My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
#The recent events with the use of chemical weapons in Britain and Douma are indeed a little puzzling/suspicious. I think we need to cite some RS with opinions by reputable experts or journalists about it. In particular, [https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/opinions/russian-objectives-in-syria-and-the-uk-robertson-opinion-intl/index.html this] commentary by [[Nic Robertson]] makes a lot of sense and explains these things. It should be used on the page I think. If there are any other interesting commentary by reputable journalists or experts (as opposed to conspiracy theories promoted by probable perpetrators), they can also be included.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
#The recent events with the use of chemical weapons in Britain and Douma are indeed a little puzzling/suspicious. I think we need to cite some RS with opinions by reputable experts or journalists about it. In particular, [https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/opinions/russian-objectives-in-syria-and-the-uk-robertson-opinion-intl/index.html this] commentary by [[Nic Robertson]] makes a lot of sense and explains these things. It should be used on the page I think. If there are any other interesting commentary by reputable journalists or experts (as opposed to conspiracy theories promoted by probable perpetrators), they can also be included.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:So, I quickly fixed #1, but nothing else. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
:So, I quickly fixed #1, but nothing else. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::I think pretty much everything in this article is merely alleged, except the town of Douma′s existence. The footage shown is comic: medical help given on the alleged site of attack to alleged victims, with no one being dressed in any protective gear. Low-grade concocted gibberish. Which is of no import: The U.S. says it happened, Russia says it was staged by US stooges: business as usual. Both are right/wrong in their own way. The truth will be established by the victor.[[User:Axxxion|Axxxion]] ([[User talk:Axxxion|talk]]) 17:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:32, 12 April 2018
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removal of the Russian POV from 'Background' section
@Volunteer Marek: regarding this edit, would you kindly also remove the previous sentences covering the Mattis statements? That is, of course, if you're interested enough to prove that you're not primarily targeting the Russian POV in your typical mass content removals. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Strike apparent "smearing", for which I apologize. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- How about I just ignore you seem you seem incapable of discussing issues without resorting to attacks and smears against other editors? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- How about we focus instead on your content-related behavior? I can strike/remove the "typical mass content removals" part if you were so offended by it as a sign of good faith, so we can be over with this quick.
- Now, before WP:SYNTH is brought up, the Reuters article in the entry you just removed (published last month, yes) is cited by The Drive article, which I used as a reference in the first sentence, and which mentions the exact same statement but without names and with less detail. So WP:COMMONSENSE seems to trump WP:SYNTH in such case. If anything, you should've removed the Mattis part, because it is sourced to an Associated Press story rather than the Politico article cited by The Drive. But I stand by this addition as well, because it has the much needed quotes by Mattis, which the Politico article lacks.
- And I just wanted to mention that The Drive has a platform called "The War Zone", which focuses on updates in the defense industry and on ongoing conflicts, so it's not just an automobile news outlet, and any matters concerning its reliability should be taken to RS/N. I'm just bringing this up before the "Not reliable!" thing starts showing up. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I won't comment as to whether or not user Fitzcarmalan is making "smears," but this user is correct that there was no good reason for relevant material with a citation to a mainstream media source to be removed. The fact that the government of Russia, a major world power, warned shortly before this alleged incident that rebel groups were planning a provocation to accuse to Syrian government of using chemical weapons is certainly very relevant. I've thus restored the content. -2003:CA:83FE:7700:61C4:965D:1AAA:9EE4 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's classic WP:SYNTH being used to suggest that the attack was a false flag. Find a source which links the statement to the attack, then we can talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's definitely not "classic WP:SYNTH", per my above explanation. And you just went past 1RR, so kindly self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " - here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event. Yes, it's classic SYNTH. "Per my above explanation" doesn't cut it when you don't actually explain why it's not synth but rather claim "common sense" (wtf that is in this case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event.
Except the source from before the event is cited by the source about the event, which I did explicitly point out above before you distorted my explanation here. So it clearly isn't "classic" synthesis, especially when it's a "Background" section we're talking about. I expect you to remove the Mattis part once the 24 hours have passed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)- Above you mention something called The Drive, whatever the hey that is, but that source was not being used to cite the relevant statement under discussion. It was used to cite an entirely different statement. So I don't see the relevance. The text under discussion was cited to a Reuters story from March. Now, March, is a month, which happens to come before April. So yeah, SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then isn't the entire background section under SYNTH? Because there is a part that says claims have been made of usage of chemical weapons recently, yet nothing specific about this particular incident. Mattis said here specifically that the US has no evidence confirming the battlefield reports making this claim. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Above you mention something called The Drive, whatever the hey that is, but that source was not being used to cite the relevant statement under discussion. It was used to cite an entirely different statement. So I don't see the relevance. The text under discussion was cited to a Reuters story from March. Now, March, is a month, which happens to come before April. So yeah, SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " - here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event. Yes, it's classic SYNTH. "Per my above explanation" doesn't cut it when you don't actually explain why it's not synth but rather claim "common sense" (wtf that is in this case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's definitely not "classic WP:SYNTH", per my above explanation. And you just went past 1RR, so kindly self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's classic WP:SYNTH being used to suggest that the attack was a false flag. Find a source which links the statement to the attack, then we can talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with restoring the comment. There is absolutely no doubt a chemical attack has occurred, and plenty of RS's are stating the Assad regime is responsible. Wait for other RS's to point out that the Russian general's statement may have been part of a future plan/"need" for the Syrian regime to try and get away with another chemical attack - and was trying to set up a mindset in the world community that when they did attack, that somehow the victims did it to themselves in some insane attempt to frame Assad and his pals.50.111.41.216 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need sources which make that claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I won't comment as to whether or not user Fitzcarmalan is making "smears," but this user is correct that there was no good reason for relevant material with a citation to a mainstream media source to be removed. The fact that the government of Russia, a major world power, warned shortly before this alleged incident that rebel groups were planning a provocation to accuse to Syrian government of using chemical weapons is certainly very relevant. I've thus restored the content. -2003:CA:83FE:7700:61C4:965D:1AAA:9EE4 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Basically everyone on Twitter and elsewhere is saying this is an obvious false flag, but of course that will never be included in the article. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're right, it won't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
So you have a statement in March being used to imply the falsity of something that happened in April? Unless something weird has happened to the Arrow of Time while I wasn't looking, that's pretty obvious WP:SYNTH there. So no, it obviously should stay out. --Calton | Talk 09:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- This article, which I used for the first sentence makes the exact same claim. I intended to use it as a source for the whole paragraph (here's my original edit), but it only lacks one detail: the Russian official's name (Gerasimov). So I used instead the Reuters article cited by the very same source in order to have his name mentioned. I'm prepared to take this to OR/N if it's too controversial. But I don't think it is, and it obviously isn't "classic" SYNTH as Marek suggests above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
POV
Even the main source for the statement that the SAA did the attack uses "Is Accused" and "working to verify". Why did the author wrote "attack carried out by the Syrian Arab Army". And all information about this incident are from bogus anti-government sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on facts and not on the political opinion of the author. DerElektriker (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- An example "Syrian helicopters dropped barrel bombs on the town of Douma." The article takes this as fact, however the source linked after the sentence writes "The (activist) groups ... said" and there is no mention these helicopters were "Syrian" (whatever that means - official Syrian army or Syrian rebels?) Ah yes, war propaganda at its best here at Wikipedia, what a wonderful world to live in even if you are on the opposite side of the globe and your first world problems don't (yet) include bombs falling on your own head ... --213.175.37.10 (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please keep your comments to what Reliable Sources say in the effort to improve the article contents. A politcal POV rant like yours serves no purpose.50.111.41.216 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Reliable sources" but what if the "reliable source" uses an unreliable propaganda source for their article? You just pass the propaganda through into the wikipedia article. Just because some people think that a source is reliabe does not make every infromation from this source true and you fill your wikipedia artice with lies fake information. Maybe this talk page is the wrong place for this discussion is there a place on wikipedia where I can discuss this? DerElektriker (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is one of Wiki's tenants - "verifiability, not truth" - "truth" may be in the eyes of the beholders in some rare situations. We report what the RS's say. We don't make judgements. Try a forum someplace to vent your spleen.50.111.41.216 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- So your saying that wikipedia is just lies. Makes sense. DerElektriker (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not a single editor in this discussion has presented any sources, so this bickering is not only unproductive; it lacks evidence. Cite a source then make an argument for content based on that source. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: What sources are you demanding? - I don't want to prove anything else so I have nothing to provide evidence for, my point was in wrong work with the source provided in article.
- @50.111.41.216: Please re-read my (the second in this thread) objection - even the 'verifiable' source does NOT say what the sentence on Wikipeadia said as I quoted it (rewritten since then). Plus it stated it as a fact, not as an accusation from one side of the conflict - compare e.g. with articles on movies, if you write that the movie is bad then it gets edited in no time, if you write that the movie got bad rating on IMDb then it's perfectly fine.
- And while at it, the article was locked so I couldn't put any efforts into improving the article contents other than pointing out concrete example of what is wrong and should be changed, so that someone with appropriate rights can pick that up - which I'd say is constructive criticism, and I can support that by the fact that the sentence got rewritten so I wasn't the only one thinking it needs change ... since when it is called a "rant"? Just because I've appended a note that such wording is propagandist, that Wikipedia got abused? --213.175.37.10 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not a single editor in this discussion has presented any sources, so this bickering is not only unproductive; it lacks evidence. Cite a source then make an argument for content based on that source. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- So your saying that wikipedia is just lies. Makes sense. DerElektriker (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is one of Wiki's tenants - "verifiability, not truth" - "truth" may be in the eyes of the beholders in some rare situations. We report what the RS's say. We don't make judgements. Try a forum someplace to vent your spleen.50.111.41.216 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Reliable sources" but what if the "reliable source" uses an unreliable propaganda source for their article? You just pass the propaganda through into the wikipedia article. Just because some people think that a source is reliabe does not make every infromation from this source true and you fill your wikipedia artice with lies fake information. Maybe this talk page is the wrong place for this discussion is there a place on wikipedia where I can discuss this? DerElektriker (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please keep your comments to what Reliable Sources say in the effort to improve the article contents. A politcal POV rant like yours serves no purpose.50.111.41.216 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you check if the countries listed on the list match the sources
I just rewrote the lede but didn't verify deeply if Saudia Arabia and others actually claimed that the attack was carried out by the Syrian Army. Please help. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Funeral
Where are the pictures of dead bodies on 7 april 2018 ? BBC source didn't get them ? Are all 70 people already burried the same day as the Muslims traditionally do ? Who can examine the crime scene now ? -- 2.61.180.9 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Article Bias
Because we are on the edge of a major war I would hope an article of this nature would show less bias! Here are my points.
1. Article assumes Syrian Government did it. Both SAA and JAI have used CWs in the past. Syrian gov. also found a chemical weapons factory in Eastern Ghouta recently. Not even the MSM is unilateral on the identity of the culprit! 2. Reports of # number of deaths varies from 25 to as high 150. Specific numbers should be dropped until this is clarified. 3. Russians investigated and could not find a single casualty. Not one. They checked the hospitals and interviewed civilians. They found no evidence that an attack took place in Douma, conducted by the Syrian Government or otherwise. The footage released is not geolocatable. 4. One major point of contention is the motive of the Syrian government. The Syrian government was about to broker a peace deal - within hours of this attack taking place. Is this not suspicious? Why would they do this now? 4. Russia has been claiming terrorists would conduct a false flag chemical attack for a few weeks now. Is this not important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know where you get your information, but we only used reliable sources on Wikipedia.- MrX 🖋 10:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- The information about Jaysh Al Islams CW attack be found on their Wikipedia page. The information about their manufacturing of chemical weapons can be found on the dedicated page for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil war. The other information can be easily sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's important in that they were attempting to set the stage for excuses when their Syrian proxies initiated yet another chemical weapons attack.50.111.41.216 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but we didn't attribute where they did. I agree that all claims to who launched the attack should be attributed - as the Syrian government (and its allies) are denying they did it, and RSes for the most part are attributing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think attribution is best, based on my reading a a few prominent sources. I think it would be better to say that "the Syrian government is suspected of carrying out chemical attacks on civilians". That seems to be what the better sources are saying.- MrX 🖋 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Let us not forget that lots of our WP:RS sources were absolutely convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, too. They were not only convinced of it, nay, they had proof of it!! Lol. Anyway, this just doesn't make sense to me: Assad has been winning the war...and then he suddenly does something so suicidal as using chemical weapons?? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think attribution is best, based on my reading a a few prominent sources. I think it would be better to say that "the Syrian government is suspected of carrying out chemical attacks on civilians". That seems to be what the better sources are saying.- MrX 🖋 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but we didn't attribute where they did. I agree that all claims to who launched the attack should be attributed - as the Syrian government (and its allies) are denying they did it, and RSes for the most part are attributing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Missing Crucial Information on UN Resolution
From the article "There have been reported incidents of chemical weapons use in Douma in January 2018, however Russia vetoed a potential United Nations mission to investigate"
A one sided statement. Russia proposed their own resolution which was struck down. "Rival draft resolutions by both the US and Russia to set up a new expert body to probe chemical weapons attacks in Syria have failed to pass at the United Nations Security Council."
..."Later, a rival Russian bid to create a new inquiry also failed after the proposed resolution only received six votes in favour."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/russia-vetoes-resolution-syria-chemical-weapons-probe-180410193956669.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your confused. The source you give is for today's resolution, not January's which the statement is referring to. LylaSand (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Time of alleged bomb dropping
The article is stating that the alleged bomb dropping by a helicopter took place on 7 April 2018 at 06:30. According to the WH, however, the alleged bomb dropping took place at 20:22. https://twitter.com/SyriaCivilDef/status/982735364518567937 So, somebody seems to be wrong here.--91.61.112.40 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Why the rush to determine a responsible party for an alleged attack?
Shouldn't an encyclopedia wait for the facts to be known before including statements about who is responsible for an "alleged" attack? That makes no sense. Nearly all sources still state this is an alleged attack and suspect that it may have been committed by the Syrian Army. We are not a news site, we should err on the side of having substantiated facts, rather than being a second hand publisher of the latest news blurbs regardless of accuracy. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- The attack isn't alleged. We are only ever "second hand publishers" from reliable sources and proud of it. We just follow the facts as they are reported and then a narrative will emerge a few years later. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, we should reflect what is reported by the most reliable sources. We don't wait for the war crimes tribunals to conclude.- MrX 🖋 19:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- We should reflect that 90% of the free world says X, while Syria and its allies say Y. We should not say in our voice who is responsible (yet!) - even if most of us think so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what we should do, if that is what sources say.- MrX 🖋 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, and also agree with this edit. It was reported not only by CNN, but also by a lot of other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what we should do, if that is what sources say.- MrX 🖋 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- We should reflect that 90% of the free world says X, while Syria and its allies say Y. We should not say in our voice who is responsible (yet!) - even if most of us think so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't know if there was a real chemical attack, and if there was, who was behind it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- And Neo-Nazis say we don't know if there was a holocaust, and if there was, who was behind it. 68.199.196.38 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- That didn't take long Godwin's law. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- We don't know if that was an example of Godwin's law, and if was, who used it. 68.199.196.38 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- That didn't take long Godwin's law. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Peter Ford and George Galloway in the International Reactions section
I didn't know that a former ambassador and a former MP had the same weight as a UN member state. Remove it. LylaSand (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, two former British ambassadors and one former British MP, they are all British politicians, so its very notable. So there is no reason to remove their views, also I put them under a separate section, below the current UK government.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Explain how they are notable. Don't explain their expertise. Explain how they are notable reactions. LylaSand (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- They are British politicians whose views are not the same as the British government. How is it npov to censor Wikipedia and remove their views from the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, how are they notable? They a different views, yes, but we don't add contrary views for the sake of adding contrary views. More importantly they are WP:UNDUE. LylaSand (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have already explained why they are notable. If they weren't notable, news sources wouldn't be reporting they're views right? Any attempt to remove they're views from the article is a censorship attempt. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Except for the fact only non-prominent new sites and opinion pieces are covering them. Also you can't "censor" things on wikipedia because wikipedia is not an outlet for free press. LylaSand (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- So the BBC and RT are "non-prominent news sites" ? [1][2]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Reactions form Ford, Galloway, and Sellström should stay out of the article unless it can be shown that several sources have taken note of their reactions. That's what would be required by WP:DUEWEIGHT. Also, Russia Today is not a considered a reliable source, especially for subjects like this.- MrX 🖋 22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Whaw, just whaw. So sources, which were known to have reported falsely that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, are now absolutely WP:RS, while Ford, Galloway, and Sellström (when was anyone of them taken in telling blatant lies?) stays out of the article? Nice.....Huldra (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Blair falsely reported that Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any sources in this article quoting Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Blair's or any of their associates/cabinet members. LylaSand (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- In fact, members of the Bush Administration wouldn't even be considered proper sources for the purpose of this article, so I have no idea what you're talking about. LylaSand (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- When I talk about WP:RS, it is newspapers like NYT, and other US and Western sources etc. which are considered RS...while the, say, Russian sources are not. Judging on past performance, I question this. Huldra (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Huldra, if those are rebuttals to my comment, they are not particularly helpful. We're not discussing Iraq. We need to use reliable sources, and not simply find individual commentators that support a particular point of view. Again, WP:DUEWEIGHT is a primary way to achieve NPOV.- MrX 🖋 00:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- We have reliable sources showing that several notable countries and people are questioning the claims that the Syrian governments were behind it, this includes, Syria, Russia, Iran, Åke Sellström, Peter Ford, George Galloway, Craig Murray. Attributing the views to those specific countries and people are in accordance with npov and due weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't even make sense. Due weight is determined by preponderance of coverage in reliable sources. Show that Åke Sellström's opinion about this chemical attack has been discussed in a few other reliable sources and you will have something. Right now, the single source that was cited was pretty questionable to begin with. And it's only one source.- MrX 🖋 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Western politicians/media are following the same Israeli/US/Deep State narrative. The majority of them don't question what they are told. This is the reason not many news sources are picking it up. But we have a couple reliable source doing that, including RT, BBC, Haaretz, Fox News, Dagens Nyheter. To remove all these prominent and notable peoples views from the article is the very definition of censorship. Only the Israeli/US/Deep State narrative is allowed. Anything that questions this is edit warred out of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- and you keep following the same Alex Jones tinfoil hat narrative. Ironic that you don't question what you are told by dictators and conspiracy theorists. LylaSand (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Let's keep personal political opinions out of this discussion. RT is not a reliable source. The others generally are. I've already explained how WP:DUEWEIGHT works. We also have WP:CONSENSUS to guide us. If other editors are objecting to your edits, you have WP:DR at your disposal.- MrX 🖋 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Western politicians/media are following the same Israeli/US/Deep State narrative. The majority of them don't question what they are told. This is the reason not many news sources are picking it up. But we have a couple reliable source doing that, including RT, BBC, Haaretz, Fox News, Dagens Nyheter. To remove all these prominent and notable peoples views from the article is the very definition of censorship. Only the Israeli/US/Deep State narrative is allowed. Anything that questions this is edit warred out of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't even make sense. Due weight is determined by preponderance of coverage in reliable sources. Show that Åke Sellström's opinion about this chemical attack has been discussed in a few other reliable sources and you will have something. Right now, the single source that was cited was pretty questionable to begin with. And it's only one source.- MrX 🖋 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- We have reliable sources showing that several notable countries and people are questioning the claims that the Syrian governments were behind it, this includes, Syria, Russia, Iran, Åke Sellström, Peter Ford, George Galloway, Craig Murray. Attributing the views to those specific countries and people are in accordance with npov and due weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Huldra, if those are rebuttals to my comment, they are not particularly helpful. We're not discussing Iraq. We need to use reliable sources, and not simply find individual commentators that support a particular point of view. Again, WP:DUEWEIGHT is a primary way to achieve NPOV.- MrX 🖋 00:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- When I talk about WP:RS, it is newspapers like NYT, and other US and Western sources etc. which are considered RS...while the, say, Russian sources are not. Judging on past performance, I question this. Huldra (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- In fact, members of the Bush Administration wouldn't even be considered proper sources for the purpose of this article, so I have no idea what you're talking about. LylaSand (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Blair falsely reported that Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any sources in this article quoting Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Blair's or any of their associates/cabinet members. LylaSand (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Whaw, just whaw. So sources, which were known to have reported falsely that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, are now absolutely WP:RS, while Ford, Galloway, and Sellström (when was anyone of them taken in telling blatant lies?) stays out of the article? Nice.....Huldra (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Reactions form Ford, Galloway, and Sellström should stay out of the article unless it can be shown that several sources have taken note of their reactions. That's what would be required by WP:DUEWEIGHT. Also, Russia Today is not a considered a reliable source, especially for subjects like this.- MrX 🖋 22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- So the BBC and RT are "non-prominent news sites" ? [1][2]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Except for the fact only non-prominent new sites and opinion pieces are covering them. Also you can't "censor" things on wikipedia because wikipedia is not an outlet for free press. LylaSand (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have already explained why they are notable. If they weren't notable, news sources wouldn't be reporting they're views right? Any attempt to remove they're views from the article is a censorship attempt. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, how are they notable? They a different views, yes, but we don't add contrary views for the sake of adding contrary views. More importantly they are WP:UNDUE. LylaSand (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- They are British politicians whose views are not the same as the British government. How is it npov to censor Wikipedia and remove their views from the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Explain how they are notable. Don't explain their expertise. Explain how they are notable reactions. LylaSand (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Another notable person question that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, no other than Fox News Tucker Carlson: "All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don't really know that. They're making it up. They have no real idea what happened," Carlson said."Actually both sides in the Syrian civil war possess chemical weapons," he said, noting that it wouldn't have benefited Assad to use chlorine gas, since his forces have been winning the war in Syria." RT Haaretz Fox News --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Carlson, like Sean Hannity, is a political pundit. Not a news reporter or journalist. He can say literally whatever he wants on his show regardless of veracity. His show classifies as entertainment. LylaSand (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Tucker Carlson's opinion does not belong in this article, and RT is not a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 02:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
RT is reliable source and CNN isn't. CNN, BBC, Sky News lied about Iraqi WMD. These news sources are therefore totally discredited and unreliable. Same goes with official USA government statements. BobNesh (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Non neutral text about UNSC resolutions
In the Aftermath section it says: "On 10 April Russia vetoed a UN resolution to "create a new investigative mechanism to look into chemical weapons attacks in Syria and determine who is responsible." and nothing more, but the US and their allies vetoed 2 other UNSC resolutions about the chemical weapons by Russia. [3][4]. The three resolutions are already mentioned in the "International organizations" section, so there is no need to have the one sided text in the aftermath section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
LylaSands edit
LylaSand, can you please provide the quotes from the sources backing up the text you added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Douma_chemical_attack&type=revision&diff=836005433&oldid=836004942 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What's alleged?
Just to be clear. I don't think anybody is disputing that some attack took place and some people died. What is 'alleged', is the usual - the Syrian gov't and Russia are denying that they were the ones to have carried out the attack, and of course, that chemical weapons are used. Business as usual, in other words, but the attack itself is not alleged, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree: the attack did happen according to nearly all 3rd party sources, i.e. excluding claims by the alleged perpetrator(s) who deny everything (of course). But I would also suggest a couple of other improvements.
- Most of "Other events" section actually belong to "Background". In addition, the claim about the future chemical attack by rebels was indeed made by Valery Gerasimov on March 13, as reliably sourced [5]. This is something really important and must be included in "Background".
- The recent events with the use of chemical weapons in Britain and Douma are indeed a little puzzling/suspicious. I think we need to cite some RS with opinions by reputable experts or journalists about it. In particular, this commentary by Nic Robertson makes a lot of sense and explains these things. It should be used on the page I think. If there are any other interesting commentary by reputable journalists or experts (as opposed to conspiracy theories promoted by probable perpetrators), they can also be included.My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- So, I quickly fixed #1, but nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think pretty much everything in this article is merely alleged, except the town of Douma′s existence. The footage shown is comic: medical help given on the alleged site of attack to alleged victims, with no one being dressed in any protective gear. Low-grade concocted gibberish. Which is of no import: The U.S. says it happened, Russia says it was staged by US stooges: business as usual. Both are right/wrong in their own way. The truth will be established by the victor.Axxxion (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)