Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else?

The following discussion 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.

---

Russians release lab analysis

October 29, 2013. Russia Claims Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons

The samples taken from the impact site of the gas-laden projectile were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Churkin said. He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. Churkin said the results indicate it "was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile "is not a standard one for chemical use." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3568731.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/russia-new-evidence-rebels-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks/4966616

Blade-of-the-South talk 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Huffington post article predates Ghouta. The information in the late September article is already in the article (summary: Russia disputes all evidence that points to Syria; provides no backup). VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Capabilities section would be suitable, the lab, thats a good point. Its a distinguised lab, more notable than SOHR surely. See I think the capabilities section is a bit non neutral Question. For these sorts of issues, you say I say, is there a notice board to go to to get non involved editors involved to call it? Blade-of-the-South talk 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple dispute resolution methods and noticeboards available; for a summary see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE which includes a convenient list. Third opinions are great for simple questions when it is a discussion between two editors; usually a much faster turnaround than most other methods. Which lab? Russia has been consistently making claims related to Syria without any backup, so the Russian ambassador making claims is not worth including in the article. Particularly for a story that predates Ghouta. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. One thing though, I have to point out that when you say 'Particularly for a story that predates Ghouta.' I dont understand you. I saw your edits on background and capabilities, material thats in it of course predates the attack. Why do you often use this as an excuse to exclude only certain material. Do you see how someone may think you are a biased editor? Blade-of-the-South talk 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding how you are proposing to use this source, then. We already mention in the background section that Russia blames rebels for Khan al-Assal. What specific changes to the article are you proposing? The capabilities section should only include sources that discuss capability of an attack on the scale of Ghouta per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr Im taking you on good faith, that you are not wasting editors time. I dont see how you dont understand how a previous chemical attack in the same conflict just a short time before is not relevant to who may have carried out the later Ghouta attack. I propose that the article updates the rebels capability to have possibly done it due to Russias lab results / conclusions on them doing the earlier attack. I will take this the the board I think in the next day or so. Blade-of-the-South talk 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to tell someone you are assuming good faith, you just do it because it is how Wikipedia operates. The two attacks were different, particularly in scope, so we would want to use sources that explicitly makes the claim that the rebels were capable of the Ghouta attack. A source that predates Ghouta may be appropriate for the background section (though I think we already have that covered and do not need to stack in more sources that repeat the same unsupported claims by Russia), but is unlikely to be appropriate for the capability section per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Its sometimes good to get reminders about good faith. I see you point about scope, but as in most things capability escalates. You score one goal one week two the next. I disagree about Russias claims being unlikely to be appropriate. After all the worlds most powerful man Putin, is notable. 'Forbes ranks Putin world’s most powerful person, downs Obama'. Anyway, moving on, rather than repeat we could upgrade to sync in Russia. WP:SYNTH is very avoidable with neutral language. Blade-of-the-South talk 02:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean, replace last month's Russian puff piece with this month's in the Russian response section? I guess, I do not really see the point though. Vladimir Putin is indeed notable - see, the wikilink is blue. Spamming that Forbes article is irrelevant bordering on disruptive, though. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Is your viewpoint really helpful? Spamming !! And its hardly disruptive what Im proposing. Blade-of-the-South talk 07:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You have brought up the same Forbes article in multiple sections when it is quite obviously relevant to none. That is called "spamming" in discussion board parlance. Again, what are you proposing? Please try to be concise; reading through this section I really have no idea what you are trying to say. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Its late now I'll get back to it tomorrow. Thks for being civil. Blade-of-the-South talk 09:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like a summary (agreed upon first) of the above quote, in the capability section. I think its good enough to be in there and relevant and it has RS. Let me know what you think. I will then do a draft. If we still dont agree we can take it to content for a non involved editor. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree this should be included due to WP:SYNTH, especially considering the Russian claim here is pretty extraordinary and not independently corroborated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll get some non involved editors to look at it. FYI I will propose an insert of data from quote to either capability, background or intel section. Possibly upgrading existing similar info. I will post the link here. Blade-of-the-South talk 07:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Non involved editor here, the info seems to be relevant, if it is properly sourced and widely reported why not feature it here. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:12, 12 November 2013 (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.

The Syria Chemical Weapons Attack and the Role of Saudi Intelligence. The Mint News Report

This is a new article about the incident and should be included. It is at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-and-the-role-of-saudi-intelligence-the-mint-news-report/5359154

Chris Bury (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Trajectory Intersection Theory Discredited

Note that following consultation with expert Richard Lloyd, Brown Moses has now joined the WhoGhouta estimate of 2.5 km range for the rockets. Since Brown Moses / Eliot Higgins is considered a reliable source (he is quoted elsewhere in this article), the 'trajectory intersection' theory which assumes a 9.5 km range (Zamalka to Mt. Qasiun), can now be safely considered invalid. I recommend qualifying all references to this theory accordingly. For example, in the lead:

Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. Specifically, the inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these pointed to the government's elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun. However, more recent evidence indicates Mt. Qasioun is much farther than the rockets' range of 2.5 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawa (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I didn't think the Mount Qasioun stuff should be in the intro at all. It's far too speculative at this stage. I see Brown Moses, in the blog post you linked, now suspects the rockets were fired from Syrian Army positions closer to Ghouta as part of the well-publicized offensive in Qaboun. So if there's really no proof as to exactly where the rockets were launched, and no one who meets Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines saying much about it at all, then why are we putting this information in the article -- much less front-and-center? I think this is just another good reason to keep the intro concise and focus on less contentious information, as I have argued in the past. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

RfCs

I've closed two RfCs in the archives, for those who are interested:

• Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_5#RfC:_Should_this_Russian_claim_be_in_the_Background_or_capabilities_sections_or_somewhere_else.3F
• Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_4#RFC_-_Primary_and_secondary_sources_for_wind_information

If there are any concerns, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

good text

here. 189.12.179.231 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce or cut EAWorldview comment

Sorry Sayerslle, but I'm going to propose that we cut the EAWorldView commentary from the "Evidence" section of the article, because it fails, almost humorously, to understand the points made by the Hersh article:

• Hersh notes that an "early warning" sensor system, meant to detect preparation for chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, didn't fire at any point prior to the Ghouta attacks, though the sensor system had worked well in the past (for example during the December 2012 Syrian army military exercise).
• Hersh writes that, according to a senior former intelligence official, the transcripts meant to demonstrate Syrian government culpability were assembled from military chatter dating all the war back to December 2012, and were furthermore cherry-picked to make it appear as though an attack were imminent on August 21 2013, when it wasn't.

The EAWorldView piece counters that the existence of a US government-provided transcript - which has nothing to do with a sensor system - shows that the sensor system did work. This clearly demonstrates that Joanna Paraszczuk and Scott Lucas don't understand Hersh's article. They furthermore quote from a WSJ article that is simply running through that very same transcript Hersh's sources say are manipulated.

EAWorldView is not a particularly notable source and, because it is confused about Hersh's piece, I recommend that we ditch it. -Darouet (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Lucas article says not that the sensor system did work, but that it might have - but yes, - kaszeta and brown moses are the responders to hersh to keep in the article. hersh places a lot on the word and say-so of manipulation on this 'former intelligence official' doesn't he-Sayerslle (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sayerslle. -Darouet (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh

There is a new, extensive commentary on the issues by Seymour Hersh on the London Review of Books website. [1]. Hersh is obviously an excellent source, and the LRB website means it's not self-published. Podiaebba (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hersh is a superb journalist, and the material added from his article really improves this page. I hope a little more can be added in the coming days. -Darouet (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

brown moses calls it 'ill-informed' on certain essentials - even 'superb journalists', like Malcolm Muggeridge for example, can get lousy on detail as they get senile-r. Sayerslle (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses calls it ill-informed? Where? He hasn't published a blog entry since the Hersh article was published. Now for some actual information instead of unpleasant insult: based on WhoGhouta's review of Hersh's piece, Brown Moses is probably referring to the UMLACA issue, that Brown Moses thinks was developed for the Syrian Army. On this Hersh cites Theodore Postol, saying "The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal." Postol may not be a self-educated blogger like Brown Moses, but hey, the NYT saw fit to cite him in their Ghouta coverage, so even if Brown Moses is right, maybe Hersh wasn't wrong to rely on him. Podiaebba (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo News coverage of Hersh's article. No new info in it. Podiaebba (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

brown moses calls it ill-informed on twitter -(where the abuse from people with your outlook, and the 'outlook/allegiances' of whoghouta, is really very virulent and disgusting, so I accept 'senile-r' was low-brow of me ) and he responded to a pro-Assad twitterer called Sophia thusly:-

"Sophia ‏@les_politiques 12h Hersh has published an authoritative investigation on Sarin in #Ghouta. Any rational being should b instilled w some doubt,no? .@Brown_Moses

Brown Moses ‏@Brown_Moses 12h @les_politiques I've just written a piece for Foreign Policy highlighting a few key points he appears unaware ofSayerslle (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I actually guessed Twitter, which would imply little detail on his complaints... let's see the Foreign Policy piece when it turns up. Podiaebba (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of Brown Moses' personal opinion about the Hersh piece, I do think this qualifies as a reliable source, and I'm amenable to including its assertions and conclusions as long as they're given due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

emesik and podiaebba have already added stuff from it - skepticism about the article's worth spreads far wider than brown moses - new yorker and wash post didn't want it for example [2] - 'due weight' has to be observed for fatuous stuff Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

emesik and podiaebba have already added stuff from it - no, I only improved the ref. I'm not really surprised that mainstream US media outlets chickened out of accusing the US govt of lying. WashPo's Snowden coverage is based on documents; they have to take Hersh's word for the intelligence sources. Podiaebba (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

emesik has added stuff from it - why not add this sensational revelation -"One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote" - heres Scott Lucas on the fatuous Seymour hersh article [3] - Sayerslle (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Brown Moses" has no credibility compared to Hersh. He's just a random guy, with no credentials. His words carry no weight, and blogs are not reliable sources anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses does have credibility - you are out of touch, or just being disingenuous to get a rise, - and hersh is all about 'I was speaking to a former whatever..'-and his special secret channels of info to angry anonymous officials,- Maloof? - - brown moses is open and democratic - very distasteful to ba'thists and their fans no doubt - to say he is just a random guy is partisan and out of touch imo. Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read about the guy (Brown Moses)? His sole experience is looking at goddamn Youtube videos. A total joke. Only reason the western media parrots his claims is because they need some good pro-rebel spin, and no reliable sources can provide that any more. For someone who keeps rambling about Sharmine Narwani being partisan, it is pretty baffling why you would stick your neck out for that guy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

well, agree to differ, I take him more seriously than hersh, - he is open and the youtube vids are kind of based on a thing called reality, and not a sectarian paranoid world view - you keep Russia Today and Press TV and hersh and globalresearchmintopressb/s, I'll take brown moses over those dealers in sectarian fantasy and power worship any day- and snarwani - you like her modus operandi? - endless personal abuse, awful, and why wouldn't I stick my neck out -its easy for me- I admire him for dealing with a lot of the abuse he has to put up with, with a great sang-froid Sayerslle (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are Brown Moses and I claim my £5. :0 Podiaebba (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand that podiaebba. is it amusing? last thing , honest -just occurred to me - funkmonk said he is just some random guy - but linked to a Wikipedia article about him- not any and every random guy has that. so he is wrong - here is the article brown moses wrote in response to herschs gossip - [4] -Sayerslle (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, describing one of the most storied investigative journalists in the U.S. as "senile," and his report as "gossip" and "musings," is disrespectful, and indicates that you lack the objectivity or competence to evaluate reliable sources. What Hersh has done, by the way, is get senior government officials, at the risk of destroying their own careers, to say that the Obama administration has been lying about Ghouta, and that many in the intelligence community are frustrated or angry with the misleading narrative. He also reveals that an Op Order (DIA, CIA) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that the rebels could deploy sarin. Regarding Eliot Higgins, he just runs a blog and, yes, has limited expertise or weight. But he has published a reply in Foreign Policy, and so his voice automatically has some authority in this issue. Secondly, I'd argue that his analyses, even without the FP article, have been important and worth considering (for us too). The other side of this is that the whogouta blog, whose conclusions oppose those of Higgins, is just as notable, and probably more reliable, considering the experts actually working for it. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Hersh is "senile", while "Brown Moses", who is basically just a random bum, is the pinnacle of truth? These are strange days we live in. No wonder the masses are so easily duped into retarded wars/supporting rabid Salafists. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to "the masses," FunkMonk, Hersh does document the systematic lies by the Administration, and their repetition by the media, in the article we're discussing. Not to say that I'm convinced the rebels did this (I'm not), but I'm just pointing out that whatever the truth is, it's hard to acquire it with all the political nonsense coming from the Syrian government or opposition, US or Russian PR efforts. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use that term as a pejorative, FunkMonk. And a piece published in Foreign Policy that pertains to this issue is a reliable source, even if the Brown Moses Blog isn't; one is produced under the masthead of a credible publication and subject to editorial review and quality control, and the other is self-published and lacks editorial controls. We can use Higgins' response in FP, but not his blog posts, as far as I'm concerned. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

here's dan kaszeta replying to hersh, darouet , [5] , and i'll put a link to brian whitakers criticism of hersh "The main problem with Hersh's article is that he seems to have spent so much time listening to his secretive sources, and perhaps became so enthralled with them, that he never got round to looking at a wealth of information about the chemical attacks which is freely available on the internet. The result was that his article posed a number of once-important questions which others had already answered. - http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/december/brown-moses-versus-hersh.htm#sthash.2PjvQSwq.dpbs] "- he doesn't use the word 'senile' but 'old school' which is in the neighbourhood maybe - funkmonk is,as usual, the soul of impartial and restrained rational expressiveness, Sayerslle (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sayerslle - thanks for the links. I'd read the Kaszeta reply with interest after you linked it on the main page. Reading the "EAWorldView" piece you just linked by Joanna Paraszczuk and Scott Lucas, I see that they misinterpret the critique by the anonymous intelligence official as relayed by Hersh. Quoting the transcripts provided by the administration (which you've just added to the article), they argue that these obviously required some days to translate… however the critique relayed by Hersh is of a different nature entirely. Regarding to speed of the US government response, Hersh notes that top secret intelligence briefings didn't include any reference to the sensors the US military has placed in the Syrian weapons stockpile. These don't require translation and are meant to respond to an immediate attack. Regarding the transcripts, Hersh's sources tell him that these were manipulated and include intercepts from December 2012 - many, many months before the attack, when the Syrian army was apparently carrying out an exercise. -Darouet (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

o.k - I'll re-read the hersh article and lucas reply more attentively -i'm pretty incompetent as you have observed already- if hersh's sources say they were manipulated that's it. it seems to me the rebels did it narrative swallows elephants and chokes on feathers, if you get my drift. kaszeta and brown moses articles are o.k though with you? good - btw, don't you think - One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote - don't you think that this intelligence officer has a duty to humanity to come forward openly and present what he knows ? Sayerslle (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sayerslle - I don't actually think that the Hersh piece is arguing that the "rebels did it." I think it is, rather, arguing - based on interviews with US intelligence officials - that:

• the rebels have chemical weapons capability (according to US intelligence),
• intelligence presented to the US public and media was doctored by the administration,
• an early warning sensor system placed on government weapons didn't activate before ghouta,
• many in the US intelligence community are upset about the possibly false narrative given publicly.

I watched an interview with Hersh in which he says just this. I don't think he's confident that the rebels launched the attack. But, based on his research, he's confident that the US doctored intelligence and ignored reports in order to present a picture - publicly - that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. regarding your last comment - sources remain anonymous all the time to protect themselves, and it's normal for intelligence agencies to have internal conflict, or release disinformation - normally, people keep quiet. Whoever spoke to Hersh already risked their career and life to speak anonymously. But they probably did so because the consequences (which include a possible military intervention strengthening al-Nusra) could be momentous. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet you 'don't actually think that the Hersh piece is arguing that the "rebels did it." ',- but the article is titled 'Whose Sarin?' is it not? Implying...? Do you see what he's implying? clever old codger . And if you say I'm guilty of not showing enough respect to one of your heroes , thats tough-people are free to admire whom they choose are they not? Sayerslle (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems poor Moses was just exposed: http://leaks.sea.sy/vandyke-leaks/#KnewRebels In short, he kept quiet about rebels having chemical weapons though he knew it, and he is funded by several partisan organisations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks unlikely, Funkmonk. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hot off the press. Wait, and probably some other outlets will pick it up. Read it, is is quite damning. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[6] Sayerslle (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether you agree with that post or not, the important thing is that the veracity of the leaks are not denied. To anyone who isn't in awe of these mercenary "journalists", it is clear that all their credibility, if they ever had any, was lost long ago. Furthermore, they don't deny that he receives funding from HRW and the likes. This is the funniest part, though:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

the important thing is the quality of what he writes - you are just partisan, whether someone is a 'random bum', or a star, in your eyes depends solely on their usefulness, or not, to your sectarian beliefs and extremist Manichean view of the world - 'HRW and the likes' ? what does that mean? snarwani and funk monk, - non sectarian progressives! lol. Sayerslle (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What he writes is only "useful" for those who have a pro-rebel agenda. It is obviously biased. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously untrue. if you stopped 'whining' you'd have time to actually read the blog posts. Sayerslle (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of Hersh

A recent article written by Seymour Hersh and published in the London Review of Books is currently cited 21 times - as near as I can tell more any any other source. This seems like undue coverage to me, particularly since the article is in a literary review journal, not a publication with a reputation for fact checking the work of their authors. Is there any reason this article has had Hersh's piece written in so heavily? VQuakr (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this, and it's exactly what I feared would happen. Editors who have long been desperate for an RS challenging the Western narrative are using this one wherever they can to discredit it. This clearly needs to be examined. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Kudzu1, your loaded terminology - that I among others have been "desperate" to "discredit" the "Western narrative" - forms a politically charged accusation not only strongly opinionated, but also somewhat insulting. It should be noted that Hersh's article primarily concerns the assessments of US intelligence agencies, whose internal analyses are made in part to protect US soldiers who could deploy to Syria, and not as press releases that might influence public opinion. In this sense, the LRB article is critical because it gives us access to nonpolitical assessments by some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world. And as to the journalist, VQuakr, Hersh is one of the most renowned journalists in the world and needs to additional credentials to bolster his "reputation." I have heard no criticism of the LRB's fact-checking either.

As to the issue of WP:DUE weight, the article Hersh published is not only quite long, but comprehensive in content. It reviews multiple US intelligence analyses and intelligence gathering mechanisms. It reviews discrepancies between these analyses and public statements. It also reviews technical analyses, for instance of rocketry, by third parties, and publishes commentary from figures within the US intelligence establishment who want to criticize what they view as false representations of US military intelligence.

Either of you, or any editor, may propose to remove some information taken from the Hersh piece, or simply remove it. I'm skeptical however that, in an effort to argue that the piece is over-represented generally, you will be able to make a strong argument for the removal of material in specific instances. While plenty of sources have presented alternatives to the "Western narrative," as Kudzu1 put it, the information available from whistleblowers within the intelligence establishment itself is far more powerful in detail, and effect. I think it's improved the article tremendously, and indeed if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have added it. -Darouet (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

By any chance can you cite a similar situation where the London Review of books has broken a news story like this? Hersh is indeed famous, but his choice of publisher is strange. Remember, we elected not to include Robert Parry's take, largely because his writing was self-published. Kudzu, I agree with Darouet that your tone above is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know either of your personal politics (nor do I care to) and I don't think you'd presume to know mine -- but surely we can all agree there are certain editors who have been active on this page who are interested in advancing a certain POV that Hersh caters to quite adroitly in his article. And I think that's led to overuse of the Hersh article, gratuitous repetition of his claims, and obfuscation of whether Hersh's article represents one journalist's claim (which has been heavily criticized in certain quarters) or the objective truth (which is unknowable at this point). I don't think that's appropriate for Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet: the New Yorker and Washington Post both passed on publishing this report [8]. The reason the New Yorker (published Hersh during Abu Ghraib) turned it down is unclear ("little interest"?), but the Post passed because the sourcing is substandard. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@VQuakr:, the very same paper, whose editor's unlikely explanation you accept as certain truth, published an editorial on the very same day of the Ghouta attacks (before anybody except perhaps the perpetrators had substantial knowledge of the attacks), strongly implying both regime responsibility, and calling for a U.S. military intervention:

"The United States should be using its own resources to determine, as quickly as possible, whether the opposition’s reports of large-scale use of gas against civilians are accurate. If they are, Mr. Obama should deliver on his vow not to tolerate such crimes — by ordering direct U.S. retaliation against the Syrian military forces responsible and by adopting a plan to protect civilians in southern Syria with a no-fly zone."

Nowhere does the editorial even entertain the possibility that there could be another conclusion, though the AP subsequently reported widespread unease in the US intelligence community regarding evidence for the regime's culpability, and though Hersh's sources say that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have already concluded that rebel sarin capability would be an active threat to US soldiers were they in Syria.

What is your contention: that Hersh is himself lying? That his sources are lying and he is unable to verify their credibility or that of the documents they present? That the London Review of Books, that regularly publishes substantial political pieces (see their website: they are much like the NY Review of Books), is unreliable?

None of those contentions are credible, and neither you nor Kudzu1 have sources to back them up. Furthermore, the blog run by Higgins - whose only expertise, though I do value it, seems to be the scouring of youtube videos - is hardly reliable compared to the analyses by weapons experts cited in Hersh's article. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Short answer - yes, each of those possibilities is "credible." Or a combination of them. Which is why we avoid reliance on a single source. VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your belief in these possibilities - and action on them - is both unsupported and unjustified. Rather than avoiding "reliance" on a single source, you are insisting that most information in that source - despite its high profile and the prestige of its author and publisher - simply not appear. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a hijack, but what do you think it means to "believe in a possibility?" In any case, please do not mischaracterize my position; none of the second sentence above is accurate. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Hersh claims "simply not appear". They just don't need to appear repeated ad nauseum throughout the article, seemingly just to check claims that point the blame at the government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, I actually think that some of your edits to the material on Hersh have been positive, and Kudzu1, I understand your interest to source and weight articles on behalf of the encyclopedia (as you should). I furthermore appreciate that you both are not some of the unbelievable POV-warriors who populate these articles (you mentioned them above), editing for either side as if they were actually involved in the conflict, and not just describing it. But in a few critical instances, you've removed information that is very important for this article and for readers, notably:

• In the "Foreign government assessments" section, you have removed the classified U.S. assessments, but kept the public ones. The Pentagon Papers are a famous example of the extraordinary difference between internal and public assessments (often diametrically opposed, as in that case, and to a lesser extent in this one). Hersh's sources provide a rare insight into those assessments, and they need to be mentioned in this section. I think they not only deserve mention here (obviously), but would actually argue that they deserve even greater prominence that public, and necessarily political assessments (as would be the case for any government, including the Syrian regime).
• In the "Evidence" and "United States" sections, you have maintained the controversial US published transcripts, while removing one of the most explosive allegations from Hersh's sources: that these were doctored and include intercepts from many, many months before the attacks, utterly unrelated to Ghouta.
• In the "capabilities" section, you have removed expert Theodore Postol's estimate that the rockets were produced locally. I'm not at all convinced he's right, but he's a more credible source than HRW here, and I can't see how we can justify removing his estimate, while keeping that of others who are less qualified.
• Lastly, the article nowhere notes, now, that these US assessments include a conclusion that US forces in Syria would risk chemical attack by rebel forces armed with sarin. That's a particularly important finding by Hersh because it speaks to the extent to which rebels, in the estimation of these assessments anyway, could deploy sarin. It's also an important finding because that particular estimate was jointly produced by multiple US intelligence and military analysts.

Hersh's article doesn't conclude that rebel forces are responsible for Ghouta. What it does, however, is draw on high level sources within the U.S. security establishment, speaking anonymously, to demonstrate rebel weapons capacity. That's important information, and I think each of the points above adequately explain why. -Darouet (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

All of these claims are still in the article. They don't need to be repeated multiple times throughout it. That's where I stand on the matter; I don't want Hersh or any other RS excluded, but no account is truly definitive, and it's undue weight to repeat claims made by one source all over the article when having one or two clear and accurate summaries of said claims in appropriate places will do. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DENY
Darouet is correct I believe, in all his well summed up points. Why has good material been removed? It looks like we need dispute resolution. Someone uninvolved. Huge-Blade (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dan kaszeta has ridiculed hershs ideas about sarin - how hard 'accumulating a ton of sarin might be' - says hersh waves it away, with, 'Nusra has guy who knows how to do it' - and asks 'who is mre likely to have committed the sarin attac? the regime, which has confessed to chmical weapons, verified by inspectors, and has declared a stockpile of chemicals that match the 8/21 chemistry very well, and which has the actual weapon system used in its inventory? Or nusra, with their alleged un-located factory, no trace of either supply chain or waste system, and no known expert staff?" - the " US assessments include a conclusion that US forces in Syria would risk chemical attack by rebel forces armed with sarin." - is the claim being made that these assessments relate to the 8/21 attacks? - as for hersh complaining about the figures, he says MSF give a figure of 355 - but that was from 3 hospitals - so how scrupulous is that? -Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this is relevant...we already know (and it's noted in the article, natch) that Kaszeta disagrees with Hersh's conclusions. But per WP:NOTAFORUM, I have to say I just don't think it's appropriate for us to pick apart sources that we're using, whether we're doing it in the article or we're doing it on Talk. Hersh's article IMO meets the standards of a reliable source, and as long as it's given due weight and its contentious claims are duly attributed, we can and should use it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

oh, I do apologise - its late now - I was trying to support the line of, yes, we should not go UNDUE on a widely distrusted article - which you have said , and I agree - don't think we should let darouet try and turn the article into a version of the voltairenet or whatever its called,or World Socialist Web Site, crap like that. richard spencer , telegrap, has written about the article too - points out "It doesn't really make sense: we are supposed to believe that the Obama administration lied in order to justify a military intervention in Syria which it clearly didn't want to authorise and which, in the end, it didn't. It makes more sense, given the pressure Obama is under from his allies in the Gulf on this, that he would be keen to discredit the rebels himself. But then we are also supposed to believe that Russia demanded, and Assad agreed, that Syria hand over its known, large stocks of chemical weapons because … his enemies had used exactly the same sort of chemical weapons." [9] - if daruoet has put in 21 cites that is well out of order - hersh needs to be cited less and less, not more and more, Sayerslle (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly ignoring this tedious and acrimonious discussion, but the Telegraph claim you've picked up "we are supposed to believe that the Obama administration lied in order to justify a military intervention in Syria which it clearly didn't want to authorise and which, in the end, it didn't." is absurd on the face of what was known about the US spinning of the certainty of the case for intervention even before Hersh's article. Had the US genuinely not wanted to intervene, it could have, very, very easily made a case of "we don't know for sure, more evidence is needed". It did not - initially not even wanting to wait for the UN to report to confirm the use of sarin. Leave aside the inherent absurdity of trying to secure chemical weapons by bombing them from a great height! How easily history is rewritten - the US didn't intervene, so clearly it didn't want to. See eg U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013. Podiaebba (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

the hersh article details the endless prevarications of Obama really, if 'theres a whole bunch of etc' - and then in the face of a massive, egregious overstepping of the red line he -goes for more prevarication. I looked at that article about the govt assessment you started, randomly scrolled to the refs and clicked on the last one and it delivered this from Obama ;" It’s my belief that for me, the president, to act without consensus in a situation where there’s not a direct, imminent threat to the homeland or our interests around the world, that that’s not the kind of precedent I want to set," he continued." - so even in the face of an egregious assad regime overstepping -more prevarications - hersh is now the hero of that Assad regime nun - I know you get annoyed if people assume it was the Assad regime , - perhaps you're right - the rebels gassed themselves, and the Obama govt lied , so desperate to attack Assad were they..etc etc maybe , and maybe notSayerslle (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're using an Obama fence-sitting quote from 9 Sep to back up your "the US didn't actually want to bomb Syria" argument? Anyone familiar with developments between 21 Aug and 9 Sep would find that, uh, odd. Podiaebba (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

changing the subject a bit - but still hersh - this story from dec2012 says hersh is friend of Michel Samaha - ! - so the 'disinterestedness' of Hersh attitudes to the Syrian civil war is made murky imo - [10]Sayerslle (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Journalists have many sources, and journalists working on the sort of topics Hersh does have all kinds, not all of them people you'd want to invite to dinner on a weekly basis. Some of these relationships may shade into (or appear to shade into) friendship, and that's not something to damn the journalist with without good evidence of a problematic relationship. The Weekly Standard's blog standfirst claiming Samaha is a "friend" of Hersh's is not backed up by the body text of that blog, despite the polemics in it (.. It should also highlight the depravity of New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh...). Seriously, it looks like you've searched high and low to try and impugn one of America's leading investigative journalists, and the word "pathetic" springs to mind. Podiaebba (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

being obsessed with a reputation and not taking an article for what it is - judging it on its merits- 'leading investigative journalists' -that's what is pathetic - didn't you announce the mintpress rubbish as important also - that was pathetic -or do you think the writer has been frightened into silence or summat, but it is all true. pathetic. Sayerslle (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

didn't you announce the mintpress rubbish as important also - not exactly, and as you were there you should remember this more accurately. I argued, when it first came out, that it was a significant claim which should be included in the article, disagreeing with those who said it should not even be mentioned, even when picked up by mainstream sources from multiple countries. In other words, I disagreed with the view that the article should echo the average mainstream media opinion and US government view in presenting polemically the strongest possible case for Syrian government capability by downplaying or ignoring evidence that doesn't fit. The MintPress non-fitting evidence was significant at the time, and a subject of great debate in the context of the topic knowledge as it stood at the time; ignoring it was never the best encyclopedic choice unless the target Wikipedia readership is people without access to the internet, which I think is an unreasonable position you are unlikely to hold. NB this and other aspects of this discussion which I will not describe for fear of being accused of "personal attack" lead me to wish I'd respected my first instinct of ignoring this thread. Podiaebba (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Sayerslle, Hersh is probably the most respected investigative journalist in America right now, and has been for some time. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• 'The use of unnamed sources at the highest echelons of the “deep state” is characteristic of bourgeois journalism.'[11] - (anyhow , the talk is getting forum-ish perhaps, my fault) Sayerslle (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet -above, did you say @whoghouta is more reliable than brown moses? based on what? whoghouta announced a while back the rebels did it and embraced Russian claims with no evidence whatever, no? who is whoghouta anyhow? @snarwani embraced whoghouta too. seems to me the narrative of pro-regime ideologues shouldn't be seized upon and foisted on the article just because they feel power politics is going their way. you are a bit of a power worshipper imo. reality is the master. Sayerslle (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel fairly confident that if Louis Proyect (who he?) were not saying something useful to you you would be pointing out the subtitle to his blog, "The Unrepentant Marxist". And I can't be bothered to even begin to dissect the silliness of that particular blog entry... except to point out that Proyect's apparent lack of knowledge of Woodward's intelligence background (Office of Naval Intelligence) renders the whole Hersh/Woodward comparison of unnamed intelligence source use moot. Podiaebba (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

New York Times article on hexamine

It's apparently a chemical used as an additive in sarin that the Syrian government was known to stockpile prior to the attack, and its signature was found at at least one attack site. Dan Kaszeta is credited with spotting the link in the UN report. Probably worth adding a mention to the article somewhere, but I'm wondering exactly where. [12] -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that this new information be taken as a spur to make significant updates to the article. The whole structure is deeply problematic... but focussing on the UN part, the section "UN report" is actually about the interim report of 16 Sep. Any new details from the final report need to go there. Any mention of the hexamine findings would go here (the hexamine was not in the interim report; some explanation would be nice [13] ... it seems somewhat likely that the mention in the final report is solely because hexamine appears in the Syria CW declaration, having previously been dismissed as uninteresting). More to the point, in mentioning the hexamine issue, the NYT's caveats should be taken seriously:

Since hexamine is also widely available commercially, analysts noted, it is impossible to point to hexamine’s presence on the battlefield as conclusive evidence of who made the chemical weapons used in the Ghouta attack. Other chemists have said hexamine could have been used in the blaster components of the weapons that dispersed the nerve agent, but that would not explain why hexamine was on the list of chemicals in the government’s arsenal.

WhoGhouta helpfully explains what these CW experts are apparently unaware of: hexamine is/was a standard stabiliser for mustard gas, which is part of the Syrian CW arsenal. Off-hand this 1946 patent is not a great source but suggests this claim is probably confirmable from good sources. It is also worth pointing out that (a) Syria has a stockpile of the standard sarin stabiliser, isopropylamine and (b) according to Russian analysis, the bursting charge in the Khan al-Assal chemical attack was RDX. The base component of RDX is... hexamine. In short, the presence of hexamine doesn't seem to have any probative value as to culpability - remember even the Al Nusra attempt to order sarin components from Turkey didn't use it. Podiaebba (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

agree the article needs up-dating - ' according to Russian analysis, ' , - they are such corrupt operators, they are shameless - khan al-assal, brown moses has interesting material on that too I believe - that was probably regime too - the Russians are a joke - not to you, podiaebba, I accept that - but to me they are - btw is whoghouta RS? - did you just decide that blog is o.k.? - has that been accepted? whoghouta accepts Russian claims and decided rebels were behind the aug21 2013attacks - is he RS though? what is his background, credentials? Sayerslle (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WhoGhouta is not a WP:RS suitable for inclusion in articles. It is however a very useful source for research on this topic, and the example above ought to be proof of that. As for the Russians: their analysis of Khan al-Assal may well be as self-serving to their support of the Syrian government as the US analysis of Ghouta is self-serving to their support of the Syrian rebels; and releasing the report only to the UN and not the public doesn't help their credibility, any more than the US refusal to release the evidence basis of their report helps theirs. But it appears to be the most substantive analysis of that attack, as Brown Moses recently noted in calling for it to be finally published. Podiaebba (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

well whoghouta is used in the article, I assumed you put it there - there was this exchange on twitter last night about whoghouta on hexamine - I can't really follow it tbh - is it saying hexamine was a standard stabilizer for mustard gas - but 70 years ago kind of thing -

• Already debunked here: [14] … Hexamine is a standard mustard gas stabilizer.
• Brown Moses ‏@Brown_Moses 17h I think you missed the point on that one, @dankaszeta can explain more
• Who Ghouta ‏@WhoGhouta 17h great. please do.
• George ‏@ArtWendeley 16h He's off for Christmas. Point: Hexamine only for old school Levinstein MG.
• Who Ghouta ‏@WhoGhouta 11h Very Interesting. Link to evidence? What is the standard stabilizer for HD?
• Dan Kaszeta ‏@DanKaszeta 6h Yes. Would be seriously retro, like powdered wigs
• Dan Kaszeta ‏@DanKaszeta 6h Am on holiday. Look up FM 3-9-11 online. Copy on my websiteSayerslle (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't push Brown Moses here, while denouncing other sources as "unreliable". The double standards are too blatant. The man knows as much about Syria as my six year old brother does. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

this is about whoghouta and dan kaszeta discussing hexamine. on double standards you really shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house. if you think a six year old knows as much about the Syrian civil war, and the arms involved particularly, you are deluded and should excuse yourself from the topic on the ground of being too personally involved or something like that - too biased to think clearly. I just noticed also Joshua Landis, who you acknowledge is a Syria expert,yes,- his penultimate tweet was a re-tweet of a brown moses blog post - would landis do that if he didn't think brown moses worth reading? Sayerslle (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to champion this Higgins nobody, you've pretty much laid off any claim to objectivity. You can nag as much as you want about my views, but at least I have no illusions that insurgent-critical sources are any less biased than the ones you parade around. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@fm - if RS continue to refer to his work, Wikipedia will I hope. He was interviewed and asked if he had any allegiance - he answered that he didn't - beyond being for the Syrian people in general and hoping the war could end as quickly as possible - I see no reason to assume he was lying - his work is not biased, just thorough about looking at the weapons. Sayerslle (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

hm, well Twitter is not generally a medium for... anything useful really. Though in this case the idea that hexamine is not a useful stabiliser for mustard gas produced by non-Levinstein methods is obviously worth following up. As far as I'm getting right now, this good source confirms (p42) that 1% hexamine is an effective stabiliser for Levinstein mustard; it also says 1% hexamine improves stability of Levinstein mustard "which has been purified by various methods". Some more detail from Kaszeta (or anyone else) would be rather helpful. Confirmation of which process Syria used would also be helpful - it's not impossible they used an old process, especially as they seemed to focus their offensive programme on nerve agents like sarin. Podiaebba (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parry (journalist) at consortiumnews.com: NYT Replays Its Iraq Fiasco in Syria Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

another 'inner circle' squib imo. why does parry not dliver evidence of other than regime responsibility if he is angry at those who think the evidence points to the regime. they torture to death, they drop barrel bombs on Aleppo at the time he writes - does he believe it impossible,as Putin said, that the regime is responsible. torture and brutality began the struggle does he believe they are too calmly rational to be behind the ghouta attacks - even Patrick Cockburn appears to be having qualms about a narrative that has underplayed regime brutality -"it is difficult to think of any explanation other than that it was carried out by the Syrian armed forces. It is beyond belief that bands of rebel gunmen would be able to obtain or make the poison gas in quantity and then simultaneously release it different parts of Damascus amid their own supporters and to do this, moreover, without anybody finding out." [15]? does parry believe the evidence points to rebel responsibility. he should present it. Sayerslle (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Trajectory Intersection Theory Officially Dead

In the UN team's recent press conference, Sellstrom has clearly indicated the trajectory intersection theory is likely incorrect, and the rocket's range is probably 2 km.
It's ridiculous that this is still presented as evidence for regime attack on this page. I recommend removing it completely from the lead, and mentioning it only as a discredited theory.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawa (talk • contribs) 01:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We're going to need a better reference than your personal blog, but I tend to agree that the conventional wisdom has moved on from this particular early theory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

doesn't brown moses piece for Foreign Policy answer this need to 'move on'- [16] - that's why I tried to put it in the lead but you excised it Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I decided to stop dealing with the WP bureaucracy after finding out it was just a tool for experienced users to promote their POV. The link shows the UN team saying the trajectories don't meet. I don't care if some WP guideline says this is Primary or not RS or WP:GCSFEIGJISDJSD. These are the facts - You guys find the way to provide this crucial piece of information to your readers.--Swawa (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are dealing with the bureaucracy here - I clicked on your link and was told the best place to start was with your conclusions - yeah, right, - then the first thing you picked out was at 16:00 on the video and you wrote While probably not too relevant anymore, Sellstrom makes a very significant statement distancing himself from the "trajectory intersection" theory, saying "The flight paths do not seem to meet as may be indicated in the report", and adds that a range of 2km for the UMLACA is "a fair guess". ' - now, above yu write this is a crucial piece of information - why not just update it yourself with the UN press conference and brown moses Foreign Policy report for example btw I started reading your conclusions and you state : The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces. - but surely just an onlooker of the trajectory of the war, the nature of the fight, and then the evidence brown moses has amassed for example - surely for starters your conclusion is insane. who are you ? if one has to talk about pov pushing why is your 'definitive' - 'The attack was launched from an opposition-controlled area 2 km north of Zamalka.' the only plausible statement - have you responded to brown moses - 'we know not only that the Syrian government had the type of munitions used in the Aug. 21 attack, but that these munitions were in a position where they could have launched the sarin strike' - how plausible is your emphatic the launching place is very far from regime held territories also ?? eliot Higgins is open but you are an anonymous pov pusher which is inherently more worrisome imo. what is your background, credentials. eliot Higgins is routinely attacked by your pov side even for his Turkish wife, as evidence of some 'Ottoman' pov one assumes , but you present as utterly impartial, just looking at facts. seems unfair imo- last point , just started reading your conclusions, and watching the press conference vid - sellstrom says very hard to pronounce on quality of sarin - you say definitely low grade? -or have I misunderstood? Sayerslle (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the whole site. All these questions are answered in detail. Go through all the evidence, and if you find you have any contradicting evidence, please provide it there and it will be factored into the conclusion. In any case, this is not the place to discuss it. All I wanted to do here is update the editors that the UN believes the trajectory intersection theory is incorrect. This is as reliable as you can get. It should therefore not be mentioned in the article other than as an old discredited theory. Thank you. --Swawa (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

so now you've updated the editors you can update the readers with RS. ace. Sayerslle (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The UN reported the wrong back-azimuth for the Ein Tarma 330mm rocket (Impact Site #4) remains in their Sept. 16th report. It appears they reported the 285° angle of the wall next to the rocket, not the actual rocket itself, as the rocket's bearing by mistake. This is in Appendix 5, ppg 22-23 [17]. This was not corrected or even addressed in the final report, even though the UN claimed the Sept. report "...forms an integral part of this final report."

The rocket could not possibly have had an azimuth of 105° as stated in the UN report unless it was sticking out of the ground parallel to the wall. Among the many videos, this one [18] clearly shows at the 1:51 mark that the rocket was more perpendicular to the wall. Maybe not 90° but at least 50° or 60° to the 285° wall. The correct azimuth was closer to 160° or SSE, meaning the rocket came from the NNW, not from the West.

All the intersecting back-azimuth discussions are dependent on two azimuths. One of those - the only azimuth the UN reported for any Ein Tarma rocket - is wrong and always has been wrong. This is clear from the sun angles, the UN videos of the site inspection and satellite images of the wall in question.

I don't know why the UN made the mistake and I don't know why this was never corrected, but they reported the back-azimuth incorrectly. What kind of reliable source is good enough? PavewayIV (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah and volcano

from brown moses - More pro-Hezbollah sites claiming the Volcano rocket is Hezbollah made, a very interesting claim... [19]Sayerslle (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC) and volcano videos from pro-government sources[20]

Update

The article needs updating based on the evidence from the recently released MIT study, See for example here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html -Helvetica (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

'too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated.' - that doesn't mean they argue it means regime non[21] -responsibility - a link to the MIT study would be better than 'interpretations' of what they said from pov sources- especially russsia Today, which is a ref at the moment - that is not really a RS , it is propaganda Sayerslle (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree -- it's a relevant detail, and certainly notable that it contradicts earlier theories, but in itself, it's not proof of anything. And RT is utter crap. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the link I posted was to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, not RT, so that should be Western and mainstream enough to be considered "neutral," "reliable," etc. ;-) (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

yeh but just above you wrote - 'in arguing for Syrian government responsibility' - but that isn't what it said is it, ?;-) here is a report on the situation that triggered the regime use of sarin -[22] - HRW -demolition of neighbourhoods by regime - brown moses calls this report interesting re potential launch sites [23]Sayerslle (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what the article says. From the first paragraph:

"A series of revelations about the rocket believed to have delivered poison sarin gas to a Damascus suburb last summer are challenging American intelligence assumptions about that attack and suggest that the case U.S. officials initially made for retaliatory military action was flawed."

And from the second paragraph:

"A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated."

And from later on:

"The report also raised questions whether the Obama administration misused intelligence information in a way similar to the administration of President George W. Bush in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

We are not, by the way, obliged to use only mainstream western sources that echo the positions of western governments. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is very similar to Hersh's conclusion by the way, that the intelligence used by the Obama Administration to demonstrate regime culpability, and justify military strikes, was flawed, perhaps even knowingly so. Hersh's article also doesn't declare that the rebels are responsible, though it provides some evidence that they may have been. -Darouet (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

'We are not, by the way, obliged to use only mainstream western sources that echo the positions of western governments.' - yeh, we are not sheeple - we are not a bunch of morons. Sellstrom isn't impressed by fatuous regime 'theories' ,[24] even if hersh is - anyhow Hersh, Cockburn, the awful Fisk,( really disgusting his article 'assad torture pictures rmind one of the Nazis'[25] - and then he meant not the regime torture use, but the publishing of the photos was like Nazi propaganda !??-[26], Steele,- these are western journalists who are 'mainstream' I guess - they all seem pretty amenable to regime narratives anyway- Sayerslle (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Try to keep on topic Sayerslle: this isn't a forum. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

try and keep up with what is known - read brown moses. when you wrote above that 'That's exactly what the article says' you seemed to be saying it was saying the regime can't have been responsible. but it was talking about the map used by U.S. intelligence , map of august 30 and saying the range of the missiles made it invalid - something like that - it wasn't saying, like you and helvetica want to make it say 'which contradicts the claims made by the US government in arguing for Syrian government responsibility', - I read it like 'it contradicts the claims made by the US govt. using august 30 map in indicating from exactly where the launch likely originated' - Sayerslle (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sayerslle - You need to work on getting your facts straight. First you claim that I shared a link from RT, which I didn't. I posted a link for a mainstream newspaper in Texas. Then you write: "yeh but just above you wrote - 'in arguing for Syrian government responsibility' - but that isn't what it said is it, ?;-)" When in fact that quote is completely fabricated.

In any event, Wikipedia is not limited to sources like HRW and the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," and certainly not the "Brown Moses" blog or the "Gay Girl in Damascus!" An MIT study reported by a mainstream daily with large circulation certainly qualifies as a reliable source. It strikes me that you're desperate to keep this perspective from being heard so you're engaging in disinfo and obfuscation in your comments here...

The case here is clear. New analysis has come to light. It's been published by a very reputable institution and reported by mainstream media. It deserves inclusion pure and simple. -Helvetica (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Helvetica when you started this section you wrote that the report 'contradicts the claims made by the US government in arguing for Syrian government responsibility' -( which is kind of ambiguous ?, no) -look back when you started this section and you did write that - the MIT report is included, pure and simple - i'm not desperate to keep perspectives from being heard , and I don't know what disinfo and obfuscation you mean. what disinfo? Sayerslle (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle - since you seem to be confused, here is the original comment I made to start this section: "The article needs updating based on the evidence from the recently released MIT study, See for example here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html -Helvetica (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)" I did a Firefox (control-f) search of this talk page, and the only place that I found any use of the words "arguing for Syrian government responsibility" was when you used them as an alleged "quote" of me and when I quoted your "quote" to dispute it.

Further, regarding your disinfo, you implied that I was citing RT when I wasn't: "a link to the MIT study would be better than 'interpretations' of what they said from pov sources- especially russsia Today, which is a ref at the moment - that is not really a RS , it is propaganda." But I hadn't cited RT at all. I cited the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a mainstream American daily. Of course RT did cover the same story, and I could have cited them, but I knew exactly what the reaction would be from people like you. The crazy double-standard where bloggers like "Brown Moses" and the "Syrian Observatory for Human rights" (really one guy in London), and even "Gay Girl in Damascus" (before that was exposed as a complete fraud) are considered "reliable sources," as are state-owned news outlets like the BBC (UK) and Al-Jazeera (Qatar), but heaven forbid if countries like Russia or Iran should have their own state-owned English language news outlets then OMFG that's horribly biased propaganda!

So in any event, while I could have cited RT I went out of my way to instead cite a mainstream mass-circulation American daily which couldn't possibly be attacked in that way, but that didn't stop you from still acting as if I had cited RT, which I hadn't! So that's why I call disinfo. But maybe you're just really really confused - as you were with the alleged "quote" from me... -Helvetica (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"The article needs updating based on the evidence from the recently released MIT study, which contradicts the claims made by the US government in arguing for Syrian government responsibility. See for example here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html -Helvetica talk) 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC) - I used to be confused - about things like 'who could do such stuff?' looking at the pics of torture of Syrians by assad regime for example, but then looking at twitter etc, and seeing the nature of assad fans, I got less confused. Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Helvetica Darouet on these many point. The editor Sayerslle talk page says hes old now, retired. Perhaps its a good thing good thing too his post are being POV too much. (excuse English my number 2 language). Question, why so much resistance here to good encyclopediac ethos and also some bad language to from Kudzu1. RT is not bad, no worse than some US MSM. This is being my thoughts. MustaphaScimater (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange, I was thinking about this article today. I feel that my concerns about Hersh's report were never properly addressed… but I haven't read on the issue in a while. I'll have to do that before editing more here. -Darouet (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to read brown moses when you do your reading to catch up, there's this for example, [27] - hersh ignored what it suited him to ignore didn't he? Sayerslle (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll probably read Higgins and whoghouta when I get around to it. -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@darouet - saw this on twitter - 'I wonder if @WhoGhouta will finally adapt to what we know now. @DanKaszeta was right, @Brown_Moses was right, regime did Aug21 CW attack.' - hell will freeze over before Putin/Russia and Assad regime speak real-ly, reality oriented, that's my guess.Sayerslle (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RT is not bad, says mustapha scimitar - but is Russia Today a RS - recently with regard Crimea - 'Voice of Russia and @RT_com running front page headline stories about a refugee crisis that just doesn't exist' - Putin-ist media is worth no more than Stalinist media was and sophomoric pov pushers don't make it otherwise Sayerslle (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You said you retire. Now you back. You sound the same but still I disagree with you. MustaphaScimatar 03:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MustaphaScimater (talk • contribs)

I said I not active . I still reactive to Russian lies and to putin epigones - Russian fascist lie machine and fascist mob mind is nutty and I react to nuttiness Sayerslle (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[28] - article responding to hersh/postol/Lloyd - and all they chose to ignore . Sayerslle (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

latest guest article from brown moses blog - [29] Sayerslle (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@darouet - new article from hersh [30] - London review of books article -still ignoring what contradicts his assad regime/hezbollah-friendly narrative it seems. ah well.[31] Sayerslle (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Hersh article. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

and brown moses responds today [32] to the drivel . Hershs article includes "We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line.

They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors (inspecting previous attacks) were there. The deal was to do something spectacular.

Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it."[33] Sensational stuff - or senile fantasies? Sayerslle (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Richard Lloyd update - washes his hands -

'Richard Lloyd ‏@Richard323232 · 8 mins @Brown_Moses @aliosaday no body knows..The fact that Syria has the rockets is not proof. u need to focus on the sarin.. that's the hard part @Brown_Moses @aliosaday I am talking about the rocket only... sarin is not my game.. good luck.' Sayerslle (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Seymour speaks - [34] - hersh should talk to sellstrom imo. Sayerslle (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

[35] - article picks up on hersh's chicanery - 'the sarin recovered ..' but doesn't make it clear he's talking about 'that particular sarin sample was “recovered” from Russian intelligence operatives.' - worser and worser, hersh. Sayerslle (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Failed Pretext For War: Seymour Hersh, Eliot Higgins, MIT Rocket Scientists On Sarin Gas Attack

This is the latest analysis of Hersh’s article related to Ghouta gas attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1331 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

mintpress article written by voice of Russia? Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[36] this is another look at hersh artcile by brown moses and dan kaszeta, first of two parts. Sayerslle (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Is RT considered as a reliable source for presenting the Syrian governments claims?

Tow users, (@Sayerslle: and @Sopher99:) have several times removed a claim RT said was made by the Syrian government back in December 2012. The statement they remove is: “the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas, which is used in the production of sarin.” Is RT a reliable source for that claim when they stated (in March 2013) that “the Syrian government said in December that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas”? Ref: (http://rt.com/bulletin-board/rt-news-21-march-2013-1700msk-605/) Erlbaeko (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

what has it to do with ghouta attacks ? are you familiar with the U.N report on the sarin? Russia today is a Putinist mouthpiece and the conduit for Russian misinformation and propaganda. Sayerslle (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride is a key component in making sairn, and is obviously relevant for the Ghouta attacks. Whether I am familiar with the U.N report or not, is not relevant for the question asked. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

well I've had my say - the U.N report doesn't interest you , but Russia Today does. gawd help us. the time of the assassins.Sayerslle (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with the U.N report, but that is not the question here. The question I asked is if RT is considered a reliable source for presenting the Syrian governments claims? Please, stop censoring WP. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

well, I don't think Russia Today is a reliable source for anything. and how is this bulletin board stuff relevant to ghouta. you saying ' I think it has to be' is not enough imo. where has this story you want to add been linked to the ghouta attacks. THe U.N report is explicitly talking about the sarin at ghouta - is this Russia today stuff?? I don't think so. Sayerslle (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I know you and Sopher99 don’t agree. That is fine by me. I posted the question here to get other users opinion. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The question is still if RT is considered a reliable source for presenting the Syrian governments claims? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we could use it. Of course Russia is Assad's ally and RT is controlled by Kremlin, but there is no reason to suspect that statements of Syrian government are improperly relayed by them. At least they quote Assad, while western media rarely do so. --Emesik (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: using the RT source in the way you suggest would violate WP:SYN. RT has been considered reliable in some contexts and not so much other times, but there is no point having the discussion this time because of the synthesis problem. VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any original research there. If we just state after RT that "Syrian government said blablabla", it would be use of a secondary source in the simplest way. Of course we cannot process such statement, e.g. draw conclusions or compare it to other claims.

For such purpose even SANA would be a legitimate source. --Emesik (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions.

Regarding the SYN violation; I have not implied any conclusion. I have simply referred to a source that states that “the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas”, and I like that to be included in the perpetrators section in the infobox, under the government claim to promote WP:NPOV. I can find another references for the part of the sentence which says fluoride is used in the production of sarin, if that is the WP:SYN part you are talking about. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

its a SYN in my opinion -your saying your motivation is to promote NPOV misunderstands that policy in my opinion also - npov is not about pushing irrelevant stuff to the subject of the article - on Russia Today - on subject of Russian reporting, on anything Putin/Lavrov says , has said/ will say - just noticed on twitter "Putin admits Russian troops were in Crimea before vote" http://wapo.st/1r21l45 via @washingtonpost In other words he's admits he is a liar." - (mintpress/RussiaToday/ - all rubbish - lying reportage for the benefit of liars kind of thing)Sayerslle (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there's no credibility issue: does anyone doubt that the Syrian government made this statement? As to WP:SYN, I think that rebel seizures of chemical weapons armaments has been a part of the international discussion of CW attacks in Syria since they were first reported. I haven't been reading on this faithfully in the last two months but I doubt that's changed. -Darouet (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

well it belongs in an article titled 'rebel seizures of chemical weapons armaments' then - not one about the ghouta chemical attacks of August 2013, a specific article, with a specific ttle , not just an article where you can chuck anything you like in, - the U.N report and its statement about the sarin makes this here what erkbaeko wants to add supererogatory, it's not relevant- it is SYNTH 100% - out of order, hoping to sow a little irrelevance into the article for the purpose of, well - oh, , so difficult to know what exactly - its like "don't think about this -'matches in chemistry between field samples and the Syrian inventory' (U.N.) - let's write about this what assad regime said in December 2012 according to Russia TOday, its nothing to do with ghouta attacks, but write about it, , and mintpress story, and Saudis and we're not saying its fact, but, lets write about it -" etc etc - oh godSayerslle (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: it violates WP:SYN because its connection to the Ghouta attacks is implied by its presence in this article. The Syrian government obviously did not mention the 2013 attacks in their 2012 release, so what reliable source is making that connection? VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Syrian Government said that fluorine was stolen by the rebels in December 2012. The analysis of the sarin used in Khan al-Asal attack showed that the Sarin contained diisopropyl fluorophosphate[37], which is made of fluorine[38]. The UNHRC report dated 12 February 2014[39] found that the sarin in the two attacks bore the “same unique hallmarks”, and that the perpetrators likely had access to the Syrian military's chemical weapons stockpile. Knowing the short shelf life of sarin, the UN report are most likely talking about the components used in production (when they say chemical weapons stockpile) and not ready-mixed sarin. The statement made by the Syrian Government is therefor most relevant. I do, however, agree that this conclusion combine materials from multiple sources and will be a synthesis of published material or original research.

That is why I only stated after RT what the Syrian Government said, and since RT already have linked it to one chemical attack with sarin (after the statement was made), I believe it’s relevant for all chemical attacks with sarin (after the statement was made). This article[40] states "It is obvious that any objective investigation of the incident on Aug. 21 in East Ghouta is impossible without considering the circumstances of the March attack". The UN report makes it even more relevant when they link the two attacks saying the sarin bore the “same unique hallmarks”. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you are not suggesting using RT as a source for what the Syrian government has to say, as you previously claimed. You are using it as a source for analysis. RT is not a reliable source for that. VQuakr (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr:I am not using it for any analysis in the article. The statment I like to include is "the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas", and the question is if RT is considered a reliable source for presenting that claim. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We've already discussed this. Connecting the statement to Ghouta is a synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC

We have reliable sources who write about Ghouta and rebel access to sarin, however. Including the Assad government's statement in this article while discussing rebel access to chemical weapons would clearly be helpful, and not improper synthesis. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not the context in which this was last used in the article. If you are proposing using it elsewhere, where exactly? Why not just quote the Syrian government directly if all you want is a primary source to use alongside reliable secondary sources? Then again, if you have reliable secondary analysis why do you even need the primary source? VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Without a source making the connection in that edit, I agree that the material is dubious. -Darouet (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Before this edit, the perpetrators section in the info box only stated that the opposition blamed the Syrian Army, and that the Syrian government blamed the rebels. That was fine by me. When Sayerslle used the sources the way he did in that edit, the statement did not only violate WP:SYN, it was firmly incorrect, if not a lie. Instead of just undoing his edit, I change it to reflect the UN report. But it was still not fair and proportional (WP: NPOV), so I added the statement about the rebels plundering supplies of fluoride gas.

Even the way the UN report is used in the info box now, implicates that the UN has concluded that the Syrian government was behind the attack. That is not true. Even in the summary of their report they states that the commission’s evidentiary threshold was not met with respect to the perpetrator. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

But it was still not fair and proportional (WP: NPOV), so I added the statement about the rebels plundering supplies of fluoride gas. Bwahuhnow? WP:VALID specifically states that we should not attempt to give equal weight to fringe theories just to strike some sort of artificial balance. What part of WP:NPOV are you reading, that states we should violate WP:SYN in the way you describe? From Reuters, cited in the article: "Ake Sellstrom, who led a team of inspectors in Syria, said in January it was "difficult to see" how the opposition could have weaponised the toxins used." Just because there is not enough evidence for ICC charges at this time does not mean that these are two equal theories. VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'The mandate of the investigating team, led by Swedish arms expert Ake Sellstrom, is limited to reporting on whether chemical weapons were actually used and which ones, but it will not determine responsibility for any attacks.' - considering that, sellstrom is as clear as anything imo, except for purblind pov-ers - and I am not a liar so I don't know why earlbaeko calls me a liar Sayerslle (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle: I said this statement violate WP:SYN, and that it was firmly incorrect, if not a lie. I can only find in the references that “The evidence available …. indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military”. Why don’t you explain where in the reference you find your statement? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

significant quantities of sarin were used in a well-planned indiscriminate attack targeting civilian-inhabited areas, causing mass casualties. The evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used on 21 August indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents - what do you reckon when you read that? - the actual 'firmly concluded' was plagiarized from dan kaszetas excellent piece for brown moses blog - its a fair choice of words imo, - but using the exact words from the U.N report is fine with me. Sayerslle (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine. In my opinion there is a big difference between firmly concluded, indicated and likely, but English is not my first language. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

'indicate' - synonyms include 'show', 'point out' - 'likely' synonyms include 'in all probability', 'presumably', 'no doubt', 'doubtlessly', '(as) like as not' - which expresses some latitude I suppose - ( and they were not to determine responsibility, I think the regime insisted, or maybe the Russians, I can't remember, )- but not much - you were 'likely' right, 'probably', 'doubtlessly' to suggest the 'firmly concluded' should go - and it has. 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I found the citation in the Brown Moses Blog in a guest post written by Dan Kaszeta[41]. I see he also makes a big deal of the traces of hexamine found on one of the rocket's bolts. Maybe you should read this article, which claims that hexogen (also known as RDX) was used for the bursting charge for the shell in the Khan al-Assal attack. The bursting charge is the explosive used to break the chemical canister (also known as the shell) mounted on the rocket. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to see any consensus here, but most users seems to agree that it is the context of the article that is important when considering if it is reliable, not which News media who posted it. I will not include the statement in the heading of the article again (since the article is not directly linked to the ghouta attacks), but I will edit the info box so it doesn’t imply that the UN has concluded with respect to the perpetrator. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

its like you with your edits are trying to iron out the force of what Sellstrom has said - 'poor theories' from your side wanting to blame the rebels , earlbaeko, - you are presenting a kind of whoghouta? 'narrative' in the infoboxSayerslle (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit only moves the UN statement from the perpetrators section (included under the opposition claims) to the Assailants section in the info box. Since the UN has not concluded regarding the perpetrator it should be fair and square. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

if Sellstrom calls 'poor theories' - your sides narratives and 'stories' of thefts and plots and false flags- the U.N inspectors do not believe the claims of either side are equivalent really do they? - if he thinks your side has 'poor theories' then he must believe the realities behind their report weigh on the rebel side of the narrative - your 'fair and square' talk covers a practice of weighting it against the U.N. report conclusions imo and is pov masquerading as npov kind of thing - in the end whatever reports appear it seems anyhow listening to farage and assorted buffoons about the place that the 'stories' have won out and reality scarcely matters - wins for #shabiha of the pen I guess Sayerslle (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just don’t mix the UNs claim into the opposition claim. If you like to remove the UN statement from the info box, that is fine by me. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Identifying victims

article on the victims - [42] Sayerslle (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wordpress, really??? VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

brown moses 're-tweeted' this article - is wordpress no good? Sayerslle (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nadim Houry @nadimhoury · Apr 28

Important work by @hisham_ashkar to put a name & face to some of the victims of the Aug chemical weapon attack #Syria - r-tweeted by Nadim Houry - of HRW. ( I get your thought - WordPress, not RS - but I placed the info here for reference sake kind of thing - delete it , if i'm mis-using the talk page )Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I think it's entirely appropriate. No harm in at least being aware of it, and keeping an eye might lead to an eventual genuine source. Cost-benefit of mentioning it in talk space comes out as a positive, thank you, Sayerslle. Snow (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Declared" arsenal?

The word "declared" has been smuggled into the OPCW official's statement once and again, despite it has not been used by that person. In my opinion, this is a POV-push. --Emesik (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

its not been 'smuggled' anywhere for gods sake - just change the word to one you think best - but please don't hack everything else around a word you object to in an excuse to censor RS info you don't like. as for a pov push I guess you know about that - I looked at your user page and its got fiendofassad link or some such 'a useful counterbalnace to blah blah blah'. people who accuse others of pov are invariably writing ill-disguised autobiography and drawing self-portraits imo- I think psychologists call it 'projection' - you project your failings onto others. Jung-ian psychology explains it. Sayerslle (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I removed the word, explaining my motive in the edit summary, and you brought it back in.

Second, you edited the article again with the summary saying took out declared, but the word is still there. Therefore you lie.

Third, if you accuse me of hacking anything, provide a proof or please shut up. --Emesik (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, both of you are in blatant violation of WP:Civility; if you cannot contribute here while holding to WP:AGF and especially without denigrating one-another and speculating as to one-another's motives (both of which are disallowed by policy), then you cannot contribute here at all. Snow talk 22:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: AfD for linked article Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability

Only two responses so far to a deletion motion on the article Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability, from me and User:Erlbaeko. Visit the deletion discussion if you would like to contribute. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No militant deaths according to UN

The UN reports do not indicate that opposition fighters were among the dead. Linking to an unverified, unreliable source is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask33c (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal Hersh material

Hi VQuakr, I agree with Erlbaeko and am surprised by your removal of text about Hersh's first report. The reporter and venue have an impeccable record - far above many other sources used in this article (which include blog posts) - and the material concerns statements by a former U.S. intelligence official, typical of Hersh's reporting style. Furthermore, your edit summary mischaracterizes the nature of previous discussions here, which Erlbaeko linked in his revert. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, I think a small section addressing Hersh's report in context and with due weight is appropriate, and I find the current presentation satisfactory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That being said, Hersh is currently overcited. I would prefer to keep the section and remove some or all of the repetitive rehashing of his claims further down the article. His first report, which has been ballyhooed by just about everyone else in a position to comment (as the article notes, more or less), is cited a whopping 10 times throughout the article, far more than is WP:DUE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's ok to move most of it out of the background chapter. I just can't find any decision not to use the report (as claimed in the edit summary), and it is a reliable source. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like I am in the minority here; if Erlbaeko says there was no decision from the previous decision I must have remembered wrong. As far as I am concerned please consider the "D" in BRD complete. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

surely hersh is ultra-fringe on ghouta chemical attack - he is part of what sellstrom has called the 'poor theories' put forward to blame the rebels - - a few lines is plenty I should have thought - the London review of books took it up- where else? its undue and pov to pepper his views everywhere.Sayerslle (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle.I will advice you not to break the general sanctions for Syrian civil war related pages. The 1RR roule is still in force. Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant Erlbaeko (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

and i'll advice (sic) you of the same rule. very thoughtful of you. Sayerslle (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

hersh is still over cited - here is an article that looks at his views -after hersh said - 'its easy to make sarin mix it up in your backyard' ( is hersh a chemistry expert now? - you are happy to slag off kaszeta, but lap up every word of hersh? - because he say what you want to hear? ) -here is a response to hersh [43] - and his anonymous source telling him it was erdogan set the gas off or something , then Obama would step in - only he didn't - and the evidence said access to the stockpile of the Syrian regime was implied - hersh is fringe fringe fringe and he is cited every other sentence far as I can see -which of my edits is 'destructive' - please stop randomly denigrating a fellow editor without being specific. Sayerslle (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It is disruptive when you ignore general sanctions (WP:1RR) others try to follow. Your block log indicates that I am not the only editor finding your editing style problematic. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

what specific edit is 'disruptive'? if there is a very destructive edit I have made then i'm sure it can be put right. which one? my editing 'style' is very vague - I am editing articles like anyone , that's my style - (the last block by the way seeing as you are interested in my history was for edit warring at an article that got deleted it was so 'problematic' - I will try and learn not to get so short tempered with bad edits, that's been my problem I think, too quick to respond to spas and such )but it would help if you would be specific about which edit is 'disruptive'. thanks. fwiw I think it is 'disruptive' to pepper everywhere a thoroughly fringe source at an article - makes the article look ridiculous - and I am not the only editor to think hersh is over-citedSayerslle (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you ignore the roules. After this revert you should have waited 24 hours to allow other users to evaluate, discuss or possibly revert it. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

so if one deletes the irrelevant del ponte stuff one has to not make any further edits for 24 hours? Sayerslle (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all edits count as reverts, but generally the answer is yes. As clearly stated on the top of the page "editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War." Erlbaeko (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation, User:Erlbaeko. The sanctions are meant to prevent disruptive edit-warring, not to constrain users from being bold. If the Del Ponte section had been added recently or User:Sayerslle had good reason to believe there was no consensus for removing the content, I would say yes, it counts as a revert and WP:1RR applies. But he was making BOLD changes, following a Talk page discussion with broad agreement, to material that was inserted into the article (during the bad old days, I might add) more than a year ago. It doesn't make any sense to count that as edit-war behavior, which is what 1RR is designed to curb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BOLD changes should not be used as an excuse for reverting well sourced information (WP:BRD) and the definition of a revert is described her WP:REVERT. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed material from del ponte that led nowhere, that time has made irrelevant imo - she signed the report June 2013 didn't she? that superseded her earlier remarks and left them pointless - they were not in the least relevant to this article about ghouta - if you find RS that link ghouta to her remarks of earlier in 2013 then fine, but it just seems to me I removed a sentence that had no place in an article about ghouta. its part of her history , not ghouta chemical attacks imo. Sayerslle (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the "consolidation" of the Hersh's reports, which for many critical aspects of these chemical attacks reduces the page to a single uncontested narrative. That narrative *is* in fact contested, not just by Hersh but by members of the United States intelligence community and by internal U.S. intelligence reports. It would be one thing to treat hypotheses or intelligence estimates presented by Hersh or his sources as fact in this article, but as they appeared, these estimates were attributed, and consensus reporting by U.S. news outlets were also noted as such. Removing the unofficial U.S. intelligence reports from many critical locations of this article however only does a great disservice to readers by limiting information available to them. It also has the effect of advancing the long-term and more or less openly stated positions that you Kudzu1, VQuakr and Sayerslle have adopted in this conflict, as if you were participants and not editors. That's unfortunate for the encyclopedia and certainly not necessary for any of you individually as participants here. -Darouet (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of due weight, though. Trying to "balance" or "challenge" the preponderance of sources and official government statements by repeatedly citing a lone report is undue. Hersh's reporting neets RS criteria, but it's WP:GEVAL to put up that one reporter throughout the article to cast aspersions on several dozen other sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

why does sellstrom talk about the 'poor theories' that seek to blame the rebels - because they are weak, in sellstroms view- its you that has acted as deeply committed , calling hersh 'the best reporter ever in American history, the most deeply respected journalist who ever wrote ' etc - stuff like that, - not on ghouta - on ghouta he is fringe and his 'erdogan is to blame an anonymous ex bloke told me ' fringe type narrative material is available to read via this article anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree about weight, Kudzu1, however I disagree with two of the recent changes:

• the removal of statements from the U.N.'s Carla del Ponte's suggesting that rebel forces had acquired/used chemical weapons. What is the basis for removing this material?
• the removal of the June 2013 U.S. DIA report on Al-Nusra's chemical weapons capability from the timeline, as if this isn't a significant event. How is this assessment not significant in the context of a timeline?

Otherwise I don't object to the changes, and Sayerslle I'm not averse to saying that I am, indeed, committed to Hersh's credibility. You understand, and we've reviewed this before, that intelligence officials who provide information to reporters do so on the promise and necessity of anonymity. Your use of the term "fringe" is a gross misapplication in this case, which has nothing to do with UFOs or pseudoscience. I do remain agnostic about the conclusions of Hersh's two reports. -Darouet (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think those pieces are more suitable for Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. Here, they seem (to me) like WP:SYNTH, considering they preceded the Ghouta attack and the U.S. said it ruled out rebel use of chemical weapons in the attack (and I'd note the U.S. is not friendly with Nusra, which it has since targeted with airstrikes) while del Ponte ended up apparently reversing her position anyway. I can maybe see a case for mentioning the U.S. report on Nusra in the "Capability" section, just as something like: "The United States Defense Intelligence Agency concluded in a June 2013 report that Jabhat al-Nusra, a hardline rebel group, had been working toward developing a chemical weapons capability.[REF]" -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

the basis for removing the del ponte material is that she signed the june 2013 report which was 'agnostic' about chemical weapons having been used by rebel forces , she was premature speaking out kind of thing, the report supersedes her earlier talk, - you remain 'agnostic' but sellstrom and the report came to its conclusions - -'poor theories' [44] he called the theories of the ' rebels/ Saudis/turks did it ' crowd - , poor theories pushed by whoever, are poor theories , they are not magically made wonderful theories by a vintage Pulitzer prize endorsing them, - you may have weighed hersh in the balance and found him credible, full stop, as a person you've vetted, if hersh writes about ghouta, sarin, chemistry, diplomacy, baseball , he is credible , about anything and everything , for you - but so what? - for the article its fringe imo -he is fringe , or 'poor theory' pusher if you don't like hersh called fringe on ghouta -so all the intelligence officers in the world that sy hersh hob-nobs with, , all the mandarin know-alls , all the knowers of super-secret stuff, of rat lines and false flags, haven't persuaded sellstrom have they, and don't you think he is 'credible ? more credible on chemical attacks than hersh, - who takes hersh seriously on ghouta? - RT? and my goodness, hershs articles are referenced and quoted anyhow all over the article last I saw. he is not being gagged is heSayerslle (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don’t see how the June 2013 report supersedes Carla Del Ponte's earlier talk, and I disagree with the removal of her statement.

• In June 2013, the UNHRC Commission she is a part of, reported that there was reason to believe that "limited quantities of toxic chemicals" had been used in the Khan al-Assal attack, but that they wasn’t in a position "to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator”. Ref. BBC
• In February 2014, her claim was strengthen by Sellström, in an interview by Gwyn Winfield. When Sellström, who led the UN fact-finding mission, was asked if he thought the rebels was responsible for the Khan al-Asal attack he said «I don’t know. I don’t know who was the perpetrator, I have no idea, but the [Syrian] government wanted it investigated. The government was irritated that we didn’t have the mandate to point to the perpetrator at Khan al-Asal, that we couldn’t speculate who was the perpetrator.» Ref. CBRNe WORLD
• In April 2014, her claim was strengthen in the second Hersh report. «A person with close knowledge of the UN’s activity in Syria told me that there was evidence linking the Syrian opposition to the first gas attack, on 19 March in Khan Al-Assal, a village near Aleppo.» The person with knowledge of the UN’s activities said: "Investigators interviewed the people who were there, including the doctors who treated the victims. It was clear that the rebels used the gas. It did not come out in public because no one wanted to know." Ref. Hersh.

Regarding the Hersh reports; I believe information from his reports should be included where it is relevant, as long as it is attributed to Hersh. I also believe his work deserves its own chapter, possibly under Investigation. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the Hersh reports lent credibility to Del Ponte's earlier statement, though what that means here is debatable. Nevertheless, the subsequent UN report's "agnosticism" about culpability for the earlier 2013 chemical attacks in no way invalidates Del Ponte's statements: they were reported and remain relevant to Al Nusra's weapons capabilities. -Darouet (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

How do we close this? I don't see any consensus for removing the Del Ponte's statement or for consolidation of the Hersh reports. According to WP:NOCON, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Anybody have a proposal to a text we can agree upon, or should we revert some or all edits since this version? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Del Pontes comments in May 2013; I included a text mainly taken form the timeline in the main article about the Khan al-Asal attack, which was agreed upon by several editors there. Hope it works here to. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems right. I see you edit was reverted by an IP. I find it highly implausible that an IP with no previous editing record has made a first edit on this article, to revert your change, by chance. Please remember, everyone, that editing by IP to avoid 3RR or 1RR editing guidelines constitutes sock puppetry. -Darouet (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That indeed looks pretty dodgy. (All the same, I do wish someone had pinged me at either the SPI or the AN/3RR discussion. It would have been nice to know what's going on.)

Even if there isn't apparent consensus to consolidate Hersh, I really want to stress WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. I feel my argument here is firmly rooted in policy: it is simply not proper to rest so heavily on a single source for the sake of presenting an "opposing viewpoint" throughout a Wikipedia article. Ten citations for one source in an article of this type is clearly undue by any measure. When an article goes out of its way to repeat controversial claims again and again from one partisan source, there is an obvious bias on display. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudzu1 - sorry I didn't know about the AN/3RR until I saw the IP revert, and requested the SPI. I didn't contact you then because I have no suspicion about you and the IP edit. -Darouet (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Second removal of Carla Del Pontes statement

After no consensus could be reached for this removal of Carla Del Pontes statement, ip 92.3.14.149, removed her statement again with this revert, calling it "synth", and asked what RS link her comments to Ghouta.

My answer is that the UNHRC Commission found that the sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack had the same unique hallmark as the sarin used in the Estern Ghouta attack, so the two attacks is clearly connected. The Khan al-Asal attack, and Del Pontes statement about it, is therefor most relevant as background information. RT is one WP:RS which use her statement as bacground information on articles related to the eastern Ghouta attack. Ref. RT. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

RT is a Russian propaganda outlet and is not a reliable source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Have that been established as a comunity consensus lately? The last time I checked there was no clear consensus about the subject. Ref. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Summary. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Find another source if you want to include the information. As far as I'm concerned, RT is trash and I don't want it used here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take your consern to the talkpage or some Noticeboard if I do. You may need a better argument than your personal propaganda/trash opinnion. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

RT is not "trash" - obviously it's disliked by pro-U.S. media outlets and ideologues because it doesn't have a pro-U.S. line. Great. This isn't an American encyclopedia, it's international, and we use and recognize the biases of all mainstream sources here, including RT. Kudzu1 your view is really extreme here, and I hope you recognize how it isn't neutral. For example, you point us to WP:GEVAL to justify the removal of statements by a United Nations Representative, and reporting by Seymour Hersh at the London Review of Books. The examples offered there include classic pseudoscience, such as flat earth theorists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and moon landing hoax believers. If you place Seymour Hersh, the London Review of Books, Carla del Ponte, and the country of Russia in that camp, it will be impossible for you to approach this subject objectively. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

September vs. Final Report

This article has many citations of the September 2013 report "Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013" and mostly treats it as "the" UN report. But the Final Report was issued in December 2013. The final report is barely referenced. I am going to change some headings to reflect this fact. It not my common practice to do so, but in this case is important enough that it needs to be done. I hope others will help update the article to reflect more information from the final report. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I was too hasty here. The final report only adds an updated table on the lab testing of the environmental samples taken at Zamalka and Moadamiyah. The bulk of the final report concerns the other sites the UN team investigated. Still, the outline headings should remain to make clear the difference in the two reports. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Attack

I'm very surprised that the MIT Science, Technology, and Global Security Working Group report found at the link below has not been included in the Wikipedia article as it concludes that the rockets containing the sarin could not have been launched from any Syrian government controlled areas due to the aerodynamics of the modified rockets and the much reduced range as a result thereof.

http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/docs/2014/01/16/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf

This is a source in the document, currently #99. One issue is it a supporting document to a talk and doesn't have much narrative. However, it could be used more. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Impact points in Eastern Ghouta

Mnnlaxer. Thanks for all your work on this article. I noticed you removed the "about 1500 * 500 meter in the Zamalka and nearby Ein Tarma area" statement. I believe that is relevant information, but it may be rewritten. Have you notised the map in the full report? The impact points are also listed in the table here: Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#Incidents Erlbaeko (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. Maybe it was supposed to mean a 1500 by 500 meter area. But those numbers aren't mentioned in the HRW report and the maps don't have scales. I don't see any reference to the area of the impact zone in any UN document. What is the source of the geo-coordinates in the wikilink? Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all rockets impacted within a 1500 by 500 meter area in the Eastern Ghouta attack. At least, that is what the HRW report says. Even if the numbers aren't stated in the report, they can be verified by comparing the map of the impact points with a satellite image. Note the roundabout (at 33.5265849°N 36.3447475°E / 33.5265849; 36.3447475) in the upper left corner of the map in the HRW report, and take it from there. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on specific numbers for the range of the impacts not being that important, and the fact that is awful close to Original Research, I would leave it out. I'm still curious about where the geo-coordinates came from and why there are 12 impacts on the linked table in the other article. HRW states 8 rockets and the UN reports don't state any total number of rockets. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

On page 1 in the full HRW report, there is a map with the heading "map of the 330mm chemical rocket impact locations in Zamalka neighborhood". There are 12 impact locations marked on the map. 10 of them are in Zamalka. The two most southern ones are very close to Zamalka, but are within the borders of Ein Tarma. The coordinates are extracted manually by comparing the published HRW map with a satellite map. On page 7, HRW have explained that they were able to "confirm at least four strike sites where at least eight 330mm rockets struck on August 21. They go on to say: "This is unlikely to be a complete account of the number of rockets used in the attack". So, as far as I know, the map in the HRW report provides the most detailed map of impact points released by any reliable source to date. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So why list 12 strikes when only 4 are confirmed? The only source for the other 8 are unnamed "local activists". Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The four strike sites are described in the HRW report as:

• Two rockets struck al-Mahariq Street, one on the Ghazal building and the other on Mehyi al-Deen building.
• One rocket struck the Bostan neighborhood on Naher al-Tahoun street.
• Two rockets struck next to the Hamza mosque, one just next to the mosque and the other close to the nearby al-Kamal banquet hall.
• Three rockets struck the al-Mazraat neighborhood next to the al-Tawfiq mosque and next to the elementary school.

Thus, the HRW report use the term "strike sites" to describe an area where one or more rockets struck, while the map shows the exact impact locations of each rocket. As described on page 2, "Human Rights Watch also used GPS data and satellite imagery analysis to map the precise locations were the attacks took place, and the exact positions where eight of the 330mm rockets impacted in Eastern Ghouta.". Why the map has 12 and not 8 impact locations marked is an open question. My guess is that four of them could not be independently verified. Even so, all of them are within a 1500 by 500 meter area. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Info box map

I am removing the names of the neighborhoods that were not part of the attacks on 21 August 2013. These other neighborhoods did reflect movement of victims, so it makes sense to remove them and the disclaimer. I would like to find a different map that didn't highlight the names of these other neighborhoods, but I can't find any good candidates. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree to replace or move the map. It may be moved to the US chapter under "Foreign government assessments". We can use an image of the victims in the info box (to illustrate the article). Erlbaeko (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Early opinions section

The first paragraph in the Early Opinions section (the last one) was confused. In general, the VIPS letter wasn't an early speculation that was refuted by the later citations, although there was a tenuous link through another uncited article written by a member of VIPS on his own behalf (Phillip Giraldi at http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whats-the-evidence-behind-the-case-for-war/). But the link was a minor part of both the VIPS letter and Giraldi's article. So I moved the VIPS letter paragraph later (roughly chronological) in the section. There was also a noticeable POV that I tried to remove.

In general, the section is really more of a listing of reports and opinions about the claim that the rebels were responsible. The material would be better used in the other sections.Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Motivation section

Removed paragraph:

The French newspaper Le Monde reported in the months before the Ghouta attacks that its journalists embedded among opposition fighters had witnessed several chemical attacks on a smaller scale by the Syrian Army against rebel positions. Der Spiegel reported a suspicion by a gas expert that minimal use of chemical weapons was seen by the Assad government as the best way get the West used to its deployment, triggering an ongoing international dispute over whether nerve gas was being used at all. Saying that at some point, "the commotion over the use of chemical weapons per se" would "have dissipated.". Former US intelligence officer Joseph Holliday wrote in a study that "Assad has been extremely calculating with the use of force", "introducing chemical weapons gradually.".

This paragraph doesn't address motivation directly, but rather mentions earlier possible attacks and how Assad could ramp up use if he wanted to use chemical weapons. The first source is used the in April Jobar chemical attacks section. The second source is not straight reporting, but advocacy. The source for the first quote is unnamed and the second wrote a report for an advocacy think tank. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

References

The Jobar chemical attacks

Mnnlaxer. The Jobar attacks in the background section refers to a series of alleged sarin attacks in Jobar between 12-14 April 2013. It appears from page 10 in the final UN report that they did't receive sufficient or credible information to support the allegation. However, I agree that the attack on government troops in Jobar on 24 August 2013 should be mentioned (and so should the attack on them in Bahhariyeh on 22 August 2013 and in Ashrafiah Sahnaya of 25 August 2013). It is all covered in the final UN report. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. My bad. Will fix.Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Communications paragraph

According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, sensors placed on Syrian government chemical weapons stockpiles did not indicate preparation for chemical weapons use prior to the Ghouta attacks.(ref name=WhoseSarinHersh /) Responding to the revelations by Hersh, journalist Scott Lucas responded that, according to transcripts of Syrian government military chatter provided by the U.S. government, the sensors may have worked. "Indeed, if you pick apart Hersh’s story, you will find the “truth” that he struggles to deny: US intelligence agencies had some information about the regime’s chemical activities — the problem lay in communicating and interpreting that intelligence."(ref name=MisstepsDoomed /)

The above paragraph was removed from the Communication section. The first sentence doesn't concern communications, but chemical sensors placed in Syria by US intelligence. The second part does refer to communications, but it is not from the WSJ article (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579194203188283242 available to read if the first sentence is googled). The quote is from EA Worldview. (http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/syria-special-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-wasnt-seymour-hershs-exclusive-dissected/) It refers to the WSJ article, but it doesn't respond to Hersh's chemical sensor claim. I also question whether EA WorldView is a reliable source. It is cited in another part of the article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove Timing section

I propose removing the Timing section. The attacks occurred at different times and there are sources in the Attacks section supporting them. Only the first citation BBC isn't used elsewhere in the article and I will move that citation to the Eastern Ghouta section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. However, I believe the article needs a timeline. Some of the information in the section may be included in it. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of timelines that you are thinking about? I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. While there are of course background info and after effects, what exactly is important enough and would benefit from putting in a timeline? The article topic is a discrete event, so a timeline isn't inherently needed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Something like the Khan al-Assal chemical attack#Timeline or as a separate article like the Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, but I agree to remove the Timing secion. I will find the info if I need it. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Timing section removed. I don't think a Timeline like Khan al-Assal, which is just a Timing section with lots of subsections, is needed. It's probably not another article either. The narrative provides the key dates, which aren't that complicated. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of user created map under WP:OR

@FutureTrillionaire: I removed the map "Ghouta chemical attack map" created by user FutureTrillionaire located on Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ghouta_chemical_attack_map.svg according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." There is no attribution of a source for this map. If one can be produced, great. If not, I would recommend deletion of the source file from Commons. It is currently being used on about 15 Wiki pages, mostly non-English versions of the Ghouta attack pages.

I also note that Ayn Tarma on this map is placed on the south side of the river, while it is actually on the north side. This was MapQuest's error, but they have corrected it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated the file for deletion. Here is the nomination page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Capabilities, Perpetrators and Evidence sections

These sections overlap. I proposed moving the Capabilities section into the Evidence - Capabilities sub-section and adding an Evidence - Perpetrators sub-section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Still, capabilities may also be covered in the background section. Imo, motivation and witness statements also belongs in the evidence section. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to do. Motivation and chemical weapon capabilities (info before attacks) will stay in separate sections where they are. Witness statements and other info obtained after the attacks will go in Evidence section. Of course, facts, sentences, or sources can be pulled from these locations for the introduction or background sections if salient enough. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator section

Here is the Perpetrators section right now. It hasn't changed since I started editing this article:

In a report dated 12 February 2014, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, a UNHRC commission of inquiry, concluded that the sarin used in the Ghouta attack bore the "same unique hallmarks" as the sarin used in the Khan al-Assal attack. They also indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military.(ref name="Human rights" /)

Åke Sellström, a Swedish scientist who led the UN mission to investigate the attacks, said it was difficult to see how rebels could have weaponized the toxins,(ref name="The Guardian, 24 April 2014")(ref name=ModernWarfare)

I'm going to WP:Be bold and move the first paragraph to a new section at the end of the UN investigation section, as it is derivative of the UN Mission report. And move the second paragraph to the Chemical weapons capabilities section.

This leaves no Perpetrators section.

I don't think this is a problem. There are plenty of sentences, sources, motivations, and evidences that call one side or the other the perpetrator. But since a separate Perpetrator section would only recite these items again in summary, I don't think it is necessary. I don't have a problem with re-creating a Perpetrators section, and maybe it is necessary, but it certainly should not be just what is currently written there (above). Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Fisks statement

This statement "According to Robert Fisk, the chemical attacks in the night of 21 August were part of "one of [the Syrian army's] fiercest bombardments of rebel areas. In 12 separate attacks, it tried to put special forces men inside the insurgent enclaves, backed up by artillery fire. These included the suburbs of Harasta, and Arbin."", in the Witness statements section is supposed to be backed by this article. But the article don't say the chemical attacks were a part of the Syrian army's campaign. It says the Syrian army's campaign started "long before the use of sarin gas on 21 August and continued long afterwards". Erlbaeko (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the sentence should be rewritten to take out the implication the chemical attack was part of the army's campaign in Eastern Ghouta. But I'd go farther. The whole paragraph doesn't belong in the Witness statements section. There is only the remotest connection reporting the reactions of soldiers in Moadamiyah seeing people in Zamalka on television. I suggest moving basic information about the campaign and later shelling to the Eastern Ghouta section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I support moving basic information about the campaign to the relevant attack section. The story of the embedded journalist may be included in the Witness statements section. Something like "A journalist who used to be in the Syrian special forces was embedded with the Fourth Division in Moadamiyeh on the night of the attack. The journalist said he recalled the tremendous artillery bombardment, but said he saw no evidence of gas being used. He also said he remembered the concern of government troops when they saw the first images of gas victims on television." Erlbaeko (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stating what a witness didn't see isn't very useful. And the third-hand reaction of the troops (which is not a statement) to something on television is so far removed to a witness statement that it shouldn't be included in this section for sure, and I'd say at all. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, leave it out. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Weather information - and general point on East vs. West Ghouta

I don't believe the weather information deserves a separate section for two reasons:

• The information isn't relevant or reliable enough. The weather data comes from OSDI - Damascus International Airport, which is located about 20 km to the SE of Zamalka/Ayn Tarma and about 30 km E of al Moadamyeh. Also, due to the size of the attacks, the wind would not be enough to make a difference in any planning calculation or change the size of the affected area. It isn't a question of whether the gas could blow into a non-opposition area in East Ghouta or over the military airport in West Ghouta, depending on the wind. Also remember that sarin gas is heavier than air. If closer general weather data for either of the affected neighborhoods can be found, or even better, a specific mention of wind or weather in a source is used, then put that info into either the East or West Ghouta sections. (See point two).
• There are two attacks that this article deals with that are different. They are 16 km apart, and in this case, they likely had different winds, the important part of the weather reported here. And it's not just distance, but other very local factors like East Ghouta being just east of central Damascus while Moadamyeh being to the east of a large dry area. In general, I favor placing specific information on either of the attacks in that particular attack's section, rather than a different general section that is assumed to apply to both attacks. The Eastern Ghouta and Western Ghouta sections should be longer and more detailed with information in other parts of the article. For an example, all information about munitions should be moved to those two sections, because the munitions used were different.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's ok to move the most specific weather data into the separate attack sections. That way we may also state the distance from the weather station. The more general weather information can be included in the top of the attacks section (if it is relevant enough). I am not aware of more local weather data. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is original synthesis. Secondary sources have discussed the weather and speculated that it was a factor in the timing of the attack, and we should report their analysis rather than performing our own. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't make our own analysis or draw conclusions about how the weather conditions influenced the attack, but if we only state the facts, and each of the sentences is carefully sourced, I believe it can be moved into the attack section without breaking our policy of original research. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Point well taken. I wouldn't put the above into the article, but I feel comfortable arguing whether wind reports are relevant here. Adding raw wind reports at the airport to the article is also original synthesis.

There were two mentions of wind in article. I took this one out, which I think is very justified, as it was untrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&type=revision&diff=661858220&oldid=661590682

The other sentence I removed from the Motivation section was "The reporter also questioned if the Army would use sarin gas just a few kilometres from the center of Damascus on what was a windy day." The source (ref name=murky) is still in the article, so this can be added as a citation for the wind reporting if needed. The full quote from the article is "Would it also have risked using an agent as lethal as sarin just a few kilometers from the heart of Damascus -- to both the southwest and northeast of the city -- on what appears to have been a quite windy night?" This report was within one day after the attack. The wind report at the airport went from gentle to moderate breeze. So this report isn't a very strong candidate to use justifying including the wind report. If a better one can be found, great. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chemical Damage Estimate report Tesla published, included weather conditions (including wind speed and direction) between 2 and 3am. They have also included a map, and analyzed the lethal chemical cloud. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote the weather section and I'm fine with it being a separate section under Background. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ok to summarise the weather information, but regarding twilight: The initialisms BMNT (begin morning nautical twilight, i.e. nautical dawn) and EENT (end evening nautical twilight, i.e. nautical dusk) are used and considered when planning military operations. Ref.Twilight#Nautical_twilight So, in this case I believe Nautical twilight is more relevant than Civil twilight. We may write something like: The first light in the horizon could be seen at 05:03. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nautical twilight, as the name implies, is most relevant at sea or at least in very large open places where the horizon is visible. It doesn't have any usefulness in urban and suburban areas where the horizon is not visible. Civil twilight is the appropriate usage here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Geography

The term Ghouta is used in a lot of different ways. I've done some googling, but can't find a definitive source that is usable yet. It seems to have originally meant the natural oasis caused by the Barada river, which flows south and then east from the Anti-Lebanon mountains, ending before the desert to the east of Damascus. The western part of this oasis was the site where Damascus was founded, and as it developed, the agricultural area was moved east and expanded by irrigation. To keep this green oasis meaning today, it should mean the natural floodplain and the irrigated agricultural land on either side of the Barada. However, it is used in some places as just meaning the Damascus suburbs to the east and south. This sort of makes sense, as urbanization and now drought have turned the formerly fertile land into dense habitation and dry fields.

From the UN and HRW reports, Ghouta, Eastern Ghouta, and Western Ghouta are completely embedded in this article's subject. So I'm not saying their use should end or be curtailed. However, it doesn't help that the article Ghouta is unsourced and it is used in different ways in this article's sources. I started a discussion on the Ghouta talk page to try to add sources to the general concept. For this article, I will try to clarify what it means in context from the sources used. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Some info from Wikimapia: Eastern Ghouta and Western Ghouta

Seems like Al-Ghouta is used when referring to a district within Estern or Western Ghouta: Al-Ghouta district 1, Al-Ghouta district 2, Al-Ghouta district 3, Al-Ghouta district 4, Al-Ghouta district 5, Al-Ghouta district 6 is missing, Al-Ghouta district 7 and Al-Ghouta district 8.

Al-Ghouta is also a quarter of Homs: (Homs City) al-Ghouta (Homs City) Erlbaeko (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also an area called the Greater Damascus, that may be used. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimapia is not a reliable source. There are districts within governorates, and there is a map at Markaz Rif Dimashq District which even lists sub-districts. The problem with these pages is the only sourcing is dead links to the 2004 census for populations. And the maps are user-created without sources. Ghouta is not an administrative region of any kind. It is a concept, not a definable place. Al Ghouta just means "the Ghouta." Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article

This: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

This is five reverts in a 48 hour period. This includes three reverts that were done within 24 hours, on an article which is under discretionary sanctions.

This is disruptive behavior.

On top of that, the text being added in is obviously a WP:NPOV violation AND based on a non-reliable source (WP:RS). It's basically conspiracy junk.

AND on top of that, the edit summary claims "consensus" and requests discussion where it's pretty obvious that there is no existing discussion on the talk page nor is there any consensus for inclusion of this junk. Hence, the edit summary is (purposefully) misleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The revert to previous consensus is done according to WP:BRD. Regarding the sanctions: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.". Ref. WP:GS/SCW Erlbaeko (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Marek, I think that the IP editor is clearly Sayerslle, who was banned for edit warring. -Darouet (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu is not an ip editor , darouet. erlabaeko was 'incorrect' as you said to call him an ip- 'incorrect' -or plain lying. you support erlbaeko's worldview that's all, and so support his edits against consensus and edit warring - you share the robert parry-esque worldview and want the article to be twisted away from RS to give undue weight to the parry type conspiracist views - you've got no integrity at all, 'daruoet'. you support edit wars if they suit you - awful. 92.3.5.255 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Sayer, I didn't even report you earlier, and you're just continuing to edit war as an IP on all the same pages. Why don't you either take a break for real, or try editing on other subjects for a while? -Darouet (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

like I said, you support your pov edit warrior. why don't you go and read some more Parry and Hersh and then puke it all up over Wikipedia pages like you love to do, and listen to some Putin speeches . Sayer was hiding in plain sight I guess, - so what-? Sayer doesn't exist anymore - you and your ilk killed him off. 92.3.5.255 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: "previous consensus" is not mentioned in WP:BRD. Even if it was, that is an essay and is no grounds for violating WP:EW, which is policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Have a look here at WP:BRD. Also see this diagram in the consensus policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The BRD diagram does not perfectly reflect the content of the essay, and even if it did that would not override policy. The consensus flowchart you linked does not support your novel "previous consensus" method of edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "previous consensus" is not a reason to revert. While there might be a tendency or bias to revert first and then discuss, I would just start a discussion page section to discuss the reasons the content should stay, go or change. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like visits to AN/3RR and SPI are due. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Perpetrators reverts should not count for the 3RR rule. They are clearly in response to vandalism. As for the Motive sections and Erlbaeko's claims of "long-standing consensus", those are problematic, but worthy of a Talk page discussion, not any admin referral. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No. 5 is a revert of this ip-edit. Instead of just re-reverting, I tried to find a third version (according to Alternatives to reverting) of the text that addressed the IP's RS-concern (by attributing the statement). After no consensus could be reached for my version, I reverted to a previous consensus (according to WP:BRD). Imo #4 is also a IP-revert, but even if that is considered a revert of Kudzu1, it is within our policy of 1RR per 24 hours. No. 3 is clear vandalism. No. 2 is a revert of an ip. No. 1. is a revert of Marek, also to the previous consensus version. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is, I think, why are you so intent on reverting when there is clearly no consensus for the material? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only is there no consensus but the text being added is clearly POV and it is based on a junk sources. It's conspiracy theory junk. And as far as that goes WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump even consensus. Not that there is consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Given previous US comments about the use of chemical weapons constituting a "red line" prompting intervention, the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line." was removed by IP 92.3.8.53 on 20 May 2015 at 18:33. Ref. diff. The statement has been in the article at least since September 2013. Ref. old revision. It is consensus according to the consensus policy. If it is consensus for removing it. Fine. Remove it. But it is not. At least three editors disagree(four if you include the editor who inserted it). According to WP:NOCON, "no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept". Erlbaeko (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

False flag motivation - actual content of edit war

There are three parts to the deleted/reverted content:

1. Hutton, John (25 June 2013). "Syria: Britain must arm the rebels or risk a dangerous stalemate". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
3. Given previous US comments about the use of chemical weapons constituting a "red line" prompting intervention, the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line.
5. "Obama's war: How does striking Syria on behalf of Al Qaida boost U.S. interests?". World Tribune. 30 August 2013. Retrieved 30 August 2013.

The sources (1 and 3) are opinions, I agree they should not be used. But what is objectionable about the statement (2)? It is close to just basic common sense, barely requiring citation if it weren't so controversial to claim it happened. Even the suggestion seems to get some people enraged. But this section is about motivation, not what actually happened. Here are some sources that explain the motivation:

• Bouie, Jamelle (10 September 2013). "Enough Already: Syria Wasn't a False-Flag Operation". Daily Beast.
• Maxon, Seth (11 May 2015). "The Last Time Seymour Hersh's Reporting Raised Doubts". Slate.
• Bar'el, Zvi (29 January 2013). "A resounding Russian slap against the Assad regime". Haaretz. NOTE: this is before the Ghouta attacks, so refers to the false flag motivation in general.

Also note that the last section of the article lists several prominent people who have publicly called the attacks a "false flag" to get the US involved. So how could the statement here be denied?

My suggestion is to add the text above, either as is or rewritten, to the article in its previous spot sourced to any of the three articles here.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For starters, it doesn't belong in there because it's not reliably sourced, as you yourself acknowledge. And arguing that "it's just common sense" is original research (and not actually common sense).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've gotten past the pleasantries, I provided three RS for the idea that the opposition had the motivation to do a false flag attack to get Obama to conclude Assad crossed the red line and enter the Syrian civil war against the regime. Would you like to rewrite the sentence? Which source should I use? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. Did you notice that your first source is titled "Enough Already: Syria WASN'T a False-Flag Operation" (my emphasis). It explicitly says that these are conspiracy theories and it's crazy wackos that push'em. Please do not misrepresent sources (I can't access the Haaretz but obviously it's not relevant).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Slate story likewise says its bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comprehension skills aren't very good. Let me quote myself: "But this section is about motivation, not what actually happened. Here are some sources that explain the motivation." I'll provide the quotes:

• "a defense analyst who argues that President Obama was behind the use of chemical weapons—in order to justify an attack on the Syrian government and aid the opposition."
• "At the time, President Obama had recently issued a “red line,” saying that if Assad used chemical weapons, the U.S. would intervene in the conflict on the rebels’ behalf. Hersh argued that the government was blaming the rebel attack on Assad to justify direct involvement in the war."
• "chemical weapons ... could serve as an excuse for outside military intervention, by Israel or the U.S., supported by Jordan and Turkey."

It doesn't matter one bit what the sources think about the likelihood of the false flag being true. Again, this section is about motivation. Also note: "the last section of the article lists several prominent people who have publicly called the attacks a "false flag" to get the US involved." What do you propose to do with those statements? Please respond to what I actually wrote this time. And feel free to suggest a different wording for the sentence. However it is a verifiable, reliable, and NPOV fact that there exists a motivation for the rebels to launch a chemical attack and blame it on Assad. You can't change that no matter how hard you try. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

its about weight - there are a host of 'poor theories' about rebels motivation and responsibility - all are routinely ridiculed in RS - sellstrom called them 'poor theories' -the slate article you cite yourself says 'It’s painful for admirers to read his [Hersh's] - latest pieces' ---- some want the 'poor theories' set forth at great length and want to create an article that suggests all theories are equal according to RS - the regime had motivation and means - the rebels had motivation and means - but that is not the actual weight in RS is it mnnlaxer, 'you cant change that however hard you try' - and god knows you are trying - btw in the lead it now says UN Mision, one 's', - the copy editing is faulty. 92.3.5.255 (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are three regime motives listed, the first one is multiple paragraphs long. I'm adding a second sentence to the only rebel motive listed. So it's not about trying to achieve equal weight. Again, the point is not about what the sources I listed or any other sources think that a false flag operation is a crazy theory. The motivation for the rebels to try to draw the US and western powers into the Syrian civil war exists. Neither Volunteer Marek nor 92.3.5.255 has even tried to argue otherwise. And again, there still are the quotes of several people claiming it was a false flag operation in the article. Is anyone arguing that their statements should be removed? Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to find better sources than op-eds and commentaries to present claims like this. And we need to be very careful to assign due weight, rather than elevating random radio hosts and hot-take artists just to find some sort of ideological counterweight to, say, the United Nations and a bunch of notable governments. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are also misunderstanding the situation. Stating there was a motivation for the opposition to do the attack and try to blame the regime is not saying it actually happened. The UN report and government assessments have nothing to do with including this one sentence. It would be nice to have people understand and respond to the actual argument I am making. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Look. You're trying to insert some wacky conspiracy theory into the article. All you got to support it is either a) non-reliable bullshit sources or b) reliable sources which document the fact that this is a wacky conspiracy theory. You're very busy trying to pretend that the b) kind of sources are sufficient to present the wacky conspiracy theories as if they are true. They're not. All they could support at best is the statement that there exist some wacky conspiracy theories out there which are not worth paying attention to. So why should we pay attention to them? You're flipping every relevant Wikipedia policy on its head. It's manipulative and disruptive. It's WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've said multiple times, the "wacky conspiracy theory" is already in the article. The last section states that Ron Paul, Rand Paul (later back-pedaling), Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore and Pamela Geller all talked about the possibility of a false flag operation (which acknowledges that there was a motivation for the rebels to do it). By your logic, the article on the 9/11 Truth movement shouldn't exist.

For you to call me manipulative and disruptive is rich. Here's a crazy suggestion: let's work together to agree to a rewrite that both can live with. That would be collaborative. I know it will be a stretch for you, but give it a try. For my part, I will find a better source. The ones I listed were just the first ones to pop up. Fair? Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah and I removed that per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. "By your logic, the article on the 9/11 Truth movement shouldn't exist." - No, please review "logic" again. By my logic, the article on 9/11 should not give prominence to wacky conspiracy theories. Just like the article on Ghouta chemical attack should not give prominence to wacky conspiracy theories. If you want to start on Ghouta chemical attack conspiracy theories be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I'll concede that comment isn't on point. But you are using WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE manipulatively and disruptively. I'll start a new thread on your latest deletion of most of a section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Choices

Here are some quotes from sources to craft a sentence with. I think the best compromise would be to use attribution for the claimed motivation.

1. Russia: "Mr. Markov argues rebels are the only ones with an incentive to use chemical weapons, because they are losing on the battlefield and Western intervention is the one thing that could turn the tide. He says ever since President Barack Obama made his "red line" remark warning of intervention if poison gas is used, the rebels and the Persian Gulf nations known to be financing and arming them – Qatar, for example – have been desperate to create just such an incident." Weir, Fred (17 September 2013). "Russia presses claims Syria rebels behind gas attack". Christian Science Monitor.
3. Assad supporters: "after the Ghouta attack, when many Assad supporters claimed that the rebels had gassed themselves, in a “false flag” operation to hoodwink the international community into intervening to remove Assad." Radden Keefe, Patrick (25 November 2013). "Rocket Man". New Yorker.

But, it could be in a RS voice with a combination of the Haaretz quote, any Obama "red line" quote, and this: "The wavering from the West dealt an unquestionable blow to the Syrian opposition, which had thought it had finally secured military intervention after pleading for two and a half years for help from Western leaders that vocally opposed Assad." Stewart, Phil; Oweis, Khaled Yacoub (10 September 2013). "Syria vows to give up chemical weapons, no deal yet at U.N." Reuters.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:FRINGE. First off, is there consensus that this fringe theory has received enough attention to warrant a sentence in the article? VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if we do, WP:WEIGHT still applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; that policy is even explicitly linked in the fringe theories guideline. From WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." This particular fringe theory seems to me to fall into this category; what do you think? VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So, who are the "prominent adherent" of this fringe theory? But of course we should not count as "prominent adherents" people who, like Lavrov, openly lied to public or have a serious conflict of interest. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What was actually wrong with this version? Remember, we are talking about possible motives. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On 30 August 2013, a Canadian radio host and commentator, Jeff Kuhner, questioned how "striking Syria on behalf of Al Qaida" would boost U.S. interests. He also questioned the motive of the attack, stating that the "Syrian dictator has no rational motive to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" and that the rebels "have a major incentive to use WMD upon their own population to garner international sympathy". He continued, "The Islamist opposition cannot win unless — as in Libya — they enlist Western military intervention."

References

I don't want to use Erlbaeko's suggestion. Kuhner isn't very prominent and it's an op-ed. I think either of the two choices I presented, with attribution, are sufficient. As for the larger FRINGE or WEIGHT issues, I will start a new section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Better source found

Peralta, Eyder (27 August 2013). "Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?". NPR. Retrieved 4 June 2013.

"Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons." Lopez is George Lopez, a professor of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame and Winfield is Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of CBRNe World. Winfield in particular makes adding the motivation a slam dunk.

I consider the part of the discussion on possible motivation closed. I have waited to see if any editors agreed with Volunteer Marek's large deletion of the Early Opinions section, but it seems like that could be closed too. I will comment more below on that later. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignored study?

Here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html

I think this should be at least mentioned considering that it contains more than the "he said, she said" you see in official statements (from both sides).

One more source (same document) in case the first one doesn't work:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf

This document is used in the article, although it could be used more. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of a source

This edit [50].

The included text says: "Gywn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, said that the rebels may have had the motivation to use chemical weapons"

What the source actually says: ""[A rebel attack] is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield." and ""This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario (attack by rebels - VM) just doesn't make sense.".

So yes, it's possible that they could "have the motivation" but the guy goes out of his way to say that they probably didn't do it. And yes, I understand the difference between "likelihood" and "motivation". I also understand the difference between POV and NPOV. If you only put in a statement about "motivation" and omit the statement about the LOW likelihood that the source repeatedly emphasizes, you're bullshitting, trying to pull a fast one, engaging in shenanigans, playing fast and loose with sources, misrepresenting them, being tendentious, pushing POV and otherwise behaving disruptively. I'm sorry, did you think that you were talking to someone who is too dumb to read the actual source? Now quit this stupid game.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Most likely. The source also says: "Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons." Erlbaeko (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

How is a provided an almost direct quote a "blatant misrepresentation of a source"? What WP does this fall under? It helps if you provide a specific quote, rather than an entire policy. The source also says "Is it possible that it was the rebels, or another group within Syria, that launched the attack near Damascus that reportedly left hundreds dead and thousands more injured? 'I have been asking myself the same question ever since it happened, because it was difficult to find a rationale [for an Assad-led attack],' says Gwyn Winfield." And "Winfield maintains that the Free Syrian Army has the experience and perhaps even the launching systems to perpetrate such an attack." You are free to use the likely quote in another part of the article, but if you knew the article better, you would know that that point is made directly and repeatedly all over the article. The rebel motivation exists and there are now a dozen sources listed here that say so. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Incredibly blatant and transparently desperate grasping at straws to twist this source in the way that's been done. Exhibit A for POV intent editing, if you ask me. The source simply doesn't say what Mnnlaxer evidently wants it to. Quoting is far more appropriate considering the nuance of the commentary, although I'm not convinced it's DUE either way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It really is almost unbelievable how Volunteer Marek could misrepresent a source in a complaint about misrepresenting a source. From the article:

Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons. "This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario (attack by rebels - VM) just doesn't make sense." For one thing, the alleged chemical attack happened in the Ghouta region of Damascus. It is controlled by the rebels, and civilians in the area sympathize with the rebels. "The smart thing [for the rebels] would be for you to aim for barracks and maime[sic]/kill a significant few hundred soldiers as the best chance for reverberations that played to your advantage," said Lopez. "This was not done."

(VM's addition emphasized. "[for the rebels]" is in the source. [sic] added by me) No, that is not the scenario Winfield is talking about. The scenario that doesn't make sense is trying to break the stalemate by direct attacks on one's opponent. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would not comment on misrepresentation, but here is the problem (and we talked about this above). There are two sources dated back two years. This is all outdated. Quoted people (two years ago) ask rhetorically: can it be that we are mistaken and the attack was perpetrated by the rebels? I think this is all undue at this time, and especially in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sources two years old are not outdated just because they are two years old. Find a more recent source that shows they are outdated before you remove material for that reason. This story is no longer generating much news. In the absence of new sources, the current sources stay. You have brought this up twice and no one has agreed with you. In a larger point, it is extremely frustrating to work with editors who say "I think it is undue" or some other WP and not explain why or even mention the issues involved at all. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking about this, I have explained above (in several subsections) why this is "undue". No need to repeat the same arguments several times. Yes, I can see that you disagree. As about some others, I think they would actually agree. However, if others disagree, please wait for them to fix whatever they think should be fixed (I do not mind), rather than reverting everything. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No one here has mentioned the US assessment section. And you took out both a Russian and an US government view, so that can't be justified with UNDUE. As for the motivation section, it has been extensively discussed, yet no one besides you has even mentioned deleting the whole thing. And again, you deleted both regime and rebel viewpoints, so you can't use UNDUE to justify it. At least you've given up the idea its too old. BTW, here is your entire "discussion" of UNDUE on this page: "I think this is all undue at this time, and especially in this section." from your last comment above. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a misrepresentation straight up. Misrepresentation by omission (failing to include any of the statements which say "not likely" "probably not" "yeah possible but doubt it" etc). But still misrepresentation.

Also, even the damn title of the newly added section is blatant and transparent POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree to include this: "Gywn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, said that "[A rebel attack] is feasible, but not particularly likely".". Is it consensus to include it? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It should be removed entirely unless/until consensus on wording is established. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the entire new section/sentence should be removed. But if it stays, let's at least have it say what he actually says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This version if fine by me. Gywn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, said that the rebels may have had the motivation to use chemical weapons. Do you have a proposal to a third version, that we can agree to? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Any will to compromise a bit? How about this: A week after the attack, the editor of CBRNe World magazine, Gywn Winfield, said the rebels may have had the motivation to use chemical weapons, but he did not find it particularly likely. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing it altogether is much better per the comments above. IF we do keep it then the source should not be misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment by Kudzu1 doesn't say the text should be removed permanently. Talk about misrepresenting a source. Consensus can be established on the wording. I'm fine with Erlbaeko's suggestion. However, I am not abandoning my position that likelihood and motivation are two separate issues. The section title is Motivation. In addition, the likelihood that the Syrian regime committed the attack is extensively and almost exclusively documented in the article. It really insults the intelligence of any reader to think that not including the caveat would at all change the overall take of the article. To achieve consensus, I agree with Erlbaeko. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with your interpretation, and I won't support it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, as VM notes, the section title is inherently problematic. We are not lawyers building a case. I reject that approach, as well as your suggestion below that the way to address DUE concerns is an arms race between the rebels-did-it crowd and the military-did-it bunch. I think you've got Wikipedia wrong, and I think this is really an example of cherry-picking to support some armchair-psychiatrist attempt to parse motives and build a case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What interpretation do you not agree with? What is a proposed new section title? You and Volunteer Marek are obligated to try to achieve consensus. You can't just say no. DUE / WEIGHT are inherently about balancing the amount of coverage particular viewpoints get in an article. What are you even talking about? As for motives, for the hopefully last time, there are over a dozen, NPOV, Reliable, and Verifiable sources cited above that say the rebels had a motive to perpetrate the attack. I am not cherry-picking, armchair psychiatristing, or parsing motives. The sources are speaking for themselves. Again, NPOV states articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Also recall above that I suggested attributing the sentence to either a Russian diplomat or Assad supporters. I really think the NPR article with a Winfield quote is a better solution, but if Volunteer Marek objects to using Winfield for attribution, surely he can't claim I'm misrepresenting either of those sources. How about one of those? What can't be argued is keeping the sentence out of the article. As the opening sentence of NPOV states: articles should include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually you're the one who needs to get consensus for inclusion. Yes, we can say "no", especially if you're 1) misrepresenting a source (which goes beyond consensus as it is about NPOV, which is non-negotiable) and 2) creating sections with obviously POV titles. DUE/WEIGHT are NOT about balancing amount by which various POVs get coverage. They are about representing coverage in sources. And representing sources accurately (and of course also representing the DUE/WEIGHT policy accurately).

Bottom line is that you're trying to "lie with sources". Picking out one quote which is not representative of the source and then even twisting that. Look. If MR. Y says "X is possible but very very unlikely" and you quote them as "MR. Y said that X is possible", you're misrepresenting the source. If MR.Y says "The probability that X happened is about 1%" and you quote them as "MR. Y said that X was possible" or "MR. Y said that the probability X happened was positive", you're lying with sources, even though you might be "quoting" them exactly. This is fairly fundamental and not that hard to understand. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible Government motives

Under possible government motive a section is called "To strengthen the morale". It is sourced, but imo it should be removed anyway. Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, the correct response for people who call out WEIGHT and DUE for the Motivation section is to beef up the regime motivation sub-sections. As I've shown, over a dozen NPOV, Respected, Verifiable sources say the rebels had a motivation for the attack. You can't claim one sentence should be kept out of an article based on WEIGHT or DUE. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly should it be removed? "It is sourced but imo it should be removed anyway" sounds like a textbook case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I like to note that your reply here came after my comment on the Edit warring case, ref. diff, but yes, it is probably a classic textbook case of I simply don't like it. The idea that the motive was to "to strengthen the morale" of Government soldiers, is just too stupid. I mostly base that on common sence. Anyway, I don't care about it. If you like to include it, I won’t object. I removed it to shorten the (to long) article. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Source discussion

There is a discussion of whether this article is a reliable source for this statement; "The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic", included in the initial claims section at RSN - Attributed statement sourced by RT news article. -- Erlbaeko (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit discussion

I seek consensus and understanding that this edit by User:Volunteer Marek be reverted now. At the minimum until mediation is rejected or complete, but as I will try to show, in any result it would be better to revert and make discrete changes rather than delete material from all over the article for different reasons. I will divide the edits up and sign each one so that any discussion can happen within the different edits.

1. Deletion of "Lavrov further stated that the Syrian government had no motive to use chemical weapons since the government already maintained a military advantage over the rebel fighters. On 9 October, a US spokesman stated the administration lacks the "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" some American voters are seeking but that a "common-sense test" implicates Assad." from section Ghouta chemical attack#US assessment. This content is a focus of the mediation. Also, the deletion removed a good source, the AP article (which I just noticed is by Philip Elliott, not Adam Goldberg). Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Deletion of the entire Motivation section. While I am open to a discussion of deleting the entire section (the article is too long and needs a lot of structural work, so that the important material can be added to other parts of the article), that option was never discussed on the talk page. The talk page debate was about including one sentence on the rebel's motive to perpetrate the attack. Deleting the entire section seems to be a scorched earth strategy of taking out regime motivation along with rebel motivation. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
5. The Motivation section's first sentence "The motivation of the attack have been questioned, and the timing seems odd, since a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors were staying in a hotel just a few miles from the attack sites." removed three good sources, breaking the use of source "murky" in another part of the article. The sentence is problematic as an introduction to the proposed motives, but the content is usable and the sources should be retained. Curiously, all three usages of the source "APdoubts" were removed in Volunteer Marek's deletion. Also, one usage of the source "APnoslamdunk" was removed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
7. Media claims and Early opinion sections. Volunteer Marek agreed to this change on the talk page Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Proposed solution so I don't know why he reverted it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So... you're asking other people to revert on your behalf? bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I am a) not engaging in an edit war, but rather b) trying to convince anyone who deleted or restored Volunteer Marek's deletion to self-revert for the reasons above, or if that is not successful, to get c) those people to engage in a debate over the justification of the deletion. Since a) and b) seem to be dead options for you, please respond above so we can start c). As Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching consensus through discussion says:

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.

Is that clear? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

References

I have reverted the edit and if there are objections to any part of this large edit, I expect all editors to break up their changes into smaller pieces and fully explain their reasons for the changes here. Including addressing my arguments above. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Starting reverts on the content which is currently under discussion in mediation you started is a very bad idea (note that all previous reverts on this page were made before mediation). This does not help to create a new compromise version during mediation. Please do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit involved a lot of content not related to mediation. The original editor, Volunteer Marek, hasn't confirmed he will participate. Neither has the other reverter, bobrayner. You haven't provided any justification for the edit. You profess little actual involvement with the article. See [51] So why are you doing it? Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to this question on your talk page [52]. Please also see my justification on this page above and on mediation page.My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere do you even discuss the issues involved, much less mount a coherent and cogent argument. Volunteer Marek's edit comment: (tendetious editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, etc. etc. etc.) is his typical WP:VAGUEWAVE. Bobrayner's (Synthesis, various neutrality problems. Quit it.) is just more of the same. Yours (rv - this is majority opinion right now. If you people agree to restore this during mediation, I do not mind.) is untrue and even if true, invalid. Volunteer Marek, Bobrayner and yourself have never started a new section on this talk page. Bobrayner has one comment on the talk page and you repeatedly take strong actions / positions and equivocate at the same time. No one has even tried to engage my arguments above. The three of you would learn something if you read Wikipedia:Editing policy, for instance: "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page." from WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and see the bulleted list there. "Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate." from Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. And read that section's brief sub-sections on Be helpful: explain and Be cautious with major changes: discuss. Erlbaeko has done the yeoman's work of presenting these many issues in separate sections on this page. Editors that can fruitfully discuss the article are invited to helpfully participate. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Media claims chapter from Initial claims section

This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.

In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack. One report published by Mint Press News that was widely circulated said that the casualties were caused by leaking, accidentally opened, or intentionally released canisters of chemical weapons stored by rebel forces in tunnels. Several reports rebutted this claim.

References

Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Remove, or move it to a new section for "Media coverage". Erlbaeko (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. We do not need outdated speculations on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove, per my comments below. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the Mint Press News story that was proved false and created significant coverage of the authorship dispute is worthy of keeping, but am willing to go along with the consensus to remove. I'll have to check out MPN's article see about adding it there. What isn't cogent is the idea My very best wishes has frequently expressed, that some material is "outdated" because the sources are two years old. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of critics of the US Foreign government assessments

This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.

Some acting and former intelligence officials were critical of the report, the AP quoting unnamed officials stating the report's evidence was "not a slam dunk". The AP also characterised the evidence released by the administration as circumstantial and said the government had denied its requests for more direct evidence, including satellite imagery and communications intercepts cited in the government assessment.

References

Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. This is all outdated (2013) and unimportant.My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why an article from 2013 is "outdated" and why that should be reason enough for not including a source in an article? Seems impossible to write an encyclopedia only using "recent" sources, if that concept can even be articulated. Unimportant is obviously a good criteria, so please explain why this material or these sources are unimportant. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep the AP's comment on the report or Remove all information about the report as "outdated," as My very best wishes puts it. It is impossible for affirmative conclusions of the report to be relevant from the perspective of time, but doubts about those conclusions to be irrelevant by the same standard. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that critics of the US government assessments should be kept as long as we keep the assessments itself (which also are from 2013). Erlbaeko (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. According to the first source, two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials said the US did not have proof that Assad ordered the attack. A report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence outlined that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats. They also acknowledge that the U.S. intelligence community wasn’t sure where all of the regime's chemical weapons were stored at the time. However, we may change the statement a bit to include more concrete information than that “not a slam dunk” statement. Will that be more acceptable? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Very important information. I'm confused by the "outdated" concept. The US government has not updated its assessment since this time, so it is the standing position of the USG and is obviously relevant to the US assessment section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the Motivation section

This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.

Motivation
The motivation of the attack have been questioned, and the timing seems odd, since a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors were staying in a hotel just a few miles from the attack sites.

Possible Government motives

To defeat opposition forces

The Syrian government would have had a motive to use chemical weapons tactically if it believed there was no threat of international reprisal. However, it would seem like rather odd timing from Assad's perspective, since the attack came just days after a team of UN weapons inspectors landed in Damascus. Still, the attack might simply have been launched in an area designated as off-limit for the UN inspectors.

A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by opposition in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention. While another reporter, James Miller, pointed to the fact that the affected area had strong opposition leanings, and was a major supply route to the front lines in the fighting in east Damascus. Miller added that "Assad's forces in both Mt Qassioun and in the Mezzeh airport have this area very zeroed in for rocket (typically Grads) and artillery strikes."

A reporter for The Daily Telegraph also pointed to the questionable timing given government forces had recently beaten back opposition in some areas around Damascus and recaptured territory. "Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?" The reporter also questioned why would the attacks happen just three days after the inspectors arrived in Syria.

Syrian human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouneh, who is a member of the Syrian opposition, argued that the Assad government would launch a chemical attack because "it knows that the international community would not do anything about it, like it did nothing about all the previous crimes."

Israeli reporter Ron Ben-Yishai stated that the motive to use chemical weapons could be the "army's inability to seize the rebel's stronghold in Damascus' eastern neighbourhoods," or fear of rebel encroachment into Damascus with tacit civilian support.

Revenge for an attack on the Assad family

Western officials and Salim Idris, commander of the Free Syrian Army, said a purported assassination attempt against Assad earlier in August suggested the chemical attack on the rebel enclaves was a reprisal for the attempt, which killed an Assad family bodyguard.

Possible opposition motives

To trigger a western military intervention

According to military experts, both sides are locked in a political and military stalemate, and the opposition cannot win without western military intervention or support.

References

Is it consensus to remove it?

• Keep, but summarize "Possible Government motives" and deepen "Possible opposition motives". Erlbaeko (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove - see my comment below. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a bigger subject than those above and can be a focus of the mediation, which has just started (still time to join!). Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the Early opinions section

This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.

Early opinions

In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack. One report published by Mint Press News that was widely circulated said that the casualties were caused by leaking, accidentally opened, or intentionally released canisters of chemical weapons stored by rebel forces in tunnels. Several reports rebutted this claim.

The claims of two European writers held hostage by the rebel Abu Ammar Brigade also attracted some attention. After being released in early September 2013, Pierre Piccinin, a writer from Belgium said they overheard some captors say that the Syrian regime was not responsible for the attacks. Domenico Quirico, a journalist from Italy, said this is only a conjecture.

As newspaper budgets for field reporters have decreased and Syria has become dangerous for reporters, non-governmental advocacy groups have played an increasing role in reporting; and news organisations have been less capable of independently evaluating their claims. As noted by Carroll Bogert of Human Rights Watch, "We do feel that as journalism has ebbed, we have a responsibility to flow."

References

Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, but shorten. May be moved it to a new section for "Media coverage". Erlbaeko (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove everything in current state as an outdated speculation. Can something of this nature be included after rewriting? Yes, if supported by multiple secondary RS (such as books by historians) as a "significant minority view" - as I suggested here and here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. Concerning the MPN piece, subsequent investigation by the U.N. and photographs from the site of attack demonstrate that chemical missiles struck the area. There could conceivably be historical value to this idea, but I don't know why that would be true here. Concerning the claims of the writers held hostage, their statements are relevant, but this is obviously weak evidence for anything. This alone isn't grounds for removing, since readers can decide this themselves, but I would advocate removing unless we have a strong argument for keeping. As to the NYT piece, this is interesting, but I can't really see how the article is better including what is mostly a commentary on media problems in general. -Darouet (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. Now this is getting a little complicated. Just the first paragraph is listed above as "Media claims chapter from Initial claims section." There, I said I am okay with removal of the MPN story. The second and third paragraphs here are definite removes. FWIW, Volunteer Marek agreed to keep the MPN story paragraph but move it to the Initial claims section under its own sub-section, Media claims. But then he went ahead and deleted all of it, along with lots of other stuff that we now have to try to clean up. Many thanks to @Erlbaeko: for setting this up. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of statements from the US assessment in the background section

This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.

Lavrov further stated that the Syrian government had no motive to use chemical weapons since the government already maintained a military advantage over the rebel fighters. On 9 October, a US spokesman stated the administration lacks the "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" some American voters are seeking but that a "common-sense test" implicates Assad.

References

Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, but change the heading form "US assessment" to "Foreign government assessments" OR create a new heading for Russian assessments and move Lavrovs statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. This is not a statement from US assessment, but an outdated speculation by Lavrov, a person with less than zero credibility when it comes to political matters, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep the US assessment section and Add a Russian assessment section, to maintain neutrality. -Darouet (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Many people mistakenly believe each individual source needs to be NPOV. But that is impossible. All sources have a POV, some openly, some not. The article as a whole should be from a neutral point of view, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (my emphasis) Similarly, the article as a whole should give due weight to "all significant viewpoints." See the relevant Wikipedia: article quotes here. -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Material is mixed up

There is an issue in the current article where the second sentence above and another that attributes and cites Hersh are post-attack. I'm moved these two sentences to the United States section for the post-attack assessment. [53] We can work on integrating them better later. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)