Other editors involved
I believe Bobrayner should be invited too. He has not done much work on the article (none I believe), and seems to come in solely to "win" an editwar. His first edit was to support Sayerslles "contribution" as an IP-editor, ref. SPI, by reverting my attempt to find a third version. He also commented on the SPI case against Sayerslle (Ref. diff), which may have triggered this dispute. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's poisoning the well, which we can add to the list of problems to be discussed in mediation. (Along with canvassing, selective notification, false accusations of vandalism, extensive NPOV violations, &c). Perhaps we could keep this drama in the right place rather than spreading it to talkpages such as this one. bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That was nothing more than you deserved and this is the right place to discuss this request. Btw, that canvasser notice you charge me for, this I believe, was actually the opposite. I notified him as the user who introduced the [unreliable source?]-template. As for your other accusations, I will reply to them one-by-one if you wish. To make myself clear; I did not mean that your comment on the SPI case was the trigger, but that the SPI case (and probably this Edit warring report) against Sayerslle may have triggered this dispute. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Mediation is for content disputes. Please refrain from all conduct allegations here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nema problema. Ok, Rayner? Erlbaeko (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Erlbaeko, stop it. Mediators would look dimly on you spreading drama then blaming me, whilst still adding NPOV violations to the talkpage. Two different editors have already told you to keep it to the relevant pages. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I did not add anything. I am "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", according to the consensus policy. You need consensus to remove material in articles. Again. Read WP:NOCON. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Erlbaeko, stop it. Mediators would look dimly on you spreading drama then blaming me, whilst still adding NPOV violations to the talkpage. Two different editors have already told you to keep it to the relevant pages. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nema problema. Ok, Rayner? Erlbaeko (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Mediation is for content disputes. Please refrain from all conduct allegations here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That was nothing more than you deserved and this is the right place to discuss this request. Btw, that canvasser notice you charge me for, this I believe, was actually the opposite. I notified him as the user who introduced the [unreliable source?]-template. As for your other accusations, I will reply to them one-by-one if you wish. To make myself clear; I did not mean that your comment on the SPI case was the trigger, but that the SPI case (and probably this Edit warring report) against Sayerslle may have triggered this dispute. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I got a note on my talk page about this case. @TransporterMan: please ping me if you want me involved. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming we have a number of good faith parties already present for the acceptance of the case, we would need to have the existing parties all agree for additional parties to be part of the filing, and in general we'd want to have all the parties focus on content issues and finding a workable compromise for the article text rather than trying to point fingers. Does that sound OK to everyone - can we get a roll call of sorts? If parties don't plan to be active in the discussion they may as well recuse themselves now, and let's get all the parties that want to participate on the same page, please. Address your comments to me about whether you'd like to participate and what you'd like to do for the article and then I will mediate the conversation between parties as necessary. Andrevan@ 01:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in. What I would like to do is decide whether the policies of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT allow 1) a short mention that the Syrian opposition had a motive to perpetrate a false flag chemical weapons attack in order to draw outside powers into the conflict directly on the side of the opposition and/or 2) a short paragraph on prominent people who believe the attack was actually a false flag operation. I think 1 could be written with RS speaking in their own voice, but am willing to discuss using in-text attribution. 2 would definitely be with in-text attribution. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The article structure could use significant revision, so once this policy/content debate is concluded, I expect to have a discussion on how best to implement it. NOTE: I am not advocating that the Ghouta chemical attack was a false flag or that the article should say anything other than that this hypothesis is a minority view. Only that 1 and 2 shouldn't be completely excluded from the article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Andrevan, I think that all who want to be involved, should be. Thanks for agreeing to mediate. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is very simple. The initiator(s) of this mediation can provide any reasonable text they want be included, with references. However, the most important thing is sourcing. The reliable secondary RS must show that the theory is a "significant minority view" and therefore should be included. The "minority" means minority of people who qualify as independent experts on the matter. For example, one could use a couple of books by recognized historians who support this theory. The opinions of people, and especially politicians who made their name by intentionally lying to public on political matters (such as that one), for example Lavrov, must be excluded I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry - is this the place where this discussion is going to happen? I'm OK with that, I just want to be sure. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is probably not a place for discussion. I only responded to the question by Andrevan ("what you'd like to do for the article"). I would like to see if anyone trustworthy supports this theory to qualify as a significant minority view. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, MVBW. Andrevan, I'd like major views or uncertainties about the Ghouta Attacks to be returned to the article, perhaps expanded in some sections, and perhaps reduced in others. Those include doubts or suspicions voiced in the American intelligence community, and views published in international news sources, including Russian and even Syrian sources, with attribution where necessary. -Darouet (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is probably not a place for discussion. I only responded to the question by Andrevan ("what you'd like to do for the article"). I would like to see if anyone trustworthy supports this theory to qualify as a significant minority view. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry - is this the place where this discussion is going to happen? I'm OK with that, I just want to be sure. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I want as many people as possible to participate in this mediation. I would ask @VQuakr: to participate. @Volunteer Marek: @Kudzu1: and @Bobrayner: have all been active since Andrevan announced a roll call. To those editors, please participate. You really have nothing to lose besides a little time. I suggest another call on the Talk page to announce this mediation. FYI, I haven't done this before, so I don't know what the etiquette is and what timeline to expect. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: Mnnlaxer has asked me to be part of this mediation twice - on my talk page ~10 days ago and more recently here, above. I am willing to be part of the mediation process if that is acceptable to the other participants, but I am also willing to remain recused if there are objections. I have no objection to mediation with any of the other participants so far on board, and am willing to comply with the mediation of you and the rest of the mediation team. Do you want me to add my name and willingness to participate to the project page? VQuakr (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- For my part VQuakr I think it'd be ideal if you were able to participate. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. But I have no idea why User:VQuakr's participation would be unacceptable to anyone or why you are even talking about being recused. What am I missing here? Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- For my part VQuakr I think it'd be ideal if you were able to participate. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The content and policies involved are going to be continually fought over unless there is something here to point to. I understand that the mediation might result in no consensus, but getting wide participation is worth it. At the very least, I want to work on how the policies of FRINGE and WEIGHT should be applied in this case. Not the results of that application, but how to apply them to the article. Without a third party involved, I don't think we will be able to have a productive discussion about that. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- All right. Like My very best wishes, I believe that sources should not be twisted, nor the bar for truly reliable sources lowered to include the likes of self-published articles, Russian and Syrian propaganda, and conspiracy blogs, to accommodate the conspiracy theory (pushed for political reasons by the Assad government, whose butchery of its own civilians has been extensively documented, and its international ally and chief sponsor, Russia) that the rebels gassed themselves, which is prima facie ridiculous and is not considered a viable theory by the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources, last I checked. Right now, the article is structured like opposing arguments in a courtroom, which the addition of each source or "evidence" for one "theory" countered by an addition on the other side, and equal weight given to both the prevailing narrative that Syrian troops gassed the civilians in pro-opposition areas and the politically useful conspiracy theory that the opposition used WMDs on itself. That is a clear and direct WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL violation, and the use of unreliable sources to promote the "alternative" narrative is a WP:V and WP:FRINGE violation. I do believe the article should mention the rebels-gassed-themselves conspiracy theory, but it should not present a WP:SYNTH "case" for it, nor should it afford it the same prominence and currency as the narrative of what actually happened (according to basically everyone except the Syrian government, its ally Russia, and one or two self-publishing, Kremlin-friendly commentators). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kudzu1. For the record, I agree that on first glance it is ridiculous to think the opposition gassed their civilian supporters (or at least fellow anti-regime civilians). But I also think a second, deeper look at the evidence is required. I welcome all ideas to restructure the article in order to improve it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The question of "whether the rebels gassed themselves or not" is a straw man and irrelevant to this - that would be as absurd as the Assad regime launching a major chemical attack in a suburb immediately adjacent to weapons inspectors they had invited themselves, in order to provoke an already promised foreign intervention against themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think the question here is not only the motive, but conclusions by any independent investigators about details of the crime. Who did it (the names) and how they did it? I am strongly opposed to placing any unsupported speculations in any wikipedia pages (even if they can be sourced), and especially if the article is already very long and provides a lot of factual materials on the matter. In was written in the part of text I removed that "In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack.. Yes, that was a speculation even in 2013, and it is still a speculation in 2015. I do not think we should include it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is still officially unknown who carried out the attack, so assigning culpability to either side is "speculative." @Andrevan:, I will be away at the end of this coming week, and returning after the U.S.A.'s July 4th weekend, so I apologize if I miss the beginning of this mediation. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are we going to be able to start soon? User:Andrevan has not been active onwiki since the day they accepted the case. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is still officially unknown who carried out the attack, so assigning culpability to either side is "speculative." @Andrevan:, I will be away at the end of this coming week, and returning after the U.S.A.'s July 4th weekend, so I apologize if I miss the beginning of this mediation. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think the question here is not only the motive, but conclusions by any independent investigators about details of the crime. Who did it (the names) and how they did it? I am strongly opposed to placing any unsupported speculations in any wikipedia pages (even if they can be sourced), and especially if the article is already very long and provides a lot of factual materials on the matter. In was written in the part of text I removed that "In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack.. Yes, that was a speculation even in 2013, and it is still a speculation in 2015. I do not think we should include it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- The question of "whether the rebels gassed themselves or not" is a straw man and irrelevant to this - that would be as absurd as the Assad regime launching a major chemical attack in a suburb immediately adjacent to weapons inspectors they had invited themselves, in order to provoke an already promised foreign intervention against themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kudzu1. For the record, I agree that on first glance it is ridiculous to think the opposition gassed their civilian supporters (or at least fellow anti-regime civilians). But I also think a second, deeper look at the evidence is required. I welcome all ideas to restructure the article in order to improve it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Andrevan: Since "My very best wishes" have withdrawn, I believe VQuakr should be invited to the case. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:VQuakr has been invited and is willing, see above. I think we should start. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Opening framing
Andrevan@: As a framing exercise, would those who would like to add new content to the article, please describe in 2 sentences what sources support the content with specific quotes and citations. If you believe that you removed content from the article and for good reason, feel free to simply explain that below instead of making your full argument. Let's try to do this without engaging with other contributors. If you are mainly here to support someone else please just comment below with "Per <X>."
- Does this make sense to everyone? If not, please discuss or keep any crosstalk below and let's have this section get at least 4-5 discrete points of contention here.
- Example bulleted response here: I wanted to add the Foo Section back into the article. It is sourced to Document A by Person B, and Document B by Person A.
- Example bulleted response: I deleted the Foo Section because Document A doesn't say that and it was written in such a way that it implied Person B supported the original research POV of the author.
Please respond like the examples here
The Motivation section as quoted below has lately been removed from the article.
Motivation
The motivation of the attack have been questioned, and the timing seems odd, since a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors were staying in a hotel just a few miles from the attack sites.[1][2][3]
Possible Government motives
To defeat opposition forces
The Syrian government would have had a motive to use chemical weapons tactically if it believed there was no threat of international reprisal. However, it would seem like rather odd timing from Assad's perspective, since the attack came just days after a team of UN weapons inspectors landed in Damascus. Still, the attack might simply have been launched in an area designated as off-limit for the UN inspectors.[3]
A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by opposition in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention.[1] While another reporter, James Miller, pointed to the fact that the affected area had strong opposition leanings, and was a major supply route to the front lines in the fighting in east Damascus. Miller added that "Assad's forces in both Mt Qassioun and in the Mezzeh airport have this area very zeroed in for rocket (typically Grads) and artillery strikes."[3]
A reporter for The Daily Telegraph also pointed to the questionable timing given government forces had recently beaten back opposition in some areas around Damascus and recaptured territory. "Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?" The reporter also questioned why would the attacks happen just three days after the inspectors arrived in Syria.[4]
Syrian human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouneh, who is a member of the Syrian opposition, argued that the Assad government would launch a chemical attack because "it knows that the international community would not do anything about it, like it did nothing about all the previous crimes."[5]
Israeli reporter Ron Ben-Yishai stated that the motive to use chemical weapons could be the "army's inability to seize the rebel's stronghold in Damascus' eastern neighbourhoods," or fear of rebel encroachment into Damascus with tacit civilian support.[6]
Revenge for an attack on the Assad family
Western officials and Salim Idris, commander of the Free Syrian Army, said a purported assassination attempt against Assad earlier in August suggested the chemical attack on the rebel enclaves was a reprisal for the attempt, which killed an Assad family bodyguard.[7][8]
Possible opposition motives
To trigger a western military intervention
According to military experts, both sides are locked in a political and military stalemate, and the opposition cannot win without western military intervention or support.[9][10] Given previous US comments about the use of chemical weapons constituting a "red line" prompting intervention, the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line.[11]
References
- ^ a b Lister, Tim (21 August 2013). "Suffering in Syria is clear, but cause and culprits are murky". CNN. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
- ^ Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
- ^ a b c Steve Patrick Ercolani. "An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
- ^ Blair, David (19 August 2013). "Syria gas attack is real, but the timing is questionable". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
- ^ Goodman, Amy (23 August 2013). "Syrian Activist on Ghouta Attack: "I Haven't Seen Such Death in My Whole Life"". Democracy Now. Archived from the original on 24 August 2013. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ "Assad senses West's weakness". Ynetnews. 22 August 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
- ^ Boyes, Roger; Elliott, Francis (29 August 2013). "Gassing a payback for bid to kill Bashar al-Assad". The Australian. Retrieved 11 May 2015. (subscription required)
- ^ Engel, Richard; Windrem, Robert (28 August 2013). "Assad assassination attempt may have prompted chemical weapons strike". NBC News. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
- ^ "Syrian Conflict in Stalemate, Both Sides Wage 'Image War' to Keep Up Morale". PBS. 1 August 2013. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
- ^ Hutton, John (25 June 2013). "Syria: Britain must arm the rebels or risk a dangerous stalemate". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
- ^ "Obama's war: How does striking Syria on behalf of Al Qaida boost U.S. interests?". World Tribune. 30 August 2013. Retrieved 30 August 2013.
Discussion
- Sort of, but I'm ready to get things started. Before I do, I'd like to thank @Erlbaeko: for putting in the work on the talk page to salvage the edit that ended up being the spark to get me to attempt a mediated solution. [1]. I think the only issue not resolved from that edit is the Motivation section, which was completely removed. That will be a topic for this discussion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mnnlaxer. My biggest concern was actually the removal of material despite a lack of consensus to do so. I am fine with the removal of the Early opinions section according to the consensus now achieved on talk, and the other material that was removed has been added to the article to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the removal. So, except for the Motivation section, all that is fine now.
- Sort of, but I'm ready to get things started. Before I do, I'd like to thank @Erlbaeko: for putting in the work on the talk page to salvage the edit that ended up being the spark to get me to attempt a mediated solution. [1]. I think the only issue not resolved from that edit is the Motivation section, which was completely removed. That will be a topic for this discussion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the Motivation section; I like everyone to note that this section have been in the article for a long time. Here is a revision from 21 September 2013, and here is a revision from 15 May 2015. Not identical, but quite similar. On 16 May 2015, I reorganized the section, with this edit. I added headings and moved some statements, but I didn't change the contents. Then a IP, later confirmed to be a blocked user, removed this statement "Given previous US comments about the use of chemical weapons constituting a "red line" prompting intervention, the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line.", and two references with this revert. As I described on the talk page here, this statement have been in the article at least since September 2013. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the consensus policy is that long standing material should be kept unless it is consensus to remove it. So, to keep it short, I believe the motivation section should be kept unless it is consensus to remove it. However, if it is consensus to do so, it can be removed, shortened and/or rewritten. I believe it is consensus to keep it, and I hope we can focus on rewriting the section to a more neutral point of view. Keep in mind that the perpetrators are still unknown, and so are the motives. We are therefor only talking about possible motives here. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- please keep discussion in the "discussion" section and let's answer my questions directly and without any crosstalk among contributors. After all, this is about content. So if Mnnlaxer and Erlbaeko would like to answer my question directly above, in two bulleted sentences directly pertaining to my question, we can start the mediation. Andrevan@ 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- (moved by mediator) Keep: The Motivation section as seen in context here, but remove the "To strengthen the morale" section as discussed here, OR, if it not is consensus for my reorganizing, revert to this version. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is closer, but I want a direct discussion of which sources support your edits, not links to diffs. Can you try again and focus directly on the sources which underpin the statements you want to have in the article. Although consensus is a core policy here, the core verifiability and referencing policies require any statements which have been challenged to be sourced reliably. Consensus will come back into the picture once you construct a source-based defense of the content which other contributors are challenging and removing. Does that make sense? Andrevan@ 21:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)