Jump to content

Talk:Douma chemical attack

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiwicherryblossom (talk | contribs) at 05:05, 14 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Bellingcat published a report in which it argued that it is "impossible" for the Douma attack to be a false flag incident.

This Bellingcat article is being cited to justify a statement in the article that Bellingcat argued that it was impossible, rather than very unlikely, that the Douman attack was a false flag operation ("Bellingcat published a report in which it argued that it is impossible for the Douma attack to be a false flag incident."). The following text from Bellingcat is quoted in the citation: "The fakery, from the manufacturing of the cylinders to the chemical samples, would have had to be carried out to an incredibly high standard, indeed high enough that it could fool not only the FFM, but also multiple witnesses at the site of the attack." In that quote, Bellingcat is not stating it was impossible that a false flag operation was carried out, only that it would have been very difficult to do it convincingly (and, of course, other sources, such as the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media argue that the evidence shows that the attack was staged and staged in such a way that was botched: [1][2][3][4][5]).     ←   ZScarpia   17:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellingcat article attempts to demonstrate why a "false flag" operation is not credible. It opens: "In its final report, the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) stated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that on April 7, 2018, chlorine gas was used in an attack on the Syrian city of Douma. Despite that conclusion, claims the chemical attack in Douma were staged continue to circulate." Another part of the conclusion reads: "A 'false flag' attack would have been extremely complex to plan and execute, relying either on the murder of multiple people (which not a single witness mentioned), or the discovery of an unprecedented number of people who had died from 'dust inhalation'." It does not entertain a remote possibility ("very unlikely") at all. In any case, the article reads "effectively impossible" not "impossible" after my minor modification. Philip Cross (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The revised description of "effectively impossible" appears consistent with the source. @ZScarpia: why are you spamming a bunch of links to a pro-Assad propaganda group [6] here? VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "effectively impossible" appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the source to you, but it looks like an overstatement to me.
There are at least two competing points of view on what happened at Douma, adherents of one, as you did above, referring to their opponents, who include the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM), as "pro-Assad" (see, for instance, this article from the Atlantic Council, one of whose senior fellows is Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat). You supplied this HuffPost article by Chris York to justify referring to the WGSPM as "pro-Assad propaganda group". It could be that Chris York is correct. On the other hand, Chris York has his own detractors (see, for instance: [7]). Now, both points of view on what happened at Douma cannot be correct; the possibilities are that they are both totally wrong, one is totally right and one wrong, or that they are, in differing degrees, partly correct and partly wrong. You asked me why I was "spamming a bunch of links to a pro-Assad propaganda group." Perhaps, instead, you should be asking yourself whether it is correct to be presenting one point of view as the "truth".
Last month marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the Biafran War. The British government sided with the Nigerian one and disseminated misinformation, which British news organisations duly filled their reeports with ("after the decision was made to back Nigeria, the BBC oriented its reporting to favour this side"). History doesn't show it as having been those organisations' finest hour.
    ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further to ZScarpia, and perhaps more apposite to our common purpose; if you're going to be churlish about a group of academics perhaps don't rely on a source that's consistently been determined to be unreliable on numerous occasions. Cambial Yellowing❧ 02:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that either source is being considered for the article, but WP:PARITY. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the Fringe Theories guideline supports or excuses using unreliable sources. It explicitly states that only reliable sources should be used. It is not relevant. Cambial Yellowing❧ 04:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree that ZScarpia shouldn't spam links to such sources, even in talk space then? VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion has taken place about the work of the group of academics ZScarpia referred to. Whereas Huffington post has been discussed many times on RSN and found to be either generally unreliable or lacking any consensus to be considered reliable. Your opinion is not the determinant of what constitutes a RS. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further spam from "such sources"?, notes from a presentation given to a meeting at the House of Commons on 22 January 2020 by Paul McKeigue (Professor of Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics at the University of Edinburgh): "Anyone familiar with the epidemiology of accidents in the chemical industry would have been able to advise the intelligence agencies that it was highly unlikely that this incident could have been a chemical attack with chlorine as alleged. There have been many industrial accidents with chlorine over the past century, so there is ample experience on which to draw" (also note the bit above the quoted section where it mentions the display, then deletion, of a photo on Bellingcat showing one of the cylinders in a different position). (Report on the House of Commons presentation, which took place at Portcullis House on 22 January 2020, by Catherine Brown: [8])
Amnesty International has also produced reports on the situation in Syria, including this one on Douma from April 2018, which discusses the reliability of information being produced by the various sides.
    ←   ZScarpia   12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC) }   (04:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC): comment expanded)[reply]
Um, that April 2018 AI link talks about how Bellingcat debunked a Russian propaganda attempt to claim the Douma attack didn't happen. Paul McKeigue is a genetic epidemiologist, not an industrial hygienist. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul McKeigue describes his training: "I trained as a doctor, and then as an epidemiologist and public health specialist. My expertise includes the investigation of scientific fraud, and the investigation of mass casualty incidents." I think his qualifications are better than those of the citizen journalists of Bellingcat as far as deciding that the evidence shown by photographs of the corpses shows that the deaths weren't caused by the dropping of a couple of 44L cylinders of chlorine is concerned.
I did read the Amnesty International report before posting a link to it.
    ←   ZScarpia   02:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we return to the main topic of this discussion. That Bellingcat was not quoted correctly.

Not quoting correctly the source referenced, also happens in other chapters of our Douma page here, including recent disucsions on the talk page of User:Cambial_Yellowing on the chemical incident.

Not correct quotations have to be corrected, otherwise - en.wiki - looses it´s credibility easily.

As everybody interested, can see it within a click.

Please look it up, ZScarpia is right, read Bellingcat. Who corrects the text then? Attacking user ZSarpia, is just obfuscating this fact, and the brawl above may hinders him to take action. Is ZScarpia blocked? He should be able to correct the text in the page, not only talk about here. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before opening this talkpage discussion, I did actually edit the article, but my change was then edited in turn, changing my wording, "very unlikely", to "impossible". The sequence went: Diff 1 (the original content insertion), Diff 2 (my edit), Diff 3 (substitution of "impossible"). Before I opened this discussion, "impossible" was changed to "effectively impossible", which is still an exagerrated interpretation of the source in my opinion (Diff 4}. Later, the paragraph was deleted (Diff 5) and reinserted (Diff 6). To clarify, I'm not blocked, nor in my time editing Wikipedia have I been under any sanction.     ←   ZScarpia   11:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZScarpia:@FrankBierFarmer:There is evidently no consensus about the inclusion of this material, and it seeks to rebut a minority view which is otherwise not discussed. The assertion in an edit summary that events could "only be otherwise explained by a false flag" has no basis in fact or reliable sources. Lacking consensus, it should be removed and the edit restoring it reverted. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize consensus isn't determined by vote, right? Particularly not after canvassing via ping? VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mischaracterising the actions of other editors to make them seem improper is not permitted. Canvassing suggests a desire for a vote, but in this instance the consensus is already clearly apparent, and the editors already active in the discussion. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one seeking to exclude this paragraph has presented a policy-based reasoning to do so. There is clear consensus to include the material. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambial Yellowing:, short of an outline of all viewpoints being given, I think that there is good reason to delete the paragraph. In light of the material leaked by OPCW staff, reports such as those of Robert Fisk, and the analyses done by, for example, Peter Hitchens, Paul McKeigue, the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and Grayzone (the last two, in my opinion, being as reliable as Bellingcat), it is reasonable to conclude that assertions made, such as that it was "effectively impossible" to have staged an attack, are worthless. As far as policy reasons go, it is not necessary, of course, to include anything just because it can be sourced and the reasons given for blocking sources supporting the opposite viewpoint can be recycled to be used against Bellingcat: the content is largely opinion; the site is self-published with no obvious system of editorial oversight; the citizen journalists are non-experts; the site takes funding from a front for a secret security organisation of one of the belligerents. At the RSN, consensus was that, as a source, Bellingcat was semi-reliable; content may be cited so long as it is attributed. In my opinion, some of the sources blocked previously deserve to be used on terms no more onerous. I think that Bellingcat, as a semi-reliable source, has probably been overused in the article.     ←   ZScarpia   01:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, your summary of the discussion at the RSN is completely false. Furthermore, every one of the sources you cite as being equally reliable have not a snowball's chance in hell of being used anywhere on Wikipedia, much less such a contentious article as this. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it does say that content should be used preferably with attribution, not that attribution is necessary.
I think that the opinion that Robert Fisk in The Independent, Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday, the OPCW whistleblowers and Paul McKeigue, with his medical background and position, might be less reliable than Bellingcat is a bit dubious. As to the others, we will see. Just because adherents of one viewpoint attack the adherents of another, doesn't make the second unreliable.
Source reliability is, of course, context specific and subject to change.
I still support deletion of the paragraph unless the neutrality of the article is improved by the inclusion of material outlining the other viewpoint.
    ←   ZScarpia   02:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't need to promote a conspiracy theory in order to include this material. The Bellingcat article already puts the false flag story in adequate context, and as noted we also cover the Russian promotion of this narrative elsewhere in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't need" to promote one viewpoint as the holy gospel.     ←   ZScarpia   09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZScarpia, I observe this kind of editing tactics since quite a long time on this page, performed by the same group of users. It always ends in a biased "ultra pro Bellingcat" view. Especially the final mechanism, cited above by you in detial, removing a whole section for a while, and then reinstating it. Sometimes just one word even stronger in the biased direction is added. (please see my observations denoted above).

This is a destructive propaganda tactics. Are those people payed for that? Why are they not interested in a balanced and truthful summary what was found in the "allowed" Wiki sources. Cui Bono? FrankBierFarmer (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a multiple issues template for this section of the article with reference to this discussion. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice tagbombing. So, which sources in that section do you view as "partisan"? VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagbombing refers to unjustified additions. You already know that this section is disputed (scroll up); so for the third time, please stop trying to WP:SANCTIONGAME and WP:GASLIGHT. I recommend you read the policy regarding this behaviour.
The partisan sources are eaworldview and bellingcat, per the extended discussion above. Now, address your re-insertion of material, lacking consensus, which discusses an extreme minority view with no prominent adherents; it has no place on Wikipedia. Your edit summary is entirely refuted by the preceding sentence of the article. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The view that the attack was faked is fringe. That faking it would have been virtually impossible is mainstream. Reliable sources establishing due coverage have already been provided. We already have consensus to include it since no policy-based reason to exclude it has been presented. Care to defend your claim that either of the sources you mentioned is "partisan"? A separate section might be cleanest. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:While EAW states that it is a self-published source, that is not the same as being partisan in the definition used by WP. Similarly for Bellingcat. I withdraw the assertion. If there is no objection, I will remove the <partisan> template. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambial Yellowing: I am on the fence leaning towards removal of the EAWorldview source, particularly since at a glance the information it is used to support seems like it should be verifiable from a better source. Can you clarify what you mean by "it seeks to rebut a minority view which is otherwise not discussed" and other similar statements above? Right now in article we note: "A few days later, the Russian military said members of the White Helmets organization filmed a staged attack...on 13 April, the Russian Ministry of Defence said that it was Britain that staged the attack in order to provoke U.S. airstrikes." VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as fringe goes, see my comments above, including: "I think that the opinion that Robert Fisk in The Independent, Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday, the OPCW whistleblowers and Paul McKeigue, with his medical background and position, might be less reliable than Bellingcat is a bit dubious."     ←   ZScarpia   02:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I agree with the above and would add Jonathan Steele, who has reported on the subject on BBC Radio 4 as well as counterpunch, to the list of RS taking a different view. OPCW whistleblowers and McKeigue need to be used particularly carefully given the lack of review/editorial control, and all sources need attribution. Could I request that all editors reply below, even if their comments are replies to earlier parts of this section, w diffs if needing to indicate the thread. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in reliable sources, just some opinion pieces from well known contrarians and a ton of articles from the usual fringe suspects like RT/Greyzone/Anti-War. Better quality sources dismiss the claims as Russian/Syrian propaganda [9]. Also, consensus is that Bellingcat is reliable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listing some unrelated unreliable sources has no bearing on the reliable sources already discussed. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much point in making a claim about what "better quality sources" say, then linking to a HuffPost opinion piece which has been discussed above, where Cambial Yellowing pointed out that such articles have been marked as generally unreliable here (seeCambial Yellowing❧ 02:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)). As a whole, there is no consensus about whether the HuffPost is reliable or not. You're welcome to present the viewpoint you support in the article ... as a viewpoint.     ←   ZScarpia   14:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A new MailOnline blog piece by Peter Hitchens about the OPCW controversy: [10].     ←   ZScarpia   18:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 January 2020, Russia convened a UN Security Council Arria meeting ...

Dear Editors, as the site is being blocked from editing, and respecting the community restriction we should discuss whatever changes, additions/changes ANY editor makes to the page in the talk page here. But some do not, they just change, remove and add without discussion before.

So I open the discussion:

Unfortunately there are some problems in the wiki summary of the recent Arria meeting. I just name for simplicity two

1) that there is no link to the Arria meeting in N.Y. itself. 1b) Also "Arria" ist not Wiki - linked.

2) The reference to "Alice in Wonderland" and the German ambassador in "The Times" leads directly to a very significant subtitle to the headlines´ foto. It is a sentence by the Russian ambassador, "...to the UN said that the report on the attack at Douma would be shattered like Humpty Dumpty"... should it not be quoted here?

Any user, looking up this referene in "The Times" will find this inconsistency within seconds.

A general remark to the selection of "Alice in Wonderland" quotation... Listening to the meetings video, around 3 hours, shows that "Alice in Wonderland" is a completely marginal theme there. This Alice thing was an exchange of 3 jokes, including Humbdy-Dumbdy between the Russian, the German and I think British amabassadors. So in all, less than a minute of talking, of the 3 hours. The German ambassador said much more, this should be quoted here, and the other sides positions in short.

So to report the joke here, instead a summary of the content, is riddiculing the UNSC meeting, or not? Cui Bono, who profits ? ... definitely not the reader of en.wiki KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on brevity and drop the musings about "who profits". Can you provide sources in your posts? I presume you are talking about this diff, but am not certain. The phrasing there is not great, but the tone seems to match the Times source (from what I can see on my side of the paywall) so I am unclear on what you are proposing. What Wikilink are you proposing to add in 1b above? VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear VQuakr, the source is The Times, quoted in the paragraph already. As I said above, but perhaps it was not clear. Just look the reference up, and then please see the undertitle of the foto there. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I haven't been able to find an "Arria" wiki page to wiki link. Do you know of one?
2. Yes you are correct that if the reference to Alice in Wonderland in included we should also mention Humpty Dumpty. As you point out, it would provide no useful information to the reader. The solution is to remove the reference to Alice and replace it with the commentary from the various sides about the presentation. Burrobert (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called whistle blowers have been the subject of OPCW documents about a leak inquiry which were released yesterday. This Guardian article presents it as being a Russian disinformation campaign, although the OPCW documents themselves are not quite as explicit. Philip Cross (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian was reporting on what came out of the "independent inquiry" and what various people, including the head of the OPCW, Fernando Arias, had subsequently said. Very little is said in the Guardian's own voice. The Guardian does not, as you claimed, present "it" as a Russian disinformation campaign. If, as various sources including the whistleblowers claim, the OPCW has been compromised, an "independent" inquiry arranged by the OPCW itself (the Guardian says that the inquiry was "commissioned" by the OPCW) really carries little weight. It's hardly an unknown practice for bodies to fix inquiries to try to exonerrate themselves, or to avoid inquiries altogether if they can't be fixed and are likely to show guilt or blame. You can use the report of the inquiry, but neutrality means that you can't state that it's conclusions are factual if other reliable sources contradict it.     ←   ZScarpia   14:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)   (See Ian Henderson's subsequently leaked supplemental written account and this Grayzone article. 02:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
Neither of the "whistle blowers" are taken seriously in a reliable third-party source. The primary OPCW source states: "The report of the independent, external investigators determined that two former OPCW officials violated their obligations concerning the protection of confidential information related to the FFM Douma investigation." The article in The Guardian begins: "A Russia-led campaign that claimed the UN weapons watchdog had manipulated evidence of a Syrian government chemical weapons attack has been dealt a blow by an official inquiry showing that two former employees hailed as whistleblowers had little direct access to the evidence and inflated their role." Philip Cross (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The operative word is "a". Let's see what other sources, including the whistleblowers say. The words "show" and "showing" are open to interpretation. The opinion of the reporters may be that the contents of the inquiry report are the "truth", but, then, inquiry reports are notorious for not always doing that. If my memory serves correctly, one of the leaked documents "showed" the OPCW trying to present Ian Henderson of having a much more minor role than he did. That begs the question of how much credibility should be put in another document emanating from the OPCW trying to do something similar.     ←   ZScarpia   14:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The supplemental written account issued by Ian Henderson at or after the special session of the United Nations Security Council concerning the OPCW's mission to Douma: [11]. It, of course, contradicts. the report from the inquiry arranged by the OPCW into the leaks: [12]. A Grayzone article about the affair: [13].     ←   ZScarpia   02:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion by User:Philip Cross that "Neither of the whistle blowers are taken seriously in a reliable third-party source" is entirely false and without foundation. This is easily demonstrated.
While all the below have treated the leaks critically — as any serious journalist would with any source — there is no question that they have treated the leaks both seriously and as newsworthy. The list is not exhaustive.
[14] Veteran award-winning journalist Robert Fisk in The Independent
[15] Veteran award-winning journalist and author Jonathan Steele in Counterpunch and on BBC Radio 4
[16] Veteran journalist and author Peter Hitchens in the The Mail on Sunday (contrary to your earlier assertion, not part of a different newspaper)
[17] France 24
[18] Former political editor (and current diplomatic editor) Patrick Wintour in The Guardian
[19] again Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday
[20] again Robert Fisk in The Independent
There has also been non-EL coverage in la Repubblica and Nach Denk Seiten
A strong argument can be made that the statement put out by the members of the Courage Foundation panel can be used as a reliable source, w attribution, given that its members include the former head of the OPCW and a Princeton professor of international law.
Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To that could be added:
- Paul McKeigue's UK parliamentary presentation.
- Above, the Courage Foundation was mentioned. The Foundation's own website contains articles from the Foundation's OPCW Panel, whose membership includes José Bustani, first Director General of the OPCW, such as [21] and [22]. The latter quotes Bustani (whose ouster as head of the OPCW was engineered by the US: [23], [24]):
“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” “I have always expected the OPCW to be a true paradigm of multilateralism. My hope is that the concerns expressed publicly by the Panel, in its joint consensus statement, will catalyse a process by which the Organisation can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”
Those who think that only the Russia-Iran-Syrian Government faction release disinformation might like to read:
- Tareq Hadad's account of his resignation from Newsweek.
- Seymour Hersh's articles in the London Review of Books which, among other things, undermine claims, by among others, the US government and Bellingcat that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical weapon attacks: [25], [26].
    ←   ZScarpia   15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)   (expanded: 02:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
WP:REHASH. Again, "All mainstream media is corrupted" isn't going to be incorporated into our policies by discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to write a response enclosing something in quote marks, do actually quote what the person you're responding to has written. If you're going to paraphrase, do try to paraphrase accurately. If you're going to claim that something has already been discussed, you might like to provide a link to that discussion so that others can figure out exactly what you're talking about.
Reliability is a sliding scale, not a binary quantity. As far as what is considered reliable goes, the news media is considered to be low down. The best of newspapers or news-sites falls a long way below, for instance, peer-reviewed journals such as, say, the Proceedings of the IEEE. Hopefully that's not a matter of controversy. As far as "all mainstream media is corrupted" goes, which your comment insinuates that other editors are arguing, there have been a multitude of books written about problems in the news industry and, no doubt, students at journalism schools spend much time studying them. As a freely available source on the subject, I like the following transcript of a lecture given by the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte: [27]. I particularly like the account of the bus full of journalists carrying cans of petrol.
As it happens, corruption also is not a binary quantity but a sliding scale. It's not a question of whether something is corrupt, but how corrupt it is and whether, in particular situations, that corruption will matter. As far as judging how "corrupt", and therefore reliable, a particular country's news media is likely to be, I like to use the Corruption Perceptions Index as a rough and ready guide.
    ←   ZScarpia   12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Fisk is not fringe but his Indy pieces are in the Voices section so count as opinion. Use to report his opinion if relevant, rather than to use as citation for facts. But only worth mentioning his opinion if shown to be noteworthy, i.e. if there is secondary coverage from RSs. Steele is not himself fringe but CounterPunch is - at least RSN has no consensus on its reliability so should again be treated as opinion. I don't see a link to him on Radio 4 - was he on a programme as a talking head or was he reporting for the BBC? If former, again it is opinion, so again only include if there is secondary coverage. Hitchens is opinion too: he is an opinion columnist in the Mail on Sunday which does not have consensus as a reliable source. France24 and Wintour in the Guardian look like good secondary sources; these are so far the best to use to report on the controversy. Courage Foundation I'd be wary of using; at best attribute carefully, and better to report its views via secondary sources. McKeigue's speech at a partisan public meeting published on a Wordpress blog seems week to me; at best use as opinion with attribution if we can establish it is noteworthy. Tareq Hadad is ultra-fringe, and a SPS - absolutely avoid. Seymour Hersh would be a bizarre source to use in this article as his two pieces date from 2013 and 2014, long before the Douma attack. Scott Lucas' opinions should be treated as Steele's, as opinion, and should also be removed unless we can establish noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZScarpia: fair point regarding the use of quotation marks. I apologize. The point, though, is that we can't use Tareq Hadad's statements to decide to use a different standard for what constitutes a reliable source than what is described in the relevant policy. If you want to make that case you should be making it at WT:RS, not here. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley:Fisk: the newspaper itself describes him as "The Independent’s multi-award-winning Middle East correspondent, based in Beirut." His reporting on the subject was sufficiently notable to gain coverage from multiple outlets, including The Times of London.
"Fringe" in WP vernacular, is a quality which applies to theories - content - not to sources. Hence Counterpunch is not fringe, by definition. The lack of RSN consensus means its reliability needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, including taking into account the article author: in this case a >45 year veteran foreign correspondent for national newspapers, and recipient of Amnesty International's foreign reporting award amongst numerous others.
Hitchens: The reporting by Peter Hitchens is specifically under "News" on the Mail on Sunday website. It is not part of his blog. While he has used his blog to comment on posts by Eliot Higgins about the leaks, the reporting linked above is not in that category. The byline indicates this is reporting for the Mail on Sunday.
I broadly agree with your assessment of McKeigue and Hadad; Hersh belongs on the general CW in Syria war article rather than here. Cambial Yellowing❧ 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bobfrombrockley, regarding Robert Fisk, who is, of course, the Independent's long-term Middle East correspondent and whose articles are marked as "Voices" or "Long Reads". Both types of article, as is common in newspaper reporting, contain a mixture of opinion and factual reporting. As far as I can determine, though, there's nothing to support for your assertion that "Voices" articles automatically equate to opinion pieces, presumably meaning that they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Independent and are outside editorial control. There are no disclaimers on the articles, there is no statement that "Voices" articles are opinion pieces and, as far as I know, there is no understanding in journalism that the word "Voice" equates to "Opinion". I should think that other sources cited in the current WP article contain opinion. If you're so set against opinion being used, shouldn't you be pushing for that to be removed as well? See Archive 8 for the last time this was discussed (I left a comment at 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)).
Regarding the reliability of the Mail on Sunday, also see Archive 8, where it was pointed out, for example by Cambial Yellowing at 23:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC), that discussions at the RSN, such as the one in November 2019, exempted that paper from the ban on using the Daily Mail as a source. You wrote: "the Mail on Sunday which does not have consensus as a reliable source." There is not a consensus for it NOT BEING a reliable source either.
You described the "Meeting at the House of Commons hosted by Fabian Hamilton MP, 22 January 2020" at which Paul McKeigue (professor in the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Edinburgh) gave a presentation as a "partisan public meeting". I should think that the label 'partisan' could probably be attached to anything of any significance written or said about what happened at Douma, including, given accounts of the pressure applied to that body, the OPCW report. It's use is pretty meaningless. Just out of curiosity, what's your justification for describing the presentation as a "public meeting"?
Please re-read the explanation I gave for mentioning Tareq Hadad (was he always ultra-fringe, or just since he resigned from Newsweek?) and Seymour Hersh's articles. I was not suggesting that they be used as sources in the current article, but seeking to demonstrate that the problem with disinformation does not only stem from one of the factions involved in the war in Syria. On that theme, you might like to note that the WGSPM wrote that, after the leak of the OPCW engineering assessment, they were contacted by "western corporate media" journalists reporting stories on that subject being spiked by their editors. Also, for the next time that the reliability of Bellingcat is discussed, there is food for thought in the associated Wikispooks article and a leaked Integrity Initiative document [28]: "Bellingcat was somewhat discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself, and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay."
    ←   ZScarpia   03:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@ZScarpia: @Cambial Yellowing: Re Fisk: If you look at the Voices section of the Independent, you'll clearly see that it is their opinion section. They don't have a section called "Opinion", because this is that section. If you look at its Twitter page, the bio says "Opinion Desk at The Independent". The Facebook page describes it similarly: "Independent Voices is the home for Comment, Campaigns and Community for The Independent". When it launched, it was billed like this: "The Independent launches Independent Voices, its new comment and opinion site which it says will 'champion enlightened values'".[29] What this means is that different editorial standards apply from the News section. It is partisan. The proprietor said it would be the "home of liberal fundamentalism campaigning".[30] There is a reason Fisk is published in this section and not in the News section. And we have to treat what he says there as his opinion.
Re "Fringe": yes, sources are not in themselves WP:FRINGE, but when I said CounterPunch or Haddad's blog is a fringe source, I meant they are sources which promote fringe theories. Steele is a veteran journalist, but there is a reason why his OPCW article was not published by a reputable paper like his former home the Guardian: because it pushes an obviously fringe theory.
Re Hitchens: You are right, Cambial, these two pieces were published in the News section of the MoS. Reliability therefore depends on whether the Mail on Sunday is considered an RS or not. There appears to be no consensus on that. Apologies ZScarpiaI missed your 3 Jan comment. It's true MoS is not covered by the ban on the Mail, but RSN discussions suggest the weight of opinion is to be wary of it.
Re the Commons meeting: My main point is that a speech at a meeting transcribed later and published on a Wordpress blog is not likely to be a good source. The fact it was "hosted" by an MP (reports suggest that the MP, who did not attend, did not know much about the event when he made the booking: Hamilton has insisted he was unaware of who would be speaking when his office agreed to book a room for an anti-war collective “to discuss the OPCW report”. Hamilton’s spokesperson added that the shadow minister “does not support [the speakers’] offensive and factually incorrect views”. His spokesperson told HuffPost UK: “Fabian fully supports the OPCW’s conclusions into the vile chemical attacks that took place in Douma in 2018. “Any suggestion that Fabian somehow supports the ridiculous conspiracy theories held by some of the attendees at this event are ludicrous.”[31] So it seems even the host of the meeting sees the speech as WP:FRINGE, but in any case it needs to be cited via a reliable source to be used in our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Re Fisk: If you look at the Voices section of the Independent, you'll clearly see that it is their opinion section. They don't have a section called "Opinion", because this is that section." That argument is based on a number of assumptions. I can think of reasons why Fisk may be listed as a "Voice" other than that the Indpendent is indicating that they don't take responsibility for the content. As I wrote, the contents of the articles are a mixture of opinion and reporting; if you take exception to the opinion contained therein, then you should take equal exception to the opinion contained in sources which are currently cited. Below, a link to an article by George Monbiot from the News section of the Guardian has been given. Just like Fisk's articles, it contains both opinion and factual reporting. How should it be treated given that the Guardian does have an Opinion section and Monbiot's article isn't included in that? Even if the Independent had issued a clear disclaimer on Fisk's articles, though, that wouldn't be a bright line reason for not citing them on Wikipedia (see the News Organizations section of the Reliable Sources guideline).
"My main point is that a speech at a meeting transcribed later and published on a Wordpress blog is not likely to be a good source." This was not a transcript, but part of Paul McKeigue's presentation (see [32]). A report was, however, prepared afterwards by Dr. Catherine Brown, which was "based on her transcription (as near to verbatim as possible) of the presentations, questions, and answers asthey were given."
Regarding the IndyVoices Twitter feed you linked to, the content is clearly labelled "Opinion", "Letters" or with the name of an outside contributor such as Vince Cable or Keir Starmer. The line "Opinion Desk at The Independent" does appear at the top, but as part of a set of instructions telling outside contributors where to pitch their ideas. It does not necessarily follow that anything written by an author labelled as a Voice on the website is part of an assumed opinion section. Have you found any articles attributed to Robert Fisk in the Twitter feed? My guess is that you haven't.
    ←   ZScarpia   13:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Fisk: I do not argue that his reporting of this is not in the opinion section, but that his status as that newspaper's Middle-East correspondent, and the coverage of his reporting on this subject by other RS outlets, mean his views are sufficiently notable for inclusion. Attribution should be (and is currently) used. Furthermore, the fact that his reporting is in agreement with the other sources listed attests to its value.

Re: Steele: You may believe that Counterpunch "promotes fringe theories", but that is your opinion, not the consensus or policy of WP. Your response to this employs circular reasoning (begging the question): your argument assumes the value of your assertion that Steele's reporting "pushes an obviously fringe theory" to attempt to show that the premise "Counterpunch promotes fringe" is true. It is not a logical argument.

Re: Hitchens: The RSN discussion to which you link shows nothing close to what you assert. A statement by one editor out of five does not constitute "the weight of opinion", and it's a quite substantial misrepresentation to suggest as much. There remains no formal RfC but its status as a widely circulated national newspaper indicates that it is a serious and notable publication.

The purpose of the list of sources above was to refute the notion that no reliable sources have taken the OPCW whistleblowers seriously. It shows that a significant number have, and that assertion stands. Cambial Yellowing❧ 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More developments on the Douma scandal

There has been another development related to the OPCW’s handling of its Douma investigation.

The opcw recently released a report targeting the two whistleblowers, Ian Henderson and “Alex”. A third whistleblower has now come forward to support the previous two.[1]An email obtained by The Grayzone corroborates complaints by Henderson and his colleague about senior management’s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria. It also details an atmosphere of intimidation with opcw. The article discusses the evidence related to Henderson’s role in the organisation and concludes that it was more senior than the opcw had said in its report. The article goes over the timeline of events related to the douma investigation and reports, including what is known about the internal opcw discussions about what happened in douma and how the final report was created.

Former OPCW director general Jose Bustani, who was ousted from the organisation due to American pressure (as mentioned in the opcw wiki page),[2] said that “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani said after the session. “The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” Bustani added that he hoped the Douma revelations “will catalyse a process by which the [OPCW] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”

References

  1. ^ Mate, Aaron (11 February 2020). "New leaks shatter opcws attacks on Douma whistleblowers/". The Grayzone. Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  2. ^ Monbiot, George (23 April 2002). "Diplomacy US style". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 February 2020.

Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any sourcing outside of Grayzone? VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something to think about: neutral editing on contentious topics means accepting the use of sources that an editor, or his or her preferred sources, unless totally detached from the subject, do not like. Hence, I may not think that Bellingcat is particularly reliable, but, even if the latest of a long list of discussions on the RSN hadn't declared it to be generally reliable, I wouldn't hinder it being used in the article to detail the viewpoint which it adheres to (so long as other, significant, viewpoints were also fairly represented).     ←   ZScarpia   14:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for a source I like or dislike, I'm looking for something reliable. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there's the rub: if an editor effectively selects those sources which suit his or her prejudices as reliable and rejects those that don't, perhaps using double standards and self-justifying reasoning to do so, the end result is equivalent to exactly that. One of the criteria for selecting reliable sources is reputation for fact checking. At the high end of the reliability spectrum, that's not a problem because we know that mechanisms such as peer review are used. At the low end, with newspapers and journals, it becomes more hit and miss because we know nothing about how well fact checking might have been done on particular stories and what influences may have come to bear on whether and how those stories are reported. Really, we go on image and trust in regulatory bodies. If it's a newspaper, anything reasonably well-established and broadsheetish will probably be accepted. However, the fact-checking process can fail in various ways, including using sources which are deficient. I've had the experience of being involved in a story which was reported by various national news organisations, including the BBC, but reported highly inaccurately because the details were obtained from someone who was at the near end of a long chain of Chinese whispers and misunderstandings. In a highly disputed subject, asked about reputation for fact checking, an editor's views are going to be affected by which sources he trusts, which will depend on which ones correspond to his prejudices. There's a good chance that he will say that another source is reliable because the sources he trusts say that it is, or unreliable because the sources he trusts say that it isn't, which, at the end of the day, amounts to selecting or rejecting sources according to whether or not they agree with prejudices and preferences.     ←   ZScarpia   18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REHASH. This isn't a forum where alternatives to WP:RS are going to be considered. Has this been covered by any RSs? VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An answer to your question lies in my previous two comments: it depends.     ←   ZScarpia   00:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a new development. The email Grayzone claim as an exclusive is the email from the person who leaked to the WGSPM back in the Spring last year, and Bustani's quotes are from the Wikileaks release in the Autumn. This is not a new development, just a new commentary on previous developments in a non-RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t argue the semantics of the word “new” but I haven’t seen any previous references to the email mentioned in the following quotes:

The Grayzone has obtained a chilling email from a third former OPCW official. The former official, who worked in a senior role, blamed external pressure and potential threats to their family for their failure to speak out about the corruption of the Douma investigation. This official was not among the pair of dissenting inspectors targeted by the inquiry. The email corroborates complaints by Henderson and his colleague about senior management’s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria.

In an email obtained by The Grayzone, a former senior OPCW official described their tenure at the OPCW as “the most stressful and unpleasant ones of [their] life,” and expressed deep shame about the state of the organization they departed in disgust. “I fear those behind the crimes that have been perpetrated in the name of ‘humanity and democracy,’” the official confided, “they will not hesitate to do harm to me and my family, they have done worse, many times, even in the UK… I don’t want to expose my self and my family to their violence and revenge, I don’t want to live in fear of crossing the street!” The former OPCW senior official went on to denounce the removal of members of the original fact-finding team to Syria “from the decision making process and management of the most critical operations…” This tracks with complaints expressed in leaked OPCW documents that superiors who had not been a part of the investigation in Douma marginalized those who had.

As the email by a “former senior official at the OPCW” – someone who was not among the pair of dissenting inspectors – made clear, fear within the organization is almost as profound as the pressure to self-censor and conform to the dominant narrative.

Burrobert (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from my comment of 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC) above, at least one of the quoted statements of José Bustani may also be found on the pages of the Courage Foundation website, of which organisation he is a member.     ←   ZScarpia   14:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically I don't see any chance of coming to a consensus here; there's just no common ground on basic questions like "what is a RS". I'd suggest taking it to an RfC. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of complicated, intertwined issues here. Before seeking outside help, we'd have to separate out reasonably self-contained and simple problems which can be dealt with individually. At the moment, the Douma incident is still 'live' in the news. It might be worth waiting for a bit to see whether things calm down so that any result isn't quickly undermined by new developments. In the longer run, the incident will become more the subject of books rather than the news media, which, I should think should will greatly affect the form of the current article. I look forward to a book equivalent to Muhammad Idrees Ahmad's "Road to Iraq, The Making of a Neoconservative War" (2014), which will provide insights to what exactly was going on behind the scenes, coming out.     ←   ZScarpia   14:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The email is the email sent by the leaker to the WGSPM in Spring 2019, as reported in their write-up of the January Portcullis house meeting, already published on one of their Wordpress blogs some time before the Grayzone claimed to have "obtained" it. In other words, Grayzone is at best inaccurate in claiming to have "obtained" something, which shows why Grayzone is overwhelmingly considered absolutely not a reliable source by most Wikipedia editors. Similarly, as ZScarpia says there is nothing new from Bustani in the Grayzone piece, so there's no need to even go near it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have a level playing field. On the one hand, pieces by Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens in mainstream newspapers are disallowed on the grounds that they are opinion and Grayzone is attacked as unreliable; on the other, for example, we have an article by the Eurabicist writer Bruce Bawer in Commentary, a magazine consisting of opinion pieces, pushed as highly reliable.     ←   ZScarpia   14:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose any use of Bawer here, but I can't see a reference to him in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm interested in is whether double standards are being applied. Here, you blocked the use of articles on the grounds that they were opinion pieces, in Robert Fisk's case using what amounted to rather crude original research to construct an argument. At the article on Max Blumenthal, a journalist from Grayzone, which you've described, rather boldly, as being "considered absolutely not a reliable source by most Wikipedia editors", articles which are just as much opinion pieces, one by an author whose views are much more extreme that Fisk or Hitchens, are being used. Would you agree that is a double standard and, if so, what remedial action do you think should be taken? I seem to remember that you objected to Grayzone on the grounds that it is a self-published source. If true, can you explain why Bellingcat, say, is not also a self-published source and, also, why its contents, as you've asserted with Fisk, don't count as opinion?     ←   ZScarpia   18:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are not questions for me or for this talk page but for the RSN. I haven't blocked anything (if the "you" in your comment ZScarpia is refering to me); I've given policy-based arguments for what sources should be included or excluded, and I'm not sure why you're assuming bad faith on my part. I'm not sure that I have ever edited Max Blumenthal's page so can't answer for the sources there. Grayzone has been discussed once on the RSN and it is clear it is not seen as an RS by the majority of editors; Bellingcat has been discussed there multiple times and is. The policy on using opinion published in mainstream media (e.g. Fisk in the Independent, possibly Hitchens in the MoS) is here: WP:RSOPINION; these may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. The inclusion of opinions is based on WP:DUE: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So, the opinions of Fisk and Hitchens should not be given less weight here than the consensual view of Douma that is expressed by more or less everyone else in reliable sources. That's my view anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline: "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. ... Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I certainly don't believe that you're editing maliciously and hope that nothing I wrote gives that impression.
Thank you for clarifying your position on the use of sources containing opinion, though I think that, for reasons I outlined above, you are incorrect to write off everything of Robert Fisk's from The Independent as such. I regard that as a step forward. Your clarification does seem to contradict what you have written before, though. On 17 December 2019 (UTC), for instance, you wrote: "These sources are not legit. ... (2) Fisk's articles ... (3) Hitchens' blog ... ." By the use of the word 'legit', it certainly looked as though you were stating that the listed sources should not be cited under any circumstances.
You wrote: "Bellingcat has been discussed there [RSN] multiple times ... ." That is true, and every time apart from the last, when Bellingcat was given a very heavy push by the editor opening the discussion and, from memory, fewer editors took part, the result was inconclusive, with very divergent opinions being given. Bellingcat is a website produced by a small number of citizen journalists with little apparent in the way of qualifications and with no obvious editorial control or policy. Some believe that the golden glow of truth emanates from therein; others strongly believe the complete opposite (and, as pointed out, even the Integrity Iniative was critical of disinformation disseminated by the site). As such, either Bellingcat should not be regarded as reliable, or, to avoid a double standard, many other sites should be.
    ←   ZScarpia   13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZScarpia: (1) Thank you for clarifying your lack of assumption of malice. I appreciate that. (2) On Fisk etc: my position remains that these opinion pieces are not legit sources for claims of fact made in Wikipedia's voice. If used, they need attribution and clarity that they are opinion. The question then is whether mention of such opinions is DUE, i.e. how noteworthy it is. As noteworthiness is shown by looking at the weight of reflection in published reliable sources. We'd need to look rigorously at that, but my strong sense is that these views are not widely reported in published reliable sources, and therefore should not take up undue space in this article. (3) On Bellingcat: It is not surprising that, as a start-up news website builds up its portfolio and its reputation, editors start to view it more positively. In 2015, it was seen as an SPS, but in 2019, once it had proven its professionalism, the RfC was pretty conclusive, although the closer said it should be used as a source "preferably with attribution", which is the guidance we should follow here. It feels premature to launch a new RfC on Bellingcat just a few months later, so if you want to achieve WP avoiding a double standard by considering many other sites reliable, then you need to propose that on the RSN on a case by case basis. However, you might be right that it is over-used in the current version, based on WP:DUE. In my view, the Bellingcat reference at the very end of the Media commentary section adds nothing, and the OPCW investigation section (where most of the Bellingcat refs are) has become bloated and should end after "assign blame for the attack" rather than spend several paragraphs debating a fringe theory about the investigation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Fisk's reporting, taken on its own, does not constitute a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia voice. That said, his views are clearly sufficiently notable for inclusion:
[33] The Independent describes him as their Middle-East correspondent
[34] In their news reporting, The Independent states "Our reporter Robert Fisk has visited Douma. Read his report below" (emphasis added)
[35] The BBC has sought out an interview with Fisk about his reporting on the subject
[36] The Times of London finds Fisk sufficiently notable to devote an article to his reporting
[37] ABC Australia discusses Fisk's reporting
[38] Sky News discusses Fisk's reporting
The above list is not exhaustive. If by "etc" you mean Jonathan Steele, Peter Hitchens, and France 24, the status of their articles as reporting on the OPCW leaks, by the publications in each case, is not in serious question. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at cross-angles here. I thought our recent discussion of Fisk was purely in relation to the criticisms of the OPCW which have surfaced since 2019. None of these mentions relate to that. They all relate to his reporting from Douma in 2018. I am not against a brief mention of his 2018 report in the "Media reports" section, although these sources (especially Times and Sky, which say this explicitly) make it very clear that Fisk's 2018 version is a dissenting version shared only with Pearson Sharp (who I assume nobody thinks is a reliable source) and contradicted by the weight of reliable sources such as AP, CBS, NYT. WP:DUE requires us to give the consensual view the much more in the article than Fisk's.
The more recent question I thought we were discussing is whether Fisk's 2019 endorsement can be used to show weight is due to 2019+ dissenting views on the OPCW, or instead if these remain fringe and/or not noteworthy enough for inclusion. At the moment, Fisk is cited in this section, currently footnote 85, where he is used without attribution as a source for a statement of fact. I think we need attribution there. I understood your argument, Cambial, was that Fisk, Steele and Hitchens between them showed that this material is noteworthy and non-fringe. My position remains that all three of them are flawed sources and don't add up to enough to give more than a brief mention to a perspective which is contradicted by basically all other reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are really reaching here. Fisk's status as a major EL newspaper Middle East correspondent, along with his numerous awards, indicate his prominence as a reporter. The programme and articles above, devoted to or mentioning Fisk's reporting on Douma, indicate that his views are noteworthy in the general media reporting of the situation in Syria and Douma. There is no requirement to establish that each individual report published by The Independent from Fisk is also noteworthy.

The question is as to whether we should include the view of those who take the OPCW whistle-blowers seriously (a significant minority). As per WP:DUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I'll do so:

On the second point: your opinion (or my opinion) as to whether or not the sources are "flawed" is not relevant. The only question is as to whether they are reliable as a source for what the ex-OPCW sources have stated, and those statements' potential implications. As per WP:IMPARTIAL, WP describes disputes, it does not engage in disputes. Hence we include a description of the information, even while including any necessary caveat. The notion that "all other reliable sources" have indicated that the ex-OPCW sources should not be taken seriously has no basis in fact, and you have provided no evidence for it. Given that the dispute is about OPCW impartiality, the OPCW press office or director is clearly partisan and is not a reliable source for statements about the dispute. (n.b. I am not arguing that we should not reference their statements w attribution) Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the France 24 article that's linked above, its primarily about Chinese and Russian attempts to defund the OPCW and only mentions the leaks in passing to note the OPCW denied them. This is the fundamental problem, on one hand we've got a handful of well known activists and the other, the opinion of literally every RS news agency on the planet. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mischaracterising an article by ignoring the headline and the first 9 paragraphs, and pretending that four sentences towards the end of the body are what "its primarily about", is not a serious form of argument. Cambial Yellowing❧ 11:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said RaiderAspect: on one hand we've got a handful of well known activists and the other, the opinion of literally every RS news agency on the planet. I would not argue that there should be no mention whatsoever of the dissenting view that the OPCW was somehow nobbled. My argument is about due weight. In WP:DUE, immediately before and after the sentence Cambial quoted, we read: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public (emphasis added). The dissenting view held by the list of people Cambial has presented (and really are the views of Coleen Rowley or Oliver Stone vaguely relevant to the issue of chemical weapons in Syria?) has been reported in a tiny number of reliable sources (and actually I'm not sure a reliable source could be given for all of the names), whereas the OPCW's findings have been reported by more or less any reliable source we could name. "France 24" does not hold this minority viewpoint. Assuming you are referring to the article you cited earlier, Cambial, that's France 24 publishing an AP report that mentions the dissenting viewpoint. That France 24 article is good and judiciously and neutrally written. Wintour's article and that one are the best sources for us to use about the OPCW doubts. We could easily come up with a sentence that summarises the doubts, citing F24 and Wintour, and that would be giving this minor side-story due weight. In my view, the section on the OPCW report should stop where it now says "It was not the mandate of the fact-finding team to assign blame for the attack" and then contain this one sentence, and not give over the nine paragraphs it now gives over to the issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the view that the OPCW whistle-blowers should be taken seriously (≠ all their views believed uncritically) should be given due weight. You are still yet to provide any evidence that "all other reliable sources" or "any reliable source we could name" suggest the whistle-blowers should not be taken seriously. That notion has no basis in fact.
The OPCW's findings have been reported in many reliable sources, in July 2018 and March 2019. We can − and do (I added the citation) − cite OPCW directly; they are undoubtedly the most reliable source for their findings, which are properly stated as fact. Their main finding was that "the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM...provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place" (my emph). The information from whistle-blowers came out in May 2019 and then November 2019 onwards. Their information, broadly construed, is that there is evidence providing other reasonable grounds it did not take place in the manner previously reported. The existence of the two sets of evidence are not mutually incompatible. It is new information (compared to that published in multiple reliable sources in 2018 and March 2019), and there is no basis to the notion that "all reliable sources" suggest it should not be taken seriously: therefore its content should be summarised here. That's how we remain impartial. It is clear that would take significantly more than one sentence. At the same time, the fact that the details are reported from 5-6 reliable sources, with varying degrees of credulity, mean it should indeed be given due weight. Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be going around in circles. The evidence that "all other reliable sources" or "any reliable source we could name" do not take the whistle-blowers seriously is the fact that very few have reported on it, while they have reported extensively on the official OPCW report. So what sources do we have? Just two even-handed reports in solid reliable sources (Wintour and AP/F24 - and this third one from CBS, a very brief National article, and Huffington Post), plus the problematic Fisk and Hitchens pieces, plus the refutations by Bellingcat (and possibly the refutation by Whitaker, who presumably has similar status to Steele - a veteran credible reporter published in a less credible outlet). I think we can put together a couple of neutral sentences about the whistleblowers sourced to the actyal news articles and not claiming anything that can't be sourced to them, and delete the several paragraphs of discussion. Fisk's is the only opinion piece I can find published by a reliable source which endorses the whistleblowers. There is also an opinion piece by Jeffferson Morley in Asia Times, a mainstream news source whose reliability I don't know about, refuting the whistleblowers' claims. If we are going to include opinion pieces like Fisk's, there's no reason not to include Morley or Whitaker, but my preference would be to avoid discussing opinion unless it is widely reported in reliable secondary sources. (17:27, 27 February 2020‎ Bobfrombrockley)
The absence of reporting is not a source at all. Therefore it is not a reliable source for your assertion that "all other reliable sources" suggest the ex-OPCW sources should not be taken seriously. You may interpret it as such, but that is your original research, and is not relevant to the question at hand. That said, you have now provided some articles which take a more critical view of the information from the ex-OPCW sources. One is from a reliable source (CBS) and should certainly be taken into account - and cited - in any WP material on the subject. The Huffpost piece only has 5 sentences about the ex-OPCW sources; those sentences rely entirely on a completely anonymous and undescribed "source close to the OPCW". The National.ae seems mainly to restate the OPCW's statements, with little commentary: I think we are better citing these directly. In addition, the UAE's repeated detention of journalists and low press freedom mean I am a little surprised a serious person would wish to cite a source from that country.
There is nothing "problematic" about the Mail on Sunday news reports written by Peter Hitchens. They are a useful report on the substance of the ex-OPCW sources statements. Their interpretive aspect should be set against what other RS have explicitly stated.
I am not aware of the Whitaker piece you refer to; will appreciate a link. It's interesting that you cite the Jefferson Morley article in the Asia Times; this opinion piece was first externally published in Counterpunch. I have great respect for Jefferson Morley's journalism, and the article includes some quoteworthy statements. But the establishment of Morley's notability on Syria in reliable sources is unfortunately lacking.
On opinion pieces, I agree with your view that opinions should only be included if the notability of the individual for their views on Douma or Syria has been established in reliable sources. Plainly, per the list of commentary including The Times and the BBC above, Fisk is notable for his views on Syria and Douma. (As opposed to say Oliver Stone, who as you rightly point out is famous ("prominent"), but not because his views on Syria are at all noteworthy). If there are others who have been similarly established as notable for their views on Douma or Syria, who have also commented on what occurred, their views should be included. Cambial Yellowing❧ 13:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the Whitaker being referred to is Brian Whitaker, former Middle East editor of the Guardian. In this Medium piece about the OPCW leaks, he lists his website as al-bab.com, which contains these entries referring to the OPCW. Juan Cole reposts al-bab.com articles on his website, Informed Comment. On al-bab.com, articles in the blog archive are categorised according to country. The ones relating to Syria contain much material relating to Douma and the OPCW leaks. I think it's fair to categorise Whitaker as a defender of the OPCW and a strong critic of the Assad government, Russia and the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.
He has written a few books about the Middle East, of which the most important is probably What's "Really" Wrong with the Middle East?[39] (2009). [I have a full copy if you're interested]
In my opinion, Whitaker's views are more worthy of inclusion than most (though not of Fisk's, who has been journalist and writing about the Middle East far longer, who has lived in the Lebanon for something like four decades and speaks Arabic). If other editors more capable of me weren't here to do the job, I'd feel obliged to outline views such as Whitaker's in the article myself. My concern, is that opposite viewpoints are properly presented in the article and that the article stops treating one position's claims as "the facts".
    ←   ZScarpia   14:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday articles should rightly be treated as opinion. However, not all. For example, the following comes from the News section: The Mail on Sunday - Peter Hitchens - PETER HITCHENS reveals fresh evidence that UN watchdog suppressed report casting doubt on Assad gas attack, 14 December 2019.
Not a reliable source, of course, but fans of alternative media may appreciate the OffGuardian website's commentary on Syria:, for example: Crimes of the century – truth, perception and punishment (Kevin Smith).
    ←   ZScarpia   11:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current article does actually cite an article] from Brian Whitaker's websitesite, al-bab.com: Whitaker, Brian (21 January 2020). "Russia steps up its campaign to discredit OPCW investigations". albab. Retrieved 29 January 2020.     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like we might be making progress. Re The absence of reporting is not a source at all. That's true, but the point I think RaiderAspect and I were making is that the fact that something is unreported shows it is not considered noteworthy by RSs and therefore noteworthy for inclusion here, whether because it relates to a fringe view or a trivial incident. A small number of opinion pieces by fairly marginal people, few of whom have any authority on Syria or chemical weapons, do not constitute noteworthyness. Having looked pretty exhaustively through potential RSs, we now have a small number of mentions, enough for a brief mention on our article, but not enough for a significant proportion of our article. Of these, clearly CBS, Wintour and F24/AP are clearly the best, and my view would be we should limit what we say here to a concise summary (a couple of sentences tops) of what can be sourced from those. (My understanding of WP policy is that these secondary sources are better than the OPCW primary sources, although it makes sense to footnote the latter too.) Beyond that, the dispute would be: (a) should a summary of the extensive refutations from Bellingcat (and Whitaker) be included too? and (b) should the supportive articles by Fisk, Hitchens and/or Steele be included too? My response would be that we should be wary of inflating this less noteworthy episode, and that we should be careful not to give the impression that the preponderance of reliable sources see the whistleblowers as credible. I would not support the inclusion of Jefferson Morley, but mentioned him to show something about the weight of opinion (bearing in mind weight in the article should be proportionate to weight in RSs). Finally, I continue to regard Hitchens as "problematic" partly because he has no expertise on this issue and partly because of the lack of clarity around whether the Mail on Sunday should be used on WP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another whistleblower has appeared

A fourth whistleblower has made a statement about the OPCW’s report on Douma. The statement is as follows: 

As an employee of the OPCW I was horrified and simultaneously unsurprised by recent events in the organisation. The mistreatment of two highly regarded and accomplished professionals can only be described as abhorrent. I fully support their endeavours, in that it is for the greater good and not for personal gain or in the name of any political agenda. They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.

Unfortunately this is not a recent occurrence but a continuation of how the previous Director General and management group were operating. Working in the organisation has been an eye-opener and the cause of deep professional shame when I became aware of how a key element of the organisation was and clearly continues to be mismanaged. I am one of many who were stunned and frightened into silence by the reality how the organisation operates. The threat of personal harm is not an illusion, or else many others would have spoken out by now.

There is still no mechanism at the organisation to enable the calling out of irregular behaviour to protect the integrity of the organisation. It is quite unbelievable that valid scientific concerns are being brazenly ignored in favour of a predetermined narrative. The lack of transparency in an investigative process with such enormous ramifications is frightful. The allegations of the two gentlemen urgently need to be thoroughly investigated and the functionality of the organisation restored.

Burrobert (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only source for this is the Grayzone, on which Wikipedia [policy] is as follows: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated" BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inevitably, RT has also reported the news, but so has Shafaqna. However, whether or not an acceptable source can be found for the latest email, it is perverse not to take the claims made by the OPCW's own employees and former employees seriously. The documents reeased by wikileaks are without doubt genuine or the OPCW would not have launched an investigation to try and find out who leaked them. There has been an extreme reluctance in the established media to cover this story, but Jonathan Steele, Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens have certainly done so, and in Peter Hitchens' case, extensively. Like him or not, few journalists know as much about the subject and his reporting in the Mail on Sunday has been meticulously researched. These are not "opinion pieces" and Hitchens is not a "marginal" person. The MoS is not the Daily Mail and, it is absolutely WP:RS, at least until a decision is made to the contrary. There is no lack of clarity about this. I would add that the Mail on Sunday has a pretty decent record of investigative journalism and I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of removing valuable sources. The original investigation that led to this article London Forum (far-right group) was from the MoS. See ref 11. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douma_chemical_attack&oldid=945471428"