Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

Deleting government claim of missile factory strike

I don't know how this 1RR crap works for reverting IPs, but one has twice deleted a government claim from the government claims section. If we're just deleting stuff that doesn't fit the fuck Assad theme, that hardly seems fair, but I'm not getting blocked for this. If someone else finds it useful for a wider picture, maybe restore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

And it's back, before I even complained. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

The f'uck, this is the worst source ever, they are paid to lie for the sadist Assad regime--2A02:8108:1900:3E24:C0C7:E9CB:C4BC:595A (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And others are paid to lie against the sadist Assad regime. That's war for you. If readers don't trust the source, they don't have to believe the story. But it seems useful to have someone saying something (somewhat) specific about why the town was hit, where and by what. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

I see you've deleted a third time, against two editors. I suppose as an IP, our one revert rules are powerless to stop you. Must be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

1RR only applies to reverting registered users' edits. Revert to your heart's content (well, not quite, but you know). ansh666 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Re[1] Volunteer Marek, what do you mean with "it is known". Do you seriously believe that five days after the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the United States' policy on Syria is no longer focused on making president, Bashar al-Assad to leave power,ref he go on an order the deadliest chemical attack since the Ghouta attack in 2013? Do you realy think he is that stupid? Come on. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what Assad thinks or his level of intelligence. Neither do you. See WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

He is smart enough to be a doctor. Anyway, no independent investigation has taken place, and no credible journalist has been at the site. So the perpetrator is still unknown, and that is what the info box should state. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Blowing up sarin destroys it

How do they put it in rockets then? I find this statement axiomatically incorrect and think it should be removed. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need rockets to drop chemical weapons, and even if you used rockets they don't have to contain explosives.68.199.221.23 (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarin is combustible. If bombs were dropped as claimed, then ideologically the sarin will be burnt up. That's what the statement refers to. Regardless, we don't use our own interpretation on what to add or remove. All sides must be presented if they are notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The sarin attack was in the early morning,[2] while the attack on the ammunition depot took place between 11:30 and 12:30.[3] Doctors Without Borders said victims of the attack were exposed to at least two different chemical agents, and suggested that some had been exposed to chlorine,[4] so it is possible that the strike on the ammunition depot hit the rebels chlorine stockpile (that they stole from SYSACCO). Erlbaeko (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Erlbaeko but I still think it is a dumb comment. If it must remain, we should at least balance it with independent suspicions that the rebels did it. [5]. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There's more to blowing stuff up than setting it on fire. A big part of any explosion is the blast wave, which does the titular blowing. Fire mostly sucks. Without knowing more about what exploded where, it's hard to say whether any hypothetical stuff is likely to burn up or spread out. Hard to know so, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Here [6] the Guardian shows the blast hole left from the obviously explosive warhead that some claim was "laced with chemicals" or some such rubbish. They even put a biochemical warning label on the large blast crater left in the road. There's no evidence of any shell casings or physical proof that should be easily retrievable, if people are putting signs on it. What it does show is that the alleged chemical rocket did "blow up" a substantial amount of concrete and in the (frankly incredible) suggestion that the chemicals were in the warhead, this explosion did not destroy them as the General claims. Any reasonable person seeing that blast crater must surely push for the removal of this comment as completely unreliable and really, I have to say it again, a dumb thing to have on an intelligent encyclopedia. Firing warheads at chemical weapons could do who knows what to them from mild leaking damage to destruction, where still the gas would go somewhere. Unless we want to lead people to believe that gasses can just blink out of existence by will of God. RaRaRasputin (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Whose territory is it?

The infobox mentions the location of the incident as "Ahrar al-Sham-controlled territories". However, the lede itself describes the town as being part of the rival Tahrir al-Sham. The two groups are rivals and have clashed woth each other often. If HTS controls the town, then it doesn't make sense as to why it is called Ahrar al-Sham territory. A source used here says Ahrar al Sham is the main group in the town but it is a Twitter source, if what it says is true then it cannot be said to be "Ahrar al-Sham controlled" as there are other groups controlling parts as well. I wonder if it fulfills WP:SPS. We cannot use it if its unreliable and there are other reliable sources contradicting it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Idlib Governorate clashes (2017) and the cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War Khan Shaykhun is currently controlled by Tahrir al-Sham. I am not sure how reliable of a source "Charles Lister" is. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Lister" doesn't pass Wikipedia's reliability guidelines - it is a self-published source.GreyShark (dibra) 11:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarin Gas attack in Hama Gov. 11 Dec. 2016

No mention of the suspected Sarin attack in Hama from December. This took place in vicinity of town of Uqayribat in Eastern Hama Governorate.

Guardian reports 93 dead.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria

Notable for its high death toll and the suspicion that it was not another chlorine attack, but a nerve agent. Perhaps the first major nerve gas attack since 2013, with the 2017 one being the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That incident should have it's own article, and it should be referenced here: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war Please consider creating an account and editing! MeropeRiddle (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

US and the UK

Its not just trump and johnson. The US state department, congress, and defense department all share the view. As does Theresa May. Please change it to say "The United States and United Kingdom placed.." 68.199.221.23 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian

The guardian went into detail on the unlikeliness of the regime's claim. Please add the following:

|Finally, the Syrian manufacturing process for sarin involves creating and storing two key components, both far more stable than the nerve agent itself. They are mixed to create sarin hours – or at most days – before it is used, said Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and former officer in the US Army’s chemical corps.

So an airstrike on a storage facility would be unlikely to release sarin itself. And because one of the two components is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol, or rubbing alcohol, you would expect a fireball, which has not been observed.|

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun

68.199.221.23 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag edits

Hello, Yihman1, The Wicked Twisted Road, Scientific Alan 2, Editor abcdef, and Cyrus the Penner. Can we please discuss on the talk page or have some consensus on whether or not to include accusations of a false flag rather than having a whole editing war back-and-forth? Also, I believe WP:3RR was violated so I'm not sure how to proceed with that. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is actually under WP:1RR. Now that Yihman1 knows that, I don't expect any more multiple reverts from them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We definitely DO NOT include this unless the topic has been covered consistently and repeatedly by multiple reliable sources. The two sources Yihman1 was providing both seemed unreliable. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Seemed unreliable". Could you please be more specific. Why did they seem unreliable? Roberttherambler (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag rubbish should obviously be kept off this article (WP:UNDUE). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Think that a false flag opinion can be included in somekind of reaction section, if there's a reliable source(s) and reliable/notable opinion(s), but for now I do not see anyhow the possibility of a separate section about the false flag claims. The chemical attack was fairly recent and there's not enough reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence either that it was, or was not, a false flag attack. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. However, this page claims the "false flag" theory prominently, even in the lead. Look at the 4th paragraph in the lead: "However, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem later explained that "the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support."[13]". Please fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Syrian governments view must be explained, My very best wishes. It's a requirement according to the Neutral point of view policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Noticing the claim by Syrian government ("we did not do it") in the lead is fine. I am saying that the text in lead is not a proper summary of corresponding section Syrian_government_claims and it gives improper weight to conspiracy theory in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The policy says we should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, so it have to be included. However, I agree that it was not a proper summary of the Syrian government claims section. I fixed that. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Military engagement

Please make a new article for the military response, keep the summary of the military response short and sweet here. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Shayrat strike

If the military response is limited to the single cruise missile attack against a Syrian military airfield, then it hardly warrants an article of its own. -- ToE 02:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought it would be wider. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That "single missile attack" involved at least 59 warheads - many of which were no doubt cannister bombs that unleashed hundreds of grenade-sized bomblets that more effectively close down military aircraft runways. This story is just beginning and will be a big news topic internationally for days to come - an article is justified.104.169.28.48 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Tomahawk missiles don't work that way. But inasmuch as this is Trump's second military raid, I concur that it is notable. kencf0618 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

NewSniffer as a reliable source

Some content in the "Syrian government claims" section is sourced to NewsSniffer, i.e. content is sourced from what NewsSniffer claims is an old version of a BBC article. Is NewsSniffer a reliable source, and is it standard policy to use old versions of articles in this way? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The source being cited is the BBC, NewsSniffer is used as an archive link. This is somewhat non-standard; Wikipedia suggests using either the Internet Archive or WebCite for creating an archive link. Augurar (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

timing of gas attack

Questions for editors who have had the time to sift through all the reports

Timing of Khan Shaykhun air attack

_ some sources 7:00am eest local time

_ Russian sources 11:30am-12:30pm eest local time

Or were there two air attacks reported, a dawn attack and a noon attack? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to separate fact from fiction, but:

• the head of Idlib's health authority, Mounzer Khalil, said "this morning, at 6:30 a.m., warplanes targeted Khan Sheikhoun with gases, believed to be sarin and chlorine", ref.
• An activist, Samer al-Hussein, said "We woke up, as usual, to the sounds of warplanes that barely ever leave the skies of Idlib province." and that he got word from fellow opposition activists that new strikes had targeted a nearby town, Khan Shaykhun. Ref.
• 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.", ref.

So, the strike on the ammunition depot might be compleatly unrelated to the sarin attack. If no objective monitoring data shows flights over the area in the early morning, the rebels are simply lying about it. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag question

Can someone with far more experience at writing current event articles please fix this? Neutrality of POV would be nice.

my story; my source code; my life in strings of text 23:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney Stencil (talk • contribs)

Use of explosion for dispersion

I removed the content "(however, in oppose, explosive dissemination in one of nerve agent deployment method)" as it was unsourced. However, it was re-added by Mykhal, saying "probably wikilinked content should be removed then". I suggest that we remove this - it is the definition of WP:OR. If explosive dissemination is not mentioned in relation to Khan Shaykhun, then it should not be in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to read e.g. [7] ("... Two U.S. soldiers were exposed to small amounts of sarin in Iraq in May 2004 when an artillery shell containing the nerve agent, rigged as an IED, exploded.") and use it as a reference. —Mykhal (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Reorganize the "Responsibility" section

I think that the title of the "Responsibility" section doesn't accurately describe its contents. Although the rebels are clearly identifying a specific group of people as having responsibility for an intensional release of the chemicals (i.e. the Syrian government), the Syrian government is NOT claiming that the rebels are responsible for an intensional release of the chemicals. All parties agree that the chemicals were, in one way or another, a consequence of the bombing (i.e. either chemicals dropped by the government or else the result of a conventional explosion releasing chemicals that were already on the ground). This is an important distinction that I think (a) is not clearly identified in the "Responsibility" section (b) is not accurately reflected by the title "Responsibility."

So I propose that we form two separate sections: "Attributions of responsibility" and "Competing accounts of the chemical release". (Now although this title is a little long, it's still shorter than the title "Supranational and non-governmental organizations" that's currently in the article. Maybe we could shorten it to "Accounts of the chemical release"?) The two section would then describe the following:

• "Competing accounts of the chemical release" would have couple of sentence briefly describe the two main completing claims.
  • This will have two subsections: "Syrian opposition account" and "Syrian government account", which will present each side's claims, supporting evidence, and counter claims.
• The "Attributions of responsibility" section will go into detail about all claims of responsibility (and corresponding rejections) by all important groups, which includes: the Syrian rebels, the Syrian government, the U.S. government (which also holds Russia responsible), and then one section for all other governments, individuals, and organizations that make attributions of responsibility.

I also think that these are sections that can be easily expanded now and probably also in the future. Your opinion?selfworm^Talk) 20:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the section is fine as it is. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this may need some changes per recent publications to reflect more assertively that it has been in fact committed by Assad government, but certainly not in the way suggested by selfworm. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright thenselfworm^Talk) 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As it is related to the section, User:El C you removed sourced information relevant to the section, basically substantiating it by WP:OWN policy. I partially agree with Selfworm's proposal, and note that information and status of the investigation is really important to be mentioned, and should not be ignored. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't own a page I never edited before. No nationalism, please. El_C 08:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism has nothing to do with my comment neither I mentioned it. Please comment on content change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have violated 1RR. Please self-revert. No, never mind, that's a different user.El_C 08:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

---

We're really gonna go with unknown, that's the consensus? El_C 08:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The perpetrators who are responsible for [sic] attack are unknown.

Everyone is fine with that? El_C 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

To add to article

Can the type of plane (Sukhoi Su-17) the bombs were dropped from be added to the article? Also, do any rebel groups in Syria own or use such planes, or only the Syrian military? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You can, if you have a source for that . Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"current" tag

See WP:WTRMT, #5, this is still a current event with breaking news. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

i agree with this. there was no proper investigation yet from the side of the UN or another group not involved in the war, also the follow-up of the attacks are not yet completely clear (e.g. if there will be NATO ground troops in Syria. Thus I am convinced we should make clear that this is a current event and that we still dont know all that happened in Khan Shaykhun. User:Nirmaz(PS: sorry if i didnt get the layout for talk pages right i am a relatively new user) 20:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The current tag is not a maintenance tag, used only while an article is heavily edited. WWGB (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"this time"

"On 8 April, the town was attacked again by unknown aircraft, this time using conventional bombs, with one death resulting." This sentence assumes that the original chemical attack was delivered by an aircraft borne chemical weapon full of sarin. It made a big crater with explosion marks, virtually eliminating that possibility. I don't think we should make assumptive statements like this without any evidence. RaRaRasputin (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Npov section

The perpetrators who are responsible for [sic] attack are unknown.

I dispute the neutrality of that edit. Reliable sources are clear that it was the Assad regime who was behind the attack. El_C 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are clear there exist a dispute on responsibility and the investigation on the chemical attack is ongoing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I dispute that it should be phrased as "the perpetrators who are responsible for [sic] attack are unknown"—the perpetrators are known. They are the Assad regime: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html El_C 09:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, what you're saying is against WP:NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality (due weight) of your addition. We have to follow what the mainstream of reliable sources say at this time. Widely attributed to Assad should be the first thing mentioned under Responsibility for the attack, not the second thing. El_C 09:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The addition is neutral and objective, and is primary (like with 2013 chemical attacks) - perpetrators are not known and disputed as the investigation is ongoing. What you're saying belongs to secondary claims or consideration category for which even exist sub-sections. We can not push an one-sided subjective narrative and degrade the factual status of the perpetrators.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The passage should switch the sentence order in the interest of due weight—what is widely considered should be the first thing mentioned. El_C 10:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It can not because it is not factual - the due weight is given as widely attributed consideration (mainly by US) is mentioned first in the second sentence, compared to Syrian or Russian consideration, which is specifically about the claims for responsibility.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What's factual is whatever represents the consensus in the reliable sources. As for consensus here, what do everyone else think? El_C 11:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I note you once again, there's no consensus in the reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Whereas I note that that is your interpretation—another is that it is widely believed the Assad regime was behind the attack. El_C 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pushing and accusing other editors for interpretation whereas you're doing it. Widely believed claims, mainly by US, do not represent the consensus. Factually there's no consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm doing it. We each have our interpretation of what the consensus among reliable sources is. It's not an accusation nor is anything "pushed"—it's a statement of fact. At this point, I'd like to hear from someone, anyone else. El_C 11:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS as it is not a fact. We, editors, should not and can not twist things as we please. Think a WP:THIRD opinion (please request it) could help the current dispute.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

So you keep saying. No need for third opinion, there's enough editors watching this article. Just be patient. El_C 12:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE applies. British and American intelligence believe the attack was carried out by the Syrian government - this having been widely reported. Munitions experts have dismissed the Russian claim that a government airstrike hit a warehouse storing chemical weapons ([8][9]). We should attribute the attack to the Syrian government. The Russian and Syrian governments previously denied that Syria possessed chemical weapons right up until the moment they agreed to surrender them in September 2013. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, British and American believe&claim one thing, Syrian and Russian believe&claim another thing, sources show there's no consensus on the dispute, investigation is ongoing, thus to partially attribute the attack to the Syrian government, on personal opinion and SYNTHESIS, would be a violation of Wikipedian policy. Actually, the reply was not that relevant to the specific issue discussed above.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, when I checked the sources, there are no munition experts and it is an opinion, basically - if anything else, the UNDUE applies to this.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming consensus in the Western press, and British and American intelligence believe that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government. Your repeated references to an "investigation" are a red herring. If there is a UN inquiry, its findings will have to be accepted by the Security Council, which means it won't attribute the attack to any party. Giving WP:UNDUE credence to the Syrian and Russian position would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Only overwhelming consensus in the Western press is that US&allies "claims" it was carried by the Syrian government. If such fallacious criteria and interpretation of NPOV is considered, we will be violating WP:ASSERT as we must "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Also see, "responsibility for the chemical event in Khan Sheikhoun is still very much in question".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this section a little. It is definitely the case that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government, meaning this is an "majority view" - agree with L.R. Wormwood. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

By fixing is not meant removal of a reliable source which more than well explains that the responsibility is still in question. Stop considering and portraying an opinion as a fact, as it does not mean it is a "majority view". You're playing around with Wikipedian editing principles--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly in question to some degree, meaning that investigation is needed. However, you put as the first phrase the following: "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack". No, this is not main idea of the paragraph. The "majority view" is that the attack was committed by Assad regime. The majority view should go first. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Western media sources have, in many cases, adopted positions on this issue. I believe you have also misinterpreted WP:ASSERT; if something is widely reported, even if it remains disputed, it could not be considered "stating opinion as fact". It would appear you will only accept attributing responsibility here if the Russian and Syria governments concede that the Syrian government carried out the attack. I would therefore suggest that you have not offered a valid set of criteria for closing this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I no longer dispute due weight in that section, now that "widely attributed to the Syrian government" has become the opening sentence. El_C 20:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The words "British" and "American" should be firmly attached to any claim that Assad carried out the attack. Most of the European countries in their responses are very ambiguous about who actually carried out the attack and don't claim one way or the other. I don't think we can even say "Western media sources", since they simply report that the British and the Americans are making the claim. Miki Filigranski is essentially correct there, as far as I can tell. Other than active combatants like Turkey and Qatar who are funding the Islamist opposition, which countries categorically state that Assad for sure carried out the attack? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, by this edit (with invalid substantiation) was removed neutral and realibly sourced factual sentence "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack", and caused cite error only to be fixed by a Bot. If this sentence is excluded, if is mentioned that the attack is "widely attributed to the Syrian government", which is factually wrong as nor it is widely attributed nor US sided claims makes a majority viewpoint nor such a consideration is mentioned or can be concluded from the cited source nor the sentence is supported by multiple sources - on the article is ideologically pushed a one-sided narrative and violated neutrality. I propose to revert the first sentence and place it in the beginning of the section, while remove the second sentence as it is not supported by the source (among other issues) as well in the same section is a whole paragraph dedicated to the US claims. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

United States government claims

We need "United States government claims" sub-section. They are the main source for the narrative that it was an attack by Assad, yet we don't have a sub-section which mentions on what evidence and reasoning they claim it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you find any quote or consideration by Niki Haley from the UN Security Council? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, we do not need such subsection in the section "responsibility" because USA is not an alleged perpetrator of the chemical attack. Only sides which were claimed in a number of RS to be involved in the attack and denied the involvement should be included. I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, I could agree with such a reasoning.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's problematic to list the US as just another reaction among many uninvolved—but it was also problematic listing them under responsibility. I think they need their own section under US response (changed to US reaction). So, I have done this. El_C 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)