Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

RfC about US government delegation visit to OPCW investigation team

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although there is a clear preponderance of !votes for inclusion, we call them "not votes" for a reason. Indeed, RfC closers are specifically cautioned not to merely count noses. Comments that: ...flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue are weighted less or ignored altogether. In the discussion below, this applies to several of the "include" comments, which merely assert importance but fail to cite any policy to sustain assertions or respond to the clearly-expressed doubts of source reliability or NPOV. These are Core Content Policies that cannot be swept aside through local consensus. After having been open over three months and having no significant comments for nearly 90 days, no further clarity is likely to emerge. After weighting these factors into account, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no consensus for inclusion of this proposed edit. When there is no consensus ...[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the sentence

According to Aaron Mate writing in The Nation, a few days prior to the release of the interim report, a "US government delegation met with members of the investigation team to try to convince them that the Syrian government had committed a chemical attack with chlorine". The investigation team regarded the meeting as "unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality".

be added to the "OPCW investigation" section?

Burrobert (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Yes. It is significant and has good sourcing. Burrobert (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning exclude. the OP doesn't provide any support for why they think this viewpoint is "significant", but only one source has been presented. As WP:BALASP notes, coverage such an isolated criticism would be disproportionate to said criticism's significance to the actual topic of this article: see WP:VNOTSUFF. This case is even more clear-cut though. The author of this isolated source is not known for their independence from the subject material as discussed at WP:PARTISAN, and in fact cites themselves in the article back to a source that has been deprecated due to their habit of falsifying information. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude this viewpoint fails WP:DUE/WP:BALASP. Furthermore, The Nation is primarily a commentary / opinion magazine (rather than mostly factual reporting) and I am not convinced it's reliable for facts on controversial topics. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude because of (a) the dubiousness of the author as outlined exhaustively in the previous section of this talk page, (b) for reasons of due weight, given this is a marginal side detail which The Nation piece acknowledges has not recieved coverage in RSs. Comment: I think it was a bit odd to open this RfC when another editor had already notifed this talk page that it had been raised at RSN - shouldn't we wait until the RSN has ruled first? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I lean towards yes with the caveat that I haven't read the whole article or the whole prior discussion on the grounds that Aaron Mate isn't a crackpot. I also think that the whole "OPCW investigation" is way too long and you need to collaborate to make it better. :) ImTheIP (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Reliable source and notable, definitely should be included in the article. This article has over a long time experienced censorship attempts to remove anything that goes against pro-US views. That is censorship.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. Dubious article. It isn't "censorship" to exclude an article which is readily available online and has negligible backup in reliable sources. Articles which have a pro-Russian or pro-Syrian viewpoint have a considerably greater tendency to be wrong than more mainstream western sources. The false Iraqi WMD claims, which are still being rehashed by Putin and Assad sympathizers, date from as long ago as 2002 and 2003. Philip Cross (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. It is certainly an attempt at censorship of wikipedia (whether it is still available online is very obviously totally irrelevant). Arguments made against inclusion rely on convoluted and illogical reasoning and have no basis in WP policy. There is also basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the words 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. The latter does not mean "writes exclusively lies, and must be disbelieved even when corroborated by others". Cambial Yellowing❧ 10:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Corroborated "by others" who are also in the same camp, such as academics, journalists and bloggers who reputable writers (practically all of whom we can normally cite without any problems) dismiss. Philip Cross (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Using the word "reputable" to mean "those I like" reinforces the notable absence of any basis in WP policy. Camps are not how we decide on sources. Cambial Yellowing❧ 11:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I assumed "reputable writers" would be taken as a variant of "reliable sources" as "[whom] the authors of articles which fulfill the usual criteria for reliable sources" is long-winded. "Reliable writers" would no doubt have been taken by some as meaning "western", "pro-US", etc. Philip Cross (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In the context of your admission that you base your position on the "camp" into which you deem an author to fall, rather than their and their publisher's scholarly scruples, that assumption appears sanguine, at best. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of using "same camp" phrase, I could have used denialists or Assad apologists, among other words and terms. I was trying to avoid a detour from the main issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You might have done so, though that would have raised the problem for you of its being a glaringly obvious error of fact, as it does here. Cambial Yellowing❧ 13:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: At the time of your comment, all the votes that cited specific Wikipedia policy were in favour of "exclude". It would be more productive for you to respond to the policy-based arguments for exclusion rather than deny that they exist and say it is "certainly an attempt at censorship of wikipedia". You should assume good faith. CowHouse (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Creating a wikilink to a policy page is not the same as basing arguments on the spirit and letter of the content of the policies, as the above amply demonstrate. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include It most definitely needs to be included since it is important and backed by reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include Published in a reliable source, not an exceptional claim given other irregularities covered by multiple RS. Until we get more RS reporting on it it deserves a brief mention with an attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude.(Summoned by bot) the sourcing seems thin, the claim itself very vague and the section over-long and unclear already.Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. This article as it is written greatly undersells the doubt on the veracity of the OPCW report. Reliable source, would much needed neutrality to the article.Zellfire999 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. The source is reliable, the point is not already sufficiently covered, and the article would be improved by its inclusion. Once that is admitted, a separate discussion can determine how to present any information found in the The Nation article vis-à-vis the information already present in the WP article. It makes no sense to avoid that discussion by excluding a reliable source. Additionally, with respect to most of the arguments currently presented in favor of exclusion, there is an extenuating circumstance: a clear effort (by users such as VQuakr, in their vote rationale above, and Philip Cross elsewhere) has been made to present the use of this article from The Nation as unworthy of coverage on the basis of inapplicable WP guidelines. For example, WP:PARTISAN is inapplicable here, for obvious reasons (otherwise we would apply it whenever an article covered conflicting reports and geopolitical pressures, which would defeat the point). Spurious justifications considerably weaken the case against inclusion. bawnk (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include but definitely WITH ATTRIBUTION as already shown in the proposed text. The Nation is a reliable source, but this is of course too controversial to be included as an undisputed factual statement. Talrolande (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include - I agree with the aforementioned reasoning given by Alaexis and Zellfire999. Andrew11374265 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The arguments that have been mentioned against adding this include:

• This point has appeared in sources which Wikipedia considers unreliable and therefore it cannot be added to Wikipedia even when it appears in a reliable source
• Aaron Mate contributes to a source which Wikipedia regards as unreliable. Therefore, his writings in reliable sources cannot appear in Wikipedia. This was the most popular argument, having been put by three separate editors in three different ways. The editor who invented the argument forgot he had invented it and recommended another editor’s version of it.
• Bellingcat said it didn’t happen.
• “Overcoverage”. Apparently this point is already in the article. I have not been able to find it.
• One editor claimed he could read Aaron Mate’s mind.
• “Rehashing”. I haven’t been able to work this one out.
• Noteworthiness. This argument states that secondary sources need to be commented on by other secondary sources to become notable. I have not seen this in policy.
• The visit by the US government delegation isn’t "scandalous". This argument implies the US government delegations commonly visit international organisations asking them to publish reports useful to US foreign policy. This may in fact be true but shouldn’t stop us including such a visit and reactions to it in Wikipedia articles when it occurs.

Burrobert (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence for the above RfC misrepresents the source: The investigation team regarded the meeting as "unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality". The article actually says this: According to veteran reporter Jonathan Steele, who interviewed one of the whistle-blowers, the Douma team saw the meeting as “unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality.” Attribution is necessary and it should be noted, as the article states, that this quote from Steele is based on an interview with one person. CowHouse (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of two sources that mention the meeting [1] [2]. Both articles say the meeting occurred based on a briefing from "Alex". Has this meeting been independently verified? As it stands, the views of "Alex" already have disproportionate weight in the "OPCW investigation" section. CowHouse (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Mate is quoting and citing the November Counterpunch piece so it seems bizarre for us to cite Mate. According to RSN/PS There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed. Is it that we are citing the Nation as a way of avoiding citing CounterPunch because of its dubious reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

---

This is an excerpt from an article in The National Interest republished by The Cato Institute: [3].

The Grayzone’s Aaron Mate expressed disappointment bordering on disgust about the performance of the journalistic community: “As the suppressed findings come out via brave whistleblowers and Wikileaks, they are still being kept from the public. That is because the Western media — including top progressive, adversarial outlets — have ignored or whitewashed the story. And that media self‐​censorship has become a scandal in itself.”

So apparently they consider Aaron Mate to be generally reliable. The Cato Institute is somewhere between 'generally reliable' and 'no consensus', but certainly it's on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Alaexis_¿question? 09:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: would be interesting to know which "top progressive, adversarial outlets" refused to publish Maté's article. Perhaps they have a higher reputation than the Cato Institute? Philip Cross (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment moved from here to the straw poll above Alaexis_¿question? 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the most recent discussion in 2015, there is no consensus on the reliability of the Cato Institute for topics outside of libertarianism in the United States. The author of this opinion piece described The Grayzone as a "non-mainstream outlet" and quoted Maté's personal views. That is not the same as the Cato Institute saying he is a reliable source. Besides, Maté's quote appears to support the view of editors who say this story is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This opinion piece also says OPCW officials had withheld the release of information about the dissenting views, with no explanation or apparent justification and sources to the blog of Caitlin Johnstone. According to a Bellingcat article, Johnstone promoted the theory that Seth Rich was responsible for leaking Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 US presidential election. A reliable source would not consider someone like Johnstone to be an authority on this topic. CowHouse (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That there is no consensus doesn't mean it can't be used. We are trying to assess notability of a claim here, not determine the ultimate truth. Alaexis_¿question? 14:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

My point was not only that there is no consensus on the Cato Institute's reliability, based on an admittedly stale discussion, but that this specific article is an opinion piece which demonstrates its unreliability by referencing the blog of Caitlin Johnstone for a statement of fact. We should only consider reliable sources when determining notability and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CowHouse (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't apply impossible standards to one sentence in a 100kb article. There is one generally reliable source where this was published and another source which can be used in this context. Inferences like "journalist X works at Y therefore all his articles are unreliable" is not a part of WP:RS. Alaexis_¿question? 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP says The Nation is considered generally reliable but what should not be overlooked is this: Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article. The issue is not only with reliability but also with weight. Since this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, citing an opinion piece from a source not considered high-quality does little to demonstrate that this is WP:DUE. The RfC is about adding two sentences in a section several editors say is already too long. Besides, if there is an exceptional claim, the number of sentences is hardly relevant. The Cato opinion piece also does not mention the proposed content in the above RfC, and was published before Maté's Nation article, so how can it be used in this context? On the topic of reliability, as VQuakr notes: the author...cites themselves in the article back to a source that has been deprecated due to their habit of falsifying information. It is a misrepresentation to describe this as "journalist X works at Y therefore all his articles are unreliable". The author of the Cato opinion piece (whose opinion should not be considered representative of the Cato Institute as a whole) quoted Maté's writing in The Grayzone for his opinion rather than any facts, and described The Grayzone as a "non-mainstream outlet". This does not support your view that "they consider Aaron Mate to be generally reliable." CowHouse (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is how Maté is described in a New York magazine article: Republicans began spreading the message in mid-January that impeachment was a plot by the party leadership to take Sanders off the campaign trail, a theory also echoed by some of Sanders’s nuttier fans, like Aaron Mate and Krystal Ball. Regarding Maté's reliability on the topic of Syria specifically, it is noteworthy that he was given the Serena Shim Award. According to a Bellingcat article, the award is from a pro-Assad group which gives thousands of dollars to recipients, including people such as Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. CowHouse (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat is actually a great example to contrast with the Nation. It's considered generally reliable, but since it's financed (among others) by National Endowment for Democracy some users consider it biased (I'm quoting WP:RSP). Nevertheless it's used many times in the article, sometimes without attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that's comparable. Some editors consider it unreliable because a small fraction of its income is from the NED rather than because it's actually shown to be unreliable, whereas those objecting to this piece see it as unreliable because its author has been shown to be unreliable. I think there is too much use of Bellingcat in the article too, not on the basis of reliability so much as noteworthiness: the whole OPCW section is very bloated and we should be trimming not expanding. I'd also question whether the Cato opinion peice and the Nation opinion peice represent "opposite side[s] of the political spectrum" as per Alaexis: sure, on domestic politics, one is on the left and one on the right, but on geopolitical issues Cato is anti-interventionist and isolationist and tends to take similar positions to the Grayzone writers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC) (I also notice that the Cato article is actually reprinted from The National Interest, another anti-interventionist/realist outlet regarded by the RSN as at best "opinionated". Also that, as well as quoting Caitlin Johnstone, the Cato writer says that the OPCW is an unrelaible source because it relies on the White Helmets which he describes as "a virulently anti‐​Assad medical aid organization backed by Saudi Arabia", which is a good indication of why we shouldn't even touch this opinion piece. (The White Helmets are not backed by Saudi Arabia.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to be trimmed to only include the findings, allegations of bias, the official reaction and other prominent positions. Alaexis_¿question? 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that the discussion has matured a little I'll provide a summary of some points that have been raised so far to help editors who are having trouble wading through the discussions. This is an addition to the summary I made at the top of the discussion section.

• Mate’s article has now been discussed in an article by Tyler Durden of the Ron Paul Institute.[4]
• I missed one argument from the discussion prior to the RfC: an editor noted that Mate is not skilled in the practice of Veterinary acupuncture and doesn’t know one end of a screwdriver from another.
• There is some concern that the event in dispute is marginal, not significant or not worth including. Presumably their reasoning is that, since the US does this sort of thing all the time, we can’t be expected to include every instance. These editors may not have made it to the second sentence where it becomes clear that the OPCW inspectors themselves considered it noteworthy.
• At the other end of the scale an editor has described it as an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources.
• There have been countless more renditions, in various forms, of the argument that Mate is unreliable because he contributes to a source that we have classed as unreliable. Have editors considered setting it to music and taking it on the road? What about turning it into a Gregorian chant and intoning it in Latin to give it some gravitas?
• There has been a lot of quoting of Bellingcat. One editor, who presumably has access to Belligcat’s accounts, said they only receive a little bit of money from the National Endowment for Democracy.
• Mate received an award that Bellingcat doesn’t like.
• Mate was called nutty by someone at NYMag. I wouldn’t recommend following the labyrinth of links to see why this person said that. One chain of links leads to a twitter thread where Mate says that he doesn’t know what goes on behind closed doors. It’s a statement that is above reproach.
• One editor has broken away from the consensus on The Nation and was not convinced of its reliability in this instance.
• One editor used the term "misrepresent" a few times. On one of these occasions he was discussing the statement about Mate being unreliable because he writes for … etc etc. The other time actually makes some sense. The editor says the statement at issue here should mention that Mate is quoting Jonathan Steele who received his information from a whistleblower (said to be Alex in the Counterpunch article). The current statement is already attributed to Mate’s article but I don’t see a problem amending the statement to add that he is quoting Steele. Since no one else has mentioned this point I presume it would not affect any of the votes that have already been cast.
• There was some discussion about due weight. Due weight applies to “viewpoints”. We have a number of references quoting sources that say the meeting happened and the OPCW inspectors were not happy about it. The editors who have mentioned this as an issue haven't said what the other significant viewpoint is that we need to take into account? We can’t exclude a view because no conflicting view exists in any sources.
• One of our editors has completed a research project comparing the accuracy of articles which have a pro-Russian or pro-Syrian viewpoint with mainstream western sources. His supervisor should have advised him to remove the assumption in the statement of the project that mainstream western sources can’t have a pro-Russian or pro-Syrian viewpoint. The editor hasn’t posted a link to the journal in which his research has appeared but has provided an abstract of his results which, unfortunately, we are not allowed to use.
• One editor said the claim is vague. He believes Mate should write a follow up article to provide details of the time of the meeting, what the participants were wearing, whether drinks were served etc.
• One editor thought that Alex is too prominent in the article.
• Some of our editors were feeling bloated and were trying to slim down. They thought a good start would be to stop new putting things into the section.
• We should forget about what happened in 2002 and 2003 because everything is better now.
• An editor was suspicious of the people Mate went camping with.
• Someone mentioned the Cato Institute which led to Bellingcat being quoted again.

Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The article reprinted by the Ron Paul Institute is by the blogger Tyler Burden and first appeared on the ZeroHedge website. ZeroHedge is a deprecated source. Philip Cross (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Ron Paul Institute article clearly states: Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge. It is certainly noteworthy that Maté's article references, and is referenced by, deprecated sources. Being referenced by a deprecated source would be less concerning if reliable sources referenced the story as well but that does not appear to be the case. It is also misleading to call your comment a summary to help other editors. You are either responding to or dismissing points in the discussion that you disagree with. Besides, such a lengthy "summary" is hardly a helpful timesaver. Editors would be better served reading the actual discussion and forming their own conclusions. CowHouse (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link to Wikileaks in External links

Philip Cross, what is the problem with having a link to wikileaks in the external links section? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WikiLeaks. Philip Cross (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use wikileaks as a source. I used it as an external link.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not deprecated, it's classified as generally unreliable, so the stated reason is not true. Alaexis_¿question? 17:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my argument, WP:RSP says "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source" about wikileaks. This is clearly the case here as multiple reliable secondary sources discuss wikileaks cables. Alaexis_¿question? 06:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This means that TheTimesAreAChanging argument for his revert is invalid.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The link is highly relevant to the article. The authenticity of none of the content on the Wikileaks site is disputed. Burrobert (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, the consensus reached at RSN (and cited by Philip Cross above) states:

WikiLeaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK.

You are free to believe that the editors responsible for that consensus statement are incorrect in their analysis, but this is not the appropriate forum to relitigate the matter. Moreover, repeating that "It's not deprecated!" as Alaexis has done is simply not responsive to the concerns outlined at WP:ELNO and certainly fails to make a persuasive affirmative case for why this particular external link needs to be included. Admittedly, coverage in secondary reliable sources might render the link permissible, but that would still beg the question of why we need to cite the primary source at all. In particular, I am wondering how this link passes the first criteria for inclusion outlined at ELNO, which recommends against linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." Burrobert's argument reads like he is advocating for the use of WikiLeaks as a source, in which case a mere external link would be grossly insufficient; however, it seems that certain editors are attempting to "settle" for including WikiLeaks as an external link despite that having no basis in Wikipedia's established content guidelines regarding external links because they disagree with the RSN holding that WikiLeaks is a generally unreliable source (which, in turn, seems rather WP:POINTy).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging , having an external link to wikiliks does not violate the guideline. We are not using it as a source and there is no copy violation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We are not discussing Wikileaks reliability here and in any case I don't have a strong opinion about it.

My argument is based on the current consensus re this source: "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source." The cables certainly contain much more information than this article would contain if it were a FA. They are discussed by the secondary sources and as such are useful for the reader. Alaexis_¿question? 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way I would be fine with adding inline citations to Wikileaks to appropriate places as well. Alaexis_¿question? 22:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose use as an external link here. As the primary documents are misleading without context provided by reliable secondary sources, much better to use secondary sources in the text with proper footnotes and keep this out of the external links. Some months ago, while the article was locked down, we reached consensus on reliable sources that mention Wikileaks that we could use: CBS,[5] the Guardian,[6] AFP/F24[7] and possibly AP.[8] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, we are not using wikileaks as a source in the main text, its just a link in the external links section. We can have both reliable secondary sources in the main text, and a link in the external links section to wikileaks.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find the discussion on the inclusion of the link, maybe you could point to the exact place in that archive? Alaexis_¿question? 11:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: The discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Douma_chemical_attack/Archive_10 - was not about using this specific link but about what secondary sources we should use. The ones I listed all discuss this Wiklileaks release and so it would be far better to include these reliable sources properly in the body rather than a problematic primary source in the external links. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that the external link has been reinstated, yet I remain unconvinced by the rationale provided in the edit summary, as it does not seem to be responsive to the criteria outlined in WP:ELNO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What part of WP:ELNO does the external link not follow? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

For starters, the criterion that "the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The link has large amount of content, many pages, I'm pretty sure large parts of its content is not in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELPOV: On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. Given that there was an extensive official OPCW investigation, whose documentation is not currently in the external links, to include an external link to some very marginal documents related to this investigation, apparently cherry-picked to present a very particular (and fringe) POV interpretation of the evidence, and prefaced on their site by Wikieaks' own misleading and in some places inaccurate editorialising, would be POV-pushing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What it doesn't say is that minority views should be excluded altogether. I've added the link to the OPCW report and now there are 3 more or less mainstream sources (OPCW, NYT and Bellingcat) so the majority point of view is represented by the majority of the links. Alaexis_¿question? 14:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly better to include it alongside (and after) the OPCW report itself, feels more due. Not sure that consensus for inclusion has yet been achieved for it to be re-included - see WP:ONUS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite obvious that none of the criteria in ELNO apply in this instance. Criterion 3 of ELYES is easily fulfilled. The level of detail cannot be integrated into the article but is wholly relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject. Cambial foliage❧ 09:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The third ELYES criterion says Sites that contain neutral and accurate material. I don't think we can say that for these documents. Have they been verified? The heavy redactions (apparently not by Wikileaks but by whoever obtained the documents from the OPCW and passed them on) make them misleading and confusing (which in mamny cases appears to be the purpose of the redaction). Many of the documents are simply the personal gripes of individuals or out of context snippets from email discussions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

KEEP IT - esp. as an external/see also type link. It is also bizarre that we can use Bellingcat (essentially think-tank funded by the NED) who quote Wikileaks, but we aren't smart enough to see that same Wikileaks context here ourselves. Strange that another "independent" "journalism" site needs to process it for us. Apeholder (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Have a separate section for the claims that the attack was staged

This is a claim I've heard several times around the internet, and it's mentioned in the lead, but the article doesn't really address it very well. The Aftermath section is currently quite long and unwieldy, covering a lot of ground w/r/t the attack, and it's hard to sift out the information about possible staging. I'm nowhere close to an expert on this, nor do I have permission to edit the article, but I think it would be an improvement for others who come looking for this article because of that claim. 2604:2D80:DA81:D800:8C36:8ECB:A5EC:6EFB (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The claims from the Russian and Syrian governments are mentioned in the main text in brief and the relevant passages can perhaps be improved. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for an explanation of citable sources, but the most reliable sources on this list are likely to consider the "staged" argument as being complete nonsense. Philip Cross (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Syrian Government reports that the Douma Cylinders were destroyed in an Israeli Air Raid

The Syrian Arab Republic reported to the UN Technical Secretariat that the two Douma cylinders in its possession were destroyed in an Israeli air raid on the Al-Nasiriyah Military Airbase on 8 June[9]. UN inspectors last saw the cylinders during a November 2020 visit at a declared site 60 km from the Al-Nasiriyah Military Airbase; they were supposed to bring the cylinders back to OPCW headquarters but Syrian authorities refused to allow the cylinders to leave its territory. The Secretariat further noted that the Syrian Arab Republic was told "that it was not to open, move, or alter the containers or their contents in any way without seeking the prior written consent of the Secretariat". Syrian Arab Republic did not report to the Secretariat that the cylinders were moved prior to their destruction [10]. Diamonddavej (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bellingcat

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources § Bellingcat

20 references are made to this organization in the article. I'm not quite clear (nor is it anywhere explained here) what authority do they have in this matter. By the end of the article, it almost seems like they have the final say over everything. Possibly they're a big authority for the authors of this article, but for most people it just looks ridiculous, like, OK, the UN investigators say this, but what does the British Snopes say? 87.110.102.32 (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

They have a bias but you'd need reliable sources putting their findings in doubt. Alaexis_¿question? 06:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it woudn't hurt to trim the OPCW section, but Bellingcat (considered a generally reliable source by Wikipedia anyway) are given weight in this article due to their major investigations with Forensic Architecture and the NYT Visual Investigations team - see https://forensic-architecture.org/programme/news/douma-and-the-opcw-leaks BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The section does need to be trimmed down a bit. The OPCW part. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C96F:9F80:55BF:139C (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you need the word "actionable" defined for you? --Calton | Talk 01:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

| This may be of interest Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

from a deprecated source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability issues with the White helmets, OPCW, and Bellingcat

There's a series of bias and reliability issues with the following sources

• The OPCW and it's investigation were directed by a man who previously served as the permanent representative to NATO. Their investigation was also contradicted by leaked documents from WikiLeaks. Which for some reason, isn't liked here going off the edit history

• Bellingcat literally just regurgitates disproved info constantly. It also has major state funding, per both it's website and it's own director on Twitter

• The white helmets are openly pro opposition and biased against the government, SDF, and Kurdish factions. They also receive major state funding IdkIdc12345 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the "OPCW investigation" section

I'm unfamiliar with the background of this investigation and found the "OPCW investigation" section to be very hard to follow. It refers to different (presumably?) documents as a 'report' and it seems that different paragraphs and sentences use 'report' to refer to different documents. While it seems to suggest that something may have been wrong with the reports, I couldn't find where it says what exactly.

For example, raised concern over what its author perceived to be problems with a "redacted report" he co-authored makes it sound like the author criticised himself for redacting his own report. the final report released earlier in 2019 appeared to have responded to some of the author's points about the redacted report - makes it sound like it's two different reports but the source seems to suggest it's different editions of the same document.

Most of the Douma team felt the two reports on the incident, the Interim Report and the Final Report, were scientifically impoverished, procedurally irregular and possibly fraudulent seems to miss the context entirely, again, making it sound like the authors criticised themselves? It sounds like RSs criticise the source of this, but presumably on factual grounds and not for the absurd logic of implicating themselves in fraud as implied by this quote?

The paragraph starting The Bellingcat investigation team explained some of the aspects of the chemical behaviour of chlorine in a December 2019 article goes into great detail, talking about beds etc, but it looks like these aspects themselves aren't described. I.e. why is it important? I didn't read the rest of the article, if it's described elsewhere, I think a crossreference would be helpful.

The next paragraph is full of jargon and can only be understood by someone with extensive prior knowledge of the investigation: The FFM's final report did make some comparison of levels, but only within the two "cylinder" buildings. It noted raised levels of some chemicals close to the suspicious gas cylinders and says a wood sample from underneath one of the cylinders "had the highest content of chlorinated organic compounds of all wood samples taken". - what does this mean? What's a "cylinder building"? What is "raised levels of some chemicals"? Why a wood sample is important? (I'm assuming that it must be important as an editor decided its WP:DUE.)

There is a six-month gap in documents released by WikiLeaks, which Bellingcat comments, either suggest 'Alex' was not with the FFM for very long or do not support his account. - this seems to be technically correct, but I had to open a source to understand that "do not support his account" refers to the "documents release by WikiLeaks".

What also confused me, is that this Bellingcat statement appears to contradict OPCW statement quoted later on: Their behaviour is even more egregious as they had manifestly incomplete information about the Douma investigation. Did they have "manifestly incomplete information" or did Wikileaks chose not release all documents because they would discredit the leak as Bellingcat says?

The Bellingcat also suggests that a leak might came from Russia, which is worded as The context is also problematic because of the pressures OPCW has come under, principally from Russia. (referring to funding withdrawal and hacking in the source), but OPCW seems to confirm that the whistleblowers were employees. (Unless Bellingcat and OPCW talk about four different people?)

With regards to Bellingcat and OPCW probably would be better if their statements can be presented using a reliable secondary source instead of quoting directly because of apparent contradictions.

Apologies for the criticism without any suggestions. Have zero knowledge of the sources in this area and thought that feedback from someone who knows very little about the article's subject could be useful. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Update?

This article needs an update based on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9w0LRLnBkU&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow ; Meaning the BBC apology. --Ivan VA (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The content of Dore's programs suggests they cannot be considered a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I linked the show as a tertiary source. As i wrote Meaning the BBC apology, i meant the official BBC apology discussed on the show. BBC is considered a reliable source here isn't it? --Ivan VA (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anything in the current article needs to be changed based on the BBC correction. Our article doesn't say any of the things that the correction addressed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The BBC apology can be added but its best to use a BBC source directly and not the Jimmy Dore Show. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

But what is noteworthy about the correction? We don't mention the podcast series here, or "Alex's" motivations, whether "Alex" believed it was staged or the Wikileaks reward. If we had said something about one of those and cited the series, we'd need to update, but otherwise it makes no difference to our content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The content of this article is already set up broadly. Secondly it's entirely written from news articles, theres no credible academic work in the article, so, from the standpoint of the sources used it's notable to mention that 1 source recanted what they reported. --Ivan VA (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, Ivan VA, but just to reiterate what BobFromBrockley said: the BBC podcast in question isn't cited here, and the rescinded claim isn't mentioned in the article. So what exactly would you change? 82.19.214.50 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't belong here. Maybe it can be added to Media coverage of the Syrian civil war. Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is need of an urgent update and a more neutral point of view given the new revelations at the UN Security Council about the coverups at the OPCW and the US, UK and Germany withholding information or classifying data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BCtPgyxYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEVEN (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Whistlebowers on alleged OPCW Douma findings cover-up

Now that the allegations of cover-up based on leaked OPCW documents are being discussed openly in the UN Security Council after the intervention of Aaron Mate, perhaps this article should be seriously reassessed. The Brazilian representative seems to give them credence in his intervention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLivzYFFWg&t=1065s Qayqran (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Should definitely be included in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you present a policy-based reasoning for that opinion? VQuakr (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Grayzone's YouTube is not a reliable source, per RSP. Was this at the UN Security Council, or at a Russian-hosted Arria formula meeting. Are there reliable secondary sources showing this is noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The source is a meeting of UN Security Council members video, not Grayzone. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The Youtube link posted above is from the Grayzone channel. Per RSP, "The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." See WP:GRAYZONE.

A "UN Security Council members video" would be a primary source, which would be original research and would not indicate noteworthiness. See WP:PRIMARY. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is hosted at Grayzones youtube channel, but that's not the source, the source is the video itself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Which makes it WP:PRIMARY. If it was noteworthy, a RS would pick it up. VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)