Jump to content

Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.199.221.23 (talk) at 03:40, 7 April 2017 (The Guardian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Help identify the perpertrator and the gas used

To stay anon, send content to my mail, contact me via talk page. wb_admin (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you watch the news/read newspapers.104.169.28.48 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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]. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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