Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Douma chemical attack. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
One America News report
One America News report that no chemical attack took place should be mentioned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.53.216 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Its not a notable source, but more importantly its not a reliable source, even its Wikipedia article mentions that it is a partisan source. Also youtube isn't a source. LylaSand (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- YouTube is just a platform. When a reliable source uploads something to it, it's reliable. When anyone else does, it's not. Not sure if what a source's Wikipedia article says about it counts for anything; doesn't seem to have been weighed at the noticeboard or blacklisted. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- The source in question, One America News, has in the past peddled conspiracy theories about David Hogg, in addition to a host of other scandals. Looks way too sketchy.--Calthinus (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to primarily lie about stuff pertaining to American domestic policy. If we were talking Democrat and Republican ideals here, I can see how bias might be a problem. But this topic is more about global East vs West, and I think the local rivalry doesn't matter much. That said, I'm still in the dark about what the video actually says, quoting whom. If it's just repeating one of the claims already made, we likely already cover it and won't need to again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk Repeated conspiracy theories are repeated conspiracy theories, and outlets on the US domestic left that do it (there are many) take just as big a hit to their credibility. And it is a major hit. Considering that Assad is a partisan issue in the US (far left and far right being interestingly pro-Assad, everyone else less so), the partisan aspect makes the source worse in my view not better. --Calthinus (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- If the Assad issue is split between far-right and centre-right, an outlet that caters to both demos can't be seen as favouring one or the other. I can't see it, anyway. Might see it if we're talking about a publication for both extremes that opposes the middle of the road, though I don't think that niche exists in any countries mentioned here.
- As for the "peddling" about Hogg, it seems OAN just shared a tweet about the conspiracy theory, as did many leftish outlets. Even if the falsity of one conspiracy theory is indicative of all others (and it's not), there's little (or nothing) to show any outlet shares the opinions of the social media it covers, only something (usually from the opposite outlet) suggesting it. I'll disregard the connection between supposed views on Hogg (and his purpose) and assumed stances on Assad (or his function) as meaningless. You don't have to, but you might try. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk Is this is as much of a relevant issue as the IP seems to think, surely other, more mainstream, agencies have, or should have, reported on it, right?--Calthinus (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we use TASS and USA Today in our lead. If this "never happened" issue is the same as the Russian-reported one, anyway. Still haven't watched the video (one reason text is preferable for citing). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- On top of that, this media organization doesn't meet the criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources LylaSand (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Does it have a poor reputation or no editorial oversight? Widely acknowledged as extremist? Promotional in nature? Relying on opinion? Rumour? Definitely not self-published, if that's what you mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- This (apparently) reputable reputation checker says OAN is "mixed" for factual reports, seemingly more about leading than outright lying. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we all agree that the source is problematic, in addition to be a YouTube record. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I only think it's a (small) problem because it's a video, not in addition to that. But I also don't love it enough to fight for it. It's just OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a non-Youtube version. [[1]] If Youtube is the main issue. Even has text that was one of the above complaints. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Its not a reliable source. LylaSand (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm still not sold one way or the other on reliability, but it is just the YouTube video embedded on their own site. The text is just the video description it was on YouTube. No closer to the facts of the story than I was when I didn't watch the first one. Can someone who likes running Javascript summarize it here? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Its not a reliable source. LylaSand (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a non-Youtube version. [[1]] If Youtube is the main issue. Even has text that was one of the above complaints. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I only think it's a (small) problem because it's a video, not in addition to that. But I also don't love it enough to fight for it. It's just OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we all agree that the source is problematic, in addition to be a YouTube record. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk Is this is as much of a relevant issue as the IP seems to think, surely other, more mainstream, agencies have, or should have, reported on it, right?--Calthinus (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk Repeated conspiracy theories are repeated conspiracy theories, and outlets on the US domestic left that do it (there are many) take just as big a hit to their credibility. And it is a major hit. Considering that Assad is a partisan issue in the US (far left and far right being interestingly pro-Assad, everyone else less so), the partisan aspect makes the source worse in my view not better. --Calthinus (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- YouTube is just a platform. When a reliable source uploads something to it, it's reliable. When anyone else does, it's not. Not sure if what a source's Wikipedia article says about it counts for anything; doesn't seem to have been weighed at the noticeboard or blacklisted. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Removal of staging accusation
User:My very best wishes: Hey, which of your comments are on this edit? --Mhhossein talk 11:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- The statement removed from the lead ("OPCW inspectors were finally permitted ...") was factually incorrect. They were not permitted according to later publications. Speaking about "Russian claims", this part on the page should be rewritten because it is now described in majority of RS as a propaganda/disinformation campaign by the Russian government. Some random sources [2], [3], and [4] (I intentionally also use Russian language sources). My very best wishes (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is now an anti-British campaign. Not only British poisoned Sripals and faked the attack in Douma (according to Russian state officials), but the official representative of Russian ministry of foreign affairs Maria Zakharova just said British also killed Rasputin, Paul I of Russia, and Patrice Lumumba - [5] My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both sides claim the other is spreading disinformation, and I don't doubt they're both right on that. With potential ramifications like these on the line, why wouldn't everyone bend the truth? The generally neutral thing to do is give both sides of contentious points equal weight in the same place, and alternate who speaks first. Not sure how the specifics of this plan would work here, though.
- I'm sure it's not fair to pick one team of professional media manipulators over the other, even if we like the cuts of their jibs. We (currently) tell one's story in Wikipedia's voice as Reports about the incident while coralling the other reports into Syrian goverment and allies reaction. Reaction sections are typically full of bullshit nothingness, so many readers are conditioned to skip them entirely; to hide words of actual substance there is clever, no doubt, but only appropriate if we were meant to dodge WP:NPOV.
- As for Rasputin and Lumumba, I won't pretend to know who killed them, but know their articles already do a cleaner job of relaying the theories alongside the others where people would think to find them. We might learn a lot about this article's future from looking at those edit histories. Paul, on the other hand, never existed (in my opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Both sides claim the other is spreading disinformation ...". OK. Which reliable sources, i.e. excluding media controlled by Russian, Syrian and Iran governments like RT, claim that British government (for example) "spreads disinformation" about it? And if the answer is "few to none", then let's follow WP:GEVAL. The "sides" are not equal per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- But if you are simply saying that statement by Valery Gerasimov should be moved back from "reactions", I do not really mind (it can go both ways). My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's the problem right there. Excluding reliable sources from states that disagree. Minus them, we're left one-sided. Not equal per policy, but more equal in English-reading populations. I'm simply saying all Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Bolivian, Venezuelan, Chinese or wherever's accounts of the event should be treated as such rather than as reactions to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, sources that are just parroting state policy are not reliable in this context and should not be treated as if they were independent analysis. They are reliable sources for the states' reactions. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The "independent" part means independent of the subject, not independent of the state where the outlet is based. And if you don't think American, English and French papers routinely parrot their state's policies, I don't know what I could say to change your mind. So I won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Some American, English, and French papers do parrot government talking points. And in general those that do, without investigating the truthfulness of those talking points, are not reliable. The moral of the story is the West has generally free press, while a country like Syria only has propaganda and nothing else. Apples and oranges. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The issue here is not the country of origin, but reputation of individual sources for fact checking. That's why sources like RT and NYT are not equal. I am reading some Russian language sources of course. Most Russian TV channels openly promote falsehoods and hatred. Some, like Dozhd, with no official affiliation, are trying to be impartial and produce some reasonable information, but they can not because most hosts are afraid to death to say something which would lead to closure of their channel. This is in drastic contrast with Ukrainian channels, like the ones by Dmitry Gordon and his wife. Novaya Gazeta still hold, but Echo of Moscow is mostly gone as a source of info and expert opinion. I read that one, but it is included in the list of "extremist materials" and officially blocked in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's a lot to digest. I'll try to keep it all in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The issue here is not the country of origin, but reputation of individual sources for fact checking. That's why sources like RT and NYT are not equal. I am reading some Russian language sources of course. Most Russian TV channels openly promote falsehoods and hatred. Some, like Dozhd, with no official affiliation, are trying to be impartial and produce some reasonable information, but they can not because most hosts are afraid to death to say something which would lead to closure of their channel. This is in drastic contrast with Ukrainian channels, like the ones by Dmitry Gordon and his wife. Novaya Gazeta still hold, but Echo of Moscow is mostly gone as a source of info and expert opinion. I read that one, but it is included in the list of "extremist materials" and officially blocked in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Some American, English, and French papers do parrot government talking points. And in general those that do, without investigating the truthfulness of those talking points, are not reliable. The moral of the story is the West has generally free press, while a country like Syria only has propaganda and nothing else. Apples and oranges. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The "independent" part means independent of the subject, not independent of the state where the outlet is based. And if you don't think American, English and French papers routinely parrot their state's policies, I don't know what I could say to change your mind. So I won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, sources that are just parroting state policy are not reliable in this context and should not be treated as if they were independent analysis. They are reliable sources for the states' reactions. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's the problem right there. Excluding reliable sources from states that disagree. Minus them, we're left one-sided. Not equal per policy, but more equal in English-reading populations. I'm simply saying all Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Bolivian, Venezuelan, Chinese or wherever's accounts of the event should be treated as such rather than as reactions to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just a general comment ... Reports from "news" outlets alleging staging should be included, because it's obvious there's a concerted misinformation campaign. That's noteworthy. And if we don't have citations to that effort, then we should find some and include them. But most importantly, the language describing the outlets and their comments should clearly indicate the source, such as my edit here [6]. Just my two cents. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly indicate the pro-Western sources, too, or no? I think we should. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? If that will provide the context readers need to understand who is responsible for what narratives, then I don't see the problem. If it means that propaganda is appropriately named as such, then let's do it. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't hold much hope for a unified approach to what is or isn't propaganda, but I think if we put our heads together, we can deduce which "authorities", "residents" or "officials" are one person and which aren't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? If that will provide the context readers need to understand who is responsible for what narratives, then I don't see the problem. If it means that propaganda is appropriately named as such, then let's do it. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly indicate the pro-Western sources, too, or no? I think we should. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Attribution in the infobox
I think it would be best to ask this question of the community: how should we best attribute "execution by" in the infobox? Previously the text was "Syrian Arab Army", and it was changed recently to "Under investigation" [[7]]. Thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- It should say Syrian Arab Army. It should also not say Britain/The UK, as that is an extraordinary claim. LylaSand (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. It should say who was the alleged perpetrator. This looks like a misprint right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, restored previous consensus version.--Calthinus (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. It should say who was the alleged perpetrator. This looks like a misprint right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
[8]? Since then RFE/RL is not an RS? My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- RFE/RL is a reliable source. What is this ruckus about?--Calthinus (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure, maybe the Cold War. Anyway, I reverted MVBW's self-revert for the same reason he gave before reverting himself. Hope that's OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hasan Diab
@Drmies: Regarding this edit; Do you think we can mention the allegation in accordance to its due weight, since it's covered by The Sun, too. --Mhhossein talk 18:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, User:Mhhossein--the Russian suspicion, if I may call it that, is already in the article (in the lead. The content that the editor was edit-warring over wasn't so much about a claim or theory: it reported, directly, that this is what the reportage said. Facts, so to speak. In other words, the content was not a note in Wikipedia's voice that certain claims were made (fringey claims, in the opinion of reliable sources, including, ahem, the prez of the US). For fringey claims we still need reliable sources, plus the text has to be written up in a different way, a meta-way, if that makes sense. I suppose that can be done, but then the next question is, is the secondary sourcing on those fringey claims strong enough, and is it not UNDUE in the article? Are we not giving too much credence to a fringey theory? I did not yet have to answer these questions because the first requirement (that it be written up properly) wasn't met. Now, that The Sun wrote about the claims made in that reportage, that's something--but then the problem is that The Sun isn't the most reliable source in the world. So I'd wait until strong sources make that reportage worth writing about. Does that make sense? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies: Yeah, the text needs to be rewritten, if anything is to be added. Btw, I just meant to let you know about that source writing about it. Let's wait... --Mhhossein talk 05:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies: What about The Guardian? --Mhhossein talk 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well that looks pretty good, but can't this just be added in a sentence or two under "Media investigations"? Drmies (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not even sure how that should be summarized. First, a little boy tells one thing on the Russian TV. Then, the source tells: "That contradicts accounts by victims given to a number of western outlets, which put the death toll from the attack at more than 40 people, many trapped in the basement of a three-storey house. CBS News, reporting from Douma, published a photograph of the missile said by locals to have carried the chemical payload lodged in the building’s facade... The World Health Organisation said that 500 people sought medical treatment with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”. We all know (and the source implicitly assumes) that a lot of things were staged recently on Russian TV in connection with Ukrainian and other political events. Should that boy be even mentioned on the page and how? My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Many things in this article seem contradicting and this is how it should be. A reliable source covered the interview, why not mentioning it with proper attributions? I added some thing. --Mhhossein talk 19:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- A reliable source covered the existence of the interview - yet there are no reliable sources supporting its authenticity/reliability. It's certainly supported by the reference that the RT broadcasted it, but it would be clearly terminally naïve (and not supported by a reliable source) to include that propaganda broadcast in the "Media investigations" section. Regards. -ז62 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- In all fairness I'm not categorically imposed to its inclusion, if it turns out to get significant coverage (if). What has been burdensome for me is finding Al-Masdar and RT on the page from time to time portrayed as if they are established fact, unattributed to the agency not only in the mainspace but also in the references section. The problem is htat the other news agencies have also been posted without attribution. Currently working on fixing this. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The EXISTENCE of the interview is covered by the Guardian and we're reflecting "The EXISTENCE" of it. This is does not mean we're verifying or denying it. We're just reflecting it, since we're editing an Encyclopedic entry and needs to include such pints brought to us by the RSs. It's not a matter of "Major coverage". Are we determining the notability of a subject? NO NO. --Mhhossein talk 15:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- In all fairness I'm not categorically imposed to its inclusion, if it turns out to get significant coverage (if). What has been burdensome for me is finding Al-Masdar and RT on the page from time to time portrayed as if they are established fact, unattributed to the agency not only in the mainspace but also in the references section. The problem is htat the other news agencies have also been posted without attribution. Currently working on fixing this. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- A reliable source covered the existence of the interview - yet there are no reliable sources supporting its authenticity/reliability. It's certainly supported by the reference that the RT broadcasted it, but it would be clearly terminally naïve (and not supported by a reliable source) to include that propaganda broadcast in the "Media investigations" section. Regards. -ז62 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Many things in this article seem contradicting and this is how it should be. A reliable source covered the interview, why not mentioning it with proper attributions? I added some thing. --Mhhossein talk 19:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not even sure how that should be summarized. First, a little boy tells one thing on the Russian TV. Then, the source tells: "That contradicts accounts by victims given to a number of western outlets, which put the death toll from the attack at more than 40 people, many trapped in the basement of a three-storey house. CBS News, reporting from Douma, published a photograph of the missile said by locals to have carried the chemical payload lodged in the building’s facade... The World Health Organisation said that 500 people sought medical treatment with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”. We all know (and the source implicitly assumes) that a lot of things were staged recently on Russian TV in connection with Ukrainian and other political events. Should that boy be even mentioned on the page and how? My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well that looks pretty good, but can't this just be added in a sentence or two under "Media investigations"? Drmies (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies: What about The Guardian? --Mhhossein talk 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies: Yeah, the text needs to be rewritten, if anything is to be added. Btw, I just meant to let you know about that source writing about it. Let's wait... --Mhhossein talk 05:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Eliot Higgins
Why is "Eliot Higgins, a citizen journalist and blogger" even referenced? If we're going to start placing the opinions of bloggers and citizen journalists alongside the opinions of governments and professional news organizations, then there's a whole lot of opinions that should be added to this article. Including Eliot Higgins' amateur investigation is controversial, probably original research, and presumably not WP:RS and so should not be present in the article. Comments welcome before removal.selfwormTalk) 20:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Eliot Higgins has a sound reputation in this field and his website Bellingcat also has a Wikipedia article. So not a serious problem. (The brief passage is sourced to The New Yorker in 2013 and a 2015 Independent article). Robert Fisk's report has come in for criticism in recent days, so far absent from the article. Philip Cross (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Simply Googling "bellingcat criticism" or even reading his Wikipedia page (here: Eliot_Higgins#Bellingcat) shows that there is no consensus that he "has a sound reputation." For instance, there was an entire article published in the Columbia Journalism Review stating that he should not be considered a reliable source. That his website has its own Wikipedia article is irrelevant since I'm not arguing that he isn't well known. After all, RT has its own Wikipedia page but is nevertheless not considered to be a reliable source here on Wikipedia.selfwormTalk) 20:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Selfworm: um, that CJR article doesn't say what you imply it does. Most of the article is an interview, but the author does make some assessment of Bellingcat: "Higgins’ own work has repeatedly demonstrated that investigations like these can be extremely valuable in helping us understand complex subjects that would be highly dangerous or even impossible to cover on the ground." The word "unreliable" does not occur in the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- ETA - I googled the query you suggested, and do not see anything concerning. Please expand. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Simply Googling "bellingcat criticism" or even reading his Wikipedia page (here: Eliot_Higgins#Bellingcat) shows that there is no consensus that he "has a sound reputation." For instance, there was an entire article published in the Columbia Journalism Review stating that he should not be considered a reliable source. That his website has its own Wikipedia article is irrelevant since I'm not arguing that he isn't well known. After all, RT has its own Wikipedia page but is nevertheless not considered to be a reliable source here on Wikipedia.selfwormTalk) 20:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Have just added an ABC News article making use of Eliot Higgins' work, which is undoubtedly a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- If we are going to keep "media investigations" section (which is reasonable) and include disputed opinions like the one by Fisk (might be actually excluded I think), then we must also include Higgins. I just re-included him back. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to include Fisk. Why do we have to go through this on every single article on a chemical attack in Syria? It's the same thing over and over and over again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- So excluded. Not a credible account - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to include Fisk. Why do we have to go through this on every single article on a chemical attack in Syria? It's the same thing over and over and over again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
You have no idea what is going on in the world. Additionally to Fisk, two indpendent major TV-channels from Germany, one the official state one, the other n-tv a big business related one, had reporters on the ground there in the past days. All reported from the population that the incident was staged by the Islamist Rebels. Pour Wikipedia, you just drift off. So at least 100 Millione German speaking people now other facts than is summarized here. --FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I did not see it, but it is nearly impossible to collect reliable information from locals during the war and at the territory controlled by a totalitarian government. This is a very difficult task even many years after the events. Some journalists like Svetlana Alexievich made their name by doing just that, and they spent years to collect and summarize such information. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have an issue with most of this section. We should not include material based on primary sources of first hand accounts, or citizen bloggers. If we do, it opens this article up to being a WP:COATRACK for all sorts of nonsense.- MrX 🖋 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that all such sources/publications must be critically evaluated to decide if they deserve inclusion. How exactly? For example, consider a journalist who briefly visited a site, did not see anything important by his own eyes, but asked a couple of random locals and retells their stories which can not be verified (this is Fisk). That does not deserve inclusion. However, if a journalist did find something, have seen something interesting by his own eyes, and he is a reputable well-known journalist, that should probably be included. Merely interviews of local people still probably can be included if conducted by reputable organization, like Amnesty International. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is Bellingcat a blogger, or a news site that does investigative journalism? CJR notes Bellingcat's "scrupulousness and record of accuracy" in 2015, and in 2016 Mother Jones called Bellingcat an "investigative website". Generally my impression is that Bellingcat has a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy, so whether it was started by a blogger is not particularly relevant to a discussion about where it falls on a spectrum of reliability. VQuakr (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would second the COATRACK and other concerns raised by MrX and My very best wishes here. Hyperfocusing on every substory (with the actual overall relevance being... disputable) that has come up can leave readers simply bewildered.--Calthinus (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have an issue with most of this section. We should not include material based on primary sources of first hand accounts, or citizen bloggers. If we do, it opens this article up to being a WP:COATRACK for all sorts of nonsense.- MrX 🖋 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018
 | This edit request to Douma chemical attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change title "Douma chemical attack" to "Suspected Douma chemical attack" 89.184.168.160 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done Please instead discuss the naming of the article here on the talk page to build consensus. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Boy from fake "chemical attack"
"“We were outside, and they told all of us to go into the hospital. I was immediately taken upstairs, and they started pouring water on me,” the boy recalled. “The doctors started filming us here [in the hospital], they were pouring water and taking videos,”" More evidence at this link:[9] , we should ad this into the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Did you notice the source is Russia Today?--Calthinus (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- If RT were based in the US or UK and focused on Russian interference instead, we'd call it CNN or The Guardian. Same damn thing, different side of the coin. We'll never write a neutral article if we insist on silencing opposition. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- If RT/RT24 channels were based in the US or UK, they're would not (possibly) be under control of the Kremlin/Putinist administration. And vice versa - if the RT channels were not controlled by the Kremlin, they could be as credible as any others. No offense meant, just some attempt at sense.-ז62 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- While I can see where the "same thing, different side of the coin" thing comes from and the appeal of it in pursuing NPOV, the fact on the ground is there is not symmetry. Never have Western outlets -- even fiercely anti-Russian ones-- been accused of the level of outright falsehoods (not just "spin") found in RT's broadcasting. RT has been called part of the "disinformation network" present online which also includes sites like Infowars, Veterans Today, and so forth. If RT were based in the US or the UK, it would likely be an entirely different sort of station (despite all the partisanship in the US, serious analysts do not publish pieces about Fox/MSNBC that look like [this]).--Calthinus (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- If RT/RT24 channels were based in the US or UK, they're would not (possibly) be under control of the Kremlin/Putinist administration. And vice versa - if the RT channels were not controlled by the Kremlin, they could be as credible as any others. No offense meant, just some attempt at sense.-ז62 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- If RT were based in the US or UK and focused on Russian interference instead, we'd call it CNN or The Guardian. Same damn thing, different side of the coin. We'll never write a neutral article if we insist on silencing opposition. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that every time Trump tweets, the whole day in American news is about that, rather than anything else? Depending which side of the domestic coin they're on, they'll follow it up by having elected Democrats or Republicans or strategists for either side dominate the conversation. Hell, even for non-Trump news, politicians are extremely frequent contributors. With that sort of control, there's no need to wonder if Washington directly pays for the exposure or just gets it per tradition; the point is it runs the show. The UK works slightly less blatantly, but outright falsehoods got both countries into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and these are well-documented. But if you'd rather not see it like that, I totally understand. No hard feelings. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk I have no illusions about the very serious issues facing Western democracies when it comes to the mainstream press (some of the "alternative" press has been sucked into the same "disinformation network" as some other interesting ones, which is very unfortunate). But my own opinions are not what should take precedence here. According to media experts RT is on a whole nother level. I could also link you to some of the interesting analysis of Russian coverage of Spain, where various manipulative tactics were employed in concert by Russian bots and international Russian media (this time it's Sputnik that's worse than RT) [[10]] [[11]]. Western media has problems. They are not equivalent to this. I'm not an expert on these problems, by the way. There are other users more (unfortunately) familiar with the severity of the issue. --Calthinus (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. I can see it too. False balance is perhaps the best description of what the "Incredible Trumps" are aiming to, while whining that the general population is often not pliable enough to their elitist personal "needs" and twits. But that's neither there nor here and does not give any additional credibility to their attempts at argument, unless their personal needs make themselves somewhat more clear. No offense meant, user:InedibleHulk. What exactly was your initial point?-ז62 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- That RT's alright. It works for its nation's interests and uses manipulative language, but straight-up lies no more than similar Western outlets. We should mention the boy, citing this story. That other stuff, yeah, we'll never agree completely. Sorry for veering off a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just in case "Incredible Trumps" is some sort of association attempt on my "character" (or his), I'll note the only Presidential candidate of the past century I've ever wanted to have a beer with is Jimmy Carter. I went through a period where I truly thought I wanted to get drunk with Bob Dole, but that was mainly because NBC associated his character so strongly with Norm MacDonald. If Bob Dole wanted to buy me a drink, I'd be cool with that, though, which I can't say about everyone (especially Putin or Assad). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. I can see it too. False balance is perhaps the best description of what the "Incredible Trumps" are aiming to, while whining that the general population is often not pliable enough to their elitist personal "needs" and twits. But that's neither there nor here and does not give any additional credibility to their attempts at argument, unless their personal needs make themselves somewhat more clear. No offense meant, user:InedibleHulk. What exactly was your initial point?-ז62 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Back to the point, the part about the boy is a small part of what is actually discussed in the source and it's not even the main point of the source [12].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk: Are you discussing the interview which I added using the Guardian, after me and Drmies talked about it, and Volunteer Marek is doing his best to avoid it in the article ([13] and [14])? --Mhhossein talk 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aye, Hasan, but I've stopped discussing such things now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- One more time. The article is actually about something else. Hassan Diab is only briefly mentioned. And in context, he is mentioned as an example of Russian use of false propaganda. Not as if it were a true story. Stop misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the essence of the controversy with the boy if I understand correctly. When the chemical attack had happen, White helmets or whoever took a lot of people to treat them with water as a precaution. A lot of these people were not actually affected by the chemical weapons at all, and the boy was one of these people. That does not contradict reports that many other people where affected. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MVBW: We're not allowed to add your original research to the page. @VM: Don't accuse me of "misrepresenting". I exactly quoted what the source said. Be it a major or minor, It was covered by the source and It was not meant to say it was a true story. Inclusion of the material was agreed upon in the previous topic, please don't remove it unless there's a clear consensus over its removal. --Mhhossein talk 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- What original research? It was reported by BBC that already "at 19:45, more than 500 patients - most of them women and children - were brought to medical facilities with symptoms indicative of exposure to a chemical agent". It tells (and shows on photo) that children were washed with water. However, according to this and other RS, the number of people who were actually poisoned was significantly smaller (~42 died). According to the story by the boy on Russian TV, he was among those treated by water, and he was actually healthy, did not receive any poison, just as many others. I simply do not really see any serious contradiction or inconsistency in all these accounts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is also relevant: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/23/russian-tv-interview-syrian-boy-secretly-conducted-army-facility/ It appears the RT video was not filmed where it says it was, that it was filmed at a military facility away from the hometown, and therefore may have been recorded under duress, which makes it an even more inadvisable source for using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is a "Crucified Boy" 2.0. This reminds ru:А был ли мальчик? ("Was there a boy?" from a book by Maxim Gorky). My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Due to the source provided by Bobfrombrockley I now don't believe this has any place on our page. Removed.--Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I also fixed this. It still tells: "chemical attack ...reportedly...". My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- No more editwarings plz. That "the entire story was filmed in a different place than where it claims to be" has nothing to with exclusion of it. For the Nth time; We are not verifying the authenticity of the claims in the interview. It's well sourced. Moreover, our job as editors is not analyse the "basic facts about the reporting ethics in this case" and then decide on that. --Mhhossein talk 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- According to a publication provided by Bobfrombrockley, the movie is evidently a fake. It still might be included somewhere with an explanation and the reference telling that the movie was fake. If we had a separate page like Propaganda and disinformation during Syrian war, it would belong to such page. However, given that the story was strongly disputed or even fake, it does not belong to this page. Undue. Agree with Calthinus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- You speak as if we only allow true facts in WP. No, there's no such a restriction. Be it fake or real, we'll reflect the materials covered by the reliable sources and write them in a manner which lets the readers know this is just a reflection, not a verification/denial. Readers need to know about various aspects of the events as far as the reliable sources allow. Btw, thanks for adding the rest. --Mhhossein talk 04:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- According to a publication provided by Bobfrombrockley, the movie is evidently a fake. It still might be included somewhere with an explanation and the reference telling that the movie was fake. If we had a separate page like Propaganda and disinformation during Syrian war, it would belong to such page. However, given that the story was strongly disputed or even fake, it does not belong to this page. Undue. Agree with Calthinus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- No more editwarings plz. That "the entire story was filmed in a different place than where it claims to be" has nothing to with exclusion of it. For the Nth time; We are not verifying the authenticity of the claims in the interview. It's well sourced. Moreover, our job as editors is not analyse the "basic facts about the reporting ethics in this case" and then decide on that. --Mhhossein talk 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I also fixed this. It still tells: "chemical attack ...reportedly...". My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- He clearly stated, his argument was that it was WP:UNDUE. That is also policy.--Calthinus (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Due to the source provided by Bobfrombrockley I now don't believe this has any place on our page. Removed.--Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is a "Crucified Boy" 2.0. This reminds ru:А был ли мальчик? ("Was there a boy?" from a book by Maxim Gorky). My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is also relevant: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/23/russian-tv-interview-syrian-boy-secretly-conducted-army-facility/ It appears the RT video was not filmed where it says it was, that it was filmed at a military facility away from the hometown, and therefore may have been recorded under duress, which makes it an even more inadvisable source for using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- What original research? It was reported by BBC that already "at 19:45, more than 500 patients - most of them women and children - were brought to medical facilities with symptoms indicative of exposure to a chemical agent". It tells (and shows on photo) that children were washed with water. However, according to this and other RS, the number of people who were actually poisoned was significantly smaller (~42 died). According to the story by the boy on Russian TV, he was among those treated by water, and he was actually healthy, did not receive any poison, just as many others. I simply do not really see any serious contradiction or inconsistency in all these accounts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MVBW: We're not allowed to add your original research to the page. @VM: Don't accuse me of "misrepresenting". I exactly quoted what the source said. Be it a major or minor, It was covered by the source and It was not meant to say it was a true story. Inclusion of the material was agreed upon in the previous topic, please don't remove it unless there's a clear consensus over its removal. --Mhhossein talk 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Hassan Diab (Witness)
Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This person is noteworthy for only one event. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. It's a one-paragraph stub anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I was bold and just went ahead and did it. There are very clear issues including ethical ones here and I don't foresee any reasonable dissent on this.--Calthinus (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I have removed the merger tag. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"Press conference" and 1RR
This edit. Why this "conference" should be included on the page? Yes, this can be sourced, but it is something even less notable/important than the story about the boy just above. Also, this is a violation of 1RR by user Dralgos. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- How's it not notable again? It's been reported on by multiple reliable sources. You know, the very same ones you use that support some of your edits. For example, you just removed Reuters when it supports the Russian narrative and add Reuters when it doesn't (see: WP:POVPUSHING). And again, can you please give us more policy based arguments than "not notable", "no" or whatever because we wouldn't want the community to think that anything that goes against the official Western narrative may be something you WP:JDL. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I actually support having the press conference in the article, but not in its own section. It is notable, imo. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, one can reasonably argue this conference should be included, but not in the way it was included by this user [15]. If that to be included, one should describe it as a controversy. One must add that Britain dismissed the move as a theatrical “stunt”, and said allied powers including France and the United States had boycotted the closed-door briefing., as this source tells [16]. Otherwise, this is a one-sided distortion of the source. But then, it would take a lot of space on the page, which I think would be undue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed about the WP:NOTHERE edit warrior. This material belongs in the section for Russia's reaction, balanced as you suggested.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I agree with such solution. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed about the WP:NOTHERE edit warrior. This material belongs in the section for Russia's reaction, balanced as you suggested.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, one can reasonably argue this conference should be included, but not in the way it was included by this user [15]. If that to be included, one should describe it as a controversy. One must add that Britain dismissed the move as a theatrical “stunt”, and said allied powers including France and the United States had boycotted the closed-door briefing., as this source tells [16]. Otherwise, this is a one-sided distortion of the source. But then, it would take a lot of space on the page, which I think would be undue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I actually support having the press conference in the article, but not in its own section. It is notable, imo. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
As one, that hat been blocked for contributing to the article for 1 month, I just want to tell you how deep the English version has fallen in quality, even when compared to that of another belingrant nation, France. Look up the french wikipedia version, in the subchapter on media coverage, and you will see a quite fair and broad representation of the global media coverage. Here in your English version, is an extremly pro-Nato opinions based media bias observable. How is this organised, which group-think or group-organsiation is responible for such "collective" censorship?
Just to repeat, you poor ones think obviously that you and thus the readers (should) have little ideas what is going on in the world really. So you are poor of alternatives of reasoning. This is civilsatory decline.. like in old Sovjet-Union. The end of free speech is at the beginning of disaster. Fare well anglosphere.... --FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)