Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

On 20 January 2020, Russia convened a UN Security Council Arria meeting ...

Dear Editors, as the site is being blocked from editing, and respecting the community restriction we should discuss whatever changes, additions/changes ANY editor makes to the page in the talk page here. But some do not, they just change, remove and add without discussion before.

So I open the discussion:

Unfortunately there are some problems in the wiki summary of the recent Arria meeting. I just name for simplicity two

1) that there is no link to the Arria meeting in N.Y. itself. 1b) Also "Arria" ist not Wiki - linked.

2) The reference to "Alice in Wonderland" and the German ambassador in "The Times" leads directly to a very significant subtitle to the headlines´ foto. It is a sentence by the Russian ambassador, "...to the UN said that the report on the attack at Douma would be shattered like Humpty Dumpty"... should it not be quoted here?

Any user, looking up this referene in "The Times" will find this inconsistency within seconds.

A general remark to the selection of "Alice in Wonderland" quotation... Listening to the meetings video, around 3 hours, shows that "Alice in Wonderland" is a completely marginal theme there. This Alice thing was an exchange of 3 jokes, including Humbdy-Dumbdy between the Russian, the German and I think British amabassadors. So in all, less than a minute of talking, of the 3 hours. The German ambassador said much more, this should be quoted here, and the other sides positions in short.

So to report the joke here, instead a summary of the content, is riddiculing the UNSC meeting, or not? Cui Bono, who profits ? ... definitely not the reader of en.wiki KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on brevity and drop the musings about "who profits". Can you provide sources in your posts? I presume you are talking about this diff, but am not certain. The phrasing there is not great, but the tone seems to match the Times source (from what I can see on my side of the paywall) so I am unclear on what you are proposing. What Wikilink are you proposing to add in 1b above? VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr, the source is The Times, quoted in the paragraph already. As I said above, but perhaps it was not clear. Just look the reference up, and then please see the undertitle of the foto there. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

1. I haven't been able to find an "Arria" wiki page to wiki link. Do you know of one?

2. Yes you are correct that if the reference to Alice in Wonderland in included we should also mention Humpty Dumpty. As you point out, it would provide no useful information to the reader. The solution is to remove the reference to Alice and replace it with the commentary from the various sides about the presentation. Burrobert (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The so-called whistle blowers have been the subject of OPCW documents about a leak inquiry which were released yesterday. This Guardian article presents it as being a Russian disinformation campaign, although the OPCW documents themselves are not quite as explicit. Philip Cross (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian was reporting on what came out of the "independent inquiry" and what various people, including the head of the OPCW, Fernando Arias, had subsequently said. Very little is said in the Guardian's own voice. The Guardian does not, as you claimed, present "it" as a Russian disinformation campaign. If, as various sources including the whistleblowers claim, the OPCW has been compromised, an "independent" inquiry arranged by the OPCW itself (the Guardian says that the inquiry was "commissioned" by the OPCW) really carries little weight. It's hardly an unknown practice for bodies to fix inquiries to try to exonerrate themselves, or to avoid inquiries altogether if they can't be fixed and are likely to show guilt or blame. You can use the report of the inquiry, but neutrality means that you can't state that it's conclusions are factual if other reliable sources contradict it.     ←   ZScarpia   14:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)   (See Ian Henderson's subsequently leaked supplemental written account and this Grayzone article. 02:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)}

Neither of the "whistle blowers" are taken seriously in a reliable third-party source. The primary OPCW source states: "The report of the independent, external investigators determined that two former OPCW officials violated their obligations concerning the protection of confidential information related to the FFM Douma investigation." The article in The Guardian begins: "A Russia-led campaign that claimed the UN weapons watchdog had manipulated evidence of a Syrian government chemical weapons attack has been dealt a blow by an official inquiry showing that two former employees hailed as whistleblowers had little direct access to the evidence and inflated their role." Philip Cross (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The operative word is "a". Let's see what other sources, including the whistleblowers say. The words "show" and "showing" are open to interpretation. The opinion of the reporters may be that the contents of the inquiry report are the "truth", but, then, inquiry reports are notorious for not always doing that. If my memory serves correctly, one of the leaked documents "showed" the OPCW trying to present Ian Henderson of having a much more minor role than he did. That begs the question of how much credibility should be put in another document emanating from the OPCW trying to do something similar.     ←   ZScarpia   14:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The supplemental written account issued by Ian Henderson at or after the special session of the United Nations Security Council concerning the OPCW's mission to Douma: [1]. It, of course, contradicts. the report from the inquiry arranged by the OPCW into the leaks: [2]. A Grayzone article about the affair: [3].     ←   ZScarpia   02:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The assertion by User:Philip Cross that "Neither of the whistle blowers are taken seriously in a reliable third-party source" is entirely false and without foundation. This is easily demonstrated.

While all the below have treated the leaks critically — as any serious journalist would with any source — there is no question that they have treated the leaks both seriously and as newsworthy. The list is not exhaustive.

[4] Veteran award-winning journalist Robert Fisk in The Independent

[5] Veteran award-winning journalist and author Jonathan Steele in Counterpunch and on BBC Radio 4

[6] Veteran journalist and author Peter Hitchens in the The Mail on Sunday (contrary to your earlier assertion, not part of a different newspaper)

[7] France 24

[8] Former political editor (and current diplomatic editor) Patrick Wintour in The Guardian

[9] again Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday

[10] again Robert Fisk in The Independent

There has also been non-EL coverage in la Repubblica and Nach Denk Seiten

A strong argument can be made that the statement put out by the members of the Courage Foundation panel can be used as a reliable source, w attribution, given that its members include the former head of the OPCW and a Princeton professor of international law.

Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

To that could be added:

- Paul McKeigue's UK parliamentary presentation.

- Above, the Courage Foundation was mentioned. The Foundation's own website contains articles from the Foundation's OPCW Panel, whose membership includes José Bustani, first Director General of the OPCW, such as [11] and [12]. The latter quotes Bustani (whose ouster as head of the OPCW was engineered by the US: [13], [14]):

“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” “I have always expected the OPCW to be a true paradigm of multilateralism. My hope is that the concerns expressed publicly by the Panel, in its joint consensus statement, will catalyse a process by which the Organisation can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”

Those who think that only the Russia-Iran-Syrian Government faction release disinformation might like to read:

- Tareq Hadad's account of his resignation from Newsweek.

- Seymour Hersh's articles in the London Review of Books which, among other things, undermine claims, by among others, the US government and Bellingcat that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical weapon attacks: [15], [16].

    ←   ZScarpia   15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)   (expanded: 02:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

WP:REHASH. Again, "All mainstream media is corrupted" isn't going to be incorporated into our policies by discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to write a response enclosing something in quote marks, do actually quote what the person you're responding to has written. If you're going to paraphrase, do try to paraphrase accurately. If you're going to claim that something has already been discussed, you might like to provide a link to that discussion so that others can figure out exactly what you're talking about.

Reliability is a sliding scale, not a binary quantity. As far as what is considered reliable goes, the news media is considered to be low down. The best of newspapers or news-sites falls a long way below, for instance, peer-reviewed journals such as, say, the Proceedings of the IEEE. Hopefully that's not a matter of controversy. As far as "all mainstream media is corrupted" goes, which your comment insinuates that other editors are arguing, there have been a multitude of books written about problems in the news industry and, no doubt, students at journalism schools spend much time studying them. As a freely available source on the subject, I like the following transcript of a lecture given by the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte: [17]. I particularly like the account of the bus full of journalists carrying cans of petrol.

As it happens, corruption also is not a binary quantity but a sliding scale. It's not a question of whether something is corrupt, but how corrupt it is and whether, in particular situations, that corruption will matter. As far as judging how "corrupt", and therefore reliable, a particular country's news media is likely to be, I like to use the Corruption Perceptions Index as a rough and ready guide.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources: Fisk is not fringe but his Indy pieces are in the Voices section so count as opinion. Use to report his opinion if relevant, rather than to use as citation for facts. But only worth mentioning his opinion if shown to be noteworthy, i.e. if there is secondary coverage from RSs. Steele is not himself fringe but CounterPunch is - at least RSN has no consensus on its reliability so should again be treated as opinion. I don't see a link to him on Radio 4 - was he on a programme as a talking head or was he reporting for the BBC? If former, again it is opinion, so again only include if there is secondary coverage. Hitchens is opinion too: he is an opinion columnist in the Mail on Sunday which does not have consensus as a reliable source. France24 and Wintour in the Guardian look like good secondary sources; these are so far the best to use to report on the controversy. Courage Foundation I'd be wary of using; at best attribute carefully, and better to report its views via secondary sources. McKeigue's speech at a partisan public meeting published on a Wordpress blog seems week to me; at best use as opinion with attribution if we can establish it is noteworthy. Tareq Hadad is ultra-fringe, and a SPS - absolutely avoid. Seymour Hersh would be a bizarre source to use in this article as his two pieces date from 2013 and 2014, long before the Douma attack. Scott Lucas' opinions should be treated as Steele's, as opinion, and should also be removed unless we can establish noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: fair point regarding the use of quotation marks. I apologize. The point, though, is that we can't use Tareq Hadad's statements to decide to use a different standard for what constitutes a reliable source than what is described in the relevant policy. If you want to make that case you should be making it at WT:RS, not here. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley:Fisk: the newspaper itself describes him as "The Independent’s multi-award-winning Middle East correspondent, based in Beirut." His reporting on the subject was sufficiently notable to gain coverage from multiple outlets, including The Times of London.

"Fringe" in WP vernacular, is a quality which applies to theories - content - not to sources. Hence Counterpunch is not fringe, by definition. The lack of RSN consensus means its reliability needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, including taking into account the article author: in this case a >45 year veteran foreign correspondent for national newspapers, and recipient of Amnesty International's foreign reporting award amongst numerous others.

Hitchens: The reporting by Peter Hitchens is specifically under "News" on the Mail on Sunday website. It is not part of his blog. While he has used his blog to comment on posts by Eliot Higgins about the leaks, the reporting linked above is not in that category. The byline indicates this is reporting for the Mail on Sunday.

I broadly agree with your assessment of McKeigue and Hadad; Hersh belongs on the general CW in Syria war article rather than here. Cambial Yellowing❧ 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, regarding Robert Fisk, who is, of course, the Independent's long-term Middle East correspondent and whose articles are marked as "Voices" or "Long Reads". Both types of article, as is common in newspaper reporting, contain a mixture of opinion and factual reporting. As far as I can determine, though, there's nothing to support for your assertion that "Voices" articles automatically equate to opinion pieces, presumably meaning that they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Independent and are outside editorial control. There are no disclaimers on the articles, there is no statement that "Voices" articles are opinion pieces and, as far as I know, there is no understanding in journalism that the word "Voice" equates to "Opinion". I should think that other sources cited in the current WP article contain opinion. If you're so set against opinion being used, shouldn't you be pushing for that to be removed as well? See Archive 8 for the last time this was discussed (I left a comment at 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)).

Regarding the reliability of the Mail on Sunday, also see Archive 8, where it was pointed out, for example by Cambial Yellowing at 23:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC), that discussions at the RSN, such as the one in November 2019, exempted that paper from the ban on using the Daily Mail as a source. You wrote: "the Mail on Sunday which does not have consensus as a reliable source." There is not a consensus for it NOT BEING a reliable source either.

You described the "Meeting at the House of Commons hosted by Fabian Hamilton MP, 22 January 2020" at which Paul McKeigue (professor in the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Edinburgh) gave a presentation as a "partisan public meeting". I should think that the label 'partisan' could probably be attached to anything of any significance written or said about what happened at Douma, including, given accounts of the pressure applied to that body, the OPCW report. It's use is pretty meaningless. Just out of curiosity, what's your justification for describing the presentation as a "public meeting"?

Please re-read the explanation I gave for mentioning Tareq Hadad (was he always ultra-fringe, or just since he resigned from Newsweek?) and Seymour Hersh's articles. I was not suggesting that they be used as sources in the current article, but seeking to demonstrate that the problem with disinformation does not only stem from one of the factions involved in the war in Syria. On that theme, you might like to note that the WGSPM wrote that, after the leak of the OPCW engineering assessment, they were contacted by "western corporate media" journalists reporting stories on that subject being spiked by their editors. Also, for the next time that the reliability of Bellingcat is discussed, there is food for thought in the associated Wikispooks article and a leaked Integrity Initiative document [18]: "Bellingcat was somewhat discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself, and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay."

    ←   ZScarpia   03:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: @Cambial Yellowing: Re Fisk: If you look at the Voices section of the Independent, you'll clearly see that it is their opinion section. They don't have a section called "Opinion", because this is that section. If you look at its Twitter page, the bio says "Opinion Desk at The Independent". The Facebook page describes it similarly: "Independent Voices is the home for Comment, Campaigns and Community for The Independent". When it launched, it was billed like this: "The Independent launches Independent Voices, its new comment and opinion site which it says will 'champion enlightened values'".[19] What this means is that different editorial standards apply from the News section. It is partisan. The proprietor said it would be the "home of liberal fundamentalism campaigning".[20] There is a reason Fisk is published in this section and not in the News section. And we have to treat what he says there as his opinion.

Re "Fringe": yes, sources are not in themselves WP:FRINGE, but when I said CounterPunch or Haddad's blog is a fringe source, I meant they are sources which promote fringe theories. Steele is a veteran journalist, but there is a reason why his OPCW article was not published by a reputable paper like his former home the Guardian: because it pushes an obviously fringe theory.

Re Hitchens: You are right, Cambial, these two pieces were published in the News section of the MoS. Reliability therefore depends on whether the Mail on Sunday is considered an RS or not. There appears to be no consensus on that. Apologies ZScarpiaI missed your 3 Jan comment. It's true MoS is not covered by the ban on the Mail, but RSN discussions suggest the weight of opinion is to be wary of it.

Re the Commons meeting: My main point is that a speech at a meeting transcribed later and published on a Wordpress blog is not likely to be a good source. The fact it was "hosted" by an MP (reports suggest that the MP, who did not attend, did not know much about the event when he made the booking: Hamilton has insisted he was unaware of who would be speaking when his office agreed to book a room for an anti-war collective “to discuss the OPCW report”. Hamilton’s spokesperson added that the shadow minister “does not support [the speakers’] offensive and factually incorrect views”. His spokesperson told HuffPost UK: “Fabian fully supports the OPCW’s conclusions into the vile chemical attacks that took place in Douma in 2018. “Any suggestion that Fabian somehow supports the ridiculous conspiracy theories held by some of the attendees at this event are ludicrous.”[21] So it seems even the host of the meeting sees the speech as WP:FRINGE, but in any case it needs to be cited via a reliable source to be used in our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Re Fisk: If you look at the Voices section of the Independent, you'll clearly see that it is their opinion section. They don't have a section called "Opinion", because this is that section." That argument is based on a number of assumptions. I can think of reasons why Fisk may be listed as a "Voice" other than that the Indpendent is indicating that they don't take responsibility for the content. As I wrote, the contents of the articles are a mixture of opinion and reporting; if you take exception to the opinion contained therein, then you should take equal exception to the opinion contained in sources which are currently cited. Below, a link to an article by George Monbiot from the News section of the Guardian has been given. Just like Fisk's articles, it contains both opinion and factual reporting. How should it be treated given that the Guardian does have an Opinion section and Monbiot's article isn't included in that? Even if the Independent had issued a clear disclaimer on Fisk's articles, though, that wouldn't be a bright line reason for not citing them on Wikipedia (see the News Organizations section of the Reliable Sources guideline).

"My main point is that a speech at a meeting transcribed later and published on a Wordpress blog is not likely to be a good source." This was not a transcript, but part of Paul McKeigue's presentation (see [22]). A report was, however, prepared afterwards by Dr. Catherine Brown, which was "based on her transcription (as near to verbatim as possible) of the presentations, questions, and answers asthey were given."

Regarding the IndyVoices Twitter feed you linked to, the content is clearly labelled "Opinion", "Letters" or with the name of an outside contributor such as Vince Cable or Keir Starmer. The line "Opinion Desk at The Independent" does appear at the top, but as part of a set of instructions telling outside contributors where to pitch their ideas. It does not necessarily follow that anything written by an author labelled as a Voice on the website is part of an assumed opinion section. Have you found any articles attributed to Robert Fisk in the Twitter feed? My guess is that you haven't.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC).

Re: Fisk: I do not argue that his reporting of this is not in the opinion section, but that his status as that newspaper's Middle-East correspondent, and the coverage of his reporting on this subject by other RS outlets, mean his views are sufficiently notable for inclusion. Attribution should be (and is currently) used. Furthermore, the fact that his reporting is in agreement with the other sources listed attests to its value.

Re: Steele: You may believe that Counterpunch "promotes fringe theories", but that is your opinion, not the consensus or policy of WP. Your response to this employs circular reasoning (begging the question): your argument assumes the value of your assertion that Steele's reporting "pushes an obviously fringe theory" to attempt to show that the premise "Counterpunch promotes fringe" is true. It is not a logical argument.

Re: Hitchens: The RSN discussion to which you link shows nothing close to what you assert. A statement by one editor out of five does not constitute "the weight of opinion", and it's a quite substantial misrepresentation to suggest as much. There remains no formal RfC but its status as a widely circulated national newspaper indicates that it is a serious and notable publication.

The purpose of the list of sources above was to refute the notion that no reliable sources have taken the OPCW whistleblowers seriously. It shows that a significant number have, and that assertion stands. Cambial Yellowing❧ 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat published a report in which it argued that it is "impossible" for the Douma attack to be a false flag incident.

This Bellingcat article is being cited to justify a statement in the article that Bellingcat argued that it was impossible, rather than very unlikely, that the Douman attack was a false flag operation ("Bellingcat published a report in which it argued that it is impossible for the Douma attack to be a false flag incident."). The following text from Bellingcat is quoted in the citation: "The fakery, from the manufacturing of the cylinders to the chemical samples, would have had to be carried out to an incredibly high standard, indeed high enough that it could fool not only the FFM, but also multiple witnesses at the site of the attack." In that quote, Bellingcat is not stating it was impossible that a false flag operation was carried out, only that it would have been very difficult to do it convincingly (and, of course, other sources, such as the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media argue that the evidence shows that the attack was staged and staged in such a way that was botched: [23][24][25][26][27]).     ←   ZScarpia   17:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bellingcat article attempts to demonstrate why a "false flag" operation is not credible. It opens: "In its final report, the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) stated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that on April 7, 2018, chlorine gas was used in an attack on the Syrian city of Douma. Despite that conclusion, claims the chemical attack in Douma were staged continue to circulate." Another part of the conclusion reads: "A 'false flag' attack would have been extremely complex to plan and execute, relying either on the murder of multiple people (which not a single witness mentioned), or the discovery of an unprecedented number of people who had died from 'dust inhalation'." It does not entertain a remote possibility ("very unlikely") at all. In any case, the article reads "effectively impossible" not "impossible" after my minor modification. Philip Cross (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The revised description of "effectively impossible" appears consistent with the source. @ZScarpia: why are you spamming a bunch of links to a pro-Assad propaganda group [28] here? VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "effectively impossible" appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the source to you, but it looks like an overstatement to me.

There are at least two competing points of view on what happened at Douma, adherents of one, as you did above, referring to their opponents, who include the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM), as "pro-Assad" (see, for instance, this article from the Atlantic Council, one of whose senior fellows is Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat). You supplied this HuffPost article by Chris York to justify referring to the WGSPM as "pro-Assad propaganda group". It could be that Chris York is correct. On the other hand, Chris York has his own detractors (see, for instance: [29]). Now, both points of view on what happened at Douma cannot be correct; the possibilities are that they are both totally wrong, one is totally right and one wrong, or that they are, in differing degrees, partly correct and partly wrong. You asked me why I was "spamming a bunch of links to a pro-Assad propaganda group." Perhaps, instead, you should be asking yourself whether it is correct to be presenting one point of view as the "truth".

Last month marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the Biafran War. The British government sided with the Nigerian one and disseminated misinformation, which British news organisations duly filled their reeports with ("after the decision was made to back Nigeria, the BBC oriented its reporting to favour this side"). History doesn't show it as having been those organisations' finest hour.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to ZScarpia, and perhaps more apposite to our common purpose; if you're going to be churlish about a group of academics perhaps don't rely on a source that's consistently been determined to be unreliable on numerous occasions. Cambial Yellowing❧ 02:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that either source is being considered for the article, but WP:PARITY. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the Fringe Theories guideline supports or excuses using unreliable sources. It explicitly states that only reliable sources should be used. It is not relevant. Cambial Yellowing❧ 04:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

So we agree that ZScarpia shouldn't spam links to such sources, even in talk space then? VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No discussion has taken place about the work of the group of academics ZScarpia referred to. Whereas Huffington post has been discussed many times on RSN and found to be either generally unreliable or lacking any consensus to be considered reliable. Your opinion is not the determinant of what constitutes a RS. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Further spam from "such sources"?, notes from a presentation given to a meeting at the House of Commons on 22 January 2020 by Paul McKeigue (Professor of Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics at the University of Edinburgh): "Anyone familiar with the epidemiology of accidents in the chemical industry would have been able to advise the intelligence agencies that it was highly unlikely that this incident could have been a chemical attack with chlorine as alleged. There have been many industrial accidents with chlorine over the past century, so there is ample experience on which to draw" (also note the bit above the quoted section where it mentions the display, then deletion, of a photo on Bellingcat showing one of the cylinders in a different position). (Report on the House of Commons presentation, which took place at Portcullis House on 22 January 2020, by Catherine Brown: [30])

Amnesty International has also produced reports on the situation in Syria, including this one on Douma from April 2018, which discusses the reliability of information being produced by the various sides.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC) }   (04:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC): comment expanded)

Um, that April 2018 AI link talks about how Bellingcat debunked a Russian propaganda attempt to claim the Douma attack didn't happen. Paul McKeigue is a genetic epidemiologist, not an industrial hygienist. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul McKeigue describes his training: "I trained as a doctor, and then as an epidemiologist and public health specialist. My expertise includes the investigation of scientific fraud, and the investigation of mass casualty incidents." I think his qualifications are better than those of the citizen journalists of Bellingcat as far as deciding that the evidence shown by photographs of the corpses shows that the deaths weren't caused by the dropping of a couple of 44L cylinders of chlorine is concerned.

I did read the Amnesty International report before posting a link to it.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Could we return to the main topic of this discussion. That Bellingcat was not quoted correctly.

Not quoting correctly the source referenced, also happens in other chapters of our Douma page here, including recent disucsions on the talk page of User:Cambial_Yellowing on the chemical incident.

Not correct quotations have to be corrected, otherwise - en.wiki - looses it´s credibility easily.

As everybody interested, can see it within a click.

Please look it up, ZScarpia is right, read Bellingcat. Who corrects the text then? Attacking user ZSarpia, is just obfuscating this fact, and the brawl above may hinders him to take action. Is ZScarpia blocked? He should be able to correct the text in the page, not only talk about here. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Before opening this talkpage discussion, I did actually edit the article, but my change was then edited in turn, changing my wording, "very unlikely", to "impossible". The sequence went: Diff 1 (the original content insertion), Diff 2 (my edit), Diff 3 (substitution of "impossible"). Before I opened this discussion, "impossible" was changed to "effectively impossible", which is still an exagerrated interpretation of the source in my opinion (Diff 4}. Later, the paragraph was deleted (Diff 5) and reinserted (Diff 6). To clarify, I'm not blocked, nor in my time editing Wikipedia have I been under any sanction.     ←   ZScarpia   11:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@ZScarpia:@FrankBierFarmer:There is evidently no consensus about the inclusion of this material, and it seeks to rebut a minority view which is otherwise not discussed. The assertion in an edit summary that events could "only be otherwise explained by a false flag" has no basis in fact or reliable sources. Lacking consensus, it should be removed and the edit restoring it reverted. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You do realize consensus isn't determined by vote, right? Particularly not after canvassing via ping? VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mischaracterising the actions of other editors to make them seem improper is not permitted. Canvassing suggests a desire for a vote, but in this instance the consensus is already clearly apparent, and the editors already active in the discussion. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No one seeking to exclude this paragraph has presented a policy-based reasoning to do so. There is clear consensus to include the material. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing:, short of an outline of all viewpoints being given, I think that there is good reason to delete the paragraph. In light of the material leaked by OPCW staff, reports such as those of Robert Fisk, and the analyses done by, for example, Peter Hitchens, Paul McKeigue, the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and Grayzone (the last two, in my opinion, being as reliable as Bellingcat), it is reasonable to conclude that assertions made, such as that it was "effectively impossible" to have staged an attack, are worthless. As far as policy reasons go, it is not necessary, of course, to include anything just because it can be sourced and the reasons given for blocking sources supporting the opposite viewpoint can be recycled to be used against Bellingcat: the content is largely opinion; the site is self-published with no obvious system of editorial oversight; the citizen journalists are non-experts; the site takes funding from a front for a secret security organisation of one of the belligerents. At the RSN, consensus was that, as a source, Bellingcat was semi-reliable; content may be cited so long as it is attributed. In my opinion, some of the sources blocked previously deserve to be used on terms no more onerous. I think that Bellingcat, as a semi-reliable source, has probably been overused in the article.     ←   ZScarpia   01:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, your summary of the discussion at the RSN is completely false. Furthermore, every one of the sources you cite as being equally reliable have not a snowball's chance in hell of being used anywhere on Wikipedia, much less such a contentious article as this. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it does say that content should be used preferably with attribution, not that attribution is necessary.

I think that the opinion that Robert Fisk in The Independent, Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday, the OPCW whistleblowers and Paul McKeigue, with his medical background and position, might be less reliable than Bellingcat is a bit dubious. As to the others, we will see. Just because adherents of one viewpoint attack the adherents of another, doesn't make the second unreliable.

Source reliability is, of course, context specific and subject to change.

I still support deletion of the paragraph unless the neutrality of the article is improved by the inclusion of material outlining the other viewpoint.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't need to promote a conspiracy theory in order to include this material. The Bellingcat article already puts the false flag story in adequate context, and as noted we also cover the Russian promotion of this narrative elsewhere in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"We don't need" to promote one viewpoint as the holy gospel.     ←   ZScarpia   09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear ZScarpia, I observe this kind of editing tactics since quite a long time on this page, performed by the same group of users. It always ends in a biased "ultra pro Bellingcat" view. Especially the final mechanism, cited above by you in detial, removing a whole section for a while, and then reinstating it. Sometimes just one word even stronger in the biased direction is added. (please see my observations denoted above).

This is a destructive propaganda tactics. Are those people payed for that? Why are they not interested in a balanced and truthful summary what was found in the "allowed" Wiki sources. Cui Bono? FrankBierFarmer (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added a multiple issues template for this section of the article with reference to this discussion. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice tagbombing. So, which sources in that section do you view as "partisan"? VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Tagbombing refers to unjustified additions. You already know that this section is disputed (scroll up); so for the third time, please stop trying to WP:SANCTIONGAME and WP:GASLIGHT. I recommend you read the policy regarding this behaviour.

The partisan sources are eaworldview and bellingcat, per the extended discussion above. Now, address your re-insertion of material, lacking consensus, which discusses an extreme minority view with no prominent adherents; it has no place on Wikipedia. Your edit summary is entirely refuted by the preceding sentence of the article. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The view that the attack was faked is fringe. That faking it would have been virtually impossible is mainstream. Reliable sources establishing due coverage have already been provided. We already have consensus to include it since no policy-based reason to exclude it has been presented. Care to defend your claim that either of the sources you mentioned is "partisan"? A separate section might be cleanest. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:While EAW states that it is a self-published source, that is not the same as being partisan in the definition used by WP. Similarly for Bellingcat. I withdraw the assertion. If there is no objection, I will remove the <partisan> template. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I am on the fence leaning towards removal of the EAWorldview source, particularly since at a glance the information it is used to support seems like it should be verifiable from a better source. Can you clarify what you mean by "it seeks to rebut a minority view which is otherwise not discussed" and other similar statements above? Right now in article we note: "A few days later, the Russian military said members of the White Helmets organization filmed a staged attack...on 13 April, the Russian Ministry of Defence said that it was Britain that staged the attack in order to provoke U.S. airstrikes." VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as fringe goes, see my comments above, including: "I think that the opinion that Robert Fisk in The Independent, Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday, the OPCW whistleblowers and Paul McKeigue, with his medical background and position, might be less reliable than Bellingcat is a bit dubious."     ←   ZScarpia   02:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree with the above and would add Jonathan Steele, who has reported on the subject on BBC Radio 4 as well as counterpunch, to the list of RS taking a different view. OPCW whistleblowers and McKeigue need to be used particularly carefully given the lack of review/editorial control, and all sources need attribution. Could I request that all editors reply below, even if their comments are replies to earlier parts of this section, w diffs if needing to indicate the thread. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in reliable sources, just some opinion pieces from well known contrarians and a ton of articles from the usual fringe suspects like RT/Greyzone/Anti-War. Better quality sources dismiss the claims as Russian/Syrian propaganda [31]. Also, consensus is that Bellingcat is reliable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Listing some unrelated unreliable sources has no bearing on the reliable sources already discussed. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There's not much point in making a claim about what "better quality sources" say, then linking to a HuffPost opinion piece which has been discussed above, where Cambial Yellowing pointed out that such articles have been marked as generally unreliable here (seeCambial Yellowing❧ 02:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)). As a whole, there is no consensus about whether the HuffPost is reliable or not. You're welcome to present the viewpoint you support in the article ... as a viewpoint.     ←   ZScarpia   14:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A new MailOnline blog piece by Peter Hitchens about the OPCW controversy: [32].     ←   ZScarpia   18:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)