Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 5) (bot |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) →Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article: new section |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
::There is also an area called the [http://wikimapia.org/32926764/Greater-Damascus Greater Damascus], that may be used. [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 18:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC) |
::There is also an area called the [http://wikimapia.org/32926764/Greater-Damascus Greater Damascus], that may be used. [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Mnnlaxer|Mnnlaxer]] ([[User talk:Mnnlaxer|talk]]) 20:47, 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." [[User:Mnnlaxer|Mnnlaxer]] ([[User talk:Mnnlaxer|talk]]) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article == |
|||
This: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=prev&oldid=664083376] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=prev&oldid=663967210] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=prev&oldid=663920250] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=prev&oldid=663829364] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=prev&oldid=663655919] |
|||
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant 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.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:29, 26 May 2015
Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- There is also an area called the Greater Damascus, that may be used. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article
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)