Moved sections. |
→New editing restriction: new section |
||
Line 429: | Line 429: | ||
::I think Erlbaeko has made a similar point about describing all views equally. I don't think the article needs to spell out exactly what each person says, mentions in a list are fine if the sentence accurately reflects their view. Interested readers can always just click the reference if they want to know more. - [[User:Mnnlaxer|Mnnlaxer]] | [[User talk:Mnnlaxer|<span style="font-weight:normal">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Mnnlaxer|stalk]] 03:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
::I think Erlbaeko has made a similar point about describing all views equally. I don't think the article needs to spell out exactly what each person says, mentions in a list are fine if the sentence accurately reflects their view. Interested readers can always just click the reference if they want to know more. - [[User:Mnnlaxer|Mnnlaxer]] | [[User talk:Mnnlaxer|<span style="font-weight:normal">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Mnnlaxer|stalk]] 03:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::I don't object to shortening the Blix coverage as long as it still accurately reflects his views. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
:::I don't object to shortening the Blix coverage as long as it still accurately reflects his views. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== New editing restriction == |
|||
I am placing a new editing restriction on this article: '''Consensus required:''' All editors must obtain [[WP:CON|consensus]] on the talk page of this article before reinstating ''any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)''. If in doubt, don't make the edit. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:53, 27 April 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Responsibility"
There is a recent interview in which Bashar Al Assad refers to the Syrian Government responsibility in the attack. He said that the gas attack blamed on his government was "100 percent fabrication". This is a more direct and reliable source of the Syrian Government position than the "unnamed Syrian government official" cited by the MiddleEastEye.net webpage. Should we add it to the article? --Forich (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Here is the full transcript of the interview. --Forich (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I updated the section a few minutes ago with the new Syrian government position (referenced AFP, who conducted the interview). The MiddleEastEye.net reference supports our claim that "On the day of the attack, a Syrian government official told Reuters that "the government does not and has not used chemical weapons, not in the past and not in the future."", for which it is sufficient (though the original Reuters article might be better). Someone might want to re-write the section in the light of recent developments, however. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT means that we should give this the space proportional to its coverage in reliable SECONDARY sources. Our job isn't to repeat everything that some official says. Only if it receives widespread coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: you're removing ([1], [2], [3]) "opinon" unless it is "widely reported" or "UNDUE", while reverted the "opinon" by a journalist which is not "widely reported" nor "UNDUE" and probably "propaganda". Explain your edits with editing policy and sources, otherwise your edits were anything but disruptive editing.-Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the first edit, I removed something ridiculous. Also, not RS. For the other two, quite simply these opinions were not widely reported on AFAICT so they don't belong in there. On the other hand the Kareem Shaheen appears to have consensus for inclusion, though not in the lede, and also WAS widely reported on [4], [5], [6].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- First edit: there's a sub-discussion on Theodore Postol and after research check, it is alright. Second edit: Jerry Smith's opinion(s), beside source by Radio New Zealand, was reported by [7],[8], [9] (The Guardian) and [10] (ABC News (Australia)) thus it does belong to the article. Third edit: also alright. Hence, constructively and appropriately (citation style) edit these (Jerry Smith and Kareem Shaheen) claims and sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- You just removed a number of reliably sourced and important views that condemn the chemical attack by Assad here, but suggest to keep a ridiculous and poorly sourced conspiracy theory by Postol. This is not consistent with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Postol appears to be a serious researcher: I'm not sure calling his analysis a "conspiracy theory" is fair. El_C 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that he was a serious researcher in the past. However, what he is telling here is an opinion piece, not a scientific research: he just looked at a few photos and expressed his opinion. Perhaps for that reason his letter was mentioned seriously only on RT TV, Russian state propaganda channel. Should this be included here? I do not think so, however if there is a consensus to include (I do not see it), then let's include, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes, your comment is not related to this discussion yet "International reactions". The edit was done according to older revision and I will re-edit the accidentally removed sources. I did not suggest anyhow to keep Postol, I said "alright" in the sense Marek's removal was "alright". I need to check the researcher reliability to make any statement about him.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Postol appears to be a serious researcher: I'm not sure calling his analysis a "conspiracy theory" is fair. El_C 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- You just removed a number of reliably sourced and important views that condemn the chemical attack by Assad here, but suggest to keep a ridiculous and poorly sourced conspiracy theory by Postol. This is not consistent with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- First edit: there's a sub-discussion on Theodore Postol and after research check, it is alright. Second edit: Jerry Smith's opinion(s), beside source by Radio New Zealand, was reported by [7],[8], [9] (The Guardian) and [10] (ABC News (Australia)) thus it does belong to the article. Third edit: also alright. Hence, constructively and appropriately (citation style) edit these (Jerry Smith and Kareem Shaheen) claims and sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the first edit, I removed something ridiculous. Also, not RS. For the other two, quite simply these opinions were not widely reported on AFAICT so they don't belong in there. On the other hand the Kareem Shaheen appears to have consensus for inclusion, though not in the lede, and also WAS widely reported on [4], [5], [6].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Howcome there is a negative comment added after Bashar's claims about babies in this article that reads " According to numerous eyewitnesses and reporters on the ground, children did in fact die in the attack."? I tried to add this redactive statement to balance this flagrant abuse of WP:NPOV standards :-
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, including senior members - Leif Elinder and Lena Oske have revealed videos taken by the White Helmets that have been clearly faked for the cameras and propaganda purposes. The doctors have made the horrific revelations "that the life-saving procedures seen in the film are incorrect – in fact life-threatening – or simply fake, including simulated emergency resuscitation techniques being used on already lifeless children." One of the videos shows the White Helmets repeatedly stabbing a baby in the heart with a hypodermic needle without depressing the plunger in a staged medical procedure.[1]
References
...and it was removed. Why was that? Surely the opinion of medical doctors should be included to balance the opinions of the eyewitnesses in Al Qaeda territory and maintain WP:NPOV in the article? RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. I will warn you again, your editing patterns are clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS, and you are close to being referred to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice regarding WP:SYNTHESIS. I have read this, absorbed it and get the point. This material has been dispersed correctly onto other pages where those constraints do not apply. I totally disagree that my editing patterns have been in any way WP:TENDENTIOUS however. This is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. My editing is entirely neutral and in line with WP:NPOV. I simply better informed than the consensus and will attempt to address this with further information in future edits. RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for listening to my suggestion. You are clearly trying to present a perspective which you feel is not being given due attention in the article. This isn't the problem. It's your style of editing - your requested page move, for instance, and making contentious edits without discussing it first on the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RaRaRasputin: I reverted (here is the previous revision to easly check the info and sources). I consider that your edits are in good faith, but have to agree with L.R. Wormwood - it is tendentious to the point the edits could not be accepted because of misunderstanding your pattern of editing. I would like to call WP:BRD on this revert because, for start: 1) Is there any current section this information can be included? If not, what kind of spearate heading should it be? I do not agree with the heading style. 2) Can we check and find more RS to substantiate the information? 3) Can we check if is there any violation of editing policy? 4) RaRaRasputin, be patient, because this BRD can only improve your edits and the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have created a new section called "Prominent Individuals" in reactions. You can add all those fellows back in at your leisure after proper debate if required. Please let me know any sourcing problems and I will try to provide better or correct. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RaRaRasputin, I doubt your edit uses a reliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I doubted it a bit but Friends of Syria are listed, I read about them and they seem reliable. Their website has over 4,000,000 hits. Charles Shoebridge, the source of the claim certainly is and I thought it best to pick someone notable like him to highlight the smell problem. I think he was the first to spot it. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RaRaRasputin: I reverted (here is the previous revision to easly check the info and sources). I consider that your edits are in good faith, but have to agree with L.R. Wormwood - it is tendentious to the point the edits could not be accepted because of misunderstanding your pattern of editing. I would like to call WP:BRD on this revert because, for start: 1) Is there any current section this information can be included? If not, what kind of spearate heading should it be? I do not agree with the heading style. 2) Can we check and find more RS to substantiate the information? 3) Can we check if is there any violation of editing policy? 4) RaRaRasputin, be patient, because this BRD can only improve your edits and the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for listening to my suggestion. You are clearly trying to present a perspective which you feel is not being given due attention in the article. This isn't the problem. It's your style of editing - your requested page move, for instance, and making contentious edits without discussing it first on the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice regarding WP:SYNTHESIS. I have read this, absorbed it and get the point. This material has been dispersed correctly onto other pages where those constraints do not apply. I totally disagree that my editing patterns have been in any way WP:TENDENTIOUS however. This is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. My editing is entirely neutral and in line with WP:NPOV. I simply better informed than the consensus and will attempt to address this with further information in future edits. RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
In what way do the SWEDHR revelations about the White Helmets directly relate to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack? RS, please. El_C 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- They don't. It's WP:SYNTHESIS. They only relate to the White Helmets and Sarmin chemical attack pages. I am over that one. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Did you seriously just add information to the article with Wordpress as the source? VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have improved it with one from the Washington Standard [11]. RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Did you seriously just add information to the article with Wordpress as the source? VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Kareem Shaheen claim -- undue weight?
The article currently cites Kareem Shaheen, reporting for The Guardian, as having examined a warehouse near the site of the attack and not found anything. This is apparently intended to counter the claim put forward by Russia of bombs striking a rebel CW stockpile. It seems like this is giving undue weight to a single anecdote reported in a single publication. 2601:644:0:DBD0:745E:5E83:A8BC:FA49 (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Prominent individuals
I'm a bit concerned that only one point of view (anti-war) is represented by the position of the various individuals in that section, in contravention of due weight. El_C 00:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Changed it to Skeptical individuals, because that's what it is. Added bit about Tulsi Gabbard to section op. El_C 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now the list of individuals is longer than the Countries section. This is a problem. Maybe we need a sub-article. El_C 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- How about we create a new page called Khan Shaykhun air raid and move most of them over there, then put Theodore Postol back with my recent unclassified State Department documents revealing the previous use of sarin by terrorists and leave this page to talk about the chemical attack? ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I was more thinking about Opposition to US position on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- How about we create a new page called Khan Shaykhun air raid and move most of them over there, then put Theodore Postol back with my recent unclassified State Department documents revealing the previous use of sarin by terrorists and leave this page to talk about the chemical attack? ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now the list of individuals is longer than the Countries section. This is a problem. Maybe we need a sub-article. El_C 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- This new whole section are poorly sourced claims by individuals; undue. It should be removed and re-included only if there is consensus to re-include. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bit I added about Tulsi Gabbard is worth keeping, as she is now leading the skeptical current in the US. I haven't reviewed the rest too closely, however. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Don't think it is worth keeping. She is only one of 47 members of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. When you include the opinions of many of the other members, then we can include her. LylaSand (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bit I added about Tulsi Gabbard is worth keeping, as she is now leading the skeptical current in the US. I haven't reviewed the rest too closely, however. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned, she is leading the skeptical current in the US—that's why she is worth mentioning, not because of being 1 of 47. El_C 06:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Can we add in Ron Paul
And his opinion on the attack? He claims it was a false flag. Might be a good idea to edit his take on the events in. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would support it as Ron Paul is a highly notable, reliable source. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would oppose, commentary from public figures is not useful here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would support, he is a notable figure. However, problem is we need somekind of separate section and more notable figures who had a similar opinion, reported in RS. Thus partially agree with L.R. Wormwood, currently is not useful.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would oppose, commentary from public figures is not useful here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove "Independent expert claims" and "Skeptical Individuals" to talk
I propose we remove these sections from the article and amend them on the talk page (per WP:PRESERVE), since as they stand they are clearly very problematic, and pose numerous WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS concerns. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, they need a discussion (for start [12]) and quality editing. Also, the talk page is hard to follow with so many new discussions, or the article page with so many edits which were not discussed or basically contradict previously mentioned violation of LEAD, NPOV, UNDUE, CONSENSUS, BRD... People, the article or content is not going to run away if it is discussed a day or two. When I check the revision history of the last 100 edits, I doubt there was no violaton of 1RR. I think we need to slow down. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I have pasted it below. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Independent expert claims
Theodore Postol, an American professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), analyzed the evidence referenced in the 4-page "dossier" issued by the White House and concluded that the assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” and that photographic evidence used in the assessment pointed to an attack by people on the ground using a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it.[1][2][3][4][5]
Patrick Martin (who is not an expert) has supported Postol in an article claiming “any serious examination of the NSC document reveals it to be a series of bare assertions without any supporting evidence". Martin highlights how the language used lacks any substantiating proof, saying things such as “The United States is confident” … “We have confidence in our assessment” … “We assess” … “Our information indicates” … “It is clear” … and so on. In other words, “this is the US government speaking, trust us.” [6]
References
- ^ "White House claims on Syria chemical attack 'obviously false' – MIT professor (VIDEO)". RT.
- ^ "Democrats Shouldn't Be Trying to Banish Tulsi Gabbard". theNation. 12 April 2017.
- ^ "Tech Expert Postol: White House Report Contains No Evidence as to Who Is Responsible for April 4 Gas Attack". Executive Intelligence Review. 12 April 2017.
- ^ "Did Al Qaeda Fool the White House Again?". Consortiumnews. 14 April 2017.
- ^ "Giftgas-Angriff in Chan Scheichun: Die Fakten des Weißen Hauses sind keine". Telepolis. 13 April 2017.
- ^ Martin, Patrick., US claims of Syria nerve gas attack: The anatomy of a lie, World Socialist Website :Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), 13th April 2017
Skeptical Individuals
Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard said she is "skeptical" the Assad government was behind the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun.[1][2]
Former UN weapons inspector and Weapons of Mass Destruction expert, Hans Blix has criticized the evidence for the attack, saying "I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."[3]
Another former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has suggested that the alleged attack is an instance of how Al Qaeda is "playing" Donald Trump and the American media, saying "the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the "White Helmets," the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message". Ritter explains the situation on the ground saying "Khan Shaykhun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, it was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population".[4]
Iran-Contra investigative journalist Robert Parry has placed blame on Michael R. Gordon and Anne Barnard of the New York Times for obfuscating evidence, using unreliable sources like the White Helmets and covering the event to push for an outdated, neocon concept of "regime change".[5]
Retired U.S. intelligence officer Colonel W. Patrick Lang has argued that due to the agreement to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents, Russia contacted the United States and informed them of a planned attack on a weapons storage warehouse. Lang suggests the Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons and instead of a massive secondary explosion, chemical smoke began issuing from the attack site and spreading out over the area. He suggests that Tahrir al-Sham (previously Al Qaeda in Syria) used Khan Shaykhun to store chemicals including chlorine and organic phosphates that flowed with the wind and killed civilians.[6][7]
References
- ^ "Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack", CNN, April 7, 2017.
- ^ "US liberal left and alt-right both oppose Syria intervention with Tulsi Gabbard taking lead", Times of India, April 10, 2017.
- ^ [http://m.dw.com/en/eu-urges-diplomacy-in-syria-as-ex-weapons-inspector-says-us-acted-without-proof/a-38345413 Schultz, Teri,. EU urges diplomacy in Syria as ex-weapons inspector says US acted without proof', Deutche Wolle, 4th April 2017.
- ^ Ritter, Scott., Wag The Dog — How Al Qaeda Played Donald Trump And The American Media, Huffington Post, 9th April 2017.
- ^ Parry, Robert (April 5, 2017). "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria". Consortium News.
- ^ Colonel W. Patrick Lang., Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker, Sic Semper Tyrannis, 7th April 2017
- ^ Hubbard, Elias., US Isn't Starting a New War in Syria Against Assad, Click Lancashire, 14th April 2017
I removed the content above again from the article due to overriding policy concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE), as is consistent with WP:EW. @RaRaRasputin: can you move your obviously contentious changes to talk where they can be discussed to avoid further edit-warring. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I really hope to avoid edit-warring and am around to chat if there are any issues to discuss. I just replaced the fake doctor segment after my 24 hours expired on that one, I hope. I do not mean to cause any edit-warring and will take your advice into consideration as to how to best prevent this. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem may be that not many want to discuss any issues with these edits with me yet as per the fake doctor case above. I am most willing to help if and as required. I want to replace the previous use of sarin section as well if that's not a problem. I consider it directly relevant and not a case of WP:SYNTHESIS as I have also discussed and left here for almost 24 hours without any reply. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why does the criminal history of one person pretending to be a doctor matter for this article? LylaSand (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments in the section at the bottom of the page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is not his criminal history that is of primary importance when presenting this information. It is the fact that he was reported by so many as a Medical Doctor and then revealed not to be one. It is an absolute scandal and an outrage, noted in various reputable sources. His connection with terrorist kidnappers and head-choppers is of secondary importance. Failure to reveal and highlight this sort information will inevitably lead to us continually being presented on Television and in the press with other very dodgy individuals who are misrepresenting their credentials and clearly unreliable sources. If you would like to keep on being lied to then please continue to watch, read and maybe even write the sources cited in this edit. I hope the supposedly "Free" encyclopedia would be at liberty to present the information clearly and without corporate narrative bias that is clearly evident in this case. RaRaRasputin (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- See my comments in the section at the bottom of the page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why does the criminal history of one person pretending to be a doctor matter for this article? LylaSand (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem may be that not many want to discuss any issues with these edits with me yet as per the fake doctor case above. I am most willing to help if and as required. I want to replace the previous use of sarin section as well if that's not a problem. I consider it directly relevant and not a case of WP:SYNTHESIS as I have also discussed and left here for almost 24 hours without any reply. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@L.R. Wormwood:@El C: should I temporary remove the "Other views" section because I hardly can confirm any consensus about it on the talk page, is not sufficiently well-written, citation style is not good, there's a duplicate source, and there's probably a violation of several editing principles. Should it be removed until these issues are resolved?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Miki Filigranski: Agreed. We should move it to the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done [13] - @Erlbaeko:, @LylaSand:, @RaRaRasputin: please be patient, constructively discuss and propose content change&reliable sources, and do not revert the section(s) until the issues are resolved on the talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Theodore Postol
I've been reading papers from this guy for some years because every time there is a discussion on rocket and missile technology, and the Iron Dome, he is cited for his views, I cannot understand the reluctance of editors to accept that he is as perfect an RS source as wiki can get. The way rockets behave is his particular field of scientific competence. Since there is a criticism section, and the lead lacked any acknowledgement that serious doubts are thrown on the attribution in meme recycled by numerous media, which all go back to the White House's documents, it should be mentioned per wiki lead summary style. That is not to say Postol is right. Wiki must be neutral as to the claims, no matter how many sources repeat the same drum beat. The lead indeed stated outright that it was dropped by Syrian government aircraft, which Postol says is an extremely odd inference to make from the photographic evidence of the point where the bomb is said to have released the gas.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- The united states view is stated, and both Russia's false flag view and Russia's chemical warehouse view are stated. The lede is not meant to cast doubt or support the views stated - which is exactly what postol is trying to do - cast doubt. LylaSand (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Claims like that would be outright rejected for inclusion per WP:MEDREF. Yes, Postol was a notable scientist. However, this particular claim is not something published in a peer-reviewed journal. Neither, it was republished as something significant by CNN or other major news outlets. The "best" news outlet which mentioned the claim was Russia RT TV: [14]. Given that his claim contradicts a lot of other more reliable sources, I would only briefly mention it in the body of the page, but definitely exclude from the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- What has medical sources to do with Postol? No, the lead should "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article." "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," "including any prominent controversies, whitout giving undue attention to less important controversies". Erlbaeko (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, is the controversy that a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says the White House assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I think so. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- ... its a controversy about a controversy (the white house documents). So no, it doesn't belong in the lede. LylaSand (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Exceptional claims require exceptional sources per WP:Verifiability, but the sources like RT (TV network) are not exceptional, to say it politely. Neither is a claim by a retired scientist that was not taken seriously by any of his colleagues, or at least we do not have any proof that it was taken seriously by other scientists in the same field. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean, the exceptional claim that Assad bombed civilians with sarin in a bid to drag the US into the war on the rebels side? Yeah, that require exceptional sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- According to current version of the page, he claimed that "photographic evidence used in the assessment pointed to an attack by people on the ground using a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it". He is telling that was an artillery attack, not an air raid. That is an exceptional claim which contradicts to nearly all other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that mean and artillery rocket, possibly a BM-21 Grad used as an IED, detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it at the impact site, but yes, I agree. It is a claim which contradicts nearly all other sources (at least if we discredit all sources that contradicts it...) Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he tells about multiple rocket launcher that could be loaded with chemical munitions. But it's not what other sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, he is not talking about a multiple rocket launcher attack. He said it's possibly "an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe", "that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated". [15] Erlbaeko (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously, it would be inappropriate to include it in the lede, per WP:MOSINTRO.
I am detecting strong WP:NOTHERE behaviour from at least one contributor here.Open an RfC if you must. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he tells about multiple rocket launcher that could be loaded with chemical munitions. But it's not what other sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that mean and artillery rocket, possibly a BM-21 Grad used as an IED, detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it at the impact site, but yes, I agree. It is a claim which contradicts nearly all other sources (at least if we discredit all sources that contradicts it...) Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean, the exceptional claim that Assad bombed civilians with sarin in a bid to drag the US into the war on the rebels side? Yeah, that require exceptional sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, is the controversy that a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says the White House assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I think so. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- What has medical sources to do with Postol? No, the lead should "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article." "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," "including any prominent controversies, whitout giving undue attention to less important controversies". Erlbaeko (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I might be in the minority of the mainstream, but it's not obvious to me. We can mention it briefly in the lead, then more in depth in the body. I, for one, consider Theodore Postol, himself, to be a reliable source—I think his analysis merits inclusion. El_C 04:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Re[16]. VQuakr This RT article is an RS for that statement. That article is important since it also contains an interview with Postol. Executive Intelligence Review is also an RS. 5 cites may be overkill, but don't remove the best ones. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Erlbaeko: RT is not a RS for anything Syria-related. EIR is a reliable source for nothing except itself, and your claiming otherwise is more than a little concerning. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- A weekly newsmagazine founded in 1974 is an RS according to our guideline. That "RT is not a RS for anything Syria-related" is just bullshit. Go an ask at RSN, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Founding year or publication frequency are both irrelevant. EIR does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking; it is LaRouchian craziness. If you think RT should be included then get consensus that it is reliable. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Who says "EIR does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking". You? Do you have a source? RT is reliable for reporting what Postol said. They even have him on tape. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- So when referring to the two sources I removed as the "best ones" you are saying that you are defending this source as the best available for the information? Why don't you go ahead and explain why, other than the source's viewpoint, you find this so stellar? Again, you have the burden of establishing the verifiability and reliability of the sources you propose to add or restore. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is that image your source? Did you conclude that they "do not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking" based on a front page image from june 2009? And no, I don't have the burden for establishing verifiability and reliability. That is, I don't have that burden after providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You should re-read note 2. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- It was an example. The LaRouche crowd is famously, laughably woo. You are confusing verifiability with reliability. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am not confusing verifiability with reliability. Give me another example then. You can't just say they "do not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking" and remove refs you don't like. Anyway, the RT article is more important since it also contains an interview with Postol. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- It was an example. The LaRouche crowd is famously, laughably woo. You are confusing verifiability with reliability. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is that image your source? Did you conclude that they "do not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking" based on a front page image from june 2009? And no, I don't have the burden for establishing verifiability and reliability. That is, I don't have that burden after providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You should re-read note 2. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- So when referring to the two sources I removed as the "best ones" you are saying that you are defending this source as the best available for the information? Why don't you go ahead and explain why, other than the source's viewpoint, you find this so stellar? Again, you have the burden of establishing the verifiability and reliability of the sources you propose to add or restore. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Who says "EIR does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking". You? Do you have a source? RT is reliable for reporting what Postol said. They even have him on tape. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Founding year or publication frequency are both irrelevant. EIR does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking; it is LaRouchian craziness. If you think RT should be included then get consensus that it is reliable. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- A weekly newsmagazine founded in 1974 is an RS according to our guideline. That "RT is not a RS for anything Syria-related" is just bullshit. Go an ask at RSN, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Erlbaeko: RT is not a RS for anything Syria-related. EIR is a reliable source for nothing except itself, and your claiming otherwise is more than a little concerning. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- How about you just review previous questions on EIR at the RSN, and let me know which discussions lead you to believe this source is stellar? Please also review this ArbCom case, which finds, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." You are being silly. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think editors are being a bit too hard on RT, removing it for not being a reliable enough source—but it certainly can have a role to play in attribution here. El_C 08:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- RT is an RS for certain things, like elaborating the Russian position, for instance. There are clear instances where we wouldn't cite it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
- A line addressing the perspective of one individual (where it is not clear what information they have access to) in a lede which (due to the nature of the article) is concerned with describing the event and the positions of various governments would obviously be undue.
You would have no basis for filing a report of any kind.L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- A line addressing the perspective of one individual (where it is not clear what information they have access to) in a lede which (due to the nature of the article) is concerned with describing the event and the positions of various governments would obviously be undue.
Theodore Postol has issued a series of three reports, saying the attack was staged, ref. IBT. You should read them. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley Re: [17] The source says "three reports" so that is what we should say too. However, I can't find "Retired" professor in any of the sources. Is he? If so, do you have a source for it? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- He's described as professor emeritus, so technically retired, but we should use "emeritus". And since the source describes it as report vs document, we shouldn't second guess the source.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Another report from Postol; says "Russian Explanation of the Mass Poisoning in Syria Could Be True". Erlbaeko (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- These are getting increasingly far-fetched. The claim linked is not plausible, but it is a good indicator of the level of reliability we should assign Postol and truthdig. VQuakr (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The Nation article
Can please someone add the following reference: The Chemical-Weapons Attack In Syria: Is There a Place for Skepticism?. The Nation, of course, should be considered a WP:RS.
- This artice can serve as a reference for Theodore Postol in the "Other views" section, in particular it contains a link to the new report of Postol.
- I propose also to add the link to the report of Postol given in the article: Postol report on scribd.com (The Nation, a reliable source, links to it, and it was uploaded by RT, which was agreed to be a reliable source concerning Postol).
- It can also used as an additional RS for Peter Ford and Philip Giraldi.
217.83.251.244 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re[18] Note that the report dated 18 April, 2017 contains an error that was fixed on 21 April. Ref. With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing. Anyone having a problem with www.truthdig.com as an RS? One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Moon of Alabama as a RS
Re [19], is moonofalabama.org a reliable published source as discussed at WP:WEIGHT? VQuakr (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- No. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re[20] The source here is Theodore Postol. It's a reliable source per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There are several issues with that line of reasoning:
- Postol is an established expert on nuclear weapons - particularly delivery systems, ballistic missile defence, and the game theory of deescalation, [21]. He is not an established expert on chemical weapons in Syria, coverage of which has been in news sources but not the same level of academic sources as those linked above.
- Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable... (emphasis added)
- You clipped much of the policy section at WP:SPS. Immediately after the part you quote, the policy crosslinks to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and then goes on to note, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There are several issues with that line of reasoning:
- Re[20] The source here is Theodore Postol. It's a reliable source per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- No. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I, for one, would like the report, that we have multiple reliable sources refer to, be included in the article, even if it is hosted by source that on its own would not be deemed reliable. El_C 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Theodore Postol is a nuclear engineer and physicist, with a specialism in anti-ballistic missile systems and nuclear non-proliferation. He frequently intervenes to "debunk" US intelligence claims, though neither I nor anyone else here is in a position to say whether his interventions are valid. Since he is one individual, whose claims have not been corroborated by other researchers, it would be WP:UNDUE to give his views more than a cursory mention. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @L.R. Wormwood, Mnnlaxer, El C, VQuakr, and Erlbaeko: I agree that while Postol is a notable commentator, his analysis shouldn't be included unless it's referenced elsewhere. And that elsewhere can't be the Moon of Alabama blog, unless discussion at WP:RSN determines that it can be used for attribution of Postol's opinion (which I'd consider unlikely). -Darouet (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- We now have a better source to the report—do we not? Here ("With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing") El_C 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Better" is a low bar in this case. That's not synonymous with "inclusion worthy". Has there been independent coverage of this separate, second theory per WP:FRIND? A bit of a red flag that Postol was 180° off on the wind direction and that detonation location was upwind of a populated area per his own analysis, yet he didn't change his conclusion, no? In my experience, RSs don't typically caption every image with "MEDIA IS HIDING THIS FROM US!". VQuakr (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Moon of Alabama is not a reliable source. Neither is truthdig.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- We now have a better source to the report—do we not? Here ("With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing") El_C 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @L.R. Wormwood, Mnnlaxer, El C, VQuakr, and Erlbaeko: I agree that while Postol is a notable commentator, his analysis shouldn't be included unless it's referenced elsewhere. And that elsewhere can't be the Moon of Alabama blog, unless discussion at WP:RSN determines that it can be used for attribution of Postol's opinion (which I'd consider unlikely). -Darouet (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Postol's claims
I see two Postol claims in a recent version of the article. One is that the attack did not occur from the air but was set-up on the ground (based on the appearance of the "middle of the road" detonation point), and the other is that the attack did not occur at the "middle of the road" location (based on... something?). Aren't these two claims mutually exclusive? VQuakr (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have time to look over these (perhaps check the dates), but I suspect we are lending too much credibility to this man. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- According to this, Postol tells that the report by White House was fabricated and the report is completely undermined by a significant body of video evidence taken after the alleged sarin attack and before the US cruise missile attack that unambiguously shows the claims in the WHR [White House Report] could not possibly be true. But here is the problem. If the report was so obviously fabricated, there must be other experts and sources telling exactly the same as Postol. But I do not see any. All other "concerned" people only tell about some generic concerns; they do not claim that the report was so obviously fabricated and do not explain what evidence show it was fabricated. Not mentioning that all other governments who supported US have their own experts to look at the evidence (phot0, video, etc.). In other words, the claim by Postol is a typical "fringe". My very best wishes (talk)
- This, of course, is the basis of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't understand how Postol can look at an image of one crater and determine that the chemical clouds from all of the weapon impacts couldn't have caused the casualties claimed by the US/rebels, but I'm getting away from specific improvements to the article I suppose. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- According to this, Postol tells that the report by White House was fabricated and the report is completely undermined by a significant body of video evidence taken after the alleged sarin attack and before the US cruise missile attack that unambiguously shows the claims in the WHR [White House Report] could not possibly be true. But here is the problem. If the report was so obviously fabricated, there must be other experts and sources telling exactly the same as Postol. But I do not see any. All other "concerned" people only tell about some generic concerns; they do not claim that the report was so obviously fabricated and do not explain what evidence show it was fabricated. Not mentioning that all other governments who supported US have their own experts to look at the evidence (phot0, video, etc.). In other words, the claim by Postol is a typical "fringe". My very best wishes (talk)
The current sentence is a mess. Mainly because Postol's reports are not focused either. The earlier claim assumes there was a sarin release at the crater, and explains it was caused by a sarin tube exploding on the ground. While the last report says there was no nerve agent released at the crater. The basic message is he doesn't believe the White House report. I would prefer just stating that instead of mentioning both the ground theory and it didn't happen there theory. It is confusing. Interested readers can read the reports if they want specifics. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am unconvinced the 2nd claim should be mentioned at all per WP:FRIND. VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
How about: "Based on publicly available photos and videos, MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol claims the White House report is not an accurate description of the attack." - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Peter Ford
My very best wishes: Here you removed this, only saying it is "undue":
The former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford deems it unlikely that Assad was responsible, saying that Assad were not mad and "it defies belief that he would bring this all on his head for no military advantage." He made comparisons to the false evidence presented in the runup to the Iraq war. Has also criticised that by attacking Assad Trump has "given the jihadis a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations".[1][2]
References
- ^ "Trump has just given jihadis a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations". BBC News. 7 April 2017.
- ^ "Ex-UK ambassador to Syria: 'No proof' of chemical attack". BBC News. 7 April 2017.
I believe it's a significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Why exactly did you remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's clearly not a consensus that we should have a section devoted to quoting people who have raised sceptical murmurings in relation to the attacks. Address this first. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
One of these things are not like the others, can you guys guess which one?
- The American government : the Russian government : the Syrian government : A former United Kingdom Ambassador
LylaSand (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, I agree with edit by TTAC (edit summary) [22]. Yes, this is fringe source and fringe opinion. Secondly, I agree with L.R. Wormwood. The title of the section tells "Other significant views". No, we can not declare these views as anything "significant". This is POV-pushing. I do not think we should have such section. Now, speaking about the opinion by Peter Ford, it does not provide any specifics or factual information. I think he might be simply noted along with others as " ...,...,". Telling something like "this is not possible because Assad is not mad" does not improve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it should feature at all. An encyclopaedia should list the details of the event, as reported, the official positions of governments, any official investigations or reports, and published independent investigations and reports. It shouldn't provide a laundry list of unpublished speculation and commentary from individuals who cannot have access to adequate information. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree with removal of this entire section per WP:FRINGE. I kept it in my edit only as an attempt to compromise.My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. LylaSand (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is suppression of notable content because it does not fit the US mainstream interventionist viewpoint. El_C 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: partially I agree with your revert and consideration, it is a notable content, but per [23] there exist issues which need to be resolved and few editors currently do not agree with the temporary inclusion of the section. However, it's another thing when some of those editors completely oppose the inclusion - then we're dealing with "Anglo-American focus" which is contrary to NPOV and violation of WP:IMPARTIAL, about which I previously warned. For start, I will try to find more RS, this is the first point which needs to be resolved, and if the section is included or will be included, think we need a better title.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is "suppression" of content which conflicts with a "US mainstream interventionist viewpoint". For my view, I will refer you to my comment above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: partially I agree with your revert and consideration, it is a notable content, but per [23] there exist issues which need to be resolved and few editors currently do not agree with the temporary inclusion of the section. However, it's another thing when some of those editors completely oppose the inclusion - then we're dealing with "Anglo-American focus" which is contrary to NPOV and violation of WP:IMPARTIAL, about which I previously warned. For start, I will try to find more RS, this is the first point which needs to be resolved, and if the section is included or will be included, think we need a better title.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is suppression of notable content because it does not fit the US mainstream interventionist viewpoint. El_C 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. LylaSand (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree with removal of this entire section per WP:FRINGE. I kept it in my edit only as an attempt to compromise.My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it should feature at all. An encyclopaedia should list the details of the event, as reported, the official positions of governments, any official investigations or reports, and published independent investigations and reports. It shouldn't provide a laundry list of unpublished speculation and commentary from individuals who cannot have access to adequate information. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly what it amounts to. But I think consensus is for inclusion of views that dispute the mainstream interventionist viewpoint, already overrepresnted. El_C 01:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: There is no "overrepresentation" of "mainstream interventionist viewpoints". As I said, we describe the event, the official positions of governments, the findings of official reports and investigations, and of published independent reports. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have time ATM, but I will soon add the debunking of these alternative theories to the article (unless somebody beats me too it). I am afraid these theories have gained too much notability to be excluded entirely. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with @El C: we should not WP:CENSOR dissenting views. They are notable and have been covered in many news outlets. Tulsi Gabbard has been on CNN several times.[1] The International Business Times has published the three reports by Postol,[2] Thomas Massie on CNN,[3] etc. If the issue is with the wording, that can be fixed. But summarily removing the sections amounts to censorship and viewpoint discrimination, IMO.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-was-staged-1617267.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ CNN, Eleanor Mueller. "Congressman: 'I don't think' Assad is behind Syria attack". CNN.
{{cite news}}
:|last1=
has generic name (help)
- The above is not a valid objection. WP:CENSOR clearly does not apply. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Respectfully, that's your opinion. I think it is a valid objection. It meets the notability requirement as it's been covered on CNN, IBTimes, Huffington Post, BBC, etc. Maybe we should have an RfC on how to keep the article neutral since the regular rule of being covered in WP:RS thus making it worthy of inclusion and thus Notable is obviously being challenged.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's not my opinion: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
- WP:CENSOR applies to things which might be deemed offensive, or to which the subjects of articles may object, but which should nonetheless feature on Wikipedia. It does not apply to minority, WP:FRINGE, or otherwise WP:UNDUE positions, which some users might imagine ought to be given prominence for the purposes of achieving balance, when giving such positions undue prominence would in fact achieve WP:FALSEBALANCE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE says: we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Including this information is not "legitimizing" it; it is merely acknowledging the dispute and different views on the topic. I am not asking for half the article to showcase it. I just want one sentence stating it as such, for balance. I want the article to mention the statements, which, again, have been covered in many WP:RS news sites, in the proper context. Omitting the information entirely does not support WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Its undue because it creates and entire section by cherry-picking the statements of a few professors or commentators out of literally hundreds to find one that fits the Russian/Assad claim and only the Russian/Assad claim. LylaSand (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please feel free to locate other reports by other professors with differing conclusions and I'll be the first to defend their inclusion into the article. The point is that the the western POV (US, EU, Israel, etc.) is mentioned several times throughout the article:
- The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, and Israel attributed the attack to the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
- Many governments, such as the United States and those in the EU and the GCC have attributed the attack to the Syrian government.
- According to the US government, the Syrian government under Assad was behind the chemical attack.
- Yet including one sentence about the reports of an MIT professor whose area of expertise is weapons technology and missile defenses is undue?Terrorist96 (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please feel free to locate other reports by other professors with differing conclusions and I'll be the first to defend their inclusion into the article. The point is that the the western POV (US, EU, Israel, etc.) is mentioned several times throughout the article:
- Its undue because it creates and entire section by cherry-picking the statements of a few professors or commentators out of literally hundreds to find one that fits the Russian/Assad claim and only the Russian/Assad claim. LylaSand (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE says: we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Including this information is not "legitimizing" it; it is merely acknowledging the dispute and different views on the topic. I am not asking for half the article to showcase it. I just want one sentence stating it as such, for balance. I want the article to mention the statements, which, again, have been covered in many WP:RS news sites, in the proper context. Omitting the information entirely does not support WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Respectfully, that's your opinion. I think it is a valid objection. It meets the notability requirement as it's been covered on CNN, IBTimes, Huffington Post, BBC, etc. Maybe we should have an RfC on how to keep the article neutral since the regular rule of being covered in WP:RS thus making it worthy of inclusion and thus Notable is obviously being challenged.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with LylaSand. The "other views" section is at the moment a list of quotations from individuals who have questioned the official line. Some of these, such as the subject of this section, are just uniformed commentary and speculation. Treating these at length would achieve WP:FALSEBALANCE by strongly implying that they carry an authority which they in fact do not carry. My suggestion is that we only include official comments from governments, uncontroversial reporting, and any published official or independent reports that appear later. This will avoid having to edit-war over a section that will only feature selectively sourced speculation with no consistent criteria for inclusion. I will address this further in a few hours. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. We have the official line stated numerous times throughout the article, thus we should have dissenting views about the official line when they are notable enough to be included in reliable sources. Having the "official line" without including dissenting voices is a violation of NPOV and they are not WP:FRINGE because, again, covered in WP:RS. I think the views of Peter Ford, Theodore Postol, Tulsi Gabbard, Thomas Massie are notable enough to be included. If you can find notable people in Syria and Russia who have been covered in WP:RS that argue in favor of the US' POV, then I would support their inclusion as well, since they are dissenting voices in respect to their governments.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, we can't have the article devoid of those views. It's a matter of due weight to include views that contravene the mainstream interventionist position. This does amount to suppression of dissent and, though a service to the White House, is a disservice to our readership. El_C 03:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is no "mainstream interventionist position" - also if you haven't noticed pro-russian/assad claims make up a simple majority of the article. An undue one for that. LylaSand (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- What counts is the lead; and, those whom you are not mentioning. The article should be global in its balance and reach, and not be monolithic in presenting views from the West. El_C 03:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the Ghouta chemical attack page devotes an entire paragraph on Theodore Postol's report of that gas attack. I don't see why a single sentence should be opposed in this article.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- More than that, I think this foremost expert should be mentioned in the lead and the body. El_C 04:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: Postol is definitely not a "foremost expert" in this subject area. He is a nuclear engineer and physicist with expertise in anti-ballistic missile systems and non-proliferation strategies for nuclear weapons, [24]. He also has a remarkable and admirable willingness to express his opinion even when dangerous to his relationships and career, [25]. VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Turkey, Israel, Saudi ect are not Western sources. LylaSand (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Furthermore the UK, USA and France all have good reason for providing so much info - they are permanent members of the UNSC. LylaSand (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia are all allies of the West (US, UK, France, etc.).Terrorist96 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with LylaSand that @El C:'s suggestion that non-inclusion "amount[s] to suppression of dissent" does not appear to be a valid objection according to Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Wikipedia is not a news website or blog. There is no ""mainstream interventionist position" presented in the course of this article, only media reporting on the event, and official statements issued by governments. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- And I agree with you and LylaSand, as already explained above. I was an "inclusionist" when joined the project. Not any more. Maybe that's because WP accumulated a lot of garbage during last few years. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with LylaSand that @El C:'s suggestion that non-inclusion "amount[s] to suppression of dissent" does not appear to be a valid objection according to Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Wikipedia is not a news website or blog. There is no ""mainstream interventionist position" presented in the course of this article, only media reporting on the event, and official statements issued by governments. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia are all allies of the West (US, UK, France, etc.).Terrorist96 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Furthermore the UK, USA and France all have good reason for providing so much info - they are permanent members of the UNSC. LylaSand (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- More than that, I think this foremost expert should be mentioned in the lead and the body. El_C 04:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the Ghouta chemical attack page devotes an entire paragraph on Theodore Postol's report of that gas attack. I don't see why a single sentence should be opposed in this article.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- What counts is the lead; and, those whom you are not mentioning. The article should be global in its balance and reach, and not be monolithic in presenting views from the West. El_C 03:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is no "mainstream interventionist position" - also if you haven't noticed pro-russian/assad claims make up a simple majority of the article. An undue one for that. LylaSand (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, we can't have the article devoid of those views. It's a matter of due weight to include views that contravene the mainstream interventionist position. This does amount to suppression of dissent and, though a service to the White House, is a disservice to our readership. El_C 03:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with LylaSand, MVBW and L.R. Wormwood. This whole "well, this shitty source is RS for what so-and-so said" is really just being used as an excuse to cram this article full of WP:FRINGE views. It's WP:GAMEing of Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Proper wording for dissenting views
Since it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude WP:RS that cover dissenting views, I would like to obtain consensus on the proper wording to include in the article so as to not provide WP:FALSEBALANCE or violate WP:FRINGE. I think the following single sentence would not be inappropriate to add to the article:
Other notable people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack are former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter,[26] former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix,[27] MIT professor Theodore Postol,[28] ex-UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford,[29][30] Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard,[31] and Congressman Thomas Massie.[32]
Please offer your suggestions so that we may keep the article balanced and neutral. (See previous discussion in the Peter Ford section).Terrorist96 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good. Notable views in the West, skeptical of the mainstream interventionist view, also merit inclusion. Per due weight and per reliability of sources. El_C 04:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's a good start, but not enough to fulfil the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, which says we should "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Note that the NPOV-policy "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (My emphasis). The first of this principles, which was drafted by Larry Sanger in the spring or summer of 2000, says:
Quote from an article that is linked to from the NPOV-policy
|
---|
|
- So, it doesn’t matter what you say, I am gonna revert you anyway... (not you El_C, but you get the point.) Erlbaeko (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Battleground much? Our job as editors is to report on minority viewpoints in rough proportion to the weight given each viewpoint (not individual). We don't need to list every person that has such a view, and we do not need to provide a false sense of balance to minority viewpoints. We also don't give any weight to viewpoints that have not been published in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, it doesn’t matter what you say, I am gonna revert you anyway... (not you El_C, but you get the point.) Erlbaeko (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Terrorist96: we should lost the term "notable" here; it is used a lot on-Wiki per WP:N, but in article space and in the encyclopedia's voice it is making a assessment of validity. I think you have the wrong source for Peter Ford? VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're right. I fixed the links for Peter Ford.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with User:VQuakr. Peter Ford's comments have no place here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- For the sake of compromise, I am happy to have an "other views" section, but it ought to be expanded, and we should have some criteria for inclusion. It certainly shouldn't be short paragraph listing external links, as above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have rescued the old section and pasted it below. For the sake of avoiding edit-warring, could we please not restore it until we have a consensus on what it should include, or indeed if it should appear at all. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"Other views" section
|
---|
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter called the attack an instance of Al Qaeda "playing" Donald Trump and the American media, saying "the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad".[1] Several other commentators, including Tulsi Gabbard[2][3][4], Hans Blix[5] and Peter Ford criticized the evidence that the attack was conducted by the Assad regime as weak.[6][7] A retired scientist Theodore Postol criticized analysis of the data provided by the White House.[8][9] Based on his own analysis of the photographic evidence, Pistol has argued that the chemical attack was not an air raid, but conducted from the ground using a multiple rocket launcher, most probably a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it.[10][2][11] References
|
- Easy for you to say—how about you don't remove it while discussion is ongoing? Totally redacting alternate views from the West is grossly one-side's point of view, without compromise. El_C 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: because the relevant policy, WP:ONUS, says that the responsibility to achieve consensus is with the viewpoint for inclusion. The exact wording of that policy is currently being discussed on the policy talk page. I don't think the discussion has direct bearing here, but just in case, this is the version that is current at this moment. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Because it has already been taken down (as of many hours ago). There are also concerns that it is not consistent with policy. You haven't yet responded to our arguments, only repeated the "suppression of dissenting views" line without reference to policy or guidelines, so I won't comment any further for the time being. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is untrue, I did mention due weight and reliability of sources. El_C 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have another look later. WP:RS wouldn't be a response to my comments at least; the fact that something is published in a reputable source does not mean that it should necessarily appear in an encyclopaedia. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- But when it is expressed in reliable sources by experts and other notables from the West, due weight applies. Yes, even if the views expressed are not the mainstream interventionist position—even then, L.R. Wormwood. Even then. El_C 17:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- My view is that mentioning these "other views" would have precisely the opposite effect; it would give them WP:UNDUE prominence. I feel that my position has been elaborated extensively, so I won't waste time re-phrasing it here.
- Though I understand this dispute is frustrating, there is no need at all for sarcasm; it will only made the editing environment more difficult. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- But why should your version stand while we are at an impasse? Don't mistake exasperation with sarcasm—I think I nailed it, actually. El_C 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Because my "version" does not potentially include material contrary to WP editing policy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I dispute that, by it's absence, it does. El_C 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Because my "version" does not potentially include material contrary to WP editing policy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- But why should your version stand while we are at an impasse? Don't mistake exasperation with sarcasm—I think I nailed it, actually. El_C 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- But when it is expressed in reliable sources by experts and other notables from the West, due weight applies. Yes, even if the views expressed are not the mainstream interventionist position—even then, L.R. Wormwood. Even then. El_C 17:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have another look later. WP:RS wouldn't be a response to my comments at least; the fact that something is published in a reputable source does not mean that it should necessarily appear in an encyclopaedia. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is untrue, I did mention due weight and reliability of sources. El_C 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think L.R's concern of not providing prominence is valid. However, a single sentence amongst a mountain of paragraphs stating the opposite (see) is not giving it prominence. It's acknowledging that other viewpoints exist, and those viewpoints have been mentioned in reliable sources. Considering this, I don't see how you can continue to oppose including this one sentence when the Ghouta chemical attack page devotes an entire paragraph to Postol's report on that attack. And here's a direct link to the discussion on retaining that paragraph. Long story short, it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not; if it's in an RS, then we can use it. It's just a matter of how we use it. Thus, complete exclusion seems to be off the table to me.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Ghouta page has had similar problems with POV-pushing (by editors who have also contributed here); for instance, the article devotes two paragraphs to Seymour Hersh's discredited December 2013 story here, but I don't have time to deal with that now. I'm not convinced that this is something that should appear alongside the opinion of governments and intelligence agencies (per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE). Request an RfC if you like.
- User:El_C is continuing to pursue the rather bizarre stance that by requesting that people accept the status quo until the dispute is resolved, I'm violating Wikipedia policy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I have already said that I would compromise, but we will have to separate Postol's report from the rest of the section, which is essentially just commentary from notable figures. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- POV-pushing is a nice way of saying that we want to abide by WP:NPOV. Noting that the other article has two paragraphs dedicated to Seymour Hersh only hurts your position, so not sure why you'd mention that. When you call him discredited, that's not a fact; that's your opinion stated as a fact. Nowhere is it mentioned he is discredited. It says Hersh's argument received some support,[160][161] but was dismissed by other commentators.[162][163] Considering how much more balanced the other article is due to it having more time for edits and for reaching consensus, it just shows how inadequate this article is in comparison. I never said this single sentence I would like to add has to appear alongside the opinion of governments and intelligence agencies; it can go into its own section. And for the record, I haven't had a single edit on the other article. And since it seems we may have found some semblance of consensus, I will add a statement in the article about Postol's reports. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Once again the fringe "other views" do not deserve their own section, and some straight out don't belong in the article. LylaSand (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- For example the professor's "it was a rocket" claims is an -extraordinary- claim. It literally flies in the face of the claims and evidence provided by America, UK, AND Russia. A professor -no matter what university he is from- cannot overtake the claims of literally every party in this conflict. LylaSand (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, the article is discredited, having provided a misleading summary of the evidence, as the source shows. I have no idea why it remains in the article, and once I have time to wrangle with the POV-pushers on the talk page I will do so. By "alongside the opinions of governments", I meant in the same article, not in the same section of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your edit summary is also misleading, since it implies there is a consensus for its inclusion when it is not clear that that is the case, but I will leave it for now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- You said you're willing to compromise on including Postol's study. So feel free to offer a different wording or offer a suggestion on moving the statement to a different section if you like. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine for now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- You said you're willing to compromise on including Postol's study. So feel free to offer a different wording or offer a suggestion on moving the statement to a different section if you like. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your edit summary is also misleading, since it implies there is a consensus for its inclusion when it is not clear that that is the case, but I will leave it for now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, the article is discredited, having provided a misleading summary of the evidence, as the source shows. I have no idea why it remains in the article, and once I have time to wrangle with the POV-pushers on the talk page I will do so. By "alongside the opinions of governments", I meant in the same article, not in the same section of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- For example the professor's "it was a rocket" claims is an -extraordinary- claim. It literally flies in the face of the claims and evidence provided by America, UK, AND Russia. A professor -no matter what university he is from- cannot overtake the claims of literally every party in this conflict. LylaSand (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Once again the fringe "other views" do not deserve their own section, and some straight out don't belong in the article. LylaSand (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- POV-pushing is a nice way of saying that we want to abide by WP:NPOV. Noting that the other article has two paragraphs dedicated to Seymour Hersh only hurts your position, so not sure why you'd mention that. When you call him discredited, that's not a fact; that's your opinion stated as a fact. Nowhere is it mentioned he is discredited. It says Hersh's argument received some support,[160][161] but was dismissed by other commentators.[162][163] Considering how much more balanced the other article is due to it having more time for edits and for reaching consensus, it just shows how inadequate this article is in comparison. I never said this single sentence I would like to add has to appear alongside the opinion of governments and intelligence agencies; it can go into its own section. And for the record, I haven't had a single edit on the other article. And since it seems we may have found some semblance of consensus, I will add a statement in the article about Postol's reports. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I have already said that I would compromise, but we will have to separate Postol's report from the rest of the section, which is essentially just commentary from notable figures. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Straw poll
Let's get a quick sense of the room on the addition of this sentence. This isn't a vote; note my removal of the word "notable" mention of Peter Ford per the discussion above. Just a quick yes/no, one sentence of reasoning, and relegate any replies to the "discussion section" if that's ok with everyone. I understand that not everyone will see this as an end state; that's fine.
Other people who have expressed skepticism of the Syrian government being responsible for the attack include former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter,[33] former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix,[34] MIT professor Theodore Postol,[35], Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard,[36] and Congressman Thomas Massie.[37]
- Yes, this seems to meet the requirements of WP:DUE without giving massive coverage to a minor viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a simple sentence that acknowledges the reality of the situation without being WP:UNDUE. I had the word notable because notability is a requirement for an article, and these are notable people. Hence, we don't mention Joe Blow and what his thoughts are on the situation. But removing the word notable isn't a dealbreaker for me.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes per VQuakr's reasoning. LylaSand (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Looks good, still. Good compromise for summary; the rest we can figure out later. Total redaction had me losing faith. El_C 03:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes to the first three. Gabbard's response has been more widely circulated than Massie's, and I'm not sure the latter qualifies for WP:DUE any more than Ron Paul's comments would. Could we perhaps separate the opinions of Ritter, Blix and Postol from those of the two Congressmen? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sure, I would not even object against a slightly longer version, as reflected in my latest edits on the page [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
However, this should be noted only very briefly. These are poorly substantiated claims. Speaking about Postol, for example, the inability to publish his claims in mainstream sources indicate that the claims are almost certainly wrong, but we include them only because they can be attributed to something and because he was a notable expert in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- No. After looking at more recent publications and this subject in general, there is no doubts the attack was conducted by the Syrian government, essentially as a matter of fact. Therefore, all this stuff qualify as WP:FRINGE. If I edited this page alone, I would remove this paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
@Terrorist96: I agree that notability of the claimant is a useful tool to determine inclusion of an individual in an embedded list, which is basically what this sentence is. But that is meta-information that belongs on the talk page, not something that our readers (who generally will be ignorant of the Wiki-concept of notability) will care about. Particularly since notable means something slightly different in the real world. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fine by me.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's some more news sites that discuss Postol's report: RawStory, NJ, Washington Standard, Yahoo (via IBT)
- Rawstory isn't a RS; NJ.com is an opinion piece, and the Yahoo.com link is, as you note, a duplicate of the IBT. None of those contribute to or inform a discussion about due coverage. I guess the Washington Standard shows a bit of coverage re WP:DUE, though it doesn't have any secondary interpretation about Postol's analysis so it really wouldn't be worth actually including in our article. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The "Washington Standard" isn't even close to being an RS. It's actually interesting that it's popping up here, since someone was trying to use it somewhere else, and it's an, um "peculiar" source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine. Just illustrating the extent of coverage for the report.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note that we can always have an article about the US position: like U.S. Government Assessment (etc.). El_C 04:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Challenging to do without running afoul of WP:POVFORK. Usually valid splits would be about a specific notable document, ie U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013, or with a lot more historical perspective ie Rationale for the Iraq War (note that neither of those are perfect as model articles). VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note that we can always have an article about the US position: like U.S. Government Assessment (etc.). El_C 04:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rawstory isn't a RS; NJ.com is an opinion piece, and the Yahoo.com link is, as you note, a duplicate of the IBT. None of those contribute to or inform a discussion about due coverage. I guess the Washington Standard shows a bit of coverage re WP:DUE, though it doesn't have any secondary interpretation about Postol's analysis so it really wouldn't be worth actually including in our article. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how listing individuals who "have expressed skepticism" explains "the sides, fairly and without editorial bias", as required by the Neutral point of view policy. What are the opposing views? Why have former weapons inspectors, professors and congressmen expressed skepticism? Note that opposing views also must be presented as fairly as possible. That is one of the principles the NPOV-policy is based on. The statement attributed to Theodore Postol helps a bit, (the one added her) but does not explain why he believes it was "conducted from the ground". Again, we should simply explain the sides fairly. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. However, if we attempt to explain them, we'll get accusations of UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE. This is why we had to compromise to just a single sentence. However, I would be in favor of providing direct quotes from each individual highlighting their thoughts/reasons so as to explain their position. Otherwise, our readers will just have to follow the cited reference and find out for themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Direct quotes from all these people would violate WP:DUE, because we no longer would be covering their viewpoint in rough proportion to the level of coverage in RSs. VQuakr (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Direct quotes from the sources?Terrorist96 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Correct. Direct quotes are easy to overuse in any case, but their use also does nothing to ensure compliance with WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should overuse quotes, but at least one or two quotes to explain. If we paraphrase what the sources say, then people can claim bias in the wording. Stuck in between a rock and a hard place it seems.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Copy/paste from the Quotations page: In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".Terrorist96 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Correct. Direct quotes are easy to overuse in any case, but their use also does nothing to ensure compliance with WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Direct quotes from the sources?Terrorist96 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Direct quotes from all these people would violate WP:DUE, because we no longer would be covering their viewpoint in rough proportion to the level of coverage in RSs. VQuakr (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. However, if we attempt to explain them, we'll get accusations of UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE. This is why we had to compromise to just a single sentence. However, I would be in favor of providing direct quotes from each individual highlighting their thoughts/reasons so as to explain their position. Otherwise, our readers will just have to follow the cited reference and find out for themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
However, the "Article structure" section in the NPOV-policy says: Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, and Thomas Massie view could be included in the United States reaction section, while former UN weapons inspectors and MIT professor Theodore Postol, could be included in a section about the munition? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good idea. Anyone object to this?Terrorist96 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- What's the specific reason we are excluding former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford[39][40] from this sentence? Also, I would be in favor of moving the Postol sentence to the beginning, and removing the repeated mention of Postol from the sentence, and replacing him with Peter Ford.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am opposed to moving postol anywhere outside of the other views section, for two reasons: First he is just a professor regardless of his alma mater or area of study, he just has commentator status. Second of all, his claim is an extraordinary one -being that it goes against the claim of BOTH the USA and Russia. LylaSand (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The specific reason was the lack of consensus for inclusion in the "Peter Ford" section above. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- That was for three sentences that describes his claims. I'm just asking it to be included in the list like the other people. There wasn't consensus for the three paragraphs (including Tulsi Gabbard, Ted Postol, etc.), but there was consensus for mentioning them. I think the same would apply to Peter Ford.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Countries
What should we use as our inclusion/exclusion criteria for the International reactions/Countries subsection? VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, lot of countries were omitted when the prose version supplanted the flag one. I went with the prose one, in the end, but am still not 100 percent. El_C 04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- ^This version is much better than the existing version.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The question is two fold: 1. do we want flags to serve as bulletpoints or do we want fluid prose? 2. And do we want the additional countries redacted from the flags version, in any case? El_C 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good question. I don't feel strongly about either. But I would like to see more countries included to get a better global perspective since not everyone who reads Wikipedia is from the US. Though it also shouldn't include every single country in the world.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The flag icons don't do much for me. @Terrorist96: back to the OP, how do we determine what represents a "better global perspective"? VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- By including statements issued by major countries based on their media coverage. I don't have a surefire way of going about it.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The flag icons don't do much for me. @Terrorist96: back to the OP, how do we determine what represents a "better global perspective"? VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good question. I don't feel strongly about either. But I would like to see more countries included to get a better global perspective since not everyone who reads Wikipedia is from the US. Though it also shouldn't include every single country in the world.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The question is two fold: 1. do we want flags to serve as bulletpoints or do we want fluid prose? 2. And do we want the additional countries redacted from the flags version, in any case? El_C 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- ^This version is much better than the existing version.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
OPCW
"Incontrovertible evidence" of the use of sarin according to the OPCW ([41]). Could someone please include this, currently on phone. Thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I made mention of it.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've changed it slightly diff. I don't think we have to hedge it anymore. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Type
LylaSand Re: [42] This article is about a chemical attack, and I think we agree that sarin were used. I also believe we agree that there was airstrikes on or near the town of Khan Shaykhun that day. However, I don't think we agree (nor do RS) on how the sarin was delivered. When you state in the infobox that the attack type was "Air-strike, Sarin attack (or a sarin-like substance)", you insinuate that the delivery method was an air-strike. That has not been proved, and even if you can find a source that claims it to be the case, it is easy to find sources that say it wasn't. I believe the info box only should include info that we all can agree on. I therefor like to ask if you can remove that "Air-strike" part. It will be a self-revert for you, so don't worry about the 1RR rule. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can we include some mention of an air strike in the infobox - something like "alleged airstrike" or "airstrike (disputed)"? VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm ok with airstrike (disputed)Terrorist96 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Both the US and Russia agree there was an airstrike which initiated the chain of events. LylaSand (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delivery of sarin via airstrike is what's disputed. The article is about the sarin.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, LylaSand, Russia do not agree there was an airstrike which initiated the chain of events. The Russian Defence Ministry said "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions." The sarin attack took place around 6:30 a.m. local time, app. 5 hours earlier, so that strike could not have "initiated the chain of events". Ref. [43] And Putin said the attack could be a provocation, but that several versions were possible. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Russian claims of the airstrike timing are debunked by timestamped radar returns, spotters near the airfield, and eyewitnesses to the airstrike. But the claim that the airstrike was not the source of the sarin is still plausible, hence my suggested wording above. Thoughts on that? VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Alleged airstrike" or "airstrike (disputed)" is still an insinuation. If a UN report says it was an airstrike, then we can add that. So far we only have an OPCW report that indicates that victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. Do you have a source that says the "Russian claims of the airstrike timing are debunked"? Erlbaeko (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Airstrike (disputed)" is not an insinuation, it is a description of the claim and its status. Requesting a UN report is an artificial goalpost. I have not seen any usable sources that do the analysis on the Russian claim of timing, but I was not proposing adding that to the article either. I was just pointing out that the Russian claim on timing isn't particularly believable, so the argument that the mainstream explanation of the attack can't be described as disputed due to the strength of Russian claims, is a weak one. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so it's a decription of a claim, but it's not the only claim. Articles must not take sides, but should.... Read more...
I have not seen any sources at all that do the analysis on the Russian claim of timing you did above. Do you have any source at all? Where do you have it from? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so it's a decription of a claim, but it's not the only claim. Articles must not take sides, but should.... Read more...
- "Airstrike (disputed)" is not an insinuation, it is a description of the claim and its status. Requesting a UN report is an artificial goalpost. I have not seen any usable sources that do the analysis on the Russian claim of timing, but I was not proposing adding that to the article either. I was just pointing out that the Russian claim on timing isn't particularly believable, so the argument that the mainstream explanation of the attack can't be described as disputed due to the strength of Russian claims, is a weak one. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Alleged airstrike" or "airstrike (disputed)" is still an insinuation. If a UN report says it was an airstrike, then we can add that. So far we only have an OPCW report that indicates that victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. Do you have a source that says the "Russian claims of the airstrike timing are debunked"? Erlbaeko (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Russian claims of the airstrike timing are debunked by timestamped radar returns, spotters near the airfield, and eyewitnesses to the airstrike. But the claim that the airstrike was not the source of the sarin is still plausible, hence my suggested wording above. Thoughts on that? VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, LylaSand, Russia do not agree there was an airstrike which initiated the chain of events. The Russian Defence Ministry said "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions." The sarin attack took place around 6:30 a.m. local time, app. 5 hours earlier, so that strike could not have "initiated the chain of events". Ref. [43] And Putin said the attack could be a provocation, but that several versions were possible. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Fake
How do we explain this? It's posted 13:18 on April 3 (twitter time). I believe that is 00:18 on April 4 local Syrian time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvRud (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Not Sarin
The CIA considers that the chemical incident at Khan Shaykhun was caused by the dispersion of sarin gas. However, photographs published by the CIA’s unique source, the White Helmets, shows people taking samples from the deposits in a crater created by a Syrian bomb. But it is not through inhalation that contamination by sarin gas takes place. The gas actually enters our system through the skin. Sarin takes several weeks to degrade when it comes into contact with the air and light. Thus if the photo were authentic, as the CIA claims it is, then sarin gas could not have been used. For if sarin gas had been used, the people picking up the samples and the onlookers would immediately be seriously infected. SaintAviator lets talk 21:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- A basic of Wikipedia is, that unless you can attribute this to reliable sources, it stands as your own original research. El_C 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- The OPCW has confirmed that sarin was used, and on this basis alone, this discussion is closed. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not so fast. They said "the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance." That is not to confirm that sarin was used. Ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is sufficient to support the claim that sarin was used for anyone without an agenda to pursue. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you could mean to say by that. We accept that there was a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun; the OPCW have concluded from "incontrovertible" laboratory results that the victims of this attack suffered from exposure to sarin or a similar substance; therefore, yes, sarin was "used". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or a similar substance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
- Uh... such as? Anyway, without a reliable source, this is pointless. And btw, 1) yes, sarin can be absorbed through the skin but it DOES NOT "take several weeks to degrade", it's actually like minutes, and 2) the sources report that in fact many of the first responders DID in fact get sick. But like I said, no point to this discussion without reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Such as Chlorosarin, like the results of biomedical testing in the Darayya attach on 15 February 2015 suggested, ref page 53. Why is this important? Because sarin are not stored "mixed", so if the rebels sarin store was hit in an airstrike, as suggested, it's likely that the victims was exposed to sarin precursor rather than sarin. Yes, it's OR. No, I don't have an RS for it. No, I don't suggest to include it in the article. So, we should say "Sarin or a Sarin-like substance", as the OPCW report and not only sarin. And we do. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- We do use the phrase, "or a similar substance" - in the lede at least because I included it. Yes, it could have been some kind of sarin derivative. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Such as Chlorosarin, like the results of biomedical testing in the Darayya attach on 15 February 2015 suggested, ref page 53. Why is this important? Because sarin are not stored "mixed", so if the rebels sarin store was hit in an airstrike, as suggested, it's likely that the victims was exposed to sarin precursor rather than sarin. Yes, it's OR. No, I don't have an RS for it. No, I don't suggest to include it in the article. So, we should say "Sarin or a Sarin-like substance", as the OPCW report and not only sarin. And we do. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Uh... such as? Anyway, without a reliable source, this is pointless. And btw, 1) yes, sarin can be absorbed through the skin but it DOES NOT "take several weeks to degrade", it's actually like minutes, and 2) the sources report that in fact many of the first responders DID in fact get sick. But like I said, no point to this discussion without reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or a similar substance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you could mean to say by that. We accept that there was a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun; the OPCW have concluded from "incontrovertible" laboratory results that the victims of this attack suffered from exposure to sarin or a similar substance; therefore, yes, sarin was "used". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is sufficient to support the claim that sarin was used for anyone without an agenda to pursue. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not so fast. They said "the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance." That is not to confirm that sarin was used. Ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- The OPCW has confirmed that sarin was used, and on this basis alone, this discussion is closed. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
RfC for "Other views" section and "Executed by" field in the infobox?
I would suggest that the persistent and long-term edit warring over these two areas of the article would call for an RfC (or rather, two RfCs). This dispute is getting tiring. Thoughts? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good idea. Obviously, the phrasing is key. What did you have in mind? El_C 21:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Right now the text is simply WP:UNDUE and it's an obvious attempt to poison the well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @L.R. Wormwood. Yes, two RfCs. Khirurg (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but its pretty clear its disputed for the time being. There was a bombing by the Syrian Airforce that is undisputed, what is not clear is whether it was a chemical attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- The chemical attack is only disputed by the perpetrators, and their defenders. The responsibility for massacres will always be disputed by their perpetrators, so why bother saying "disputed"? Should be a given that the perpetrators won't accept blame. LylaSand (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh bullshit. Anything can be disputed. I can dispute whether or not the earth is round. Whether or not you're a human or a marsupial. Of course those who have been accused of carrying out the attack are going to "dispute" it. The occurrence of, say, the Armenian Genocide, has been "disputed" So what? Doesn't give you right to run to the relevant articles and add "disputed" in there. All that matters is whether this is disputed to a significant extent in reliable sources. And it's not. This is just false equivalency and special pleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your hostile attitude is not conducive to a constructive environment.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- My attitude is fine. What's not conducive to a constructive environment (whatever that is) is bad faithed attempts to make things "disputed" when sources actually agree on something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- So are you admitting to violating WP:AGF then?Terrorist96 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- My attitude is fine. What's not conducive to a constructive environment (whatever that is) is bad faithed attempts to make things "disputed" when sources actually agree on something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- People suggesting an artillery shell full of sarin fell from a plane and then had something explode on top of it clearly haven't read the sources and have my doubts regarding their WP:COMPETENCE to comment on the matter. Same those considering the mainstream viewpoint 20 mil Syrians, 82 mil Iranians, 144 mil russians (and most of the rest of us!!!) are WP:FRINGE and not part of a mainstream POV in their countries, I would suggest suffer from a similar competence issue. 91.103.26.189 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, weren't you just sock puppeting on another page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Straw man. No RS's have described this event as an artillery attack or an airstrike using artillery weapons. In evaluating if something is a fringe theory or minority viewpoint, we evaluate its level of coverage in reliable, independent sources - not by its promulgators and not by its level of acceptance in a general population. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your hostile attitude is not conducive to a constructive environment.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but its pretty clear its disputed for the time being. There was a bombing by the Syrian Airforce that is undisputed, what is not clear is whether it was a chemical attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @L.R. Wormwood. Yes, two RfCs. Khirurg (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove Hans Blix from Other Views
Based on this more recent statement, [45], Blix says it is probable the regime perpetrated the attack. He does still call for an investigation, but that doesn't merit inclusion in this section of skeptics. Also, the clause about the cruise missile attack makes it seems he supported the US strikes. He does not. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- The two statements are not diametrically opposed, but accurately reporting a living person's statements on a conspiracy theory is a WP:BLP issue that we must get right. Does this edit address the issue? VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see any reason why the opinion of Blix should be excluded, but opinions by others in the same section should not. Per WP:NPOV one should either include opinions by every person who appears in this section or remove them all. This is because all these people and their statements received very similar (rather insignificant) coverage in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's not what NPOV means. Each person's views can be treated NPOV independently of whether they get a long quote or a mention in a list. The issue is UNDUE. Which is why I prefer a shorter Blix mention than VQuakr's edit. I also prefer a shorter Postol mention as I suggested above. These views received little coverage in RS, so should recieve short treatment in the article. If one was covered more than others, then there is no problem treating their view in more depth and detail than others in the section (Note, these views are significant enough to merit inclusion, UNDUE isn't a reason to exclude them, but rather how they are treated.)
- I think Erlbaeko has made a similar point about describing all views equally. I don't think the article needs to spell out exactly what each person says, mentions in a list are fine if the sentence accurately reflects their view. Interested readers can always just click the reference if they want to know more. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
New editing restriction
I am placing a new editing restriction on this article: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)