Talk:Douma chemical attack

Removal of the Russian POV from 'Background' section

@Volunteer Marek: regarding this edit, would you kindly also remove the previous sentences covering the Mattis statements? That is, of course, if you're interested enough to prove that you're not primarily targeting the Russian POV in your typical mass content removals. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Strike apparent "smearing", for which I apologize. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How about I just ignore you seem you seem incapable of discussing issues without resorting to attacks and smears against other editors? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How about we focus instead on your content-related behavior? I can strike/remove the "typical mass content removals" part if you were so offended by it as a sign of good faith, so we can be over with this quick.

Now, before WP:SYNTH is brought up, the Reuters article in the entry you just removed (published last month, yes) is cited by The Drive article, which I used as a reference in the first sentence, and which mentions the exact same statement but without names and with less detail. So WP:COMMONSENSE seems to trump WP:SYNTH in such case. If anything, you should've removed the Mattis part, because it is sourced to an Associated Press story rather than the Politico article cited by The Drive. But I stand by this addition as well, because it has the much needed quotes by Mattis, which the Politico article lacks.

And I just wanted to mention that The Drive has a platform called "The War Zone", which focuses on updates in the defense industry and on ongoing conflicts, so it's not just an automobile news outlet, and any matters concerning its reliability should be taken to RS/N. I'm just bringing this up before the "Not reliable!" thing starts showing up. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I won't comment as to whether or not user Fitzcarmalan is making "smears," but this user is correct that there was no good reason for relevant material with a citation to a mainstream media source to be removed. The fact that the government of Russia, a major world power, warned shortly before this alleged incident that rebel groups were planning a provocation to accuse to Syrian government of using chemical weapons is certainly very relevant. I've thus restored the content. -2003:CA:83FE:7700:61C4:965D:1AAA:9EE4 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's classic WP:SYNTH being used to suggest that the attack was a false flag. Find a source which links the statement to the attack, then we can talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not "classic WP:SYNTH", per my above explanation. And you just went past 1RR, so kindly self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " - here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event. Yes, it's classic SYNTH. "Per my above explanation" doesn't cut it when you don't actually explain why it's not synth but rather claim "common sense" (wtf that is in this case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

here you are using a source from before this event to suggest something about the event. Except the source from before the event is cited by the source about the event, which I did explicitly point out above before you distorted my explanation here. So it clearly isn't "classic" synthesis, especially when it's a "Background" section we're talking about. I expect you to remove the Mattis part once the 24 hours have passed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Above you mention something called The Drive, whatever the hey that is, but that source was not being used to cite the relevant statement under discussion. It was used to cite an entirely different statement. So I don't see the relevance. The text under discussion was cited to a Reuters story from March. Now, March, is a month, which happens to come before April. So yeah, SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, then isn't the entire background section under SYNTH? Because there is a part that says claims have been made of usage of chemical weapons recently, yet nothing specific about this particular incident. Mattis said here specifically that the US has no evidence confirming the battlefield reports making this claim. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with restoring the comment. There is absolutely no doubt a chemical attack has occurred, and plenty of RS's are stating the Assad regime is responsible. Wait for other RS's to point out that the Russian general's statement may have been part of a future plan/"need" for the Syrian regime to try and get away with another chemical attack - and was trying to set up a mindset in the world community that when they did attack, that somehow the victims did it to themselves in some insane attempt to frame Assad and his pals.50.111.41.216 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You need sources which make that claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically everyone on Twitter and elsewhere is saying this is an obvious false flag, but of course that will never be included in the article. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it won't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

POV

Even the main source for the statement that the SAA did the attack uses "Is Accused" and "working to verify". Why did the author wrote "attack carried out by the Syrian Arab Army". And all informations about this incident are from bogus anti-government sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on facts and not on the political opinion of the author. DerElektriker (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)