrorists groups linked to al Qaeda are active" . Podiaebba (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

and Channel 4 News lists some rocket launchers used by Syrian opposition, including the more sophisticated BM-21s. Podiaebba (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Type 63, yes, I think you are right. Any reliable reports for the regime driving around or using the 140mm launchers? Being a former owner of an antique rocket system, it is not quite the same thing. The insurgents must have every type of looted inventory. Tazia2890 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013-09-18

The request to rename this article to Ghouta chemical attack has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Ghouta chemical attacks → Ghouta chemical attack – In several places, the article refers to this as a single event:

" a chemical weapons rocket bombardment that occurred on Wednesday, 21 August 2013. The event took place over a short span of time the incident The attack the incident "

Much as the firing of multiple shells in a battle does not turn it into battles, and one person shooting another with multiple bullets would not be called shootings, this could accurately be described as one event. —rybec 00:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• No objection to proposed move per below. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• No objection Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Whatever. Singular is probably more accurate. Podiaebba (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Meh. I've argued in favor of the plural, as I think the attacks on multiple sites throughout a fairly diffuse area from different launch sites (per azimuth analysis) are, well, attacks. One thing I would suggest before executing yet another article move (would be the third this week, I believe) is determining if there is a WP:COMMON mode of reference -- whether most RS tend to use the plural or the singular. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• No objection. yeah slight improvement. Let me know when we can change "chemical" to "sarin" and I'll get more excited. --MarsRover (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we don't do that now. The UN has confirmed sarin use and no-one disputes it anymore AFAIK. Better sort it now than have another move discussion in a few days. Podiaebba (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

As nominator for the previous recently closed move, I have no objection to this proposed title. Both options seem technically correct and adequately descriptive of the incident. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

oh yes please, let's spend more time talking about renaming the article. rolls eyes. Podiaebba (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is very helpful. VQuakr (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I did immediately after support(ish) the proposal. I just find this such a low priority, I'm annoyed it's taking up discussion bandwidth (as was clear, I guess). And we're now talking about my annoyance! Well done, me. Podiaebba (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• In response to Kudzu1's comment in the survey, about WP:COMMONNAME, I did a Google News search for "ghouta", glanced at the stories that came up on the first page of results, and found nearly an even split:

• singular
• both singular and plural
• plural
• different story in same source, plural
• second IBTimes story, also singular
• third IBTimes story, also singular
• fourth IBTimes story, also singular
• "massacre"
• "attack", "crimes" and "violation"
• singular
• singular
• related story has plural in headline
• related story has singular in headline
• plural
• plural
• plural
• singular
• singular —rybec 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. Well, I'm not going to kick and scream if folks want to move the article, but my tendency is to say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

'Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra in Syria may have significant amounts of sarin'

The US military have reportedly proved that sarin gas production is going on among some Sunni salafists in Iraq, and via Turkey, can reach Syrian rebels, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT, citing classified sources. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-rebels-have-sarin-980/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is not a reliable source, and Michael Maloof is not notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

says who? RT is ok for facts just like the NYTs which has its own bias. Check the reliable ref criteria. If you want to go on about notable then be thorough beause some of the pro USA POV refs are using names very un notable, like 'a diplomat' or this beauty 'rebel sources'. -Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is absolutely, unambiguously considered less reliable than the NYT. This has been reviewed on the RSN. For example:

• Thus, it seems to me that this source has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. No source is banned from Misplaced Pages (well, aside from spam sites), but I would approach this source with extreme caution. I would tend to think that this source falls under WP:RS#Questionable_sources.
• There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera...

Adding the context that Russia has a great deal invested in defending Assad's regime makes it clear that RT cannot be taken seriously for claims of fact in Syrian civil war-related issues. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a better article on what BotS mentioned since the RT one was a QnA session basically. Why would a reporter need to be notable to be cited? That makes absolutely no sense. — -dainomite   05:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He is not a reporter, he is the one presenting his opinion which means his opinion is only worth including if he is particularly significant. He is also somewhat infamous for misrepresenting his credentials. In the RT.com article he was presented as an "interviewee." WND.com is also wildly unreliable - I know them for their persistent Obama birther views. There are a number of RSN archives like this that document reviews of their reliability. VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen/used wnd before finding that article but if I see that same story on CNN/FOX/MSNBC in the near future will that article be a RS all of a sudden because it would be CNN/FOX/MSNBC publishing it? Just curious, — -dainomite   06:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'a reporter need to be notable to be cited?' Translation. This is becoming uncomfortable for the US POV.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/syrian-rebels-have-sarin-gas-official-1.1578968

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z201305

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=102_1379447013&comments=1

Del Ponte told a Swiss-Italian TV station, “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report … which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.” Del Ponte added, “This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.” http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=61410Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your trying to prove with all these links. But Maloof was fired by the government 10 years ago or more. And he works for a dodgy online newspaper. So, in his case he's is not a super reliable source. Why do we need this in the article? Also, the UN report says it was high quality sarin used in the attacks and not some home brew stuff. --MarsRover (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not uncomfortable. Just irritating that you and a handful of others insist on a phony "balance" because you just can't believe that good old Bashar al-Assad would gas his own people (after months and years of simply killing them via conventional means). As I said above, it's WP:VALID abuse. Maloof is not remotely credible, Del Ponte is well known as someone who shoots from the hip and makes wild allegations, RT and WND are uproariously unreliable sources, etc. There is simply no actual, credible evidence that clearly disputes the UN report and the preponderance of claims in U.S., UK, French, German, and Turkish intelligence reports. If the Russians have such evidence, it's incumbent upon them to present it; at some point, simply calling the international community's conclusions "baseless" and insisting that there's no proof the rebels didn't do it isn't notable enough to merit inclusion. This article makes the unwavering Russian position, which has been echoed by some fringe commentators in the U.S. and elsewhere, quite clear. But it's half past time for you to accept that the consensus view on this incident is 1) the consensus view and 2) in light of the evidence, most likely accurate. And if you can't bring yourself to accept that, nor can you bring yourself to contribute in such a way that you acknowledge the facts of the matter -- which isn't to say that you having your own opinion/perspective on this conflict is improper or unwelcome! -- maybe you should think about pulling back from editing on a subject about which you have such obvious and irremovable biases. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The disbelief about Assad using CW in Ghouta was quite prominent in a number of sources, because of the UN inspectors on the ground and the existing "red line" threat. Don't pretend it's because people reckon Assad is too nice, it's strategic calculation that causes the disbelief. Also, on evidence, prior to the UN report there were a number of mainstream reports about how weak the public and classified evidence was, and while the UN report massively shifts the balance of probabilities, it's not entirely definitive as to culpability either; it's strong circumstantial evidence. As to Russia engaging with evidence: disappointing, but then the US/UK never explained why they dismissed the Russian report into the Khan al-Assal attack either. Podiaebba (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup my point also, there is no clear cut proof Assad did it. The UN report is not definitive. Motive and consequence clearly favours the rebels doing it. The links above show circumstantial evidence the rebels may have done it at Ghouta, like this ] Blade-of-the-South 03:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Maloof in the RT story seems to still think the Adana (Turkey) al-Nusra arrest in May involved actual sarin, but Turkish prosecutors now allege the al-Nusra-linked militants were trying to obtain ingredients for it. Not keeping up with that doesn't inspire confidence. Anyway, what about a separate article about Syrian opposition attempts to obtain chemical weapons (Syrian opposition and chemical weapons? Al Qaeda and chemical weapons?)? It would be easier to discuss that without the constant "well does that prove anything about the Ghouta attack" looming over it; and the basic topic is legitimate since eg the UK's JIC has conceded that some of the Syrian opposition are trying to get CW. Podiaebba (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a section in Al-Nusra Front on chem weapons that could be one candidate for expansion. The Syrian opposition is so fragmented that it is not particularly meaningful to refer to say that "the opposition" is acquiring something. VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Military-grade sarin

Right now it says in the article Third party analysis of the evidence reported by the UN showed that the sarin gas was military grade; but neither of the references used back that up. The NYT sources cites US/UK ambassadors saying Sellstrom told the UN the sarin was "high quality"; the other source doesn't address the issue. I've seen elsewhere (ref lost now) claims that the sarin included the chemical stabilisers permitting long-term storage. I can't find either of these issues (quality or stabilisers) mentioned in the UN report. This is unsatisfactory. Podiaebba (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The stabilizers are listed in the "other interesting chemicals" column of the last appendix of the UN report (lab reports). "This was not a chemical attack cooked up by opposition forces in some underground kitchen. It was a sophisticated attack involving military-grade sarin". Also , . VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The stabilizers are listed in the "other interesting chemicals" column of the last appendix of the UN report (lab reports). - I thought those were byproducts or the result of decomposition. Which of the chemicals named in the lab reports are stabilisers? If the report explains that I missed it. Podiaebba (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are three columns in appendix 7 per lab. CW Agent (for reporting actual CW molecules detected), Degredation Products, and Other Interesting Chemical. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, yes, but which of the identified "other interesting chemical" is a stabiliser? Podiaebba (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Per the UN report, "other relevant chemicals, such as stabilizers, are indicated and discussed in Appendix 7." However, looking down the list I do not see anything that jumps out at me as a chemical stabilizer. Published analysis by a specialist chemist would be good here since I am by no means an expert and WP:OR, but I have not seen any rigorous third party coverage of this that analyzes the results to the level of detail of "chemical 23 is a stabilizer. It is commonly associated with weapons manufactured by country x..." which of course would be a great source. More analysis may come out later; until then we have stuff like this which can be included but is not as authoritative. I do see an RDX precursor in the list, which is interesting because RDX is not that common in military rockets, and its presence has been cited by Russia as evidence that the Khan al-Assal chemical attack was the work of rebels. Sources such as Brown Moses, however, that blame Khan al Assal on Syria believe that the attack was with the same 330mm rocket that was used in Ghouta. If the 330mm Syrian rocket does use RDX as a bursting charge, it could mean that the Russians accidentally implicated Syria in another attack as well. Could be good info for both articles if reliable sources pick up the link. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This is from the ref you supplied. 'Their mandate does not allow them to say who was responsible for the deadly barrage. But if you read between the lines, it isn't difficult to figure it out.' Oh OK read between the lines huh. wink wink. Peter Bouckaert, makes the conclusions in the first two refs. Is he a qualified military man? No. Hes in a human watch group making up theories. Lets talk to the scientists. Read on

Again no one can tell who made it.' Military grade sarin, for instance, would not contain chemical byproducts likely to be present in sarin made through other recipes. And traces of the impurities in home-brewed sarin would be detectable in soil. But different recipes for the home-brewed version will yield different byproducts, and investigators may have no way of knowing which ones to seek. Even if the byproducts were known, detectives would need to know the normal levels of those compounds in the soil to determine whether the amounts are elevated.

Likewise, examining tissues from victims would provide little help. Sarin kills by interfering with the action of a nervous system chemical in a way that ends up overstimulating muscles and paralyzing those around the lungs, impeding breathing. Physicians can detect signs of sarin in the tissues and in urine. Indeed, Secretary Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, "We have now learned that the hair and blood samples from first responders in east Damascus has tested positive for signatures of sarin." But investigators cannot discern the telltale impurities of the home-made nerve agent.

Military-grade sarin theory to determine who did it. FAIL. Case closed. Strong POV refs removed and replaced POV quote (Third party analysis of etc) with NPOV facts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-made-the-sarinBlade-of-the-South (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Scientific American article was published prior to the UN report, so it is clear the author is speaking in hypotheticals. I do not think anyone is claiming that the provenance of the sarin can be determined from tissue samples taken from the victims - we are talking about direct swabs of chemical from the weapons parts and soil samples. The UN took soil samples in the rocket impact sites and far away, so the SA author's concerns about background levels of chemicals in the soil has been addressed. The UN report is careful to stay neutral, but we of course are going to use expert analysis of the report and report their conclusions. FYI, adding FAIL to your reply does not make you more credible, and your conclusion that this SA article disproves or even conflicts with the reports I added to the article is blatantly wrong. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr Re 'The Scientific American article was published prior to the UN report, so it is clear the author is speaking in hypotheticals. Reference that. And I suggest you Re read what the scientists said, not some human rights zealot. Re 'The UN report is careful to stay neutral' Think on that. Its a fail because its a fail. If you disagree provide refs, of a standard to match mine. You cant. Fail. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You want me to provide a reference to show that September 3 comes before September 16? What are you even trying to say here? You are so busy denying everything that you are incoherent. Also, my replies specific to the SA article make it obvious I did read it. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The science is sound from The Scientific American article. There is nothing to refute it re the Ghouta samples. I looked. If you refute it please share the refs. I want you to stop digging in when what you write as fact can be scientifically disputed. You are coming across as a very pro USA POV editor. Can you rise above that? I dont know. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I already explained above that you are misquoting the Scientific American article. You have not addressed that yet. Writing "scientifically" before something to try to make it sound more valid is an improvement over writing "FAIL", but a rather marginal one. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think so. Bit nit picky. I fixed it anyway. BTW just below it you have misquoted where the rockets came from. Your refs are saying maybe, but you say for sure. Please reword the section or find correct refs (they dont exist...fail) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all nit picky. The SA article says tests on people exposed to sarin will not indicate if the sarin is military or homebrew. Agreed. The SA article says soil and swab samples require controls to eliminate background contamination. Agreed. The UN report pulled soil and swab samples, and used controls that tested negative for all relevant chemicals. Background contamination eliminated. The statement However Scientific America has stated analysis of samples collected from the site will be unable to determine who made the sarin. that you put in the article is explicitly, demonstrably false. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sellstrom

Apparently the description of the quality of the sarin comes from Sellstrom speaking to the UN, and saying the quality was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. (Reuters), The Cable. Would be nice to have more details and/or a direct statement by him rather than UK/US ambassadors repeating what he said... but it'll have to do, and seems to be the origin of the "military-grade" claim. Podiaebba (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if the chemical stabilisers aren't in the actual UN report, that too is from Sellstrom's briefing to the UN Security Council . Podiaebba (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in the absence of a technical (as opposed to political) authority discussing the purity or provenance of the Sarin, this needs to be clearly attributed to Sellstrom. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

m-14 not bm-14

"The inspectors were able to identify several surface-to-surface rockets at the affected sites as 140mm BM-14 rockets" BM-14 is a rocket launcher, the inspectors identified m-14 rocket. 95.223.49.193 (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not quite as simple as it seems. Analysts have confirmed that the 140mm rocket casing is the type used in the BM-14 launcher, even noting the specific factory the motor was manufactured in in Soviet Russia. But no reliable sources that I have seen have positively confirmed that the warhead was the standard-issue MS-14 chemical round, since the warhead was not recovered. So we know the motor was from the M-14 series of rockets but it might be a violation of WP:SYN to call the weapon an MS-14 chemical round if no secondary sources have identified it as such? What do people think? I also need to re-read the HRW report from last two weeks ago, because it might have gone into a little more detail. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting information

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the UN report needs to lead to a restructuring of the article. It does not need to lead to edit-warring to try to remove views expressed before the report was published. We should focus on adding information; insisting on rushing to to remove information which remains undeniably part of the historical discussion is extremely counter-productive. The removal of information should be discussed before-hand, and I don't think it is a priority. Podiaebba (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 please stop blanking sections with no discussion. 1RR is still in force. Unless you self revert, I'm reporting you. USchick (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The section certainly can't remain in the article without major changes. Giving equal weight to the scant few governments and fringe commentators who appear to be arguing, at this point, against reality itself does a disservice to the people who read Misplaced Pages. I support the section's removal and the incorporation of some material -- most of it is duplicated elsewhere in the article already, if I'm not mistaken -- into the "Investigation" section (namely the Russian claim that the evidence is unconvincing/nonexistent/manufactured/bewitched). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on what? The ONLY thing that the UN report confirmed is that sarin was used. Nothing else has changed. USchick (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

They also confirmed it came from Syrian government areas. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could quote the part of the report that said that? Oh... you can't, because it didn't. They calculated azimuths from 2 of 5 rocket trajectories - the rest is interpretation by others. Podiaebba (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/17/still-doubt-assads-forces-were-behind-syrias-chemical-attack-look-at-this-map/ RS are now blatantly saying there is no doubt that regime did it. Sopher99 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is quoting someone's personal blog and then this statement, "This is not conclusive proof that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack." A better discussion would be about other similar attacks using the same weapons on Aug 5. USchick (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not the UN which said that; HRW and NYT analysis independently does, following the azimuths back 10km to the Republican Guard 104th Brigade base on Mt Qasioun. . The trajectory evidence is very strong; but Russia isn't backing down so let's see if they do anything more than wave their hands. We don't need to overplay anything; just stating what evidence there now is is quite enough. Podiaebba (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The "motivation" section should remain for the time being: there are plenty of published resources on this, all of which demonstrate that motivation, either for the regime or other forces, remains important when understanding what happened at Ghouta. Also, while the UN report finds that the chemicals used were high grade, and finds that shells and probably shell trajectories are consistent with a government attack, government culpability isn't a finding of the UN. I know that reliable sources like the NYT draw conclusions and that's fine. Russian media are reporting a different story. Fundamentally however the UN report has changed attitudes regarding culpability for the attacks neither for major governments like Russia, the US, UK and France, nor for the reporting by media in those countries. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Pro USA POV group of editors needs to edit in a NPOV manner by stop putting in opinion and speculation without good research to find counter arguments that refute those views. Its just sloppy. And stop deleting and reverting and use reliable refs its getting silly whats being put in as fact. There is a way to avoid this low grade edit war, see sugestion below. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News smeared as "Shia advocacy site"

I posted this in a thread above but I think it merits a new section here. Not even the PJ Media post referenced indicates that Mint Press News is a "Shia advocacy site." It indicates that it is a self-described "advocacy journalism" website (whose About Us page indicates it advocates for "social justice and human rights", not anything relating to Shia Islam) with an editor-in-chief who apparently happens to be a Shia Muslim. No matter how you spin it, the current wording is not factual. Beyond that, the religious views of Mint Press News' editor-in-chief have nothing to do with the content of reporting by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh (which, moreover, consisted of interviews that amount to hearsay; the article is not even the authors' personal claims) any more than the religious views of any other non-religious news outlets' editors-in-chief have any bearing on the content their respective organizations publish. That the interviews in the article contain allegations that appear to be roughly in sync with the Assad regime's claims, in no way makes the entire website of Mint Press News a "Shia advocacy" organization; assertions to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

this is about a single sentence that is apparently annoying this SPA as it prevents the page becoming an entirely loving self-description from mintpressnews. it has backers - one of thm is the editors father in law - he is an avid 12 er shia - I have no idea what this is , but his views incude virulent anti-Syrian rebel views. other backers are hidden . it is well knwn for carrying a story that smeared the rebels - you don't mind the rebels getting smeared , but if anything, in the name of openness, has info about the ideology of the backers and editors you set up a right yawp - the ghouta story makes enquiries into the people behind this operation utterly legitimate - - to argue the views of an editor and backers are irrelevant to content is disingenuous in the extreme - there is no 'spinning' of the PJ story - its title is quoted word for word and a link provided to the article. - it is you who want to spin - its ok to smear rebels and carry story of them gassing themselves , that looks to be proven utter flapdoodle by the UN report, but if anyone dare provide a link with something to say about mintpress you go off on one. curious set of values. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the mintpress report has since been discredited, why don't we just remove it and take care of the issue that way? VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the article containing allegations of rebels carrying out the Syria attack has nothing to do with the religious views of the editor-in-chief of the website that published the interviews. Let's look at how distantly correlated these two things are. The claim that rebels carried out the chemical attack are made by Syrians interviewed by a Jordanian journalist, who co-wrote an article with a Jordanian-based American journalist who also writes for AP and NPR (Gavlak), who together published the article on a Minnesota-based news website founded by a Palestinian-American who apparently is a Shia Muslim. The father-in-law mentioned is not a "backer" but is called a "key adviser" in one article. His personal views do not belong anywhere besides a Misplaced Pages entry on him alone. Likewise for his daughter-in-law. Whether the article in question belongs in this entry in general is not my concern. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

to say, as this SPA account does 'the article containing allegations of rebels carrying out the Syria attack has nothing to do with the religious views of the editor-in-chief of the website that published the interviews' - of course it bloody does, its like saying a chain of cinema exhibitors has nothing to do with a film, they didn't make the film, - a perusal of odeh muhaweshs facebook page which I used to be able to read - keep getting an error message at he mement, carried absolutely intense, 100% copper bottomed pro assad regime propaganda - to call this irrelevant to the fact that a press he is involved with carried a notorious example of propaganda is not right imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I support removing all information that mentions Mint Press News. USchick (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In its own disreputable way though, it is part of the story - look at the role misinformation played in shaping some uninformed public opinion - i heard phone-ins when people shouted at the host that they knew the rebels had carried out the ghouta attacks - this kind of story is part of the story in the same way stories of the germans cutting up their dead and packaging them up to be reprocessed for lard or something was part of the first world war story of propaganda. Sayerslle (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News didn't claim Syrian rebels carried out the Ghouta attacks. People interviewed by Yahya Ababneh did. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting characterized the article as "honest about the limits of its knowledge." Philip Stained Glass (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

sophistries really. but, so what. mint press ran a story. comment was made in various sources about the people editing it, 'key advising' it. that's it. Sayerslle (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep the story for the time being, along with worthwhile criticism. Perhaps the "Shia advocacy" statement isn't worthwhile, but other criticism is fine. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PJ media noted it was Shia - the spa keeps saying its just the wildest coincidence that muhawesh, who happens to be an avid pro-Syrian regime bloke and is a key advisor - is aprt of an operation that promoted the rebels gassed themselves story - that is just his insistent pov, it is not strengthened by ite re-iteration over and over - PJ media mentioned the Shia side of things - they noted it - that is a fact - if the Shia thing is written of as irrelevant that is interfering with the PJ media ref and the way they chose to title and present the story on the provenance and publishing of that story - if it is annoying a certain pov to have this pointed out, - censoring it - that is inadmissible imo. Sayerslle (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the Ghouta chemical attacks, not about an obscure source that's been determined as non reputable, but we include it and then immediately discredit it. That's not how we do things. USchick (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Speculation in general

The section above is about how to neutrally communicate that a Mintpress article from early on was discussed broadly on the internet but ultimately discredited. More broadly, there has been a great deal of speculation about these attacks - by the media and by public officials of verious nationalities (ie Russian denials and American congressmen). Many of these speculations have been categorically discredited since. It sounds like this speculation has itself been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. I think the best thing to do with this "historical" speculation is to greatly collapse it and put it in its own section near the end of the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. However, commenting about the source is not appropriate. USchick (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to refer to published sources from the last three weeks as disproven speculation, we had better have a source for that! VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint is that this article makes negative comments about the source. Either the source is reliable and it should be used, or it's not reliable and shouldn't be used. Right now we use it, but then immediately discredit it. This article is not about the source, and all commentary about the source is inappropriate. I think the entire thing needs to be deleted. There's nothing here that can't be said by using a better source. USchick (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If a crappy source made incorrect statements about the attack; and that crappy report was picked up, retweeted, and influenced public opinion about the attack; and if the impact of the crappy speculation itself the topic of discussion by secondary sources then that is indeed a good topic to include in this article. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, however, the sources commenting about it are just as crappy. USchick (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well speaking of crappy sources hows about 'Mother Jones'. And third party analysis of the serious events by non experts jumping to conclusions is not good enough. See below to solve these issues Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have a concern about sources, you could take take it here or to WP:RSN rather than reverting. Or you could add a different source since the views I posted are by no means unique. The consensus at the RSN though seems pretty clear that they are considered reliable per this search. Context matters, so it is of course possible that the community would agree with you in this specific case. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So what about Mint Press? Do we have consensus to delete? Revise? What? USchick (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Mint Press article has been deemed as "discredited," it was not discredited because of its editor-in-chief's religion. It was most definitely not because Mint Press News is a "Shia advocacy site," because it is not a Shia advocacy site. That suggests something like a religious charity nonprofit group. That's not what it is. It's a for-profit media startup company in Minnesota. Most of its content appears to be about American news topics, and its writers appear to come from diverse backgrounds, some with ties to well-established credible publications. The only evidence being cited to suggest that the editor-in-chief's religious views, of all things, are somehow influencing what its reporters write, is that the Ghouta chemical weapons story it published -- but which was written by freelance journalists, one of whom also writes for AP and NPR, and neither whom even claimed that the allegations being made in interviews were necessarily anything beyond allegations -- happened to roughly align with the Assad regime's claims. I don't think this logic is legitimate. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

An editor made a suggestion, I include it below, for inclusive language for both views. We need to start doing it. Why? for NPOV. i.e. There is also an argument that many refs are anti Syrian regime and that the USA is also. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither Mintpress nor PJ are reliable sources, and as such, neither belong in this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a speculation section documenting what happened here. The Mint Press article was cited, recited, and I think for better or worse this incorrect report ultimately had a significant impact on the chronology of events. VQuakr (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Really nice work on that section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it adds nothing much really. Its kinda negative editing. Speculation, where does it end? Its coming across as a bit of a rant. where was the consensus? Better off to write NPOV with consensus that adds something better than this. In a review it will go for sure Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's valuable to express the initial uncertainty, dispute, and fog-of-war surrounding the circumstances of these attacks. But it is clear at this point that the consensus view, which follows from evidence that overwhelmingly supports this mainstream narrative, is that the attacks were almost certainly carried out by regime forces, from within regime territory, against opposition-held and contested territory, using rockets only the military is known to possess, using amounts of sarin only the government is known to possess. It simply no longer makes sense -- if it ever did -- to include WP:FRINGE and WP:OR claims that the rebels carried out the attacks alongside the mounting body of evidence (most recently bolstered by the UN report) that supports the mainstream conclusion, as if the claims have equal weight. They don't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's valuable to express the initial uncertainty, dispute, and fog-of-war surrounding the circumstances of these attacks. - I absolutely agree. The difficulty is clarification the best available knowledge now without losing that history. We should be able to do both if we try. Podiaebba (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think the creation of a "Speculation" section is a step in that direction. Perhaps it can be workshopped a bit further, but I think that's the right approach -- presenting claims like this with due weight and context. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree it could be valuable if its reworked into neutral language. There are also some interesting bits i.e. the hostage over hearing item. Perhaps more material of a better quality may turn up as well. I'll do a search. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion from a non involved experienced editor

' I think the only way is where many suspect foul play, but none can prove it for sure, we should stick to "according to A this and according to B that", so that anyone, be he follower of A or B opinion or rejecting both A and B as false propaganda, can simply get the idea of what is going on by comparing the two reports.'

This may help stop many of the edits and reverts if the language was neutral and NPOV inclusive for views A and B.

BTW Sopher just wipes out 2000 -3000 characters. Not on. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, view "B" is "Assad is innocent despite all evidence, please believe us!". This is a minority viewpoint, and NPOV does not dictate equal time with the mainstream view that this was an attack by Syria. It is worth mention only because it is still the official line of Russia and Syria. You can help stop the reverts if you stop reverting, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He reverted and has been warned by an admin. I agree about listing the sources with no commentary such as pro-Castro or whatever, even it it's sourced. USchick (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good re Sopher.

VQuakr thats your POV. There are many refs which support this view that are dubious, like Mother Jones and many others which can be countered ie the military grade sarin issue. No one can prove conclusively Assad did it, there is some circumstantial evidence alone. View A is 'He did it, I just know it....look at this third party analysis. (reply Ah ahem hes a nobody) well its military grade sarin (reply. ah ahem no, that cant be proved see scientific American). Well I just know evil Assad did it and evil Russia too and the USA cant be wrong ...can it?' (reply Ah ahem...Iraq) yeah but...(just stop already)

Lets stop the silly refs and use both sides with good refs and this sort of language, "according to A this and according to B that" Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, please! USchick (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup its overdue, see suggestion on my talk page, last entry. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I find editing can actually be quite therapeutic, so now that I've collected myself more, I will reiterate this: WP:VALID, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:V. I apologize for assuming bad faith. But I would also repeat my admonishment above that if an editor cannot separate his or her personal biases from his or her contributions to Misplaced Pages, that editor might consider withdrawing. I hope we can find common ground here, but again, Misplaced Pages has guidelines for what sources should be used and how they should be used for very good reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your apology may be accepted more readily if you removed the struck thru rant. The common ground exists if NPOV is adhered to and better phrasing of conflicting referenced views are made. Are you thinking of withdrawing? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC) .

No. But I think you should consider whether your own bias precludes you from being able to contribute in a constructive way here. I hope you will decide that you can begin following NPOV yourself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and removing the eyesore. Now the suggestion above is a good one. Editors who have problems with it are hard to understand. Its quite a common solution to use. Why all the resistance? My bias has been reviewed. There are No hard facts yet for the USA stance. Id be interested in your views on Iraqs WMD> use a talk page. Interested? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has never been in better shape. Thank you everyone for cooperating. USchick (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since my opinion was quoted here as the "non-involved editor", I might as well state that at this point, I find the article looks as NPOV as it can get. I am sure there are people who feel all opinion contrary to theirs is fringe, invalid, etc, which is fine, but that Russia's officially accepted version should not even be stated because it is a "minority" view does not seem to be according to WP:VALID, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:V. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. Past incarnations of this article have sought to balance virtually every source that favors the mainstream narrative with a source that does not, and that is improper. I do think it is in much better shape now, and I'm glad to see some agreement here on that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoverfish believe it or not it actually is better, but I agree with you. But Kudzu1 you have been doing some heavy reverts and adds without consensus and got a warning as a result. Slow it down and talk about things. We have made improvements but slid back recently due to that. I think it detracts from an encyclopedia when a big player like Russia's officially accepted version should not even be stated because it is a "minority" view. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What a crazy coincidence that the "uninvolved administrator" (who is, of course, not actually an administrator at all) just happens to mention on her user pages, just as you do, her admiration of Maher Baba! And that she knew to place the same "community sanctions notice" on my page that you received recently (from an actual admin, natch) despite being an infrequent editor on Misplaced Pages! Oh, and just to make this clear to you, contributing to a page is not "edit warring". I followed WP:BOLD, and lo and behold, USchick and Hoverfish seem to think the article (which actually mentions the Syrian/Russian position more prominently in the lead now, if it matters) seem to think it looks pretty good now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "uninvolved administrator". Agree I know its not helpful. Dinner party talk led to Syria and Wiki...I think I know who is trying to help, but its not helpful. I'm surprised she managed so much lol and will have a word if she posts again. For the record though she is right you have broken the one revert per day rule blatantly. So an admin may ping you. BTW its Meher Baba. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence with this thoroughly unconvincing story. And please show me where I violated 1RR. I was the only person editing the page, to my knowledge, when I was checking through it and making some changes last night (most of which were for uniform style and readability), and I had not edited the page for more than 24 hours prior to that time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well this isnt the place to discuss your intelligence. You are in an edit war. I will put this back in soon that you removed without discussion. . You have done a lot of edits without consensus. This article has tags about that. Here on the 19th you appear 21 times. Quite a few cuts too. 7500 characters + Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to readd that section, it's within your right to do so; I felt the information contained within was adequately covered elsewhere. The mindset that every time somebody says something about these attacks and Russia calls them a bad name, Russia's objection has to be noted in a position of prominence in this article smacks of WP:VALID as well as WP:RECENTISM. But I followed WP:BOLD in making my changes, the scope of which I will not apologize for -- as I said, much of my work was organizing and rewriting parts of the article in a more readable (and hopefully more WP:NPOV) way without changing the meaning -- and I am happy to follow the tried-and-true WP:BRD process. So, if you think Russia's "nuh-uh" in response to the U.S. intelligence reports is notable and should be included, go ahead and make your case. I wouldn't think including the fact that Japan's prime minister said he agreed with the U.S. assessment is notable, either, for what it's worth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I tend to agree with you about the 'mindset'. The article is about as NPOV as it probably will get now, bar tweaking and watching new edits. The Russian view should not be overdone but it should be in there if the refs are good and the subject is notable. Japan is not to Syria as Russia is. Japan has no UN security council veto. I think the bit you cut out is both notable and well reffed, so Ill take up your offer and put it back. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the trajectory analysis

Someone added this non-RS questioning the trajectory analysis. However, the analysis is clearly laid out based on the UN report and should be directly verifiable from it. Ideally some credible source would judge the points made, but if none can be found, we could draw out these points from the UN report itself. Very briefly, the claim is that the Moadamiyah rocket trajectory can be questioned because the environmental samples were negative for sarin, while the Ain Tarma rocket trajectory can be questioned because the report didn't say the rocket contained chemical agent. Podiaebba (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:V applies here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article claims that there's no evidence that the rockets analized by the UN are the same rockets that delivered sarin. Considering that there was a lot of firepower before and after the event, that makes sense. This statement from the UN report: The inspectors cautioned that the five sites they investigated had been "well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the mission" gives credibility to the Russian position that the UN report is inconclusive. USchick (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR. What are reliable sources saying? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At first they described them as inconclusive. But following talks with Syria, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, condemned the report as “politicised, preconceived and one-sided”. Russia is urging the United States to declassify all of its intelligence. USchick (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The information is classified, so we only get to see what they want us to see. Russia is screaming, but they can't reveal classified information. Without that, who knows what actually happened. USchick (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Governments will always have some information that is classified. Hiding sources or information that leads to sources is normally classified. This would be a common situation is almost every article (Benghazi, Killing Bin Laden, etc) and doesn't signify anything unusually. Russian are just trying to add to the conspiracy angle since they have nothing to prove there version of events. --MarsRover (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

except the classified information that they have access to and we don't. USchick (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If the Russians perpetually claim they have watershed evidence on this but never release it, then their position is indistinguishable from bluster and should be given no weight. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

They can't release classified information from the US. See links above where they're asking the US to declassify it. USchick (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia has continuously claimed to have evidence that implicates rebels in Ghouta. Why not just publicize this evidence (which they control) rather than asking the US to release intel? The obvious answer is because they have no evidence, only bluster, and they are making a safe bet by asking the US to release more evidence since they can just deny whatever the US discloses as biased, or decry the secrecy if the US refuses. We do not need to give more space in the article to empty bluster. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll understand when we ask to see a source that disqualifies the questions as empty bluster. As soon as there's a source, I will personally remove the information myself. I promise! USchick (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is bluster until they back up their claims. The kvue article you link above is old (sept 2), and the economist article which you cite goes on to point out Russia's hypocrisy regarding the UN and Syria, as well as that "The UN itself issued an unusually blunt riposte, describing the results of its investigation as 'indisputable'." VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That source is propaganda, and makes a number of mischaracterizations in order to infer something that is not true. "At least one of the two rockets the UN commission assessed contained no chemical agent at all." No, fragments from both rockets analyzed in detail tested positive for Sarin or its decomposition products (specifically in appendix 7 see line items 2 & 3 for Moadamiyah and line items 14, 15, and 16 for Zamalka/Ein Tarma). Analysts have pointed out that the 330mm rocket, with a thin-walled chamber surrounding the payload and only a small "bursting" charge, is clearly a chemical warhead. If it had been high explosive, the rocket would have been disintegrated in the blast. The 140mm rocket warhead was not recovered, but the UN report and third party analysis notes the lack of high explosive or incendiary damage around the impact point - the same impact point that is contaminated with Sarin and decomposition products. Given that this article is clearly trying to discredit the UN report and subsequent mainstream analysis, I think it is safe to say it has no place in the article. USchick, I have not seen a single reliable source that analyzes the UN report and claims its findings are inconclusive. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, what you said about the weapons sounds just as reasonable to me, someone who knows nothing about weapons. Is there a secondary source about that besides the (primary) UN report? That would go a long way to clarify things in the article. Otherwise, it seems very much like the Iraq war where the US claims weapons of mass destruction used by someone they accuse, based on secret information that only they can see. USchick (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources supporting this are already in the article. The info on the lab results can be sourced directly from the UN report since there is no synthesis needed there (the UN identifies the sarin decomposition products). All of this info on trajectories is coming from the UN and third party analysts using open information, not the US government (though they also stated from the beginning that the rockets were fired from Syrian territory). VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly for the sake of clarity its much like the Iraq war and the trajectory data is in conclusive, and not rock solid. Confusing the matter are all the normal rockets that were fired from all over the place. Maybe thats why the rocket angle is not getting traction as a story by serious experts. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"not getting traction as a story by serious experts." Who are "serious experts" in this context? What reliable sources say that weapons experts are keeping quiet to avoid ruining their reputations? Why don't they just speak up and say the evidence is poor, rather than staying silent? VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the weapon discussion a bit too confusing to follow. The point that did make sense to me was the Moadamiyah site being negative for sarin in the environmental samples - if this is true (and I don't have time to figure out how to check that in the UN report), that would be a point against the solidity of the trajectory findings, because it makes it more plausible that the weapons could have been moved (the report does note some comings-and-goings of people, but gives various reasons why they think the tested weapons weren't). It would just be nice to have an actual expert review the solidity of the report findings in toto from a position of neutrality, and not from a position of "does it prove the government did it". Podiaebba (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is confusing. Until we know for sure what you say is sound re 'in toto from a position of neutrality, 'Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The question I have about the rockets is how can they tell these 2 rockets were launched the day of the attack? Not the day before and not the day after, especially when the Syrian army did "heavy shelling" the day after. Any sarin residue around the site and on the rockets would be from a different bombardment. The UN report does nothing to establish that these 2 rockets actually belong to the bombardment that carried sarin warheads. The two "independent" reports came from people who followed the trajectory angle, but those people did nothing to find out when the rockets were launched. This seems like a big gigantic question and I wonder why the weapons experts aren't asking that. Am I missing something? USchick (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, and I don't think you are, either. Hence the peril of WP:OR, and why Misplaced Pages has guidelines against it. I surmise -- in my amateur, completely unverifiable opinion -- that the inspectors believed those rockets were fired in the attack because they were mostly intact, apparently carried chemical payloads, and tested positive for sarin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No you are not missing anything. I saw an analysis about some branches missing from a tree they linked to a missile nearby to create trajectory. But what else could have damaged the tree in a battle zone. Another missile from the hundreds fired from all over, Tank fire, RPG, debris ? All these and more. The data is not definitive and should be in toto from a position of neutrality, Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm worried about, that the inspectors were so busy measuring the angle of the trajectory, no one bothered to ask if it was the right rocket. Surely this one blogger is not the only person asking this question. USchick (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. What else could have damaged the tree in a battle zone. Another missile from the hundreds fired from all over, Tank fire, RPG, debris ? Wheres the definitive report? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The UN team included actual weapons experts. They did not express any concerns that these were not examples of the weapons used. Appendix 5 of the report describes their methodology. They knew where to look for the munitions based on where casualties were located. They found where the 140mm munition had glanced off a building and the crater where it hit the ground. The damage to the building and crater was used to determine the trajectory. In Zamalka/Ein Tarma, two 330mm rockets were found. The warhead section of both of these rockets was retrieved - not something that would ever happen in a detonated high explosive rocket. In addition, the warhead design includes fill plugs - a feature unique to chemical munitions designed to be filled with volatile chemicals before use. Rockets with high explosive warheads are shredded when they detonate, while most of the damage to the motor sections of all three rockets appeared to be from hitting the ground. Popular mechanics wrote an article about the M-14 rocket, here. I think it should be added to the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that article, yes I agree it has info that should be added. This is what caught my attention from the article "The BM-14 is the farthest thing from a precision weapon." From another source "The trajectory includes the Republican Guard base, the presidential palace and grounds" . Who in their right mind would fire a "non precision" weapon over the presidential palace? Even if he wasn't home at the time, whaaaaaattt????? The sources also can't seem to agree if the 330 was home made or not. “The 330 mm rocket appears to be a unique Syrian weapon so I have not the foggiest idea of its range,” Long wrote. No wonder Putin is screaming for a real investigation. smh USchick (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Key points. Who in their right mind would fire a "non precision" weapon over the presidential palace? and No wonder Putin is screaming for a real investigation Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick, the source you linked clearly agrees that analysis of the UN evidence implicates Assad. It would be misrepresenting the source to imply that the trajectory is evidence the attacks were not Syrian, and original research to claim that the reported trajectory caused implausible risk to the palace. Article improvements aside, rocket artillery does present a short round risk but is pretty reliable (globalresearch cites a 1:1000 chance of a round falling 1 km short). Non-precision in this case means a probable hit pattern on the scale of few city blocks, not 4/5ths the intended travel distance. All artillery carries some risk of rounds falling short, yet conventional Syrian pieces have been blazing away to the south right over the palace and other Damascus high-value regions. Putin was "screaming" for the UN report until the results implicated his ally. The sources are actually pretty consistent that the 330 is a domestically produced weapon designed to be launched from existing 333mm launch tubes such as the Falaq-2. You are probably right that no one has much clue as to its range or accuracy, other than "not very far" and "not very accurate." VQuakr (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Moadamiyah

Some more sources about the differences between Moadamiyah samples and Ayn Tarma/Zamalka samples. Robert Parry (journalist) and some random blog with helpful screenshots from the UN report . Parry also said "I was told by one intelligence source on Monday night that there continues to be skepticism among intelligence analysts about the White House claims and conclusions being drawn from the UN report." Podiaebba (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The blog source is terrible - it crops images from the report tables to draw emphasis away from the degredation products found at Moadamiyah, for example. The news source is more interesting though - Parry helped break the Iran/Contra scandal and I consider him alternative, not crazy. I wish he had made more effort to consider other possibilities besides the "no chemical attack in Moadamiyah", though. For example, the Moadamiyah rocket broke apart in midair and just the motor was recovered. Also, the 330mm rockets have a chemical payload on the order of 10-20x as much as a 140mm rocket (assuming its warhead was similar in size to the Russian chemical warhead for that rocket, which was not exported to Syria). Both of these factors would mean that the physical samples collected in Moadamiyah would have been more lightly contaminated, while the warhead components and dirt surrounding the impact at Ayn Tarma/Zamalka would have been literally soaked with sarin during the attack. He also makes no attempt to explain why he thinks the signature decomposition products found at Moadamiyah were "false positives" rather than, as the UN report concluded, indicators that the chemicals were used. The control samples used did not test positive for those chemicals, as they would if this was indeed a false positive.

That said, Parry is a well-known source with a reputation for breaking stories, and his observations merit a sentence in the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit unfair on the blog, which does note the degradation products mostly found by one lab; it says that could indicate other sources like insecticide. (I've no idea how plausible that is, and I suspect they don't either.) The headline summary they could have made but didn't quite is that there were 13 environmental samples from Moadamiyah, of which Sample 3 for some reason is split into two and tested twice. With 2 labs, that's 28 chances to find CW or degradation products. Not a one of those chances was taken for CW; only 8 were taken for degradation products - and of those 8, only 1 involves the 2 labs agreeing! Your point about payload differences is fair and probably far outweighs the slight time difference which is in Moadamiyah's favour (2 fewer days for sarin to degrade). But at the end of the day, the environmental results for Moadamiyah can only be described as very weak. Podiaebba (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I added something, but I couldn't remotely do justice to the issue in a sentence. I do so hate it when people write things like X criticised Y . Either the criticism is worth explaining enough that a reader can understand it and have some judgement of its relevance and meaning, or it isn't worth having at all. Podiaebba (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A great start, and I think a well-balanced contribution that fairly represents the source. Thanks for the contribution! I stand by my characterization of the blog post though. DIMP, for example, is a byproduct of sarin production, that is it. It does not occur naturally in the environment, and it is not associated with pesticides. They downplay the findings of relevant chemicals in Moadamiyah consistently, and the cropping of tables from the UN report is inexcusable. They also jump right from "we think the data from Moadamiyah is inconclusive" to "FAAAAKE!" immediately, which is a bit of a red flag that they already had decided the conclusion. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia holds its ground

Its pleasing to see more NPOV content and a more careful approach to wording. Russia is holding its stance, and thats very interesting. Hopefully reliable technical data will come out so their position can be referenced and the proven perpetrators are unveiled conclusively. I think in time it will.

“We have every grounds to believe that it was a provocation. Of course, it was adroit and smart, but, at the same time, primitive in terms of technical performance. They took an old Soviet-made missile, which was taken out of service in the Syrian army long ago. It was most important to have ‘made in the USSR’ written ,” Putin said at the Valday discussion forum on Thursday.

“No matter how difficult it might be, but if in the end we manage to answer the question… as to who committed that crime – and that was certainly a crime – the next step will follow. Then, together with our colleagues from the United Nations Security Council we will have to define the level of responsibility of those who committed the crime,” Putin said.

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk is cheap; the Khan-al-Assal report handed to the UN in July is still not published - and since it doesn't seem likely to rely substantially (or even at all) on sensitive sources it's hard to see why. The UN report has massively raised the bar for how sophisticated a "false flag" operation this would have had to have been. It's not quite impossible, but at this point, Russia needs to provide good evidence or it's just hand-waving to protect an ally. Skepticism was due to poorly-evidenced western intelligence reports - it's also due to unevidenced Russian claims. Podiaebba (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Still no evidence, but the developing Russian story seems to be that the weapons were Soviet-made and exported to Libya and converted to chemical weapons by Gaddafi, before getting to Syria in the post-Gaddafi chaos. . Podiaebba (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Its now more complex yes. I was a little surprised to read this report and see Putin put his nation and reputation out there like that. Something will give eventually. Clearly Putin has made a decision and he has pretty much said it was a sophisticated operation.

This too is interesting to explain some of the mindset. ' The Russian leader is frustrated that Western states have no idea what they would do if, after their interference in the ongoing war, extremists came to power in Syria. “Would they drive them away with a newspaper?” Putin said. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Blade, the observation that the US's policy on Syria does not appear well thought through is attributable to not only Russia but international and US opinion sources as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Only the 140mm rocket is Soviet. Analysts have repeatedly noted that the 330mm is not a Soviet-era import, but appears to be a domestically-produced model made to be launched from 330mm-class launchers of similar rockets. The 140mm warhead and rocket body can be disconnected and stored separately, and since the warhead was not recovered there is no way for third parties to verify its provenance (as opposed to the rocket body, which is indeed quite old). Perhaps Jamil's comment that the sarin came from Libya actually indicates insider knowledge that could only be from the folks that launched it? The article actually says Syria says the rocket's history is USSR-Syria-Rebels-Libya-Rebels-False Flag Attack. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian POV is really a conspiracy thing. The more proof there is the more it proves the conspiracy. Hopefully this article can steer clear of that thought process. Btw, if you want to see what happens if you think bit of information is lie read the Russian version of this article. --MarsRover (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the warhead was never recovered, what makes you think it was a chemical warhead? This rocket was designed to carry all kinds of things, what evidence is there to say it was sarin? What makes you think this rocket wasn't launched before or after the sarin attack? (Not being a smart a**, just asking for clarification.) It's very obvious to me that none of us are watching the same news reports, so when we come here, we all have preconceived notions. That's why we clash. Just an observation. USchick (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are the key questions and no ones answering them. What does Russia know. Putin - They took an old Soviet-made missile, which was taken out of service in the Syrian army long ago. It was most important to have ‘made in the USSR’ written ,” Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick, an explosive rocket would have caused explosive damage and mangled the rocket motor. The evidence that the agent used was sarin was partly the proof of sarin exposure in the thousands of victims, and partly the fact that the motor was coated in sarin decomposition products. We do not and may never have quantitative analysis of concentrations on the rocket relative to the surrounding area, but the number of relevant chemicals found on and immediately around the impact sites are good evidence that the UN experts picked the correct munition. But seriously, if the folks on the ground from the UN are confident in what they found why are we questioning it here? VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand before I decide which version to believe. They all have ulterior motives and personal agendas, my heart goes out to the victims and refugees. I work with "experts" and if you talk to 100 experts, you will get 100 different opinions, and the only thing that makes you an experts is, you have to be from out of town. The UN weapons experts have experience with what kind of weapons? This particular kind? The kind manufactured in 1967 in the Soviet Union and have long been decommissioned? I doubt it. Certainly not the 330mm kind, because even the expert has no idea how far it can travel. Ad who would launch such a weapon over Assad's house? Probably not Assad! Sorry about the rant, but you asked. USchick (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: FWIW, Russia is claiming the Sellstrom team ignored evidence passed to them in Damascus . Podiaebba (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw that. Interesting update Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Syrian authorities have conducted their own sampling and investigation, analysis in terms of possible evidence of the rebels being responsible for the tragic episodes both on August 21, but beyond that also on August 22, 23 and 24,” Sergey Ryabkov told RT's Maria Finoshina" - so the rebels gassed themselves 4 days running. fucking hell. Sayerslle (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mount Qasioun

I removed a sentence from the intro noting the trajectory of some of the rockets appeared to come from the area of Mount Qasioun while working on the page last night. Today, it's been readded. That's fine -- I don't object to the information, which is included elsewhere in the article as well (a statement I left alone), but doesn't it seem a bit detailed for the intro? I know we usually try to keep those concise, and it doesn't seem notable relative to the rest of the information in the lede. Again, not disputing the claim or the source, but I figured we should follow through with Step 3 of WP:BRD, since I boldly removed it and it was readded. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree the lead should not have such detail, but sum up the body Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How about we edit it for brevity instead by combining it with the previous sentence: Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, multiple analysts concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from Mount Qasioun, in well-defended Syrian territory.(refs) VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, provided we have the sources to support the notion that all rockets were launched from Mount Qasioun. I haven't seen that claimed, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I recall the sources already cited in the lede make that claim. Worth double checking before the edit is made, to be sure. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

its not like the article isn't about a specific subject, its not 'warfare' or 'Syrian civil war' , it can surely bear the weight of this detail in the lead - not surprised Blade wants it gone from the lead - RS details, even/especially in the lead, are a great weapon against humbug - if its combined, the combination arrived at should be checked that the new York times ref isn't used to support more than it says. - personally I think the sentence is perfectly fine as it stands and its removal was pointless . Sayerslle (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Locality names

I notice the locality names aren't linked (unless I missed it). From searching and looking at File:State Department map of Gouta chemical attack.svg I think Moadamiyah is Muadamiyat al-Sham in western Ghouta, south of Damascus. Ayn Tarma and Zamalka are next to Jobar in eastern Ghouta, east of Damascus; but they don't seem to have wikipedia articles - nor to be listed anyone as parts of a larger entity. Given the variant spellings it would be helpful to link them. Podiaebba (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Zamalka has an article too. That just leaves Ayn Tarma. Podiaebba (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User POV

After inserting this, the user then accuses me of "pov pushing" here and gives NO reason for why he feels that is POV. Kindly explain it here(Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)).

The syrian army and rebels fought in ghouta on the 23, thats a fact. Japan and south korea neither give support to the opposition nor recognize the opposition.

This stuff is also factual and belong in the lede as it is conclusive " The Mission "collected clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used in the Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Zalmalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus." The report's lead author, Åke Sellström, said that the quality of the sarin used in the attack was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. " Sopher99 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how yhthat is POV. If you read my summary I was saying to keep details out of the lead. That tthey fought one day at the location is not for the lead its for the article. Not sure what you mean by Japan and South Korea, they were not mentioned in either version.

Who made that quote? Its just a random line with no reason/contect. And the mission need mnot be capital M when used on itwns own. Its not a proper noun. Likewise HRW and NYT are partisan, they are notneutral . They are however notable so I don't agree with removing it altogether, but it is not for the lead that summarises general aspects of the article. Mind you , NONE of the content is for removal. I would keep it in the article just not the lead.

Although I will say the army is not Assad's oersonal fiefdom. It is that of the Syrian government. We don't see the armed forces of President obama!(Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)).

I think Sopher99's "pro-assad nun" edit (which he has since self-reverted) was POV. But I definitely take issue with your since-reverted changes to the lede (mostly removing necessary and appropriate content) and reorganization of sections, which I believe was contrary to WP:DUE. Intelligence reports by major countries are more notable than blog and alternative media speculation; this article structure at present reflects that while making note of early theories and ongoing skepticism from limited quarters to the generally accepted version of events. Sopher99 may push his POV, but that doesn't make it right for you to do the same. I appreciate your boldness, but those edits lack consensus and it's appropriate to discuss. Thanks BTW for starting this Talk section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why, exactly is "Mother Agnes" in the article? She is not a subject matter expert or an eyewitness, and her complaints about the veracity of the mainstream narrative of the attacks is due to her miscalculating time zones. The only sources that present her in a serious light are RT and similar state run media, who apparently think her religion somehow confers notability. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Mother Agnes sentence. Her claims have nothing to do with timezones though - she claims parents from Latakia recognise abducted children from the videos, or something. Seems totally implausible, but either we explain the implausible claim, or don't mention it at all. Podiaebba (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and the bare-URL ref is RT. Let's cut that non sequitur bit about Mother Agnes. Looks like mother superior jumped the gun. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the US intelligence section is ridiculous. Complete ignorance of WP:DUE and horribly WP:POV. Surely we can condense those cherry-pickled skeptical statements. Right now, it's grotesquely imbalanced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to add statements that praise the US intelligence report as the best thing since sliced bread. What absolutely must not happen is boiling down the explanation of why people thought the report was poor into "some people didn't like it", as I vaguely fear will be attempted shortly. Whether you think the UN report vindicates the US/UK/France position or not, that takes nothing away from most of the criticism of the US intelligence report - on the strength of which, lest we forget, the US wanted to go to war. Podiaebba (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

1. [http://www.accuracy.org/release/un-admits-it-didnt-ask-for-access-in-syria-until-saturday/ UN Admits It Didn’t Ask for Access in Syria Until Saturday]
2. [http://www.innercitypress.com/syria2unasked082713.html On Syria, UN Admits to ICP Formal Request on Ghouta Made August 24]
3. [http://www.accuracy.org/release/u-s-tried-to-derail-un-syria-probe-dubiously-claimed-too-late-for-evidence/ U.S. Tried to Derail UN Syria Probe; Dubiously Claimed Too Late for Evidence]
4. Cite error: The named reference Guardianinspectorssubmit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference ReutersUNconfirms was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. HRW, 17 September 2013
7. Gladstone, Rick; Chivers, C.J. (September 16, 2013). "Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad's Use of Gas". New York Times. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
8. "U.N. calculations of poison rockets' paths implicate Syrian guard unit". Miami Herald. 17 September 2013. Retrieved 18 September 2013.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Mid-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Unassessed Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Requested moves