Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 1 October 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 2013-09-18

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. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

"Allies," POV

I've removed a couple instances where Russia and Iran were qualified as "Assad's strongest international allies."

There are a couple POV issues here. One of which was discussed above, when it was removed but apparently later restored: If we're to refer to countries like Russia and Iran as allies of the Syrian government then we would also have to have to refer to countries like the US, France, UK, Turkey, other NATO countries, and the Gulf States as allies of the rebels, since the governments of these countries support the rebels both materially and diplomatically, have called for regime change, etc.

It's also not NPOV to refer to allies of the Syrian government as "Assad's" allies, as this places undo emphasis on the individual. For example, during the US Civil War we wouldn't typcially refer to a foreign power such as Russia allied with the Union as "Lincoln's ally," but as an ally of the US government. -Helvetica (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Japan and South Korea are not the rebel's "allies" yet they condemn the government. Many countries that are not the rebel's allies condemn the syrian government. Like Botswana . Calling iran and Russia the Syrian government's allies is perfectly neutral. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

arnt we meant to reflect the language in RS .- it is routine to find such material as this "Russia has been Assad's most important international ally throughout the civil war, supplying his troops with arms and resisting pressure at the UN for tighter sanctions on Damascus."" that's from guardian 26 aug , but instances are obviously numberless - its not for us to decide a new vocabulary to describe relations I don't think. Sayerslle (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Helvetica you make a valid point. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate how. Sopher99 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont need to, as to me at least, his argument is self contained. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Helvetica in that the allies should be mentioned as those of a state and not of a person. I agree that IF we mention allies of the Syrian government we should also mention the aid given to the rebels by the western powers. This is required by NPOV, although a full list of the positions of all the countries around the world may not be necessary here. My opinion is that if we remove all information about allies, we offer less information that would help the reader get a fuller picture about the topic. I would rather see the most influential allies mentioned rather than removed. Without these external influences from both sides, the situation may never have escalated to its present form, after all. Hoverfish Talk 03:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In the background section, this article should briefly explain that Russia and Iran have been providing material and political support for Syria, and that the US, Turkey, and Western European countries have been providing material and political support for elements of the opposition. This understanding is absolutely essential in order for the reader to understand why UK/France/US were immediately gung-ho about dropping bombs, and why Russia/Iran have consistently denied any possibility that Syria could be responsible. This article is about the Ghouta attack, so the section should be brief but of course neutral. I agree with Helvetica on the "Russia vs Assad" thing. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hoverfish and VQuakr. The intro may not be the place for it, but it should definitely be mentioned in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well. This has been a longstanding argument on this page, but am glad to see there's a consensus to add the larger political context now. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The proper place for it seems to be a small paragraph at the end of "background", possibly in the style of "It should be noted that ..." or similar. Hoverfish Talk 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the placement, though we should wordsmith different phrasing per WP:NOTED. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you for the link. Hoverfish Talk 01:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

POV push in UN report section

It is sad how biased this section becomes. On one hand we have a lot of info (even in the lede) about some "study" of a homegrown "expert" crossing two lines on Mount Qasioun. On the other, all pieces which raise question about the reliability of UN inspectors' findings are being actively purged from the article.

Particularly, I mean these reverts:

The al-Akhbar piece is quite well sourced, quoting CW experts. It points to important discrepancies within the report, and it raises questions about the influence of opposition forces on the work of inspectors within the rebel-held areas.

Can someone put this back into the article? --Emesik (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It also raises bizzare speculation by an unnammed "expert" that Saudi Arabia launched the attack. This is not a reliable source (note that is is in a "blog/sandbox" path of al-Akhbar. Multiple organizations independently performed the Mount Qasioun analysis. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I had wanted to walk away from this article, after getting very frustrated with what I shall try not to call attempted censorship, but it's getting just too extreme to ignore. For example, the repeatedly removed al-Akhbar piece cites an expert saying that the environmental/biological sample discrepancy is a real concern: I think that it is strange that the environmental and human samples don’t match up. This could be because there have been lots of people trampling through the area and moving things. Unless the patients were brought in from other areas. There doesn’t seem another plausible explanation. This expert (Bretton-Gordon) is already cited in the article on another issue on another source, so can we decide whether his opinion matters or not? And pretending that Robert Parry (journalist)'s work is just deletable (against prior talkpage discussion, AFAIR)? No. So I'm back. (Don't all cheer at once.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bretton-Gordon is fine; let's find a secondary source that doesn't quote them adjacent to obviously unreliable material. This blog has no business being in a neutral article. The source they are printed in matters. Do they agree with the conclusions drawn in the blog? Were they quoted in context? I do not trust this author to present them in an accurate context. Welcome back, BTW. "Attempted censorship" is silly; one editor is trying to push a certain POV using unreliable sources, and other editors are rightly saying no. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

other than Bretton Gordon she cites dan Kaszeta and I noticed a recent tweet of his - -

"Dan Kaszeta ‏@DanKaszeta 11h I do not share @snarwani 's opinion regarding #Sarin at Moadamiyah, due to samples 1,2,3,9, and 12 from part 7.1 of UN Report". Sayerslle (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaszeta is talking about the samples which show IMPA and/or DIMP at Moadamiyah, which are unique breakdown products or byproducts of sarin. It could of course be argued (and some have) that since in only 1 of those 5 cases do the two labs agree, that it's just one sample that's really supportive. (Though whether that matters depends a bit on whether you can conceive of rebels deliberately contaminating a site with sarin for inspectors to find.) Podiaebba (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sharmine Narwani isn't some random blogger. I see no reason not to use the piece, aside from the "sandbox" label which is a bit odd. (If it's really sandbox it shouldn't be public.) Podiaebba (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But here, she is misrepresenting sources and making very bold claims based on unnamed sources, which is much more relevant than her having a paragraph bio on huffpo. Quit re-adding material that has been contested and is under discussion - that is edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources? Do explain. having a paragraph bio on huffpo - was it really too much to expect you to *read* the bio in question? Podiaebba (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I read it. The explanation is already discussed in this section. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If the explanation for the "misrepresenting sources" claim is in this section, I can't find it. Podiaebba (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing the material is edit-warring too. And perhaps such removal should be brought up for discussion beforehand? Not by the person who had introduced it and saw it removed twice?--Emesik (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please review WP:BRD. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Another tweet from Dan kOszeta which looks like he is not happy - " Dan Kaszeta ‏@DanKaszeta 16h

− @MothraAttack However, article doesn't point out my observation that the environmental samples are clear and damning" if Im following this right one of the people she spoke to is not at all happy with the way she wrote up her blog. what do you know about her podiaeebba? does she have a particular view of the scw? would she be likely to push one view unreasonably over the other? is she for example, very pro-Iran regime by any chance? Sayerslle (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

is she for example, very pro-Iran regime by any chance? - I don't know. I do know that no-one asks these questions about sources that support the mainstream view. Podiaebba (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Exceptional claims are going to be carefully scrutinized. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Narwani article says In a report on Thursday, American CW expert Dan Kaszeta raised further questions. While concluding that Sarin was used in Ghouta based on “environmental and medical evidence” produced by the UN team, Kaszeta notes that... And whilst Kaszeta's paper says "the environmental samples, detailed in Appendix 7 are fairly conclusive and damning evidence of use of Sarin" it doesn't address the issue by site, so his view on Moadamiyah can be deduced but isn't explicit there. And the bulk of the paper is about the medical evidence, and it's that which Narwani draws on. The significance of the IMPA needs evaluating, but the article is already quite long. Podiaebba (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

trying to find out abut her predilections - found this from Max Blumenthal -

"I recently learned of a major exodus of key staffers at Al Akhbar caused at least in part by disagreements with the newspaper leadership’s pro-Assad tendency. The revelation helps explain why Al Akhbar English now prominently features the malevolent propaganda of Amal Saad Ghorayeb and the dillentantish quasi-analysis of Sharmine Narwani When I joined the fledgling Al Akhbar English website last fall, I was excited to contribute my writing on the Israel-Palestine situation and US foreign policy to a paper that I considered one of the most courageous publications in the Arab world. At the time, the Syrian uprising had just begun, and apparently, so had the debates inside Al Akhbar, which reflected the discussions within the wider Lebanese Left. Almost a year later, the results of the debate have become clear on the pages of the paper, where despite the presence of a few dissident voices, the apologia for Assad and his crimes has reached unbearable levels."

- your willful desire not to know of any bias that may be present in her blog is not good imo - you are shoving her blog on the article. Sayerslle (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

your willful desire not to know of any bias - I must ask you to desist from this kind of entirely unwarranted accusation. Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to make sure everybody understands and agrees with Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Hoverfish Talk 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "bias" was the wrong word above. "Unreliability" is the correct one - an example of a source where the underlying bias is severe enough that the author is misrepresenting sources. This is what makes the source unusable. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources - you continue to repeat this claim without backing it up, even when asked. You do realise that this is a recognised propaganda technique? Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is already discussed in this section. No further explanation should be needed. Taking out-of-context statements by an expert and using them to support a theory not supported by that expert is unethical and frequently performed by conspiracy theorists. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a serious disagreement about this, there is always Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where a decision can be taken by uninvolved participants. Hoverfish Talk 01:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how many times do I have to link WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE before people will stop devoting massive paragraphs to extraordinary claims in recent blog posts? Here's another one: WP:COATRACK. This section needs to be condensed, and non-notable commentators' thoughts -- if it's even necessary to include them, and some of these folks I highly doubt are worth citing at all -- should be presented concisely, rather than quoted at length in a flimsy attempt to counterbalance the "bias" of the section being about what the section is supposed to be about. The sections on Parry (via sketchy-looking blog consortiumnews.com), Al Akhbar, etc., are way too long. We can summarize their salient points, consolidate redundant arguments, and cut verbose quotations and produce a much more encyclopedic and informative and fair article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well let's see. WP:INDISCRIMINATE warns against 1. Summary-only descriptions of fictional works. 2. Lyrics databases. 3. Excessive listings of statistics. I can't see any of those being an issue here, can you? On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS warns against 1. first-hand (unsourced) eyewitness-type claims: first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Misplaced Pages does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that... 2. including "routine" news and over-emphasising "breaking" news: routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. 3. concluding that all individuals in a notable event are notable: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. 4. turning biographies into diaries: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.... Again, I struggle to see how any of that is an issue here. I suggest that if you're going to repeatedly cite policy as a reason for doing what you want, you should actually read the policy in question. WP:POLICYSHORTCUTSARENOTASUBSTITUTEFORREADINGANDAPPLYINGTHEACTUALPOLICY. Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

On substance: Robert Parry (journalist) has an amazing track record, and his consortiumnews.com has been around since 1995 and is an established alternative news service. His contribution is certainly worth including on an explicit "X says" basis. As for Al Akhbar - most of that is citing experts or points easily verifiable from primary sources, and the author, Sharmine Narwani, is serious enough to be an Academic Visitor (a position formerly called Senior Associate Member) at an Oxford college. Nor are the claims particularly "extraordinary" - we're not talking about "oats are actually baby Martians" or something, we're talking about "maybe some fighters in a civil war tried to make an attack look worse than it was in order to gain international support". The possibility of site manipulation is right there in the UN report, for God's sake! Podiaebba (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And what I am saying is Misplaced Pages is not a place to post lengthy paragraphs about or from blog articles as a substitute for writing and maintaining encyclopedic content. There is no earthly reason why Al Akhbar should take up more than a couple sentences, as opposed to more than a paragraph. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is "no earthly reason" why you wouldn't look at the actual content instead of making sweeping remarks about Al Akhbar taking up space. One small paragraph is citing expert Dan Kaszeta's report; if it so offends you to point out that Al Akhbar cited that report, we can use it directly and pretend they didn't. That leaves 103 words from Al Akhbar, of which 48 are direct quotation from acknowledged CW expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. Your implication that much space is given Al Akhbar's opinion is wrong. Podiaebba (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So I'm assuming you wouldn't wail and scream about "POV-pushing!" were someone to quote at length all the "acknowledged CW experts" who agree with the mainstream version of events and add several new paragraphs attesting to its correctness? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of more information; you're vaguely implying you might want to add padding. Feel free to add though, and if it genuinely doesn't seem useful, we can talk about it. Podiaebba (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WhoGhouta Blog

what is spam

The above has been collapsed with reference to WP:SPAM. So let's visit it. We find There are three types of spam on Misplaced Pages. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Highlighting a useful website on a talkpage that is genuinely about the article's topic and isn't even something for-profit is not covered. Nor is there any suggestion that such "spam" should be collapsed even when an existing contributor is having a conversation about actual content. I would complain to someone, but I wouldn't know where. I just think this is appallingly rude behaviour. I intend to go read http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk some more when I get the time, and I urge anyone who isn't sticking their fingers in their ears as a defence against actual factual debate to go visit http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk as well! >:( (Not that I think the blog is overly correct in its conclusions, but it's just as interesting as Brown Moses Blog in actually engaging with the issues). Podiaebba (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOBLECAUSE. Promotion is often not-for-profit, especially when somebody has a case of The Truth™. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I take your general point - though neither of those links is exactly on the nose either (they're focussed on articles, not talkpages), at least referencing those as part of the hiding of the conversation wouldn't have seemed quite as rude and inappropriate. (I still see no hint of a sign that this collapsing is an appropriate action, BTW, even if the initial posting is defined as promotional and not good faith.) Podiaebba (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

I wondered who removed all this... and it turns out it was removed in one fell swoop. It was User:Kudzu1 who removed

1. Evidence about the US intelligence report being released by the White House, and the significance thereof
2. AP's statement that the US had refused to release satellite imagery, and the significance thereof (previous willingness to release "copious" imagery)
3. Kenneth R. Timmerman's report about the critical intra-Syrian phone call
4. Alan Grayson's complaint that the US classified report he read didn't provide enough evidence to judge whether Timmerman's report was accurate.

And the edit summary for these dramatic excisions? "reorganize, add, condense to reflect WP:NPOV and WP:DUE". I think this speaks for itself. Podiaebba (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is long; removal of content is defensible, particularly if it is outdated. If you disagree with removals, please discuss here while assuming good faith and attempting to minimize drama, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Zoinks! You got me! You caught me in the act of cutting WP:FRINGE claims and consolidating the AP and IPS reports on how the U.S. is not releasing more information, condensing Alan Grayson's reaction to the intelligence with that of other unimpressed members of Congress, and making other such changes to 1) make the article more encyclopedic and 2) make the section on the U.S. report actually on the report instead of being a coatrack of bloggers' claims about the attacks. Would you like to shoot me here, or wait 'til you get home? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Zoinks! indeed. You know what you did. 1. The IPS comments about the report being released by the White House, not the Director of National Intelligence, are important - you deleted them. 2. AP's statement about the White House refusal to release its satellite imagery, despite this being cited as key corroborative evidence and its previous willingness to release "copious" amounts of satellite imagery, is important - and you did even worse than delete it, you edited it to discredit it. You made it appear AP wanted "more information" which was classified (with the strong implication that the refusal to declassify was to protect sources; maybe the satellite imagery is technically classified, but it's hardly to protect sources). The transformation is astounding enough to quote in full your text: Some commentators also decried the Obama administration's decision not to declassify all of its intelligence, with the Associated Press and Inter Press Service reporting that media requests for more information were denied. And BTW who were these unnamed "some" commentators who demanded that all the intelligence be declassified - a demand that sounds prima facie unreasonable if you know anything at all about intelligence? You cite Timothy Naftali, who wants the phone intercepts declassified, AP which wants the satellite imagery released, and IPS who only asks for explanations about publication process. Zoinks indeed. 4. Rep. Grayson's editorial was in the NYT, and one of the few public characterisations of the classified evidence available that gives anything resembling specifics. It links critically with the report in point 3, which Grayson described as "widely read" and was the only specific example Grayson gave as to why he felt the classified report was incomplete. All of that is deeply important, and very far from "fringe" (Timmerman has a long career as a reporter, and even if he didn't, Grayson's citation of the report would be too important to ignore). In short, many, many "Zoinks". Podiaebba (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba good points. Im not sure why there is so much trouble getting and keeping important notable stuff in. Its like a trigger is pulled, wham, out it goes. Why is it so important to keep anything NPOV out that makes Barry look bad? We are not involved in this fight in Syria. Just supposed to be recording it NPOV and balanced. Am I missing something? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

After this removal, the article is still on the long side, around 140k. Do we really need quotes from the AP saying the satellite photos were not released, or can we just summarize the critical reception to the White House's published reasoning? As it stands, Ghouta chemical attack#United States is about half criticism which seems qualitatively about right. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need quotes from the AP saying the satellite photos were not released? No, why would we? Just because the satellite imagery is given a particular role in the US report and AP complains that the US had previously released "copious" satellite imagery for previous attacks, no, that's not worth explaining at all. Information is such a waste of space in an encyclopedia, eh. Podiaebba (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your outbursts and little tantrums don't really bolster your case, Podiaebba, and your insistence on assuming bad faith toward me and certain other editors is growing tiresome. If you are unhappy with the wording, then by god, change the wording. I'm not perfect, and the way I summarized these points -- which needed summarizing, BTW, as VQuakr has pointed out as well -- very well might not have been the best way they could have possibly been summarized. But I don't see what's noteworthy enough about Grayson's comments to include them independently; he basically said "I don't know what I think about this" and indicated the evidence didn't convince him. And as for Timmerman, the man is best known to me as a failed congressional candidate from Maryland, and his reporting is not widely cited. If being a journalist automatically inferred notability, I would love that, but it really doesn't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, Kudzu1. But you and others are making it such hard work to continue assuming good faith. I mean Jesus H. Christ, you've posted the above about 10 hours ago, but not fixed your egregious error I complained about? I specifically left it for you to do to prove your good faith - and it would only take a minute using the link to the original version near the top of this section. Hum. I think I'll leave it just to see how long you're willing to leave this egregious error unfixed. Podiaebba (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Grayson said as much as he could without getting into legal trouble - read the editorial (again, I hope). Timmerman's status I've already said is irrelevant given Grayson's use of him, so I guess I can save my breath talking about Timmerman's experience or debating the RS'ness of the Daily Caller. Let me spell it out as carefully as I can: the US wanted to go to war based on the classified summary. The summary is well, classified, so I (and I assume you) don't know what's in it. What on God's green earth makes you so utterly uninterested in providing what information we have about that classified summary? Do you have it in your back pocket and know it's amazing, so any criticism seems like bullshit to you? What is the reason for your antipathy to information that is critical of the US intelligence summary?? Podiaebba (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering I was the one who updated the article with President Obama's admission that he wasn't confident Congress would support strikes, and considering the international reactions from countries like Brazil and Ukraine that have avoided pinning the attacks on Assad that I've added to the IR section/page, and considering the statements from Russian officials that I've put in the article, I have no idea what the hell you're on about. To me, it seems like you're all pissed off because I removed your Daily Caller and RT stuff and trimmed down the section (which you seem to be taking waaaay too personally). If you want to regard that as an "egregious error", well, I really don't give a damn. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You grossly misrepresented sources, and when this was pointed out to you, you repeatedly declined to fix the problem before evading the issue and stating you "really don't give a damn"? Are you sure you wouldn't like to rethink your position? Podiaebba (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what are you referring to? And BTW, I applaud your initiative in breaking details out into a separate article, where they belong. That being said, I think a summary of Obama's desire to strike Syria and lawmakers' reactions is notable enough to merit inclusion in the section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I explained the misrepresentation above at 00:55 26 Sep. I'm pleasantly surprised at your applause, but still expect someone to attempt to destroy the separate article. But hey, if it's not you, good for you. Podiaebba (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, my main interest is in an encyclopedic (not necessarily comprehensive), objective, and readable Misplaced Pages. I felt that having a "US intelligence assessment" section (you'll notice I changed the section title a few days ago, partly in deference to your argument that the administration releasing the report and calling it a "government assessment" was significant) that was 80% criticism was undue weight, so I moved to cut some of the claims from unreliable sources and condense political and media criticisms. As I said above, I don't claim infallibility. I did edit the section last night to add more nuance to the "more information" sentence. If you still feel it is problematic, I'm open to wordsmithing it more on the Talk page, although I may not be able to contribute to it until tonight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it wasn't my argument, but yes, thanks for that. And I see now you did try to improve that issue (not very successfully) so I will try and fix it. Podiaebba (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

done. Podiaebba (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I continue to think the salient points could be distilled using either paraphrasing or less extensive quotation. And I think the Slate commentary is valuable as a representative piece of the pundit wing that has argued for declassification. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I've let Timmerman, Grayson, and the significance of how the report was released (White House, not DNI) go - but you're still not satisfied, because my version is 50-odd words longer? Tell you what, pick a wordcount that you want the report coverage expanded by to "buy" those 50 words: 150? 250? 500? I'll do it, though I can't promise it'll be useful. As to Slate - I don't see the point of editorial when we have strong news sourcing. It's only a ref, doesn't add to the main body wordcount, so whatever, but I don't see it as useful. Podiaebba (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW Obama not convincing Congress? That was just admitting the inevitable. Russian officials' unevidenced claims? So what? International reaction from Brazil and Ukraine? Who actually cares?? Do you really not see that adding such opinion in no way balances removal of critical information reflecting negatively on the certainty of the US case? Podiaebba (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I was thinking:

Several news articles suggested the U.S. military and intelligence communities were not unified behind the report put forward by the White House. The Inter Press Service questioned why the report was released by the White House as a "government assessment", quoting former intelligence officials who said it was "evidently an administration document" and suggested evidence was "cherry-picked" to support the conclusion that the Syrian government carried out the attacks, while the Associated Press quoted unnamed former intelligence officials cautioning that the intelligence was "not a slam dunk". Some commentators also decried the Obama administration's decision not to declassify more of its intelligence or release more documents to support the government assessment, and both the AP and the IPS reported that requests for more information on the intelligence were denied.

This would be in addition to readding the summary of lawmakers' reactions and the AUMF's failure to launch, wikilinking the articles you created in the process. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. That's only about 15 words shorter than my version, and it's much, much worse. Losing the specific critical phrasing of the AP quote in favour of weak paraphrasing which doesn't even convey the same specific information is just ... worse. Why are you even spending time on rewriting this? What about this is supposed to be better? And why, why, why do you not see that the AP's specific claims about the satellite imagery (not released, but had been released in "copious" amounts for previous attacks) is essential? Can you please understand that lumping that under requests for more intelligence to be released being denied is deeply misleading? Why try to assert "some commentators" backed up by just one editorial which isn't even all that prominent (slate)? How about just leaving well alone, Kudzu1? Podiaebba (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not "well enough", and extensive quoting looks sloppy, especially when it can be -- indeed, has been, in my version -- easily paraphrased. The AP's specific claims about the satellite imagery are not "essential", and it's not "misleading" to consider that -- like the IPS request -- more information sought by media (and, I might add, I fully support maximum disclosure of evidence myself). How is that "misleading", other than that you desperately want every little detail included in a section that is a summary of the U.S. position? If somebody wants to read the AP article for more detail, why, that's why we link to our Web sources. Why are you so hellbent on cramming in as much specific detail as possible? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh do what the hell you like. I reserve judgement on whether you're actually stupid enough not to understand the significance of AP's complaint that the US refuses to release one of the few pieces of evidence that would corroborate its claims without any risk of endangering sources (satellite imagery), even though the US has been happy to release "copious" satellite imagery for previous attacks. Equally, you may genuinely be too stupid, even after it's been repeatedly explained, to understand that lumping satellite imagery in with generic demands for more information (easily defensible as "might endanger sources") is deeply misleading. On the other hand, maybe it's just your job to wear people down until they give up and you can do what you want - in which case, congratulations, you've earned your paycheck. Podiaebba (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I wish I got paid to edit Misplaced Pages. Alas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Implying people are stupid is not nice, and I'd have to say Kudzu would not be the most obvious contender for that here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Al-Akhbar

I've removed the al-akhbar blog stuff because on the brown moses BlogSpot dan kaszeta seems to be saying that the awful narwani misrepresented him - - if this material doesn't make it to what are genrerally regarded as RS - I think all the FRinge stuff misrepresents the balnce of informed, impartial, opinion Sayerslle (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

dan kaszeta seems to be saying that the awful narwani misrepresented him - reading comprehension EPIC FAIL. Kaszeta vigorously disagrees with Narwani's conclusion that the Moadamiyah rocket had no sarin in it, but at no point does he say or imply that she misrepresented him. He says things like a misleading half-truth that “cherry picks” from the UN report for the claim "not a single environmental sample in Moadamiyah that tested positive for Sarin", because although this is perfectly true, as a CW expert he knows the significance of the degradation products detected, and apparently believes that Narwani must know it too. But no misrepresentation of Kaszeta, none. And BTW Kaszeta implicitly discounts any possibility of the scene being set up; his analysis rests on that assumption. But if the point is to establish culpability, that's rather assuming your conclusion. Podiaebba (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

to cherry pick - is to kind of misrepresent , no? your obsession against 'mainstream' is not really the point of wp anyhow imo - isn't wp meant to be led by mainstream RS - don't want the tail wagging the dog , and getting overwhelmed with fringe-y stuff. look at mintpresstv -load of garbage wasn't it?Sayerslle (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

to cherry pick - is to kind of misrepresent - true, but of the UN report, not Kaszeta's statements, and it assumes knowledge not proven. Absent that knowledge, it's simply a mistake. Podiaebba (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you cool it already with the "EPIC FAIL" stuff? Hardly constructive, is it? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, giving you irrelevancies to complain about is not constructive. With just two words I've managed to distract you from the key point that people keep alleging Narwani "misrepresented sources", which (a) isn't true of Kaszeta as a source and (b) is only true of the UN report if you assume she has certain CW tech knowledge about sarin degradation. Incidentally, if people spent a fraction of the effort on the sarin article about how sarin degradation works (I added the critical chemicals, which weren't even mentioned!), rather than constantly removing every sodding source here they don't like the smell of, we'd all be a damned sight better off. Podiaebba (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

well, I should have said Kaszeta is not impressed by her article - full stop - and she cherry picked from the UN report- otherwise your defence of this writer is that she can't be assumed to have knowledge about what she is writing about doesn't it? and I maintain that you are still downplaying the 'political' side of what she writes - what max Blumenthal indicated- Al Akhbar English now prominently features the malevolent propaganda of Amal Saad Ghorayeb and the dillentantish quasi-analysis of Sharmine Narwani , the apologia for Assad and his crimes has reached unbearable levels."

Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

She's a political analyst, not a CW expert; it's not reasonable to assume that she did know CW tech details and chose to ignore them. As to the political, well I've expanded on that in Al Akhbar (Lebanon) and Max Blumenthal, but, yeah, other than that, I'm totally ignoring it. Podiaebba (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lol at Sayersllslsls "awful" editorialising. At least she is from the region, unlike all the ridiculous western journalists stationed in Beirut and Tel Aviv, Skyping with FSA-PR folks. Not that the "heroic" western mercenary journalists embedded in caves with Salafists are much better. They all have in common that they don't speak Arabic, and are clueless about the background of the conflict and the players. Al-Akhbar is significant as one of the few English language Arabic media outlets that aren't owned by Gulf princes, so their views are important to reflect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

being from the region - so what? Goebbels was 'from the region' he spoke about - didn't mean it wasn't propaganda coming out his mouth. Sayerslle (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, great analogy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that violations of Godwin's law are unlikely to be productive in this context. That doesn't make Funk's reasoning any more valid, though. The author blatantly twists expert opinions into a conclusion that the experts do not support, ergo, the source is not usable. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Since this section also seems to be about using al-Akhbar in general, my comments were meant to address that, rather than individual articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Probably makes to look at articles on a case-by-case basis since context matters. This is a pretty standard practice for Misplaced Pages. VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They all have in common that they don't speak Arabic - with the honorary exception of Robert Fisk (and maybe some others, I'm not sure; but you're right in general). Podiaebba (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And bizarrely enough, folks like Sayerslsls would discount him for being stationed in regime-held areas, regardless of his credentials. Anyone who isn't a cheerleader for Islamic rebellion is "awful". But just maybe, those who know the region the best are those the Western govenrments should listen to? Or am I missing something? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

anyone who isn't a cheerleader for Assad propaganda is discounted as a 'mercenary' like Ian Pannell, is he a 'mercenary' because he reported on the napalming of the school near Aleppo - how much Arabic do you need to understand that? its a bit much being told one discounts Robert Fisk, -which I don't anyhow, I read the independent, cant avoid him, - by someone who discounts al-bayda massacre. Sayerslle (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I feel the need to do my policy thing and link WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. We clearly have some ideological differences on the Syrian conflict here, and this isn't the place to debate them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

more like moral differences. but you're right NOTFORUM.Sayerslle (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Morals are not part of it, bombing people by plane is not less morally right than bombing by suicide. Who do you think you're fooling? Most people here aren't morons. To get back to the point, al-Akhbar should not be dismissed in general, since it is the only widely read English language outlet for Arab Leftists. And again, pretty much everything else is owned by Gulf princes. And funny that Sayerslslslse mentions he doesn't read articles that are critical of the opposition. If you don't examine and understand the arguments of both sides, you're bound to fail at Misplaced Pages. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I did read Robert fisk funkmonkwkrakrer. Its you that dismisses and ignores and (lamely) mocks at everything that doesn't suit your particular prejudices or pre-formed narratives Sayerslle (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know which sources you find reliable when it comes to this conflict. And please, no Twitter, Sopher already failed with that one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses Blog

I'm surprised this hasn't been raised before (unless I missed something), but what exactly makes Brown Moses (a BlogSpot site) notable and reliable when many other self-published sites (consortiumnews.com having been cut, justly IMO, most recently) and blogs are dismissed? I think we need to apply our policies consistently. As with SOHR above, if reliable sources cite Brown Moses, I think we can use that -- but I don't think a self-published blog should be considered RS on its own. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, there is that - but he is considered highly isn't he ? and cited quite frequently by RS. in the meantime, I'll revert the last edit I made to the articleSayerslle (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses' claims are often found in mainstream media when they fit the mainstream narrative. Admissions that he doesn't actually know the range of the UMLACA aren't. I guess the obvious thing to do is to quote BM when he supports the mainstream narrative, and ignore when he doesn't, since that's basically the Official Policy here. Podiaebba (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF. This particular blog has been referenced repeatedly in mainstream news sources, which have also identified him as an expert. I think the most honest thing here is to attribute claims to him in-text and wikilink the author in the first instance. If you have any specific concerns about claims attributed to him, particularly if they have not been picked up by secondary sources, feel free to bring them up here or WP:RSN for a more in-context examination. VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The prominence of this nobody (and others like him) is just another testament to how critical journalism has been thrown out the window during this war. We should only mention his claims when reliable sources do so. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parry

There is a discussion thread at the reliable sources noticeboard which may be of interest to the editors here. The link is Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Parry. Podiaebba (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Rewritten by VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) to minimize drama content.

Mazzeh military hospital

AP reported U.N. experts, who had been collecting tissue and other samples from victims in Ghouta, also visited the Mazzeh military hospital in Damascus, taking samples from injured soldier there.. Did I miss this sampling appearing in the UN report?? Podiaebba (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the UN Mission's visit to Mazzeh on Aug 30 was widely reported. Maybe the report writers determined that the personnel they took samples from there were not germane to the Aug 21 attack? VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're straying into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably. I searched and did not see any articles discussing this Aug 30 visit that were published after the UN report came out. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We could speculate any number of reasons why the reported sampling didn't make it into the report, but that's not really helpful unless it helps us find sources to back that up. Right now I'm just asking the question: AP reports sampling, the results of which would have been surely as relevant as any others. I've not yet had any chance to try to follow that up (or even double-check there's no mention in the UN report, though I'm pretty sure of that from memory, I've read it pretty thoroughly), but if there's no follow-up to be had, I think the AP report on this has to be included without comment. Podiaebba (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the edit would be adding ", and Mazzeh military hospital." to the places visited in the UN Report section? sure, whatever. In a vacuum is seems barely worth mentioning, though. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Podiaebba (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News report as Russian disinformation?

Interesting article in the CSM here. The author seems to think that the discredited Mint Press article was actually planted by Russia, and seems to think that the listed coauthor who is claimed to have actually performed the interviews in Syria (Yahya Ababneh) may not exist (at least not as described). Do people think it is worth including in the speculation section? VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant if true, but I don't think the evidence is there to judge conclusively. Then again, that's basically the definition of "speculation", and it's pretty clear something fishy was going on with that Mintpress business, so I don't know. I'm agnostic on this one. I've also heard rumors that Yahya Ababneh is the pseudonym of a Jordanian writer named Yan Barakat, but I haven't seen anything to corroborate that yet, either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The CSM article mentions that. Two paragraph quote is below.

Of course, even if every word were verified it still is a degree separated from the subject of the article. I guess we table this one unless it gets more coverage? VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is covered in detail in the Mint Press News article. NB the MPN claim was implausible; probably about as implausible as the idea that Russian disinfo would produce something so weak and unconvincing. Fog of war (rumours in a war-torn city) quite adequately explains the origin of this story - part of which (Saudi supply of arms to the rebels) is after all well established, so the rumour only needs to cover the step from conventional to CW weapons in the context of a recent CW attack. Podiaebba (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for adding the source to the MPN article; I have not been following that one as closely. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Info for discussion

Russia asserts. The main conclusion is that the type of sarin used in that incident was homemade. We also have evidence to assert that the type of sarin used on August 21 was the same, only of higher concentration.”

No hysterics please. Yes yes and yes better refs may be required to satisfy some,. Give it a few days it will spread to refs you can live with. Though lets be honest, some below are fine. This is a discussion. A start, right. Thats all.

1. http://indian.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_10/Rebels-used-chemical-weapons-in-Syria-say-Russian-experts-164
2. http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-un-resolution-356/
3. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130917/183522104/Russia-Calls-UN-Report-on-Syria-Chemical-Attacks-Incomplete.html

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of these refs are from July. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

True, one was I removed it. One didnt stick. Minor issue, it will get traction. Actually the two stories tie in. Do you ever sleep :) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There's another one that looks like it's from July too (judging from the URL), but the link is broken. The other two are media outlets controlled by the Russian government and are thus not reliable sources. If we can get an RS reporting on this claim, I'm all for including it -- I mean, it would be really cool if Moscow would actually put forward actual evidence, but that seems to be a lot to ask -- but right now, it doesn't pass muster, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO muster will be ok in time as its picked up and discussed. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait and see. Can't see why another completely unsupported Russian claim wouldn't get some play in international media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing each of the sources:

1 was 404 for me; can you please verify the link?

2 is a new source, but the same old unsupported denials that we get almost daily from Lavrov. It cites "The reports by the journalists who visited the sites, who talked to the combatants, combatants telling the journalists that they were given some unusual rockets and munitions by some foreign country" (discredited Gavlak report); "evidence from the nuns" (Mother Agnes); and "an open letter sent to President Obama by former operatives of the CIA and the Pentagon" (VIPS letter based on discredited Gavlak report). Nothing particularly new or surprising here, and certainly nothing worth adding to the article.

3 is old news from the day after the report, and has been mentioned before as problematic since it criticizes the UN Mission for not violating its charter.

There ya go; hysterics-free! Out of curiosity, why did you include the old articles in your post? VQuakr (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For background, ie same sarin used earlier by rebels stronger dose used later idea. Give it time, it took years for the Iraq WMD deception to come out. IMO this will be quicker if this turns out to be another false flag op. Imagine if the proof came out it was the rebels. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Another? Iraq was faulty/fraudulent intelligence conclusions stemming from having justification for the invasion being a foregone conclusion by the Bush administration. There was no false flag. Coming back to here, we agree then that nothing you posted is suitable to addition to the article? VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. Another yes, didnt say which one. But you are right Iraq was fraudulent intel. Back here, IMO you're too keen to close this down. Its a slow process. Calm. I'm a trained researcher actually. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10335869/Russia-claims-it-has-evidence-sarin-gas-was-home-made.html Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to close anything down. I am just confused as to why you are bringing up more of the same unsupported Lavrov quotes when Russia's official stance is already in the article. If you were not talking about Iraq, then I do not understand what you were saying by "if this turns out to be another false flag op" above. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong but this is new isn't it? Re another false flag op. Iraq? Dont mind that, many were confused, I still am confused just how they managed to get it so wrong. FF? Dont know. But its quite common. Takes ages to come out though. Lots of time, lets not be hasty, time will tell, maybe maybe not. Moving on. Did you see the Guardian link?

Heres a quote from another site, ' copy and google. 'Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with a US newspaper (Washington Post) published Thursday that homemade sarin nerve agent was used in a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on August 21, an attack that the United States maintains was carried out by the Syrian regime'.

'Lavrov gave an interview to The Washington Post on Tuesday after a meeting with his US counterpart John Kerry. Lavrov said he had used the meeting to hand over evidence proving Russia’s contention that chemical weapons were used by Syrian rebel groups in the controversial August 21 attack.

Now lets stay cool, early days, but it may be pivotal info this 'evidence' handed to Kerry. ] (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you meant "another", in the sense that it would not have been the first FF attack, ever, anywhere? Not trying to dwell, just not understanding what you are trying to say. Lots of what Lavrov has said would be very significant if actually substantiated. None has been so far though, so perhaps you will pardon the very limited extent to which my breath is bated. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it is a waiting game. There have been plenty of 'others' on that wiki link I posted. But if the rebels did do it it would be a false flag operation I would imagine. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

'Russian Foreign Minister told David Ignatius of The Washington Post that he has presented U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with evidence that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons on August 21 in the East Ghouta suburb of Damascus, adding that the information is "available on the Internet." - blimey - and brown moses tweeted earlier; 'Lavrov cites mystery reporter Ababneh. Russian "evidence" includes Mint Press article' - According to another report; -'(Yan Barakat) another name for Yahya Barkat has commented on Facebook before publishing his article. the comment saying that he met with Russian officials in Damascus who informed him with information about the chemical attack on Eastern Ghouta. This meeting was not mentioned in Yahya mint press report. -ababneh is currently unavailable for comment, a friend says he is 'traveling at the moment'. Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well sure, you could rely on a third-hand report translated from English into Arabic and English again. Or you could look at the original al-bab source here, as linked from Mint Press News. The detail that the Russian contact was an "official" is not in the original, still less that there was more than one. (Of course the story is almost as interesting without that detail.) Podiaebba (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"probably about as implausible as the idea that Russian disinfo would produce something so weak and unconvincing. Fog of war (rumours in a war-torn city) quite adequately explains the origin of this story " - but Lavrov seems to have taken it quite seriously - - and you were keen on its importance early on weren't you - still, it served its purpose very well - influenced uninformed public opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"keen on its importance"? I wanted to include it, but I never thought that type of accident very plausible as a sole explanation. I vaguely recall pointing out something about the tunnels aspect making it even less likely that it would cause such widespread contamination. I agree though that Lavrov seems happy to throw everything at the wall and sees what sticks, which doesn't inspire confidence that he has really convincing evidence that it actually was the rebels. Podiaebba (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Time may provide data with refs, but it may take some time. As Western news outlets are fallible and biased also as evidenced by this; 'The New York Times, BBC and the usual Western media mouthpieces for imperialist propaganda dutifully facilitated Kerry and his US state terrorism with bombastic, important-sounding headlines. “Kerry lays out evidence against Syria”. There was hardly a critical question raised, even though there are grounds for dozens such questions.'

What I found interesting is the role social media played in exposing quickly what used to be accepted. Continuing. 'Years ago, that kind of herd-think might have been enough to buy the US warmongers enough time to launch a war – but not any more. Within minutes of Kerry’s supposedly definitive condemnation, statements, articles, tweets and blogs were pulling the charade asunder, showing that apart from Western-media-amplified bombast, Kerry was not saying anything of value.' http://nsnbc.me/2013/09/01/usa-no-1-threat-to-world-peace-security-and-freedom/

Why is this relevant? Well people are not as gullible it seems. After the Iraq WMD fiasco they just dont buy the old 'trust me stories'. So we must ensure we write to reflect growing public awareness of such things by doing NPOV well. Otherwise we are just reflecting the fallibility of some western news outlets to not ask hard questions. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

personal testimony

on bbc radio 5 live Justin Byworth, of World Vision, spoke about a conversation he had with 8 year old Tasnim , now a refugee in Lebanon who told him about the 'horror of that night' - of how for weeks besieged, no bread, middle of the night, shelling, bombing, used to it, then about 3 am, a stranger noise,and mayhem, running, shouting, walkie talkies, - some with knowledge of what to do poured coca cola and charcoal, wetted on towels over their faces, - saw mothers putting their childs faces into the soil to protect from the gas - days of vomiting and dizziness - but she escaped - is a reference to a BBC 5 live radio interview with Byworth enough? Sayerslle (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say the write-up here is more verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What new is brought up here? Seems redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What section in article describes the first-hand accounts of these interviewees? The more general description of the general breakdown in basic services in the district due to the conflict is also relevant, since it effected the emergency medical response and continues to effect the quality of post-exposure care for survivors. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Should report as fact that this was an attack by government forces

Many sources, including The Economist, Human Rights Watch, and every accountable democratic government that has addressed the issue, have all explicitly and directly blamed Syrian government forces for the attack. If none of these are reliable sources, then there is no such thing as a reliable source and Misplaced Pages might as well just shut itself down. As always, some people will argue that all the reliable sources are actually wrong. Even if the reliable sources were wrong, too bad. We report based on reliable sources, not fringe conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you -- I think the preponderance of reliable sources and verifiable facts in this case indicate the Syrian government was responsible -- but as the UN report stopped short of explicitly naming the Syrian government as the perpetrator, I think such a change would lack consensus from editors here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're basically asking to treat mainstream Western opinion as fact (ignoring much mainstream non-Western opinion). A dispassionate examination of the actual evidence would conclude that it is likely the Syrian government was responsible, but that the case is unproven. People with access to the US intelligence have used words like "thin"; and the US government report was a Government Assessment (U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013) and not an Intelligence Assessment, which would have included intelligence community doubts and caveats. That and the US government's unwillingness to release even the satellite imagery it claims corroborates its view does not inspire a rejection of parallels with the 2003 Iraq war. On the other side, Russia hasn't provided much evidence to support its view either; perhaps the strongest is the claim that the BM-14 munition found by the UN is no longer used by the Syrian army (though if the Syrians were going for deniability, maybe they would use some old ones lying around). Finally, many analysts and journalists have pointed out the motivation problem: with UN inspectors in town, why would the Syrian government suddenly risk everything with the first major CW attack of the war? In conclusion, my opinion (since you asked - oh, you didn't...) is that it was likely some form of accident, in two scenarios: (a) mixup between CW and conventional munitions, as happened in the Iran-Iraq war at times (b) high-concentration attack by mistake, when it was intended to be low-concentration deniable attack - as US and others allege has happened a dozen times before. Final conclusion: there's nothing to be gained from declaring opinion as fact. Attribute and explain - what's the harm? PS The US assessment actually provides evidence for accident scenario b: the high civilian death toll surprised and panicked senior Syrian officials, who called off the attack and then tried to cover it up. Podiaebba (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't, because it is not a fact, it is an unproven theory, out of two competing ones, both are pushed for political reasons. All sources mentioned above are western, influenced by Western governments, therefore not neutral. HRW especially has shown bias before, not only here, but in other conflicts. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TROLL thread Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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