Talk:Ghouta chemical attack

Stop to article editing without consensus

We've been involved in mediation, let's please just wait a little bit before all deciding to dive back in. The fact that recent edits have been accompanied by reverts means that we haven't reached consensus yet. Sorry @Volunteer Marek and Erlbaeko: I haven't actually had time to look through Erlbaeko's edits and see if they're what we agree upon in the mediation, but let's go back there and address that before coming here? If Marek does understand the edits and disagrees, obviously there's more work to do. -Darouet (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. You reverted an edit by MVBW because there's mediation going on. Erlbaeko then came in and made much more substantial changes and I reverted them for the same reason. Volunteer Marek  23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me. Also just agreeing with you. Volunteer Marek  00:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with me?! We've achieved more in a few hours here than mediation has in weeks :p -Darouet (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Re [1]. Those changes were discussed in the mediation. See Item 3 - Work through the bullet points in "Other evidence" and Motivation in the lead. Since no one objected I assumed consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought maybe that's what you were doing. I think that you, VQuakr and I were agreed at least, and even if Marek agrees too, the edits come at an inopportune time, since there's been edit-warring over undiscussed changes. That's why I reverted you without really looking to see if you were implementing some of the mediation discussion changes. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually you didn't. Volunteer Marek did. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I don't see how the discussion in mediation relates to these changes. For example, where in the mediation was it agreed that we should change the phrasing "has characterised attempts to say the rebels were responsible as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."" to "stated that the Syrian government provided no explanation for how rebel forces would have acquired chemical weapons"? That's just you and Darouet agreeing. Since the two of you - and this isn't meant in a negative way - are "on the same side" in the mediation, a proper agreement would obviously involve getting someone on the other side to agree. No one has. So this looks like an obvious attempt to jump the gun and WP:GAME mediation. Volunteer Marek  18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to game anyting. Since no one objected I assumed the rephasing was ok. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In that thread you have couple people saying that the phrasing is fine as is. Volunteer Marek  18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

True, but that was before I pointed out that he was misrepresented. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Marek when you get a moment why don't you look at the Sellstrom interview where he uses the phrase - it seems to me like he's saying that the Government hasn't been able to explain where the rebels would have gotten access to the CW, and continues that the've only provided poor theories to explain this. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The current text does not accurately represent what Sellstrom said. "Several times I asked the government: can you explain – if this was the opposition – how did they get hold of the chemical weapons? They have quite poor theories". He is criticising specifically the Syrian government's explanation of from where the opposition might have obtained CWs. The current sentence can read as any "attempts to say the rebels were responsible" are unconvincing. A very different interpretation indeed. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop

Just to note on the talk page here (I've brought it up at the mediation page as well) that there's clearly no consensus for including this text, which was discussed here and at them mediation and opposed by several editors. This is just the latest round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attempts to over represent a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, give WP:UNDUE weight to the same and to POV the article. Please remove it. Volunteer Marek  14:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The key elements of a crime are means, motive and opportunity, so I can't see why a paragraph about possible motives should be out of place here. Especially considering that most of the article is not about the fact per se, but about international reactions (by interested parties, by the way) and about what random people from around the world think about it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way you said that there's no consensus for including it, but I can only find this discussion where there's no consensus on its removal. So, for now, it's safe to keep it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And here come the brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war. Anyway, motivations *already are* mentioned in the article. Volunteer Marek  14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek  15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this smells rotten as hell. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... Erlbaeko (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the behavior of some editors - yourself foremost among them - on this article. Volunteer Marek  15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, comment on content, not on the contributors. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We've commented more than enough about the issues at hand at the mediation, but you didn't listen. When the contributor is behaving disruptively it's perfectly appropriate to comment on that. Volunteer Marek  17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In general I would support the inclusion of this text, but I'm not getting involved in this dispute without the participation of outside, neutral arbitrators (official or unofficial). First, Erlbaeko, the appearance of a new editor already willing to get involved in this rather specific issue is highly suspect. Second, Kudzu1 and Volunteer Marek, I'm dismayed to see people so willing to edit war here, now, when only very recently they could hardly be brought to participate in a talk and source-based mediation. Whatever - peace. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Darouet, but the appearance of a relatively new editor is not a good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Nor is this talk page the correct place to bring up accusation like that. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We did participate in mediation but then Erlbaeko essentially 1) hijacked it with walls of text and 2) ignored what anyone was saying to them. Volunteer Marek  16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not. Please stop attacking other editors. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did. You posted long walls of text, waited till everyone got sick of repeating the same thing to you and stopped paying attention, then came back here and snuck your preferred text back in. Then edit warred, aided by some brand new throw away account, to keep it in there. That's pretty much textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:CRUSH. Volunteer Marek  17:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Darouet; however, I will note I made one revert to the page today, per the WP:1RR rule in place on this article, after Volunteer Marek's self-revert (which was appropriate due to the 1RR restriction). Erlbaeko clearly lacked consensus for his/her suggested changes during the mediation, and it is improper to try to insert them now and then edit-war when they are removed due to said lack of consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not, and please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes you did. And it's not the first time you tried this tactic. You tried exactly the same thing previously here, here, here, here, and here (and probably in a few moreinstances) and you did this even while mediation was ongoing. This pattern of behavior is exactly what makes this WP:TENDENTIOUS, disruptive and bad faithed.

And I am not "attacking" anything. I am criticizing your editing behavior. And this criticism is more than well deserved. Please stop trying to bully others through intimidation. Volunteer Marek  17:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. I asked several times for your input, and I waited almost a month for your policy based arguments. I still haven’t seen them. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek and Kudzu1 that there does not appear to be consensus for this change. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, this is not a vote. I haven't seen any policy based arguments for removing the text from you either. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Straw man, no one is proposing voting on anything. Per WP:ONUS your counterstatement about the text is not consistent with policy. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I provided my input. You ignored it. I provided policy based arguments (as I have done again), you kept repeating the same thing and claiming that you "debunked" my statements or something. No one else at the mediation agreed with you. Discussion died out. You waited for a week then came back here and put your controversial edits back in even though you knew very well (especially since, as my diffs above show, this has happened several times in the past) that these were not supported and they did not have consensus. What exactly is "bullshit" here? I provided numerous diffs which clearly illustrate that you've been using this WP:TENDENTIOUS strategy for awhile now. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

With the decline in participation in the mediation and lack of edit waring over the article, I had suggested that we may want to wrap-up the mediation. Now, looking at this discussion, I can see that the dispute is far from settled. I would be willing to continue mediating, either on this page or on the mediation talk page. It seems clear to me that there is a continuing need to resolve this dispute. Comments? Sunray (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sunray: if you are willing to help, I think that's the only possibility of a solution being reached (that doesn't involve punitive measures or endless argument). -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with restarting the mediation, though the article should clearly be returned to the state it was in before Erlbaeko tried to POV it (again). Volunteer Marek  22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be funny if it were not distressing. It is clear from the tone used that there is a fight going on. However, it is utterly impossible, without prior knowledge, to understand what the fight is about. Vague accusations, made in Wikipedia Newspeak, like WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, WP:DUCK, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT "disruptive and bad faithed" and what not, are leveled at Erlbaeko in an obvious attempt to silence him. However, I can't see any argument on content. I personally happen to know what all this is about and I believe that Erlbaeko's arguments should at least be discussed, not simply dismissed out of hand. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they can talk however much they want. What they can't and shouldn't do is try to game the system and act in a disruptive manner. Also, did I suggest to you already that getting yourself involved in the very topics which led to your indef ban so soon after it was conditionally lifted is probably not a good idea?  Volunteer Marek  22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't seen WP:CRUSH before, but it could have been written about Erlbaeko. Eerie. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the history of the article; "Motivation" and "Timing" sections have been here since September 2013, that is the beginning, until June 2015 when an edit war started. Given that a crime is prompted by a motivation, given that a military action is carried out for an objective, given that ostensibly this has been obvious for almost two years until someone decided that it was WP:NOTMYBELOVEDOPINION, it looks to me that: (a) the section is needed and in fact it is present in some form in any comparable article (e.g. Boston Bombing for a crime, e.g. Aleppo Offensive for a military action), (b) if a consensus is needed, that is to remove it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Given that it is well known who did it, speculation about possible motifs by someone else is simply undue. This has been discussed previously, and discussed a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• As BRG~itwiki correctly has pointed out, "Motivation" and "Timing" sections have been here since September 2013, and consensus is needed to remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Whether or not something was in an article is irrelevant (except for you making controversial changes while mediation is ongoing). Burden of proof is for inclusion and your completely failure to get support for these changes during mediation, combined with the bad faithed and disruptive way you are trying to make them, means that you need to convince others, not vice versa. You might want to try a new tactic - instead of trying to WP:GAME the rule and sneak this in under the radar, how about engaging others in a constructive dialogue? Volunteer Marek  15:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't talk if you have nothing to say. It's simple. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that you're a single purpose account, recently created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this article. How about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts? Then we can try and have a serious conversation. Volunteer Marek  15:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Erlbaeko. You recently made this edit with edit summary: "Added motivation section per mediation discussion". Do you mean that you have reached consensus in mediation to include this text? If so, could you give me a link to relevant section of mediation discussion, please? My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The most relevant section is this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Item_4_-_Deal_with_the_rebel_motivation_issue_and_UNDUE_in_the_whole_article, but there is several relevant discussions there. No consensus has ever been reached for your removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As MVBW correctly points out you falsely claimed that the text was being added "per mediation discussion", pretending that there was agreement at mediation to make this change. There wasn't. All the "relevant discussions" involve people objecting to your proposed changes. So this was, at best, a misleading edit summary on your part. The mediation discussion did not support your POV. Volunteer Marek  16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As you know, I asked you several times to specify what in the policy and the article text that allowed the "Motivation and timing" section to be removed as "UNDUE". I then waited almost a month for your reply, and I then said "If there is nothing in the neutral point of view policy (or any other policy) that allow the suggested "Motivation and timing" section to be removed, I will go ahead and make the change.", before I made the change, so it is very much a change that is made "per mediation discussion". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is spiraling out of control. Can we all agree not to insert contentious material into the article until consensus develops? It doesn't matter whether you think you're "right", it matters whether consensus has been established. That's the way Wikipedia works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

While I doubt that it is spiralling out of control (at least not yet), I agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article. All the more reason to re-start the mediation imho. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I do also agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article, and I am fine with continuing the mediation. However, the Motivation section should stay in the article as long as no consensus is reached for removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Motivation section was there when the Mediation started and it got through a vote for removal around the same time. There is nothing else to add. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop lying so blatantly? It's not like this is hard to check. Here's the "mediation version" from September as restored (after one of Erlbaeko's attempts to sneak in his POV despite ongoing mediation) by Darouet. No motivation section there and the text was NOT in there. Here's the version from June. Now of course Erlbaeko tried to insert this stuff into the article and that's what led to the mediation. But that's the whole point. It should be hashed out there. Not Erlbaeko wearing everyone out by stonewalling then declaring victory and coming here to push their POV again. And in 2013? Well, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that we *improve* them. This includes removing blatant POV pushing. Some of that material was in there in Sept 2013, but even back then some editors noticed it was a huge WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem and tried to remove it [2]. As that editor says in their edit summary what some people want to do is to summarize the consensus view in a sentence or two and then devote massive paragraphs to various WP:FRINGE theories. Not going to happen. Volunteer Marek  17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a lie (that is, BRG~itwikis statement is not a lie), but slightly inaccurate. Some facts:

• On 4 June 2015, the section was in the article. Ref. old revision.
• On 5 June 2015, removed "My very best wishes" the whole "Motivation" section. Ref. diff.
• On 6 June 2015, filed Mnnlaxer the mediation request. Ref. diff.
• On 22 June 2015, created I a new section on the talk page to see if there was consensus to remove it, ref. diff.

Erlbaeko (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the revision of 4 June before the edit war started: [3]. Then my very best wishes deleted a whole paragraph that has been there for two years without giving an explanation[4][5], and the edit war started[6][7]. Then the mediation was requested (June). And I want to stress the fact that I know this by reading through the history of this mess, because after the first edit I made, someone said there was a mediation, so I read it all. I'm baffled by the lack of any kind of interest in collaborative editing, while it's all just agenda pushing and petty propaganda wars. BRG~itwiki (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your comments, your tone, your familiarity with this article, your references to stuff that's happened on other articles all clearly indicate that this isn't your first account. Like I said, how about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts and then we can have a serious conversation. I don't see why we should waste our time discussing issues with an account which was obviously created for the sole purpose of behaving disruptively and edit warring here. Volunteer Marek  19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko. It does not matter what consensus (or the lack of consensus) existed a few months ago. It only matters what consensus exists right now. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: If we were talking about contentious matters related to living people, I would have agreed, but we are not. I do, however, agree that what matters is what consensus exists right now. But the question is not whether it is consensus to add the material, but whether it is consensus to remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that is merely what you have endlessly asserted. Your repeating it over and over does not make it so. VQuakr (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

CBS News quotes from UN chemical weapons inspectors reverted

Seems a little biased to insist that information from the chemical weapons inspectors themselves is controversial and should not be included in the article. This is the information I added that was reverted. First a paragraph in the lead, and then sections in the body - note that I added some depth to the sections so they would be sorted nicer here Badon (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC):

Extended content

The Syrian government and opposition blamed each other for the attack. Many governments said the attack was carried out by forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a conclusion echoed by the Arab League and the European Union. The Russian government called the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side. Åke Sellström, the leader of the UN Mission, characterized government explanations of rebel chemical weapons acquisition as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories." Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know." Allegations of responsibility Both the opposition and the Syrian government said a chemical attack was carried out in the suburbs around Damascus on 21 August 2013. Anti-government activists said the Syrian government was to blame for the attack, while the Syrian government said foreign fighters and their international backers were to blame. Opposition claims On the day of the attack, George Sabra the head of the Syrian National Council said 1,300 people had been killed as shells loaded with poisonous gas rained down on the capital's eastern suburbs of Douma, Jobar, Zamalka, Arbeen and Ein Tarma. A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council, Qassim Saadeddine, said "People are growing desperate as they watch another round of political statements and U.N. meetings without any hope of action." Ahmad Jarba, who was the president of the Syrian National Coalition at the time of the attack, called on the U.N. investigators to travel to “the site of the massacre” and for an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting on the subject. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attack was committed by the Syrian regime and called on Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, "to apply all pressure within his powers to pressure the Syrian regime." The next day, a spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition, Khaled al-Saleh, said at least six doctors died after treating victims, and that they didn't yet have the number of dead first responders. Government claims Syria's Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Qadri Jamil, said foreign fighters and their international backers were to blame for the attack. Syrian state television, SANA, said the accusations were fabricated to distract a team of UN chemical weapons experts which had arrived three days before the attacks. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons would go against elementary logic and that "accusations of this kind are entirely political." Independent observations Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know." Cairns described the UN team's hasty entry into Ghouta to document the attack as quickly as possible. The attackers were still present in the area when they arrived, and although their vehicles were briefly fired upon, no one was injured, and their entry into Ghouta was almost entirely unopposed. Cairns stated the gunmen could have killed them to stop the inspection, but instead allowed them to proceed, and he believes the attackers fired on the UN vehicles only to "send us a message". CBS News claims that, "Never before had investigators arrived at a chemical crime scene so soon." References

The rev I reverted made one change - it cherry picked a quote from [8] to imply an opinion that the person quoted does not actually have. We don't do that. The proposed rev also inserted information into the lede that was not in the body - moot since the cherry picked quote is not usable, but still a problem since the lede summarized the body. I am unclear on what purpose the other 8k you dumped above is supposed to serve. VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "We"? You have a mouse in your pocket? It's very conspicuous that no highly-credible factual independent information is in the article, if it could be in any way construed to contradict the official justification of the USA's military objectives. Information that contradicts the USA is reduced to the appearance of nothing more than non-credible he-said-she-said hearsay between the belligerents, when in reality, the lead UN chemical weapons inspector noted the bizarre timing of the attacks, and questioned the motive for such timing...as follows (hurry, hide the information again before your NSA/CIA/Mil handler sees it!):

Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know." Cairns described the UN team's hasty entry into Ghouta to document the attack as quickly as possible. The attackers were still present in the area when they arrived, and although their vehicles were briefly fired upon, no one was injured, and their entry into Ghouta was almost entirely unopposed. Cairns stated the gunmen could have killed them to stop the inspection, but instead allowed them to proceed, and he believes the attackers fired on the UN vehicles only to "send us a message". CBS News claims that, "Never before had investigators arrived at a chemical crime scene so soon."

Badon (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have any interest in getting back on the "NSA/CIA controls Wikipedia!!1" crazy train, so I'd suggest dropping that line, knocking it off with the boldface type, and trying to reach consensus for the material you want to include rather than attacking other editors and repeatedly inserting contentious material. The language you want to add to the article uses leading quotes removed from context and speculation presented as "evidence", and it clearly is written to present a fringe POV. That's not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lots of silliness above, but to address the one addressable point - Pelley did not say that the gunmen who attacked the UN inspection convoy were the same as those that launched the chemical attack. He makes no claim regarding their identity, he just notes that the convoy took fire entering Ghouta. That's good for Pelley's credibility, since he couldn't possibly know the identity or affiliation of those particular gunmen in the complex war zone. The attack on the UN convoy was widely reported elsewhere as well, but it isn't very germane to an article on the attack.

As is readily verifiable from a quick check of the history tab, if/how to include speculation about the motivation for the attack is a contested subject and currently the subject of mediation. It should not have been inserted in the article without discussion, let alone repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So, you don't like my boldface type. Right, I must be crazy. I'll use all caps, italics, and boldface type, just so I can please your aesthetic tastes. I'll even throw in some excessive exclamation points, since you seem to like those.

YOU ACCUSE me of attacking an editor. YOU ACCUSE me of repeatedly inserting "contentious material"? VQuakr ACCUSED ME by putting an edit warring template on my talk page for all the reverts I've done on this article. There's just one problem: I haven't done any reverts. WHO IS ATTACKING WHO? I think you protest too much. There is CLEARLY AN AGENDA here to suppress independent observations from the UN chemical weapons inspectors about the circumstances of the attacks.

First VQuakr reverts my edit because I didn't also edit the body. Then he reverts my body edit because that's "repeatedly" edit warring. I'm seeing 100% brick-wall hostility, and it's very conspicuous. How else should I interpret accusations of revert-edit-warring after only 2 edits that did not involve any reverts? TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THE FRINGE POV OF THE UN CHEMICAL WEAPONS INSPECTORS ON-SITE IN GHOUTA!!!111oneone

Note that while I was writing this, VQuakr ALSO insinuated on my talk page that I must be crazy: User_talk:Badon#December_2015. Did I just find a coordinated pattern of attempts to manipulate public opinion? Don't listen to me, I must be crazy!

Badon (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr just tried to censor my paragraphs above using Wikipedia:Deny recognition, which was intended for chronic vandals [9]. Now I think it should be obvious that the agenda here is to suppress, suppress, suppress - even if it requires blatantly unethical and totally indefensible tampering with other people's words. Badon (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:SHOUT and Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Badon, you've been shouting like a maniac. That's why VQuakr was censoring your text. -Darouet (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, the Talk page guideline you linked to says "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." (my emphasis). It is also a fact that guidelines should be treated with common sense. I find the above to be an acceptable exception, provided it is rarely used. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr, the Talk page guideline says you should not delete the comments of other editors. Exemptions are intentionally extremely narrow; you can review them here. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The "fringe point of view" of the leading UN chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta just got a lot more credible. It appears a precedent for the USA supplying stuff to Turkey, who in turn supplies stuff to ISIL/ISIS in Syria, has become public knowledge: Texas City plumber files lawsuit after Islamic extremists were seen using his old truck - Houston Chronicle. For something this conspicuous to show up in Syria, there is likely a lot more that doesn't become public knowledge. OK, it's the accuser's turn. Get on with it, accuse me of being crazy, so nobody pays attention. Badon (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest removal of one image

This image is currently in use in the "Chemical weapons capability" section. I am unclear on how it helps with any understanding of the attack, so I think it should be removed. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't serve any purpose in that section. It might be handy somewhere else, but nothing came to mind when I looked for a new spot for it in the article. Badon (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkey. IS. Sarin

Came across this. Thought this article might benefit. MP Eren Erdem claims Turkey supplied Isis with sarin gas materials for chemical weapon attacks. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mp-eren-erdem-claims-turkey-supplied-isis-with-sarin-gas-materials-for-chemical-weapon-attacks-34286662.html

http://atimes.com/2015/12/sarin-materials-brought-via-turkey-to-syrian-is-campsmp/

Edited. Adding this here as one of the big Turkish dailies is running with it. (Referencable)

http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-revives-claim-of-turkeys-hand-in-syrias-chemical-attack_402065.html

SaintAviator lets talk 23:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little hasty; this is not a new claim but just a resurrection of an old one. Pretty clearly internal Turkish politicing and not a watershed. A debunking from the same claims over a year ago can be found here. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the link you gave to the opinion by bloggers Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta. Thanks. Its essentially a reply by [now] Bellingcat (Eliot Higgins blog) to Hersh's work. Its kinda dated now. That aside, it did not mention a Turkish MP's claims. These claims are significant. This is the new material. Since the Wikipedia article does not conclude who 'did it', this is an interesting line of inquiry. I think it would go under 'Reactions'. Edited. I forgot this from a big media outfit with new allegations Islamic State used Sarin. Here [10] This deserves mention as it firms up the IS state did it line of inquiry. SaintAviator lets talk 03:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not new material, it is a rehash of 2013 claims. The "reactions" section of event articles is usually for responses temporally close to an event AFAIK. VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

OK not in reactions then, but somewhere. I cant see anywhere before where a Turkish MP claimed this. Can you point it out please? SaintAviator lets talk 04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkish MP is rehashing old claims for rather transparent political reasons. Nothing new has been presented. No, I do not think this merits any mention in the article unless something of any substance comes out. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Old claim coming true? After all this time this line of inquiry may finally point the finger at IS and Turkey for the Sarin Ghouta attack. Considering recent developments regarding oil smuggling between IS and Turkey it would not be surprising. Did you see the Sydney Morning Herald link above regarding IS using Sarin this year? Im still of the view we should begin to put this in, perhaps just a line or two. SaintAviator lets talk 04:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarin is notoriously dangerous and difficult to manufacture; WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and the MP has provided no support for his remarkable claim. Are you talking about this? That article does not suggest the rebels using sarin. Attacks using mustard or phosgene-like agents and chlorine have unfortunately been more common and appear to have been perpetrated by several parties; see Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War for a partial list. VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some good work in that link Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. It shows several possible possibilities which dont exclude rebel use of sarin. That article here this shows rebel use of chemicals yes. Would IS use sarin? I just read today they have a fatwa on disabled children. So I think they would use sarin. I'm hoping the MP or someone will provide more info. SaintAviator lets talk 07:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Use of chemicals" is a long way from hundreds of litres of sarin. Not much more to discuss until something of substance is published; conspiracy theories such as these tend to be long on claims and short on substance. VQuakr (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, SaintAviator MUST be crazy too! Only bad people we shouldn't listen to would dare to say such a preposterous thing, VQuakr. Dismissing the possibility that a 3rd party was involved in the sarin attacks at Ghouta, as a "conspiracy theory", is insulting, and a darn good thought-stopper. This tactic works GREAT for suppressing information on Wikipedia that conflicts with the military goals of the government of the United States, and I highly recommend you keep doing it, so no one gets the wild idea of investigating further. That would be bad for freedom. Freedom good. Crazy bad. Grunt.

As a matter of fact, countries presenting themselves as the shining bastion of freedom and righteousness have been caught supplying chemical weapons precursors to belligerents at war that were used on civilians. Namely, the USA and its allies were caught supplying chemical weapons components to Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, when Iraq famously gassed non-combatant Kurds who made the dictator mad by asking for freedom, democracy, puppies, kittens, and Barbie dolls. When the issue was presented at the UN, the American side would say only that "chemical weapons were used" in the Iran-Iraq war, without mentioning the known fact that "chemical weapons were used on civilians".

Considering the amount of international condemnation that chemical weapons supposedly bring these days (only when might makes right), I find the deceptive and/or false flag possibility much more credible than the official claim that the chemical weapons were unilaterally ordered to be used on civilians by one specific belligerent, with clear responsibility running up the chain of command, directly to the head of state, making him yet another war criminal that must be brought to justice by the USA. Mix in a few oceans of precedent, and I think the Ghosts of Ghouta have a good case for persuading us to listen to all of these crazy conspiracy theory people.

Badon (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hersh vindicated?

Some background to above report, I was unaware of. This story just gets more interesting. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/

Heres the big Turkish Daily page. http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-revives-claim-of-turkeys-hand-in-syrias-chemical-attack_402065.html

SaintAviator lets talk 01:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)