→Removal of the Motivation section: new section |
|||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
Is it consensus to remove it? [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
Is it consensus to remove it? [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Removal of the Motivation section == |
|||
This material, as seen in context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=664132830#Motivation here], has been removed from the article several times. |
|||
{{Quotation| |
|||
==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.<ref name="murky">{{cite news |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/21/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-questions/index.html |title=Suffering in Syria is clear, but cause and culprits are murky |first=Tim |last=Lister |work=CNN |date=21 August 2013 |accessdate=11 May 2015}}</ref><ref name=APdoubts>{{cite news |first=Zeina |last=Karam |first2=Kimberly |last2=Dozier |agency=Associated Press |work=Seattle Times |date=8 September 2013 |url=http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021779336_apmlsyriaattackscenarios.html |title=Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility |accessdate=28 April 2015}}</ref><ref name="theatlantic">{{cite web|author=Steve Patrick Ercolani |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/an-apparent-chemical-attack-strikes-damascus-just-after-un-inspectors-arrive/278902/ |title=An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive |work=The Atlantic |accessdate=4 September 2013}}</ref> |
|||
===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.<ref name="theatlantic" /> |
|||
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.<ref name="murky"/> 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 [[Mount Qasioun|Mt Qassioun]] and in the [[Mazzeh Military Airport|Mezzeh airport]] have this area very zeroed in for rocket (typically Grads) and artillery strikes."<ref name="theatlantic"/> |
|||
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.<ref>{{cite news|last=Blair|first=David|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10256789/Syria-gas-attack-is-real-but-the-timing-is-questionable.html|title=Syria gas attack is real, but the timing is questionable|work=The Telegraph|date=19 August 2013|accessdate=24 August 2013|location=London}}</ref> |
|||
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."<ref name="DemocNow_Zaitouneh" /> |
|||
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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4420752,00.html|title=Assad senses West's weakness|work=Ynetnews|date=22 August 2013|accessdate=22 August 2013}}</ref> |
|||
====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.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gassing-a-payback-for-bid-to-kill-bashar-al-assad/story-fnb64oi6-1226706027941 |title=Gassing a payback for bid to kill Bashar al-Assad |first=Roger |last=Boyes |first2=Francis |last2=Elliott |work=The Australian |accessdate=11 May 2015 |date=29 August 2013}} {{subscription required|date=September 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/assad-assassination-attempt-may-have-prompted-chemical-weapons-strike-f8C11021682 |title=Assad assassination attempt may have prompted chemical weapons strike |first=Richard |last=Engel |first2=Robert |last2=Windrem |date=28 August 2013 |work=NBC News |accessdate=11 May 2015}}</ref> |
|||
===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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/syria2_08-01.html |title=Syrian Conflict in Stalemate, Both Sides Wage 'Image War' to Keep Up Morale |date=1 August 2013 |publisher=PBS |accessdate=4 September 2013}}</ref>}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
Is it consensus to remove it? |
Revision as of 07:54, 22 June 2015
Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FRINGE, WEIGHT, UNDUE
First, a general statement. The whole article needs an improved structure and lots of work. That's what originally motivated me to start editing the article, so I am hopeful others will join in. It is typical of high profile and quick moving news events in that there was lots of stuff thrown against the wall in the early days and unfortunately with Wikipedia, everything sticks. A rethinking of structure, importance, order, sources, really everything about the article would be helpful. So the section "Early opinions" isn't really the place to put info on the possibility of a false flag, so this discussion will have to be followed by a discussion of structure and location of any content that the consensus decides to include.
The debate in the section above is about the existence of a motive for the rebels to perpetrate a false flag, not evidence for a false flag. So this is not about trying to argue that a false flag happened. I think it is clear that the motive exists, and have provided a half dozen sources for it. The motivation section is heavily weighted toward regime motives already. The debate above is about adding one sentence. This decision is not a slippery slope to including a false flag as a viable explanation of what actually happened. I have never advocated for the false flag possibility to be included in the article as fact, without attribution, or without opposing sources. But it is a minority view that exists and should be mentioned in the article, with proper attribution and weight. Volunteer Marek's recent deletions go to far. [1] I think his perfunctory citing of WP is unjustified and will discuss in this section.
Volunteer Marek's second deletion, [2] edit summary: "cherry picked quote which misrepresents source," took out a very good source that is still used in another part of the article. Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (29 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press. Retrieved 4 May 2015. I'm fine with a rewrite of the sentence Marek deleted, but to take out the entire sentence and delete the source citation without regard to the rest of the article is manipulative and disruptive.
The following is not currently included in the article but should be. Åke Sellström, the chief of the UN Mission investigating the attacks: "Mr. Sellstrom said he believed both sides in the conflict had the 'opportunity' and the 'capability' to carry out chemical weapons attacks." (Lauria, Joe (16 December 2013). "Russia Blames Rebels for Syria Gas Attack". Wall Street Journal. Copy and Google the first line in the article to get around the paywall. It's the third to last graf.) What is in the article is Carla Del Ponte's statement the rebels could have been responsible for the sarin attack at Khan al-Assal. So there are two very prominent persons acknowledging that rebel use of chemical weapons is not crazy. Obviously this says nothing about actually using CW in a false flag attack, but the plausibility of the rebels having CW needs to be acknowledged so that the discussion of a false flag is not waved away without consideration. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- The text I took out WAS cherry picked. The source just says that there is no 100% certainty. The text/quote in the article tried to make it sound like that means that a conspiracy theory is true. It misrepresented the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
FRINGE
Prominent people who have said it is possible that the rebels did a false flag: Vladimir Putin, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, Rush Limbaugh, Saleh Muslim, head of the (Syrian) Kurdish Democratic Union Party (Hudson, Alexandra (27 August 2013). "Syrian Kurdish leader doubts Assad would be 'so stupid' as to carry out gas attack". Reuters.). Rand Paul initially said the same, but back-pedaled. Alan Grayson and Tom Harkin both seriously questioned classified US intelligence claiming Assad was responsible.
Several journalists and former intelligence analysts have written about the possibility of a false flag:
- Seymour Hersh, used in the current article as it should be.
- Gareth Porter, "New Data Raise Further Doubt on Official View of August 21 Gas Attack in Syria". Truthout. 29 April 2014.
- Robert Parry, "UN Investigator Undercuts NYT on Syria". Consortiumnews.com. 23 December 2013.
- Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former), Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.), Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan, Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.), W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.), David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.), Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.), Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.), Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.), Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq, Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.), Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.) "Obama Warned on Syrian Intel". Consortiumnews.com. 6 September 2013. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, yes, Putin would say that. That's already addressed. But who cares what Ron Paul thinks? If we tried to include all of that guy's crazy ideas in Wikipedia articles we'd have to start a whole another encyclopedia. He's got a conspiracy theory for everything. And seriously, Rush Limbaugh? To lesser extent this applies to the others you mention. Consortiumnews/Parry shouldn't be given prominence. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Quit moving the goalposts. The request was for prominent people espousing the theory. I listed 6 prominent people, three more who seriously question the regime's guilt, three journalists who wrote about it, and a letter from 12 former government employees. No matter how much you hate Putin, what he says and thinks matters. Like I have said a dozen times, including prominent people's opinions does not mean they are right. But the theory is held by prominent people and deserves to be included in the article. You are so ideological about your positions, you continually conflate the theory with its truth.
- FRINGE is clearly satisfied. If I went looking for non-US false flag supporters, I could easily find a dozen. As for WEIGHT, the article is huge, and now almost exclusively supports the regime's guilt. Including a few sentences about the possibility the rebels are responsible is justified. At least give me credit for engaging in a debate. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Putin's view is already in the article. There's no need to spam it in all over the place. And if you seriously think that every wacky idea coming out of Rush Limbaugh or Ron Paul needs to be prominently featured in Wikipedia articles then you're in the wrong place. I would also appreciate it if you cut it out with the personal accusations/attacks (like "no matter how much you hate Putin" - that's stupid nonsense which does not belong in a serious discussion = or your repeated claims that somehow my intent to follow WP:FRINGE is "belligerent"). Discuss content not editors. Keep in mind that this article is under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Marek, FRINGE is not determined by what you or Vladimir Putin think. Mnnlaxer identified a number of major political actors including U.S. intelligence sources who believe that the rebels would have had incentive to launch such an attack (which is obvious to anyone who's not an idiot or blowhard). That's sufficient to demonstrate that the viewpoint isn't fringe. -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, but Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh definitely qualify for WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just confirming that you have no idea of what "fringe" means, other than an idea that, like most others, is inconceivable to you. Ron Paul served as a U.S. congressman for over 20 years, and won over 20% of the Republican primary votes in a number of states, including Iowa. Apparently however you think his ideas, or those who vote for him, are best likened to UFO abductions or Moon landing conspiracies. -Darouet (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh please, the guy is known for his crazy theories (same goes for his "institute"). [3] [4]. [5].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just confirming that you have no idea of what "fringe" means, other than an idea that, like most others, is inconceivable to you. Ron Paul served as a U.S. congressman for over 20 years, and won over 20% of the Republican primary votes in a number of states, including Iowa. Apparently however you think his ideas, or those who vote for him, are best likened to UFO abductions or Moon landing conspiracies. -Darouet (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, but Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh definitely qualify for WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Marek, FRINGE is not determined by what you or Vladimir Putin think. Mnnlaxer identified a number of major political actors including U.S. intelligence sources who believe that the rebels would have had incentive to launch such an attack (which is obvious to anyone who's not an idiot or blowhard). That's sufficient to demonstrate that the viewpoint isn't fringe. -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Putin's view is already in the article. There's no need to spam it in all over the place. And if you seriously think that every wacky idea coming out of Rush Limbaugh or Ron Paul needs to be prominently featured in Wikipedia articles then you're in the wrong place. I would also appreciate it if you cut it out with the personal accusations/attacks (like "no matter how much you hate Putin" - that's stupid nonsense which does not belong in a serious discussion = or your repeated claims that somehow my intent to follow WP:FRINGE is "belligerent"). Discuss content not editors. Keep in mind that this article is under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- FRINGE is clearly satisfied. If I went looking for non-US false flag supporters, I could easily find a dozen. As for WEIGHT, the article is huge, and now almost exclusively supports the regime's guilt. Including a few sentences about the possibility the rebels are responsible is justified. At least give me credit for engaging in a debate. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
WEIGHT and UNDUE
This article has 269 sources after Volunteer Marek's removal. The most cited sources are the Human Rights Watch report, the UN Mission's reports, UN and HRW press releases and web articles, the US and western government assessments, and UN Human Rights Council reports. All of which assign responsibility to Assad's regime. Seymour Hersh is cited just as much as Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta. There are now only a couple of citations giving any hearing at all, positive or negative, of the possibility of a false flag.
I'm out of gas. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- You've been responded to. People addressed issues that were raised. You responded by posting huge walls of text and starting multiple new sections. That's pretty much textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. What do you expect?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ha ha. You made assertions, VQuakr asked a question. I expect arguments, not beligerent responses, but reasons for your position. You can denigrate my attempts to argue my position or my formating, but it doesn't make them wrong. As far as IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this is a textbook case of that:
- 22:58, 25 May 2015 Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) . . (203,798 bytes) (-20) . . (it's sourced in the text, it doesn't need a citation in the lede. See WP:LEDE)
- 22:54, 25 May 2015 Mnnlaxer (talk | contribs) . . (203,818 bytes) (+20) . . (Undid revision 664056338 by Volunteer Marek (talk) No, that's wrong. WP:CITELEAD)
- 22:35, 25 May 2015 Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) . . (203,798 bytes) (-20) . . (it's the lede, doesn't need citation if sourced in text)
- 22:22, 25 May 2015 Mnnlaxer (talk | contribs) . . (203,818 bytes) (+20) . . (→top: citation needed)
- I cited the specific section in the WP you listed that applied, and you came back with the exact same response. You've never engaged any of my arguments, just asserted you were right with a WP. A textbook edit warrior. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- This particular removal belongs to section "early opinions". These can indeed be early opinions that people held two years ago, but this is no longer important per WP:recentism. Or perhaps certain VIP still insist on this theory, as can be supported by more recent refs? If so, I do not see any problem with making a small subsection in the end of this page about the conspiracy theory (provided that many notable people still believe in it - I do not really know). My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is reasonable, thanks. As I started this talk section with, the structure and placement of contents in the article needs an overhaul. As far as recentism, it is problem, but finding recent sources will also be almost impossible because if there isn't anything new coming out, there won't be news about it.
- That leads to an important point to make about this subject. The vast majority of info on this issue will be from very soon after the event. The Human Rights Watch report, which was based on skype interviews with local activists, was issued in early September 2013. The UN Mission report came out in mid-September 2013. The UN Mission final report only updated the lab results. There was a later UNHRC report, but it was less than a page on the Ghouta attack and was based on the UN Mission report. Given the ongoing civil war, there was hardly any on-the-ground reporting and there won't be any going forward to add information about the attack. Seymour Hersh's article is likely to be unique and has obvious problems (NOTE - I'm not saying it can't be used. It can, and should, but only in a certain way). So this is a tough issue for the article going forward. But I like the challenge. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like there is any interest in working on this challenge with me besides Erlbaeko, but I'm always open to actual collaboration. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to cast aspersions, but I suspect you are finding it easy to work with editors with a personal POV sympathetic to Assad and/or the Russians, and hard to work with editors with a personal POV hostile to Assad and the Russians, because the article you want to see here is essentially more favorable to the POV of Assad and the Russians. That might not be your intent, but it is the effect. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can accept the optics of it. But the sample size here is one. Marek is doing the problematic editing, and all his changes move the article to specifically anti-Putin POV, so when I push back on him, my POV seems the opposite. If you went back to look at all my edits, you would see that I included and expanded the use of the HRW and UN reports, which are clearly saying the regime is responsible. The overall history of my edits are NPOV, in my humble opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your biases and prejudices are showing. Did I put in anything negative about Putin? No? Then how in hell do my changes make the article "anti-Putin POV"? Please. I've just removed excessive coverage of what is a idiosyncratic fringe point of view. Per Wikipedia policy. The fact that you think that this makes the article "anti-Putin" only highlights the fact you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles on this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- This edit removed material from CNN, Salon.com, the Huffington Post, Foreign Policy, RT, and the Associated Press, all major sources of news and opinion, in this case voicing a major perspective on this tragedy. We need to include the material - your personal disagreement with the perspective of these sources is irrelevant here. -Darouet (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Kudzu1, in the grand scheme of things I am far more "anti-Assad" and "anti-Putin" than neutral towards them, but I refuse to edit as a partisan in this civil war, and I think nobody here should. -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and the reasons why the material was removed is explained above. "Some commentators" is people like Rand Paul and Rush Limbaugh. And Putin, but he's already given enough microphone in the article. And it's conspiracy theory mongering based on cherry picked opinion pieces or misrepresentation of sources. Like I said, already explained and discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- "anti-Putin POV" wasn't the best phrase, I admit. Partisan is a better word. And I was thinking more of the Ukraine articles I've seen Marek police than this one. But the material you most recently removed wasn't excessive and wasn't fringe.
- Explained does not mean agreed consensus. I can just as easily say that I explained why FRINGE and WEIGHT don't apply in this situation. However, besides you, others have agreed with me. What other editor here has agreed with your latest removal? Citing a WP doesn't make you automatically right. That is the edit warrior attitude I most object to and why I'm making a big deal of this discussion. Probably counter-productively for the article, at least in the short run, but I'm pretty stubborn. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- FYI, Volunteer Marek just vandalized another article I've worked on. Talk:Alfreda_Frances_Bikowsky#Volunteer_Marek.27s_deletions Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've already asked you once to cut it out with the personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I must have missed it, sorry. However, it's not personal to criticize your edits based on facts. Meanwhile, suddenly having an interest in two articles I've worked on after we have disagreed does seem personal.
- As for this article, what editor has agreed with you that your recent deletions were justified by FRINGE or WEIGHT? Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please read this section again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've already asked you once to cut it out with the personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and the reasons why the material was removed is explained above. "Some commentators" is people like Rand Paul and Rush Limbaugh. And Putin, but he's already given enough microphone in the article. And it's conspiracy theory mongering based on cherry picked opinion pieces or misrepresentation of sources. Like I said, already explained and discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your biases and prejudices are showing. Did I put in anything negative about Putin? No? Then how in hell do my changes make the article "anti-Putin POV"? Please. I've just removed excessive coverage of what is a idiosyncratic fringe point of view. Per Wikipedia policy. The fact that you think that this makes the article "anti-Putin" only highlights the fact you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles on this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can accept the optics of it. But the sample size here is one. Marek is doing the problematic editing, and all his changes move the article to specifically anti-Putin POV, so when I push back on him, my POV seems the opposite. If you went back to look at all my edits, you would see that I included and expanded the use of the HRW and UN reports, which are clearly saying the regime is responsible. The overall history of my edits are NPOV, in my humble opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I gave you a peace offer. I have read the discussion. No one agreed with your deletion. On the other hand:
- "That's sufficient to demonstrate that the viewpoint isn't fringe" and "We need to include the material - your personal disagreement with the perspective of these sources is irrelevant here" Darouet
- "I do not see any problem with making a small subsection in the end of this page about the conspiracy theory" My very best wishes
Now that we are moving on, you may participate by offering constructive contributions to the new section below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't a war, at least not from my perspective. Those kind of statements betray a certain WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part. Anyway, if you had actually read the sections you'd notice two users who pretty much agree with my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed solution
For the current Early opinions section: Move the first paragraph on the Mint Press News article into the Initial claims section under a new third level heading "Media claims" after Government claims. Leave as is to show the rebuttal. This article was widely discussed and important to the reaction to the attacks. Delete the second and third paragraphs as not relevant enough for inclusion.
For the deleted material, create a new, short section at the end of the article on proponents of a false flag operation. Use the sources, short summary statements, and any rebuttals needed. I believe a short section is warranted considering the FRINGE and WEIGHT policies. See above for discussion about the difficulty of finding recent sources showing these people still hold the theory of rebel responsibility. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the first part of this proposal. I disagree with the second. If you want to start an article about conspiracy theories be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is not acceptable to relegate real concerns about culpability for this attack, by politicians, intelligence sources or major journalists, to a small section somewhere near the end of the article. If there are views that have been published in or by acceptable sources they need to appear at relevant sections throughout the article, period. RT is an acceptable source, among others, despite MV's objections.
- So, from a practical perspective, this edit is not acceptable because, despite a few improvements (e.g. reducing prominence of the now obviously erroneous MPN story), it removes the views of major Russian officials on the grounds some editors WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Similarly, CNN's world news discussion of motivation here, or that by the Seattle Times here, or the discussion by The Atlantic here are all legitimate in the article, have no relationship to "FRINGE" theories, and can't be removed because editors with a stake in the conflict WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The edit also removes material from a story by the AP, for no obvious reason. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is perfectly acceptable. WP:UNDUE weight (and why should Lavrov's statements be sprinkled around in the "US assessment" section anyway?). The rest of it is really about WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:DUE weight is the right issue here. I'll make a post below. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Mnnlaxer, I actually agree with Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes that Lavrov's statement about motives has no place in the U.S. assessment section. That section does need unofficial statements by U.S. officials about rebel capabilities, however.
- I also don't know why we need the Mint Press News section. Why is this here? Doesn't everyone now agree there was a rocket attack?
- I think the false flag section is the easiest way to incorporate discussions of possible rebel culpability, but there are other ways of including this information. If we do include it, we should also find reliable sources that describe it as a conspiracy theory, since I think that's a major western view. Wherever the information goes, any source like "consortium news" should be considered unreliable or needs a specific discussion to include it. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm having edit conflicts with my posts and I'm on a device. Will try to catch up. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)This is best left for mediation and I encourage User:Volunteer Marek to participate. Not to say that we can't move forward with some work we can achieve consensus with now, but I don't see it happening here if VM continues to WP:VAGUEWAVE. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is perfectly acceptable. WP:UNDUE weight (and why should Lavrov's statements be sprinkled around in the "US assessment" section anyway?). The rest of it is really about WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- So, from a practical perspective, this edit is not acceptable because, despite a few improvements (e.g. reducing prominence of the now obviously erroneous MPN story), it removes the views of major Russian officials on the grounds some editors WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Similarly, CNN's world news discussion of motivation here, or that by the Seattle Times here, or the discussion by The Atlantic here are all legitimate in the article, have no relationship to "FRINGE" theories, and can't be removed because editors with a stake in the conflict WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The edit also removes material from a story by the AP, for no obvious reason. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 21 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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.[1] 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.[2]" 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)
- 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)
- 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"[3] 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"[4] were removed in Volunteer Marek's deletion. Also, one usage of the source "APnoslamdunk"[5] was removed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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
- ^ "Russia expresses doubts on Syria's chemical weapons use". Deutsche Welle. 15 June 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
- ^ Goldberg, Adam (9 September 2013). "White House: U.S. Lacks 'Irrefutable, Beyond-A-Reasonable-Doubt Evidence' On Syria Chemical Weapons Attack". Huffington Post.
- ^ Lister, Tim (21 August 2013). "Suffering in Syria is clear, but cause and culprits are murky". CNN. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
- ^ Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
- ^ Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (29 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
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 [7] So why are you doing it? Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- I already responded to this question on your talk page [8]. Please also see my justification on this page above and on mediation page.My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 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 [7] So why are you doing it? Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:22, 22 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 Reliable sources Noticeboard # Attributed statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:40, 19 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.[1] 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.[2]
References
- ^ "Russia expresses doubts on Syria's chemical weapons use". Deutsche Welle. 15 June 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
- ^ Goldberg, Adam (9 September 2013). "White House: U.S. Lacks 'Irrefutable, Beyond-A-Reasonable-Doubt Evidence' On Syria Chemical Weapons Attack". Huffington Post.
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:36, 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.[1] Several reports rebutted this claim.[2][3][4]
References
- ^ "EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack". Mint Press News. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
- ^ Idrees Ahmad, Muhammad. "The New Truthers: Americans Who Deny Syria Used Chemical Weapons". New Republic. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
- ^ Murphy, Dan. "Syrian rebels and chemical weapons: a disinformation operation?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 14 October 2013.
- ^ Higgins, Eliot. "Chemical Weapons Specialists on Claims Linking Rebels To Chemical Attacks in Damascus". Brown Moses Blog. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:38, 22 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".[1] 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.[2]
References
- ^ Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (29 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
- ^ Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:48, 22 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.[1][2][3]
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.[3]
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.[1] 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."[3]
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.[4]
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."[5]
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.[6]
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.[7][8]
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.[9]
References
- ^ a b Lister, Tim (21 August 2013). "Suffering in Syria is clear, but cause and culprits are murky". CNN. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
- ^ Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
- ^ a b c Steve Patrick Ercolani. "An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
- ^ Blair, David (19 August 2013). "Syria gas attack is real, but the timing is questionable". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
DemocNow_Zaitouneh
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Assad senses West's weakness". Ynetnews. 22 August 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
- ^ Boyes, Roger; Elliott, Francis (29 August 2013). "Gassing a payback for bid to kill Bashar al-Assad". The Australian. Retrieved 11 May 2015. (subscription required)
- ^ Engel, Richard; Windrem, Robert (28 August 2013). "Assad assassination attempt may have prompted chemical weapons strike". NBC News. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
- ^ "Syrian Conflict in Stalemate, Both Sides Wage 'Image War' to Keep Up Morale". PBS. 1 August 2013. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
Is it consensus to remove it?