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)

Burning sarin destroys it. The thing about high explosives is that they don't produce much in the way of flames, whatever Hollywood thinks. Chemical shells, bombs and rockets have an HE burster charge to disperse the weapon. That said, the casualties from this attack seem far too low for it to have been caused by military weapons.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 11:28, 12 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)

First off, just to get it out of the way, I do think that it was the Syrian government, but I'm not here to write the article from my POV (remember NPOV) since I recognize that I may be wrong because I wasn't there and the only thing that I have to go off are the statements of others. The fact of the matter is that although there are a lot of claims being made, there is no "smoking gun" evidence that the Syrian government is to blame while at the same time there are people (like Jerry Smith from the the politically neutral Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) who say that Assad's defense can not be discounted. In addition, since this is English Wikipedia, the overwhelming majority writers hail from countries (a) whose governments want to overthrow the Syrian government, and (b) whose populations largely oppose Assad. At the same time, these writers will get most of their information from English language news outlets which again, overwhelmingly oppose Assad and want to see the the Syrian government overthrown. This represents Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Availability of sources may cause bias, Wikipedia:Systemic bias#English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias#An American or European perspective may exist.
The point is that it is extremely likely that this article will develop into an article that (even with all statements having proper citations) (1) takes the position that there is WORLD-WIDE consensus that the Syrian government is to blame (where although this consensus only exists in the Western world it is clearly not world-wide,), resulting in giving readers an incorrect impression and pushing a non-NPOV, and (2) minimizes the non-Western viewpoint by simultaneously:
(a) dismissing all sources from Syrian/Russian/Iranian news as Non-Reliable to suppress a major party's viewpoint, while simultaneously
(b) using Wikipedia:Citation overkill with Western sources to conclude that a consensus exists against the Syrian government (when in reality this would just show that such a consensus exists in the Western world).
Remember that "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and that importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
The original reasons for my proposal was to try to give the article a NPOV, as well as to make more clear to the reader which statements are uncontested, which are contested, the origin of contested statements, and any likely bias that a source may have. So at least for now, I support having the perpetrators be "unknown" or possibly "accident caused by conventional bombing by Syrian government or a chemical attack by the Syrian government (contested)". selfworm^Talk) 19:09, 10 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 (32; [10]) 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)

I think the section is about as good as it's gonna get—in terms of reliable sources and due weight. El_C 23:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If principles are checked, what you're arguing is violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS because there is no "wide attribution", violation of WP:VERIFY because such a claim can not be verified in the source (32), violation of WP:UNDUE (on which you're substantiating current section revision) because the viewpoint is not in the majority since it is not provided a single reliable source nor multiple sources which mention and support such a claim, violation of WP:IMPARTIAL as it is endorsing and rejecting a particular point of view, violation of WP:YESPOV as an opinion i.e. claim by US is stated as a fact.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with El_C and L.R. Wormwood. Most RS say that Bashar al-Assad's regime was most certainly behind the chemical attack. Speaking about official positions by governments, well this is not what really counts per WP:NPOV, but US, European Union, and Australia tell the same in their official statements. I do not see what's the problem.My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What "most RS"? This "most RS" are not cited nor support the sentence. Where are these "most RS" in the article? What you argue is your personal opinion and generalization, and as such is null. What El_C, L.R. Wormwood, My very best wishes, consider is violation of WP:GAMETYPE, "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community", and of WP:STONEWALL because effectively preventing a policy-based resolution, i.e. WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This activity lasted for too long and started to be disruptive and time wasting, indicating we should seek some dispute resolution i.e. sanctions to be imposed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Some extraordinary accusations and (mistaken) policy-linking here. No dispute resolution will be necessary, you are the only person who objects. Given how the section reads now, your suggestion that it is OR or improper synthesis is false. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Miki argue it would be NPOV-consistent to summarize that The perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown as it was in their edit [11], meaning whoever might be responsible? I am sorry, but that is not what RS on the subject say. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That's it - I am going to seek resolution and sanctions. First editor, L.R. Wormwood, falsely stated that I was the only who objected as ignored Claíomh Solais, as well failed to acknowledge multiple violation of policy. Second editor, My very best wishes, obviously does not follow the discussion as ignored that the sentence "The perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown" is not discussed and proposed anymore as it was replaced by "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack", and also failed to acknowledge multiple violation of policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no violations of policy by anyone except you (hence your block). No one "falsely stated" anything. Please stop accusing other contributors of something they did not do. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, the three (four, if you count Volunteer Marek) of us seem to think that the section is about as good as it's gonna gets at this point in time—and we are entitled to that opinion and to hold that position, as you much as you are entitled to challenge it. But going on to accuse us of gaming the system ^[12] is an escalation of the dispute beyond the content in question, and to that I and —if I may be bold enough to speak for my two colleagues— we collectively object. El_C 04:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider these remarks once again as false and invalid substantiation. Yes, you're entitled to hold your position, but because such a position is contradicting editing principles it is losing any credibility for consideration. As the talk page scope is the content change,

I propose changing:

• [The attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government. Syria denied any involvement, Russia claimed that the deaths were a result of gas released when a government airstrike hit a rebel-operated chemical weapons factory. The UN Security Council session unanimously declared the need for an investigation of the chemical attack. According to OPCW, its investigation into the attack is ongoing. According to the US government, the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack, and that the Syrian jets carried out the bombing of a rebel stronghold. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying "Either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent". According to Tillerson, the U.S. appealed Assad to cease the use of chemical weapons, and "other than that, there is no change to our military posture", with ISIS remaining the primary priority.]

to

• [The responsiblity for the attack is disputed.[sourced by #43 reference] Syria denied any involvement, while Russia claimed that the deaths were a result of gas released when a government airstrike hit a rebel-operated chemical weapons factory. According to the United States government, the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack, and that the Syrian jets carried out the bombing of a rebel stronghold. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying "either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent". According to Tillerson, the U.S. appealed Assad to cease the use of chemical weapons, and "other than that, there is no change to our military posture", with ISIS remaining the primary priority. The UN Security Council session unanimously declared the need for an investigation of the chemical attack. According to OPCW, its investigation into the attack is ongoing.]--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. You may consider whatever you wish, in turn, but you are here to attempt to gain conensus, which you are failing to do. Repeating the same issues of due weight will not get you far. I'm not seeing anyone who is likely to make these changes at your behest. El_C 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Claíomh Solais Specifically in regard to your comments:

"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."

Most governments have not attributed responsibility for the attack, since most European governments are not involved in the conflict and do not have access to intelligence. The US airstrike was widely supported, and this can be assumed to indicate attribution of responsibility for the chemical attack. The following article provides a summary of government statements which address the US airstrike [13]. The Saudi government has explicitly attributed responsibility to the Syrian government ([14]), as has the government of the UAE ([15]). Several munitions experts comment on the plausibility of the Russian/Syrian claim here ([16]). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that the Russian/Syrian claim is not that the attack was caused by a Syrian airstrike that hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”. "The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem 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. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident.[17] Erlbaeko (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If that is indeed the new position, and you can find a source other than Sputnik, we can update the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the content change, once again, it is dismissed on substantiation which is contradicting the editing policy, including UNDUE, and as such it is "effectively preventing a policy-based resolution". The edit sentence "According to US administration, Russia bears responsibility for the chemical attack" is anothor such example as was without source to support such a claim or context, vioalting VERIFY and SYNTHESIS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

L.R. Wormwood: It's not a new position. CNN and theGuardian faked it. They took a piece of the statement, twisted its meaning and had some experts to comment on their faked version. I believe Sputnik is more reliable for presenting the Russian and Syrian side. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Sputnik, RT TV and other similar media, which are directly controlled by the Russian government, are not RS for anything controversial and political, such as this matter. Same can be said about Facebook (your link). On the other hand, CNN and the Guardian are RS. If in doubt, please ask on WP:RSNB. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. I just stated after Sputnik that the Syrian goverment said "blablabla." That is to use a secondary source in the simplest way. Even SANA would be an RS for that. Go and ask at RSN if you like. The Facebook link was, btw, included in a BBC article. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So, "Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem 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". OK. But this "explanation" was already included in the body of the page. Should it also be included in the lead? Hardly. It is enough to note the denial by Assad. But it is already noted in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I may be blind, but I can't see no denial by Assad in the lede, ref. current revision. I am not saying we must include the whole statement, but we should explain that side too, not only a denial. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, it was included. However, it is enough to tell that it was denied by Assad in the lead. The details of the denial should be provided in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you missed the word "NOT". It was not included. But no, to tell that it was denied by Assad is not enough to explain the Syrian governments view (or to summarize it). Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion about lead in the discussion below "Lead section".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, partially agree to your remark about Erlbaeko consideration to put it in the lead, but I note you for a second time that your edit RS/VERIFY. Do not ignore that. The same issue (VERIFY/OR/SYNTHESIS) goes to first sentence ("The attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government") in first paragraph .--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, the RS overwhelmingly attribute this to Assad. This is like saying grass is green. But if you want to be pedantic about the precise wording of "widely attributed",here you go: the Washington Post uses this very same wording. As of Postol, we shouldn't be using him at all. His self-admittedly hastily written paper is pure WP:SPS. I don't really are about it for now: if it claims that the chemicals belonged to the rebels, it will eventually be debunked once someone gets around to reading it (this is the inevitable fate of such conspiracy theories). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here. Maybe someone can use it. Not sure how, though. ansh666 23:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is trash. Ritter says "reports" of a " 'pungent odor' " and " 'blue-green smoke' " indicate a chlorine gas attack, but does not bother to cite a source. He's quoting someone, but does not say whom. This is elementary journalistic malpractice. If you do a google search for "“pungent odor” idlib", all you'll find are a bunch of non-RS citing Ritter and no original "reports". Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, googling "smell Idlib" yields several reports of a rotten smell and bleach smell, which would seem to vindicate Ritter. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Article by a reliable and notable Scott Ritter was previously used in the article. It is a secondary and well written source (compared to others which are more-like primary as quote U.S. or Syrian establishment claims). Above was proposed content change with the source and quote used to provide neutrality to the "Responsibility" or "Lead" section. However, it is constantly ignored because it is clearly pushed WP:IMPARTIAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: explain yours revert because until now not a single editor appropriately substantiated their revert&consideration based on editing policy, sources or common sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll just quote myself from a few lines up: ::::::::::::Please, the RS overwhelmingly attribute this to Assad. This is like saying grass is green. But if you want to be pedantic about the precise wording of "widely attributed",here you go: the Washington Post uses this very same wording. As of Postol, we shouldn't be using him at all. His self-admittedly hastily written paper is pure WP:SPS. I don't really are about it for now: if it claims that the chemicals belonged to the rebels, it will eventually be debunked once someone gets around to reading it (this is the inevitable fate of such conspiracy theories). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not a specific and valid substantiation. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Responsibility/attribution

The section currently states: "The attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government." This is too vague. We should specify *who*, specifically, has attributed the attack to the Syrian government. In the interests of brevity we probably should confine the list to significant entities such as nations and international organizations. 2601:644:0:DBD0:E873:D864:F261:C6D6 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fact is the attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government, even if it maybe shouldn't (before there is an investigation, like Tulsi Gabbard is arguing).^[18] El_C 10:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the attack is widely attributed to the Syrian government, but by whom? Is it widely attributed to the Syrian government in Russia? China? India? Canada? Sweden? Should Wikipedia be written from a western mainstream medias point of view? Should we exclude sources that dispute their POV? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. El_C 11:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article (though a mess) does provide an outline of the Russian and Syrian position. Most WP:RS attribute responsibility for the attack to Syria, and therefore the article must reflect that. And yes, Wikipedia is (and should be) written according to what is reported in "mainstream" sources. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Also a fair point. Question remains: qualify in any way the "widely attributed" that open the sentence, or not. Perhaps a survey is in order...? (What we would do in case the result is no consensus may be equally problematic—but one crisis at a time.) El_C 11:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should be written according to what is reported in "mainstream" sources, but we should not restrict it to western mainstream sources and discredit non-western sources just because they are biased, or "by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." as the Neutral point of view policy puts it. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This discussion should have been over days ago. There was not provided a single reason to not include neutral and reliable consideration&sentence and reference by Scott Ritter (the edit I made or proposed numerous times), which could be supported by other RS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The context of "widely attributed": Andrew Wilkie [19] "Mr Wilkie, a former senior intelligence analyst, said there was no doubt the attack occurred but Australia should not blindly accept assurances from US authorities", "Australians should be cautious…and not too quick to automatically endorse US claims"; [20] "which Western powers have attributed to Assad's forces"; [21] "Western statements place blame at the feet of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, an accusation Damascus and Moscow contest". Basically, what Western powers or allies claim is a literary topos of what U.S. claims. If you check article sources it is clear that the statement "widely attributed" is related to international reaction for which we have a separate section, but not as some editors argue to be related to RS&UNDUE. Current section paragraph violates IMPARTIAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You state that "Most WP:RS attribute responsibility for the attack to Syria, and therefore the article must reflect that." The problem with that reasoning is that media sources cannot be considered reliable sources for claims that they themselves are making. For example, if The Washington Post directly asserts that Assad was responsible for the attack, then this is a claim being made by the Post and needs to be attributed as such, not accepted as fact. 2601:644:0:DBD0:745E:5E83:A8BC:FA49 (talk) 08:40, 15 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)

Yes, sure, we need a separate own section for US because there was a military response by US - I agree with your changes. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Now it's back again. I may not have a revert left for a few more hours (though I don't think undoing and restoring a cleaner version counts—but why risk it?), so I leave the article in a sorry state, instead, but have added the npov-section tag due to WP:DUE. I'm thinking we may need a hidden note, for once it is removed, so that US claims doesn't keep getting re-added to Responsibility. Obviously, whomever did this has failed to read this discussion. El_C 10:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Moreover, no one objected to your change on the talk page. I restored it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

Currently the Lead section does not inlcude the Syrian governments view in any way, since Volunteer Marek removed it here, with his personal analysis in the edit summary. I believe we, according to the Neutral point of view policy also should explain that side. Should we include the Syrian governments view 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.", in the lead?[22] Erlbaeko (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-added a shorter version.[23]. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

By your edit (and the following) the current paragraph is not concise and contradicts the WP:LEAD policy, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". I advise to include the information somewhere in the article ("claims" section), revert the lead to previous revision, and add to the lead a remark that Syrian government denied any involvement.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My edit is covered in "the remainder of the article". See the Syrian government claims section. The addition made by "Dan the Plumber" is not. That should be fixed. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Think both edits are not represented concisely in the lead. You should add a wikilink to false flag.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I will, but I have to wait for 24 hours to pass, since I technically reverted Volunteer Mareks revert when I re-added that statement. The "one revert per twenty-four hours restriction" is the most important rule of all, you know. I guess you know that by know... ;) Erlbaeko (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: with your edit you removed the part by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, did not cite any reference for Assad's denial, while you left the part by a journalist Kareem Shaheen (edited by Dan the Plumber), discussed here, who is not mentioned in the article nor there's a reference for him nor it deserves to be mentioned in the lead.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead does not need any sourcing. This is just a summary of the text provided in the body of page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead section states "On 8 April, the town was attacked again by government forces, resulting in one death" which seems off topic. How is this attack specifically related to the gas attack, the primary subject of this article?Axium Cog (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Removed it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, the Kareem Shaheen article is referred to in a later section. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I too don't find Shaheen's visit to the warehouse DUE in the lead. It's best to start an RfC to highlight each issue here separately. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dan the Plumber: at the time of my reply it was not referred in the section. It was edited by you a day later.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Images of alleged munition

Should there not be some images of the alleged crater and the empty munitions as per the Guardian article?Engineman (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Engineman: we can't have the actual images unless they have been released under a WP-compliant free license. Of which article do you speak? VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The ones in the Guardian? Engineman (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Timing

As it currently reads, it appears that the Syrian gov't narrative is that the sarin gassing (with patients in hospitals at ~0500 EEST) was caused by a Russian airstrike accidentally hitting a terrorist gas cache roughly 7 hours later? If this is the case, I would imagine there is ample sourcing for some skeptical analysis by 3rd party sources. If this is not the case, we should fix the phrasing in the article. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not the case. As discussed above (see the end of the Npov section), the Russian/Syrian claim is not that the attack was caused by a Syrian airstrike that hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”, as theGuardian claim. "The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem 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. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident.[24] Erlbaeko (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: ok, so the Syrian/Russian narrative (SRN) is that a false flag attack occurred that morning, and the Russian airstrike later in the day was coincidental? If my personal confusion on the issue is now resolved, what is the best way to update the article with RS content that communicates the SRN? VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually believe the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) is the best source for the official Syrian view(f.ex. this article), while Sputnik, RT or TASS are good sources for the official Russian view, like the BBC, theGuardian or The Telegraph are good sources for the official British view. I know some editors don't like to use Syrian and/or Russian news sites, but the reliability of a source depends on context, and at least in that context they are RS. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Another question: when did the SRN change to false flag? Initially it was "we hit a warehouse", no? VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the "ups, we hit a warehouse" narrative was created by theGuardian and CNN. BBC was kind enough to include a link (in the "What does the Syrian government say?" section) to a translation of the original statement. The Russian Defence Ministry simply 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.", and that "On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions." Does this mean that the strike caused the chemical attac? No. It means the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large ammunition depot in the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun between 11:30 and 12:30. It could be coincidental, it could be a response to the chemical attack or it could be for some other reasons. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

But if the attack took place around 06:30 local time on April 4, before most children and parents had left for school or work, as the rebels narrative says. How do we explain this? It's posted 13:18 on April 3 (twitter time). I believe that is 00:18 on April 4 local Syrian time. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: No, the "ups, we hit a warehouse" narrative was created by theGuardian and CNN. Source? VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to Ghouta-Mintpress theory

The Syrian gov't narrative seems markedly similar to the Mintpress story floated after the 2013 Ghouta sarin attack. Has anyone seen any RS comparison of the two narratives? VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not the narrative. Se the Timing section above. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

International reactions

According to the template I rewrote the list of quotes as sourced prose at sandbox. Please update accordingly the "Reactions" section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Disagree it should be in the form of fluid prose. The format we currently have, with flags separating each country, is preferable, in my opinion. El_C 08:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a clear violation of WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE - edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

But your version has just as many quotes—the only difference is that it is shorter and mentions less reactions. And it is in prose, which I disagree with. El_C 01:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I will re-edit the accidentally removed sources which were related to the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed

Can we substitute "Disputed" for "Unknown" in the infobox? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. (Is it disputed?) El_C 10:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can explain how a Syrian Air Force fixed-wing aircraft that took off from Shayrat airbase in Homs province on Tuesday morning and fly over Khan Sheikhoun on two occasions at 06:37 and 06:46 local time caused "More than 20 suffocation cases among civilians, mostly children and women," before 00:18 on April 4, yes, then it's disputed. See the Timing section above. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, but we need reliable sources to discuss the timing, or your disputed is original research. El_C 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko This contribution, and your contribution here, would appear to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Unless you are referring to sources which make identical claims (which you are not citing), you are wasting your time by leaving these comments here - we can do precisely nothing with them. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The "policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". Erlbaeko (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

But you are asking us to consider it for the article: that's what at issue (disputed vs. unknown). El_C 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hence I said: "Unless you are referring to sources which make identical claims (which you are not citing), you are wasting your time by leaving these comments here - we can do precisely nothing with them."

You are welcome to share your unsourced reflections here, I suppose, but you will be wasting your time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me worry about my time. Thanks, Erlbaeko (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: I believe you have also misinterpreted that line in WP:OR. You are obviously not expected to reference your personal evaluations about content, layout, and sources. You couldn't ask me to withdraw my comments about Sputnik not being WP:RS on the basis of it being WP:OR, for instance. You may also like to read this: WP:FORUM. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's also about our time, when you use it as grounds to edit the article in a certain way, is the point. El_C 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Russian and Assad governments only denied using chemical weapons, but they did not deny the air strike. Hence, there is no question who conducted the strike. I fixed it in the infobox accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As per my new source from Theodore Postol in the attack section, you will see the fact that the chemical "strike" was carried out from the air is disputed, so I am going to fix it in the infobox accordingly - unless we can agree Turkish Intelligence did it, which I somehow doubt at this time? ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Where this report by Theodore Postol was published? Was it published in WP:RS? This looks to me as a self-published material at best. Whole paragraph should be therefore removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed by what source? Cite your reliable sources right next to the word disputed, please. El_C 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess this is WP:OR of the worst kind by RaRaRasputin on the basis of "sources" like that. Things like that should be reverted on spot and user warned. My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider Postol, even when self-published to be reliable as an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, perfectly in line with reliable sources. RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So, it is self-published!. Another user just inserted a duplicate of this claim sourced to RT (TV network). No, this is not a good source for the claim. My very best wishes (talk)

RT-cited content is problematic, but this is an expert who is, himself, a reliable source...Maybe mention him under Russian claims, due to the RT source? Although it is an independent analysis, so I can see that point, as well. El_C 20:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You can moan about it but it's still acceptable under international law, or whatever you call it. He's American so you can't put it under Russian claims. It'll be widely reported soon but only came out last night. It's still imperative to publicize it widely as soon as possible before another stupid, staged attack to avoid World War 3 and all that. I think it's best left where it is. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Just relax. Maybe you need a break from this article. El_C 21:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I think my work here is done. Have nice holidays. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. El_C 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

MIT professor Theodore Postol is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable sources. He has even been cited in a resent Deutsche Welle-article[25] about this attack. I think we should include his view. Happy Easter. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever has been published elsewhere on other issues doesn't matter - what matters is whether a Reliable Source has taken up his ... fringe ... theory and put it forward. RT is hardly a neutral, reliable source. He also has not been on-site, so he's just being an armchair analyst. "It is conceivable, as one of his colleagues has suggested, that Theodore Postol could be more effective “if he did not eventually accuse just about everybody of fraud or malfeasance or stupidity” - to quote one of his colleagues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk)

That same article also states that: Postol's technical analysis of missile defense is "the best work that anybody has done outside the bowels of the Pentagon," says former assistant secretary of defense Philip Coyle. [[26]] 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Re[27] No, I did not, but you did. Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users. I am logged in, you are not. Please, self-revert or I may have you blocked. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Made a copyedit which makes clear that it's reported by RT but allows readers to come to their own conclusions about that. Hopefully it's satisfactory. ansh666 23:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's also reported by theNation. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like "engineers for 9/11 truth", but go ahead and cite the Nation (the only RS that appears to cite him in this context) for now to establish notability. RT won't cut it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hah, Al Qaeda weren't ...fringe... bad guys back then requiring true engineers to point at them! Highly notable journalist Robert Parry has also reported it now here, if this is okay to use and a better source than RT? [28] RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Still not RS. Still conspiracy crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Kareem Shaheen's visit to the warehouse be placed in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Kareem Shaheen's visit to the warehouse be placed in the lead? The following sentence would be placed as such:

The Russian Defense Ministry said Syrian aircraft did conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to rebels near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested the warehouse "may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile". Kareem Shaheen, the first western journalist to visit the town after the attack, looked at the warehouse that Russia said manufactured chemical weapons but found nothing but empty grain silos, dust and rubble.

The source for it is this.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Yes: Has anyone disputed his testimony? Not that I am aware of. Russia basically conjured a hypothesis out of thin air right after the attack, claiming — with zero evidence — that the SAF struck a chemical weapons stockpile (or even a factory — which is preposterous). There is no reason to rush to turn the lead into a he said she said. This article not about "official reactions" to the Idlib attack, but about the facts of the attack itself. The most pressing issue is inserting reports from reliable sources into the article to tell readers what is actually known. The article is still developing — there will be plenty of time in the future to litigate the lead. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes: On what basis has this been disputed? I can't find a discussion on the talk page, and I'm not sure why this has gone to RfC. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. No objections to this edit, but I think it would be better to make it shorter in the lead and simply tell something like "The attack was reportedly conducted by the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad" instead of "The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Turkey and Israel blamed the attack on the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad". The latter is simply wrong. Not only governments of many other countries tell the same, but more importantly, that is what nearly all WP:RS on the subject tell. Perhaps it worth mentioning in the lead that the chemical attack was prepared by the Assad government in advance, according to intercepted communications [29]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I emphasize that personal consideration by some editors is clearly WP:IMPARTIAL and violation of WP:NPOV i.e. WP:UNDUE and WP:ASSERT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No: According to editing policy - MOS:INTRO "should briefly summarize the most important points", "should avoid ... over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article", based on WP:UNDUE "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject", as well WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Vote to move and close RfC I initially voted against moving it, but just moved it and trimmed the lead. I agree that it's too much detail for lead. Anyway, really stupid to be litigating trivial shit like this right now. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not in the lede. Yes in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not in the lead as per MOS:INTRO. This will avoid endless “litigation” of the lead. But put it in the body of the text.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not in the lede As above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactions excessive quote tag

Unless there are objections, I'll be removing the tag. I don't even think it is quoting excessively for such a section, not anymore, barring one or two exceptions. El_C 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV-section on US reaction

Where is the discussion for that? El_C 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Added by My very best wishes—was it by accident? I 'm the one who added it to US claims because I felt it was undue weight for the Responsibility section. I think it can be removed without incident, and not counting as a revert. Unless you do feel that there are neutrality problems with that section now. El_C 21:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the tag - why is the section not neutral?104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: pinging you to this. El_C 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

According to vast majority of sources (including even the official claims by Russia and Syria), the bombing raid was conducted by the Syrian aviation. This is not "according to US". Syria denies only using chemical weapons, but not the raid itself, if I understand correctly. Even so, Syria did use chemical weapons according to "majority view". I am not sure how this should be fixed in infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you propose? You can't tag the section with {{npov section}} without having an idea of what to do. El_C 04:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree: there is no reason for NPOV tag in the section. Also, according to intercepted communications, chemical attack was prepared by Assad in advance [30]. I would suggest to clearly mark in the infobox "Executed by" Assad government if you do not mind. This is almost a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The NPOV tag must be removed because no argument was presented. Also, I am warning editors once again that such comments like by My very best wishes above (including e.g. [31]) and edits (becuase of which are removed or not supported RS and sentences which are neutral) is an evidence that it is pushed WP:IMPARTIAL violation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

According to you. There's not much weight to your warning, I'm afraid. El_C 23:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I will only say that these days was made enough material for a serious collective warning. Personal opinion must not interfere in the editing. Back to topic - the tag was removed per point 6. of WP:WTRMT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, I fixed it per discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

[E]nough material for a serious collective warning—Serious how? What does that even mean? El_C 09:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Serious to the point it is deliberately pushed violation of IMPARTIAL. Throughout the main page editing history, talk page discussion history, were made edits and statements which lack neutrality, substantiation and indicate partial attitude. At the moment it is not critical, however, we need to be aware of that and act when required.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

non-English sources - this is the English Wiki -

- remember, non-English sources are to be used ONLY if they provide information otherwise not available in English. This is a very, very widely covered topic and there is no shortage of English sources. I will remove the Arabic source from the multi-source string for a paragraph in the article. Note, this is not to be seen as anything against other languages - Wiki guidelines are somewhat strict on this for verifiability purposes by anyone who reads English, which the the en.Wiki is geared towards. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not true, per WP:NOENG. While we may not prefer non-English-language sources, they are by no means restricted or banned. ansh666 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was banned, but there are restrictions - read the guideline - non-English sources are to be used when they provide information not otherwise available in English sources. If it is covered in an English Reliable Source, English is to be used.

I see, this is why the statement by the UAE was removed. If you want to read the reference, download chrome and use the automatic translator. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy closed as a WP:POINT violation. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack → Khan Skaykhun air raid – Move the article from a title that suggests an attack using chemical weapons has taken place (supported by no reliable sources at all) to a neutral title per WP:NPOV. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, this event is notable as a chemical attack, not as an air raid. If it was just a raid, no one would pay that much attention; there would be no the missile attack in response, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep "Chemical attack" is supported by numerous reliable sources - so this nomination is flawed. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not. This tendentious and an obvious abuse of process. The suggestion that the use of chemical weapons is "supported by no reliable sources at all" is false and should be withdrawn. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment On further investigation, this would appear to be a rather petty response to a similar proposal made for an article which User:RaRaRasputin created several hours ago (Hatla chemical attack). Is it possible to terminate this request? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• No, obviously. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy move close?

Why was this done? Do you seriously believe the opinion of a game show host on chemical weapons munitions analysis as a reliable source? RaRaRasputin (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. El_C 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that this was a "chemical attack". This article should be moved to a WP:NPOV title until the claim can be adequately sourced. RaRaRasputin (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus is against your position, that's why it's disruptive. El_C 23:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The consensus does not have WP:NPOV so it is not. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The consensus determines what is or isn't neutral; what is or isn't based on reliable sources; what is or isn't verifiable. El_C 23:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You've already been warned on your talk page about disruptive editing. At the moment (with your recent contributions and childish edit summaries) you're heading for a topic ban. Please let this WP:DEADHORSE go and perhaps find something less controversial to edit. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You are quickly approaching the point of a topic ban, RaRaRasputin. El_C 10:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the consensus will need to be changed. I will continue to unleash the horrors of qualified and experienced engineers, medical doctors, professors, chemical weapons experts and the likes on you without end until you repent. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you here to right great wrongs, you are probably going to be dissapointed. El_C 23:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to consider that I am here to create great rights and more like a mutual self-defense mechanism. RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Responsibility"

There is a recent interview in which Bashar Al Assad refers to the Syrian Government responsibility in the attack. He said that the gas attack blamed on his government was "100 percent fabrication". This is a more direct and reliable source of the Syrian Government position than the "unnamed Syrian government official" cited by the MiddleEastEye.net webpage. Should we add it to the article? --Forich (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the full transcript of the interview. --Forich (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I updated the section a few minutes ago with the new Syrian government position (referenced AFP, who conducted the interview). The MiddleEastEye.net reference supports our claim that "On the day of the attack, a Syrian government official told Reuters that "the government does not and has not used chemical weapons, not in the past and not in the future."", for which it is sufficient (though the original Reuters article might be better). Someone might want to re-write the section in the light of recent developments, however. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT means that we should give this the space proportional to its coverage in reliable SECONDARY sources. Our job isn't to repeat everything that some official says. Only if it receives widespread coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: you're removing ([32], [33], [34]) "opinon" unless it is "widely reported" or "UNDUE", while reverted the "opinon" by a journalist which is not "widely reported" nor "UNDUE" and probably "propaganda". Explain your edits with editing policy and sources, otherwise your edits were anything but disruptive editing.-Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In the first edit, I removed something ridiculous. Also, not RS. For the other two, quite simply these opinions were not widely reported on AFAICT so they don't belong in there. On the other hand the Kareem Shaheen appears to have consensus for inclusion, though not in the lede, and also WAS widely reported on [35], [36], [37].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First edit: there's a sub-discussion on Theodore Postol and after research check, it is alright. Second edit: Jerry Smith's opinion(s), beside source by Radio New Zealand, was reported by [38],[39], [40] (The Guardian) and [41] (ABC News (Australia)) thus it does belong to the article. Third edit: also alright. Hence, constructively and appropriately (citation style) edit these (Jerry Smith and Kareem Shaheen) claims and sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You just removed a number of reliably sourced and important views that condemn the chemical attack by Assad here, but suggest to keep a ridiculous and poorly sourced conspiracy theory by Postol. This is not consistent with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Postol appears to be a serious researcher: I'm not sure calling his analysis a "conspiracy theory" is fair. El_C 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that he was a serious researcher in the past. However, what he is telling here is an opinion piece, not a scientific research: he just looked at a few photos and expressed his opinion. Perhaps for that reason his letter was mentioned seriously only on RT TV, Russian state propaganda channel. Should this be included here? I do not think so, however if there is a consensus to include (I do not see it), then let's include, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, your comment is not related to this discussion yet "International reactions". The edit was done according to older revision and I will re-edit the accidentally removed sources. I did not suggest anyhow to keep Postol, I said "alright" in the sense Marek's removal was "alright". I need to check the researcher reliability to make any statement about him.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Howcome there is a negative comment added after Bashar's claims about babies in this article that reads " According to numerous eyewitnesses and reporters on the ground, children did in fact die in the attack."? I tried to add this redactive statement to balance this flagrant abuse of WP:NPOV standards :-

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, including senior members - Leif Elinder and Lena Oske have revealed videos taken by the White Helmets that have been clearly faked for the cameras and propaganda purposes. The doctors have made the horrific revelations "that the life-saving procedures seen in the film are incorrect – in fact life-threatening – or simply fake, including simulated emergency resuscitation techniques being used on already lifeless children." One of the videos shows the White Helmets repeatedly stabbing a baby in the heart with a hypodermic needle without depressing the plunger in a staged medical procedure.

References

...and it was removed. Why was that? Surely the opinion of medical doctors should be included to balance the opinions of the eyewitnesses in Al Qaeda territory and maintain WP:NPOV in the article? RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. I will warn you again, your editing patterns are clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS, and you are close to being referred to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice regarding WP:SYNTHESIS. I have read this, absorbed it and get the point. This material has been dispersed correctly onto other pages where those constraints do not apply. I totally disagree that my editing patterns have been in any way WP:TENDENTIOUS however. This is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. My editing is entirely neutral and in line with WP:NPOV. I simply better informed than the consensus and will attempt to address this with further information in future edits. RaRaRasputin (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for listening to my suggestion. You are clearly trying to present a perspective which you feel is not being given due attention in the article. This isn't the problem. It's your style of editing - your requested page move, for instance, and making contentious edits without discussing it first on the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@RaRaRasputin: I reverted (here is the previous revision to easly check the info and sources). I consider that your edits are in good faith, but have to agree with L.R. Wormwood - it is tendentious to the point the edits could not be accepted because of misunderstanding your pattern of editing. I would like to call WP:BRD on this revert because, for start: 1) Is there any current section this information can be included? If not, what kind of spearate heading should it be? I do not agree with the heading style. 2) Can we check and find more RS to substantiate the information? 3) Can we check if is there any violation of editing policy? 4) RaRaRasputin, be patient, because this BRD can only improve your edits and the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new section called "Prominent Individuals" in reactions. You can add all those fellows back in at your leisure after proper debate if required. Please let me know any sourcing problems and I will try to provide better or correct. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@RaRaRasputin, I doubt your edit uses a reliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubted it a bit but Friends of Syria are listed, I read about them and they seem reliable. Their website has over 4,000,000 hits. Charles Shoebridge, the source of the claim certainly is and I thought it best to pick someone notable like him to highlight the smell problem. I think he was the first to spot it. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In what way do the SWEDHR revelations about the White Helmets directly relate to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack? RS, please. El_C 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

They don't. It's WP:SYNTHESIS. They only relate to the White Helmets and Sarmin chemical attack pages. I am over that one. RaRaRasputin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you seriously just add information to the article with Wordpress as the source? VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have improved it with one from the Washington Standard [42]. RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Kareem Shaheen claim -- undue weight?

The article currently cites Kareem Shaheen, reporting for The Guardian, as having examined a warehouse near the site of the attack and not found anything. This is apparently intended to counter the claim put forward by Russia of bombs striking a rebel CW stockpile. It seems like this is giving undue weight to a single anecdote reported in a single publication. 2601:644:0:DBD0:745E:5E83:A8BC:FA49 (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Prominent individuals

I'm a bit concerned that only one point of view (anti-war) is represented by the position of the various individuals in that section, in contravention of due weight. El_C 00:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to Skeptical individuals, because that's what it is. Added bit about Tulsi Gabbard to section op. El_C 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Now the list of individuals is longer than the Countries section. This is a problem. Maybe we need a sub-article. El_C 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

How about we create a new page called Khan Shaykhun air raid and move most of them over there, then put Theodore Postol back with my recent unclassified State Department documents revealing the previous use of sarin by terrorists and leave this page to talk about the chemical attack? ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was more thinking about Opposition to US position on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This new whole section are poorly sourced claims by individuals; undue. It should be removed and re-included only if there is consensus to re-include. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bit I added about Tulsi Gabbard is worth keeping, as she is now leading the skeptical current in the US. I haven't reviewed the rest too closely, however. El_C 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't think it is worth keeping. She is only one of 47 members of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. When you include the opinions of many of the other members, then we can include her. LylaSand (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, she is leading the skeptical current in the US—that's why she is worth mentioning, not because of being 1 of 47. El_C 06:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we add in Ron Paul

And his opinion on the attack? He claims it was a false flag. Might be a good idea to edit his take on the events in. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would support it as Ron Paul is a highly notable, reliable source. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose, commentary from public figures is not useful here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would support, he is a notable figure. However, problem is we need somekind of separate section and more notable figures who had a similar opinion, reported in RS. Thus partially agree with L.R. Wormwood, currently is not useful.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Independent expert claims" and "Skeptical Individuals" to talk

I propose we remove these sections from the article and amend them on the talk page (per WP:PRESERVE), since as they stand they are clearly very problematic, and pose numerous WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS concerns. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, they need a discussion (for start [43]) and quality editing. Also, the talk page is hard to follow with so many new discussions, or the article page with so many edits which were not discussed or basically contradict previously mentioned violation of LEAD, NPOV, UNDUE, CONSENSUS, BRD... People, the article or content is not going to run away if it is discussed a day or two. When I check the revision history of the last 100 edits, I doubt there was no violaton of 1RR. I think we need to slow down. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have pasted it below. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Independent expert claims

Theodore Postol, an American professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), analyzed the evidence referenced in the 4-page "dossier" issued by the White House and concluded that the assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” and that photographic evidence used in the assessment pointed to an attack by people on the ground using a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it.

Patrick Martin (who is not an expert) has supported Postol in an article claiming “any serious examination of the NSC document reveals it to be a series of bare assertions without any supporting evidence". Martin highlights how the language used lacks any substantiating proof, saying things such as “The United States is confident” … “We have confidence in our assessment” … “We assess” … “Our information indicates” … “It is clear” … and so on. In other words, “this is the US government speaking, trust us.”

References

Skeptical Individuals

Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard said she is "skeptical" the Assad government was behind the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun.

Former UN weapons inspector and Weapons of Mass Destruction expert, Hans Blix has criticized the evidence for the attack, saying "I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."

Another former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has suggested that the alleged attack is an instance of how Al Qaeda is "playing" Donald Trump and the American media, saying "the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the "White Helmets," the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message". Ritter explains the situation on the ground saying "Khan Shaykhun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, it was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population".

Iran-Contra investigative journalist Robert Parry has placed blame on Michael R. Gordon and Anne Barnard of the New York Times for obfuscating evidence, using unreliable sources like the White Helmets and covering the event to push for an outdated, neocon concept of "regime change".

Retired U.S. intelligence officer Colonel W. Patrick Lang has argued that due to the agreement to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents, Russia contacted the United States and informed them of a planned attack on a weapons storage warehouse. Lang suggests the Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons and instead of a massive secondary explosion, chemical smoke began issuing from the attack site and spreading out over the area. He suggests that Tahrir al-Sham (previously Al Qaeda in Syria) used Khan Shaykhun to store chemicals including chlorine and organic phosphates that flowed with the wind and killed civilians.

References

I removed the content above again from the article due to overriding policy concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE), as is consistent with WP:EW. @RaRaRasputin: can you move your obviously contentious changes to talk where they can be discussed to avoid further edit-warring. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I really hope to avoid edit-warring and am around to chat if there are any issues to discuss. I just replaced the fake doctor segment after my 24 hours expired on that one, I hope. I do not mean to cause any edit-warring and will take your advice into consideration as to how to best prevent this. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem may be that not many want to discuss any issues with these edits with me yet as per the fake doctor case above. I am most willing to help if and as required. I want to replace the previous use of sarin section as well if that's not a problem. I consider it directly relevant and not a case of WP:SYNTHESIS as I have also discussed and left here for almost 24 hours without any reply. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the criminal history of one person pretending to be a doctor matter for this article? LylaSand (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

See my comments in the section at the bottom of the page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not his criminal history that is of primary importance when presenting this information. It is the fact that he was reported by so many as a Medical Doctor and then revealed not to be one. It is an absolute scandal and an outrage, noted in various reputable sources. His connection with terrorist kidnappers and head-choppers is of secondary importance. Failure to reveal and highlight this sort information will inevitably lead to us continually being presented on Television and in the press with other very dodgy individuals who are misrepresenting their credentials and clearly unreliable sources. If you would like to keep on being lied to then please continue to watch, read and maybe even write the sources cited in this edit. I hope the supposedly "Free" encyclopedia would be at liberty to present the information clearly and without corporate narrative bias that is clearly evident in this case. RaRaRasputin (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Request semi-protection?

In the light of recent POV-pushing by IPs reverted here and here? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we're quite at that stage yet. Especially, since it's still on the Main page. El_C 11:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of sarin by terrorists in Syria

Do we need to have a section about this? How does it directly relate to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack? El_C 07:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The incident directly relates as it was a similar terrorist attack in the same area with the same deadly chemical, demonstrating sarin's use in similar incidents. This is not covered anywhere else on Wikipedia. The American and EU governments and most of their media do not seem aware of the fact that Al Qaeda has this access to sarin, so I figure it's inclusion is relatively essential to help prevent any of this nasty stuff drifting through our bedroom windows anytime soon. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake doctor

This edit [44] was made by someone who cannot distinguish a fake doctor from a real one and continues to call suspected kidnapper, Shajul Islam a "doctor" in his edit summary. This editor clearly hasn't read the source and does not understand the source if he is continuing to claim this person is a doctor. I would be grateful if someone could revert as I think I have used mine for the day. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page all skepticism and conspiracies?

The bulk of this article seems to be trying to defend the regime, and cherry picking the statements of a few second-rate sources to try to fit the conspiracy narrative. LylaSand (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To which regime do you refer? I am confused. RaRaRasputin (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Because POV-warriors flock to pages like this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you elaborate with specific examples? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@LylaSand: Please explain why you removed my update. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry L.R., its just that the statement you put was repeated down in the main body of the article under Russian government claims, that's all. LylaSand (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been working to keep "POV-warriors" from soiling this article. The Russian position has changed twice since the 6th - the article was inaccurate before I made those changes. If you're concerned about NPOV, there's something for you to look at below this section. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You're now using explicitly non-NPOV language (and haven't formatted the refs properly), and you've violated the 1RR rule. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how inserting the phrases "The Russian government has since contradicted its statements by" and "further contradict the Russian government's claims" improve the lede, beyond making it explicitly non-WP:NPOV. Your changes would also appear to fail WP:SYNTHESIS. I can't undo these changes, so someone else will have to. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Its literally in the title of the New York Times Article. LylaSand (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicitly does not permit editorialising in articles. Could you please restore the first sentence to how it appeared in my edit, and rephrase your addition in a way more consistent with NPOV. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the use of the word "contradiction". LylaSand (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reinstated the "Skeptical individuals" section. These kind of views in principle merit a mention, not least because many visitors to Wikipedia will be coming precisely to see what the mainstream hasn't been telling them. So that means not repeating every rumour, but when there are serious people in reasonable sources giving alternative non-government views (perhaps a better section title) that absolutely merits a carefully curated section. Podiaebba (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Podiaebba: You do not have a WP:CONSENSUS to restore those paragraphs, which are clearly contentious. They were moved to the talk per WP:PRESERVE, and you will find them in a section above this one. Please self-revert.

Wikipedia is explicitly WP:NOT a forum where people can find "alternative views", as you put it. Please read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:BALANCE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any valid arguments for removing the section, and the Editing policy says we should fix problems if we can, and flag or remove them only if we can't. I think we can fix it. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

We can fix it on the talk page. You are welcome to re-write it in a way that is vaguely encyclopedic, and then restore it once you have done so. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I like to fix it in the article. It's called achieving consensus through editing. You can read more about the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle here. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The skeptic view should not make such a huge proportion of the article, especially if it lacks quality, reaching consensus at least fixes that. LylaSand (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Not in an article on a current event. We'll achieve a consensus on the talk page before we potentially give WP:UNDUE attention to fringe views. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. LylaSand (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "fringe view" fronted by two former UN weapons inspectors? Sorry, but that is a significant view, and it have been published by reliable sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

He was once a UN weapons inspector, 20 years, ago, but his current position is a foreign policy critic. LylaSand (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I find that argument irrelevant with regard their expertise on chemical weapons. They have not "lost" their expertise over time. Most people would regard Hans Blix and Scott Ritter both as the two foremost experts in their field. In a Meritocracy, these voices should be given the louder voice than non-expert opinion. Perhaps such a model is not one we wish to follow? RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is now included in "International reactions". This is not international reactions and usually not included in such sections on other pages. The sources ("consortiumnews) are also questionable for the strong "red flag" statements. I think some of that could be included, but only very briefly. Giving that so much space is simply WP:undue. And what did they actually claim? Only two things. (1) That the evidence of Assad conducting the chemical attack was weak, and (2) that US was provoked by jihadists to accomplish action that actually does not do any good. So, I fixed it accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Governments that have attributed the attack to Syria

Which countries/governments have officially attributed the attack to the Syrian government? Might be useful to compile a master list. The lead mentions the US, the UK, Turkey, and Israel. Other sources mention France, Germany, and a number of Middle Eastern countries. As far as I can tell, most other countries have not made specific accusations. 2601:644:0:DBD0:1EE:C4B2:29F8:A514 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You and LylaSand, and others, please make or agree on a list or sentence in the paragraph before doing too many edits with which are removed references or violated WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Coverage"

@El C:@Miki Filigranski: Can someone please remove the new "coverage" section as soon as possible. You'll understand when you find it. I believe I am entitled to ignore the 1RR policy when enforcing overriding policies (such as deleting paragraphs which obviously violate WP:POINT, WP:UNDUE, and which cite UNILAD), but I want to avoid being taken to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the chemical attack? Why does whether or not a doctor there had proper credentials to be a doctor matter for this article? LylaSand (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

For your benefit, @RaRaRasputin:, the article is supposed to be written in a balanced and consecutive fashion, giving WP:PROPORTION-ate and WP:IMPARTIAL coverage to all relevant aspects of the event. Creating a new section titled "coverage", and devoting it exclusively to rubbishing the claims of a single person, with no attempt to establish WP:NOTABILITY, presumably to imply the event has been covered improperly in the press, fails WP:PROPORTION, and also WP:SYNTHESIS since you are insinuating, given the emphasis, that the coverage has been unreliable, which is not what the sources suggest. If this had been part of some wider scandal, and you could demonstrate that it meets the criteria for WP:EVENT, then it could be given due attention. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's true the coverage of that doctor issue was probably disproportionate, certainly as a separate section. But let's not pretend this kind of thing is not potentially a big problem: see Nayirah (testimony). Podiaebba (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply to LylaSand above in case you missed it. The section is not devoted exclusively to rubbishing the claims of a single person but rather the claims of CBS News, Fox News, McClatchy, the Daily Beast, Voice of America, The New York Daily News, the New York Post, CBC, Euronews, Middle East Eye, The Mirror, Metro, The Daily Mail, Politico, The Independent, Vocativ, Bellingcat,The Sun and NBC News that this guy was doctor in the first place. I made no reference to any of Islam's personal claims about the attack. The terrorist case he was involved in was highly notable. It is highly irresponsible to withhold this guy's Al Qaeda connections from the general public for any amount of time and I would suggest any attempt to do so endangers your fellow citizens. RaRaRasputin (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to inform "the general public" about these concerns, write a blog. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but there are already hundreds and thousands of people doing that. We are here as editors to represent the people and not just the views of one particular section of corporate journalism. There are an increasing number of sources covering this as an WP:EVENT as you suggest we head that direction. Chris York, Senior Editor of Huffington Post has done a nice expose of Islam and other contetious issues with the coverage here [45] that we could start from? Also The Times [46]. I am going to start an article on this guy as he is notable enough. RaRaRasputin (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Request edit

Since I have already performed a revert, I request that the following be inserted at the bottom of the second paragraph in the lede. The Russian position has changed twice and the lede has not been updated. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

[The Syrian government has since claimed that the attack was a "100 per cent fabrication" intended to provide a pretext for the airstrike on the Shayrat Airbase. The Russian Defense Ministry initially said that Syrian aircraft bombed a warehouse belonging to rebels which "may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile". The Russian government has since claimed that the chemical attack was a "false flag" attack carried out by "jihadists". On April 14, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that there was "growing evidence" that the attack was "staged".]

References

Theodore Postol

I've been reading papers from this guy for some years because every time there is a discussion on rocket and missile technology, and the Iron Dome, he is cited for his views, I cannot understand the reluctance of editors to accept that he is as perfect an RS source as wiki can get. The way rockets behave is his particular field of scientific competence. Since there is a criticism section, and the lead lacked any acknowledgement that serious doubts are thrown on the attribution in meme recycled by numerous media, which all go back to the White House's documents, it should be mentioned per wiki lead summary style. That is not to say Postol is right. Wiki must be neutral as to the claims, no matter how many sources repeat the same drum beat. The lead indeed stated outright that it was dropped by Syrian government aircraft, which Postol says is an extremely odd inference to make from the photographic evidence of the point where the bomb is said to have released the gas.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The united states view is stated, and both Russia's false flag view and Russia's chemical warehouse view are stated. The lede is not meant to cast doubt or support the views stated - which is exactly what postol is trying to do - cast doubt. LylaSand (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Evidence for or against the claims of responsibility do not belong in the lede. If you do however put something like that in the lede, I would just take measures to balance it out with other sources.LylaSand (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, the lede is for the claims, not the arguments. LylaSand (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Claims like that would be outright rejected for inclusion per WP:MEDREF. Yes, Postol was a notable scientist. However, this particular claim is not something published in a peer-reviewed journal. Neither, it was republished as something significant by CNN or other major news outlets. The "best" news outlet which mentioned the claim was Russia RT TV: [47]. Given that his claim contradicts a lot of other more reliable sources, I would only briefly mention it in the body of the page, but definitely exclude from the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What has medical sources to do with Postol? No, the lead should "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article." "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," "including any prominent controversies, whitout giving undue attention to less important controversies". Erlbaeko (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So, is the controversy that a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says the White House assessment “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft” important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I think so. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

... its a controversy about a controversy (the white house documents). So no, it doesn't belong in the lede. LylaSand (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources per WP:Verifiability, but the sources like RT (TV network) are not exceptional, to say it politely. Neither is a claim by a retired scientist that was not taken seriously by any of his colleagues, or at least we do not have any proof that it was taken seriously by other scientists in the same field. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean, the exceptional claim that Assad bombed civilians with sarin in a bid to drag the US into the war on the rebels side? Yeah, that require exceptional sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• According to current version of the page, he claimed that "photographic evidence used in the assessment pointed to an attack by people on the ground using a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it". He is telling that was an artillery attack, not an air raid. That is an exceptional claim which contradicts to nearly all other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that mean and artillery rocket, possibly a BM-21 Grad used as an IED, detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it at the impact site, but yes, I agree. It is a claim which contradicts nearly all other sources (at least if we discredit all sources that contradicts it...) Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he tells about multiple rocket launcher that could be loaded with chemical munitions. But it's not what other sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, he is not talking about a multiple rocket launcher attack. He said it's possibly "an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe", "that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated". [48] Erlbaeko (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, it would be inappropriate to include it in the lede, per WP:MOSINTRO. I am detecting strong WP:NOTHERE behaviour from at least one contributor here. Open an RfC if you must. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant

:::::::::::This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack article. It is not a forum. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages or start a discussion about the editor at ANI, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I might be in the minority of the mainstream, but it's not obvious to me. We can mention it briefly in the lead, then more in depth in the body. I, for one, consider Theodore Postol, himself, to be a reliable source—I think his analysis merits inclusion. El_C 04:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Re[49]. VQuakr This RT article is an RS for that statement. That article is important since it also contains an interview with Postol. Executive Intelligence Review is also an RS. 5 cites may be overkill, but don't remove the best ones. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think editors are being a bit too hard on RT, removing it for not being a reliable enough source—but it certainly can have a role to play in attribution here. El_C 08:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant

::@Erlbaeko: You are the WP:NOTHERE editor, and that provocative comment will be copied over onto the AN/I report if I choose to file one. I don't see how an account used almost exclusively to POV-push on three articles related to chemical attacks in Syria (about 70-80% since the new year) can be WP:HERE for the purposes of building an encyclopaedia.

RT is an RS for certain things, like elaborating the Russian position, for instance. There are clear instances where we wouldn't cite it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant

:::I don't care what you think about me. As I said: take that part to ANI, if you like. This discussion have nothing to with the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack article, so stop it before I fill an ANI-report myself. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A line addressing the perspective of one individual (where it is not clear what information they have access to) in a lede which (due to the nature of the article) is concerned with describing the event and the positions of various governments would obviously be undue. You would have no basis for filing a report of any kind. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter Ford

My very best wishes: Here you removed this, only saying it is "undue":

The former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford deems it unlikely that Assad was responsible, saying that Assad were not mad and "it defies belief that he would bring this all on his head for no military advantage." He made comparisons to the false evidence presented in the runup to the Iraq war. Has also criticised that by attacking Assad Trump has "given the jihadis a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations".

References

I believe it's a significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Why exactly did you remove it? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly not a consensus that we should have a section devoted to quoting people who have raised sceptical murmurings in relation to the attacks. Address this first. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

One of these things are not like the others, can you guys guess which one?

The American government : the Russian government : the Syrian government: A former United Kingdom Ambassador

68.199.221.23 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)