Talk:Ghouta chemical attack

Several Corrections

As I'm new to Wikipedia I prefer not to edit the article directly. Following is a list of suggested changes to the article. Hope you will find it helpful.

1. "The report's lead author, Åke Sellström, said that the quality of the sarin used in the attack was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
This is currently very misleading.
Suggestion: add after this sentence "However, Iraq was never successful in producing high-purity sarin". source.

2. "Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control"
This assumes the 360mm rocket's range is over 9 km. According to this unreliable source it is actually less than 3.5 km.
Suggestion: Add this quote from the HRW report: “we don’t know the firing range for the 330mm rocket”.

3. "After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians"
This claim is not supported by the source: (a) It is one reporter, and not reporters. Cases in which the article mentions “reporters” witnessing anything are worded ambiguously and it is not clear what was actually witnessed. (b) This reporter did not witness a “chemical weapon”. He witnessed people coughing and vomiting. There is no way to know if this was a chemical weapon, a riot control agent, or a reaction to other weapons such as White Phosphorus. (c) He does not provide any information implicating the Syrian Army.
Suggestion: Change to “one Le Monde reporter witnessed opposition fighters coughing and vomiting.”. Since this is not very interesting, it is probably better to remove this.

4. The first paragraph of “Timing”.
Suggestion: Remove this. There are currently more accurate eyewitness reports reporting the attack occurred at around 2:00 AM

5. "However, the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs"
Untrue. The wind at 2 AM was the same all throughout the week. Here is the day of the attack and here is the day before (scroll down to see wind direction by hour - in both cases it's flowing from Damascus to East Ghouta). Not sure if two links on the same site is synthesis, but it should definitely be reason enough to remove an obviously wrong quote.
Suggestion: Remove, since it's contradicted by a more reliable source.

6. "...an argument backed by declassified intelligence reports from the United States"
Couldn’t find in the quoted source any reference to declassified reports, just some assessment that the regime was ‘frustrated’.
Suggestion: Remove

7. "The truck-launched 330mm rockets with about 50 to 60 litres of sarin and 140mm Soviet-produced rockets carrying a smaller sarin-filled warhead are both known to be in the arsenal of the Syrian armed forces. Neither weapon has been identified as in the possession of the insurgency forces"
This statement is not supported by the source. It is actually true (for the conventional versions, not the sarin warheads), but a reliable source should be provided.
Suggestion: Remove, not supported by a reliable source.

8. "Chemical analysis of the sarin gas retrieved from recovered fragments of the rockets and surrounding environment showed that it was of high purity and quality, and included chemical stabilizers consistent with military grade gas of industrial origin."
This is incorrect.
The most reliable source is the UN report which states: “In addition, other relevant chemicals. such as stabilizers are indicated and discussed in Appendix 7”
This does not state stabilizers were found (and indeed they were not found).
Suggestion: Remove, not supported by the original source.

9. UN lead investigator Sellström told the UN Security Council that the quality of the sarin was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
Suggestion: See item 1 above.

10. "and included chemical stabilisers."
This was never said by Sellstrom.
Suggestion: Remove. Not supported by a reliable source.

11. "Independent analysts concluded that the two azimuths determined by the report intersect deep in Syrian-government-controlled territory, near Mount Qasioun," + "Triangulating rocket trajectories pinpoints the origin of the attack as government-held territory. Consideration of missile ranges provides additional evidence the rockets originated from the triangulated government-held region"
Suggestion: See item 2 above.

12. "Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said"
This is very important, but should be moved to another section. Does not belong under “human rights watch concluded...”.
Suggestion: Move to the capability section, and also add to it that the results of the Khan Al Assal investigation by Russia implicated the opposition with the use of sarin.

13. "Syria has been reluctant to provide access to Ghouta... Initially Syria refused access to the U.N. for several days after the attacks"
Unsubstantiated. Providing access within 2 days is very quick in diplomacy time frames. There is no support for claiming they were 'reluctant' or 'refused'.
Suggestion: Remove.

14. "Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons specialist formerly with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, told New Scientist that "the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs"
Suggestion: See item 5 above.

15. The article has two maps portraying a very misleading picture of a chemical attack spanning a wide area
There are no reliable sources indicating there was a chemical attack outside Zamalka and Moadamiyah (Actually, Moadamiyah was probably not chemically attacked, but this is not yet in reliable sources).
Suggestion: Remove or replace with an accurate map.


Additionally, I suggest adding the following:

• In the Video evidence section: On September 16th three videos were published anonymously which show people in gas masks and Liwa Al-Islam insignia launching rockets of the same type found in Zamalka, following the chemical attack . According to the cameraman's description, this is an attack on regime forces in Qabun and Jobar (near Zamalka) carried out on August 21st (the day of the chemical attack).
  
• When discussing sarin quality, I suggest adding: Despite sarin being odorless in its pure form (source), eyewitness accounts describe various odors at the site of the attack, including: "vinegar and rotten eggs", "cooking gas", "overpowering smell", "insecticide", "unpleasant smell", "the smell was quite strong that I could not recognize it at all. It was a little bit like the smell of burning", "rotten smell", "a smell of gas-like odor, or sulfur, but you do not feel the smell too much", "a strong sulfur-like smell, and a foggy white color", “strange smell”.

Hope you find this helpful. I will keep posting here as more of my research becomes associated with reliable sources. --Swawa (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work, some glaring issues there you found. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, Swawa, and welcome! You make some great observations here, though some of the statements you list appear to be based on blog/fringe Youtube theories that are not reliable enough. In particular, your statements regarding the 330mm rocket range, the very fringe "no attack at Moadamiyah" theory, and reference to the Youtube rocket launches appear to be based on widely discredited internet conspiracy theories. Additionally, the details of the Khan al-Assal chemical attack, including the chemical agent (if any) used and the likely perpetrator, are not known; and Del Ponte's statements predate Ghouta (not to mention the UN rapidly distancing itself from those statements). VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome. As you may note, I took special care to only suggest corrections that are based on reliable sources: For the 330 mm rocket I suggested only quoting the disclaimer from the HRW report. I did not suggest adding that Moadamiyah was not attacked. I did not suggest claiming the youtube videos are real, but only to describe that they were uploaded and what was said in them. As for Khan Al Assal, many reliable sources reported that a Russian investigation team found it to be a rebel sarin attack. Regarding Del Ponte - It's already in the article. I just suggested moving it to a more appropriate location. Also note that the UN did not distance itself from this statement, only saying they don't yet have a conclusion.--Swawa (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Blade. Would you like to make the edits? Is there any additional information you need?--Swawa (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do a few yes. Stick around though to see what happens. As discussed made some some changes based on Swawa excellent detective work. People please check this sort of false material before insertion. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Swawa "Corrections" based on unreliable blog postings are of no interest to Wikipedia, please see WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read carefully the corrections. As explained to VQuakr above, they are all based on reliable sources. In some cases I provided additional data from unreliable sources just as general background, but never suggested making a change based on them. Thank you. --Swawa (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I see mostly unreliable sources in your original post above, and do not see any clear delineation between what you think should be changed in the article vs the fringe material you describe as "background." Maybe you could post just the items that have reliable sources? VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As per your request, I reorganized this section. It now clearly indicates the suggestions, and how they are supported by reliable sources. Let me know if you need anything else.--Swawa (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed the first two points (Iraq sarin quality and 330mm rocket range). The LeMonde source needs expanding on - probably best in an article about the Jobar attack - Jobar chemical attack? It mentions various details consistent with the idea of Syrian govt use of a variety of gases which may not necessarily be sarin, or not only sarin. About the wind: I don't see how the links you give provide information about wind direction. The details about witnesses' experiences including smells should be added (and maybe linked with claims of Syrian govt mixing different gases or using different gases together). The other points - there's too many and I'm getting a bit lost with them; maybe you could recap and use headings or a numbering system? Podiaebba (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As per your request, I reorganized this section. It now clearly indicates the suggestions, and how they are supported by reliable sources. Let me know if you need anything else.--Swawa (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow-ups

Following up on each numbered item below:

1, 9. I think this is resolved.

2, 11. I think this is resolved; the article now states that the range of the 330mm rocket is unknown.

3. No source provided for this change. Your summary is not consistent with the provided sources, including [1]. No change to article.

4. Not done yet. Honestly, do we actually need a section for this? I think the timing of the attacks is pretty well understood now. Thoughts?

5, 14. As you note, pulling hourly weather reports from wunderground is not the way to go here per WP:SYN. Has this correction to New Scientist been reported in reliable sources?

6. I think someone took care of this?

7. Not done, sources have been added and more are available.

8, 10. Done, I think.

12. Remarks were not made WRT to Ghouta. I do not think this statement is currently in the article.

13. Sources note that they were slow to agree considering inspectors were in the immediate vicinity. Not done.

15. Any reliable sources indicating that the maps are "misleading?" The White House map has a disclaimer in the image. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me know your thoughts on these, since some of them still rate some follow up. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

re 5,14: it's not New Scientist saying this, and the article should be amended to make this clear. It's Richard Guthrie, a CW specialist. I don't think Guthrie's claim has been widely reported, so if it's wrong, a correction is unlikely to be reported, especially as that correction would not support the mainstream narrative. I think the best thing is to use the primary sources we have to conclude that Guthrie's statement shouldn't be included in the article; this reduces the SYNTH problem by not having to write in the article "Guthrie said this but primary sources X,Y,Z trivially added together indicate this is wrong". Podiaebba (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"There are already some clues. He notes that the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs. That and the apparent lack of army casualties suggest government involvement." This is important, and reported in a reliable secondary source. We are not going to remove it based on our own analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're not going to remove it, we need to balance it with the addition of a trivial summary of the primary sources (per WP:PRIMARY: straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.), which will be awkward and look foolish. Removal of the point is far better. And I be far happier including the claim that there were no Syrian army casualties if the UN had confirmed it - as they should have been able to following their Mazzeh hospital visit. Podiaebba (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because as I noted in my last post this is not a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. If reliable sources have not identified the wind conditions at Damascus International as relevant, than we do not make that connection independently. I also wish there was available information about Mazzeh, but we cannot suggestively make an issue out of the silence. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a totally straight-forward description of facts. We don't need reliable sources to say trivial things like the wind direction in Damascus being relevant to the issue of wind direction in Damascus. Podiaebba (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Here are my thoughts:

1,9. I don't think we can know what he implied, especially as this is reported second-hand. He could have meant it was higher than the 30% purity it reached after a few weeks, or maybe even the 1% purity they found in some stocks. I think a simple disclaimer that Iraq's sarin was not high quality is the most accurate statement we can make.

Totally agree, will ring in the change later today, and other changes agreed below. Good work BTW Swawa Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

2,11. My problem here is that the azimuth intersection analysis is heavily based on the 330mm having a 9 km range, which is not supported by any reliable source, and all unreliable sources agree is ridiculous. Currently we're misleading the reader. I'm sure this goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, although I'm not knowledgeable of what WP procedure would relate to that. --Swawa (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What unreliable sources say is irrelevant - they are unreliable. Reliable sources do say that the azimuth analysis implicates the Syrian government. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is far to much implication speculation stretching the sources and the pattern is always to the US POV. How did this sneak in? I think a lot of it misleads the reader. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

RS say it implicates the regime IF the 360 mm has a 9 km range. I think it's important to add this qualifier, especially since the unreliable sources' analysis is not that far removed from reliable sources: the only known rocket with this weird design had a range of 700m, and there are videos showing this rocket flying less than 2.5 km. Again, this is a case where over-strict use of WP guidelines are causing us to mislead the readers, and I think that's bad for everyone. --Swawa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The RS say the trajectories implicate Syria. RS have not reported the 2.5km observation, have they? Even if they had, that simply indicates that for the heavier explosive version, the bracket of min and max range includes ~2.5 km. You are again referring to your own website here as "not that far removed from reliable sources", correct? Because your description of it as a source is not accurate. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Outside of the article's title, there is no claim made of reporters witnessing chemical weapons used by the Syrian Army. Isn't there some WP procedure against misleading titles? --Swawa (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The article does indeed discuss a chemical attack, at length and effectively in its entirety. Maybe you are thinking of a different article? VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, according to the current quote, we need "reporters" witnessing the "Syrian Army" using "chemical weapons" on "civilians". Where is that found in the article?--Swawa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From the linked article: "Reporters for Le Monde spent two months clandestinely in the Damascus area alongside Syrian rebels. They describe the extent of the Syrian tragedy, the intensity of the fighting, the humanitarian drama. On the scene during chemical weapons attacks, they bear witness to the use of toxic arms by the government of Bashar al-Assad... Le Monde's reporters visited eight medical centers in the eastern part of the Ghouta region and found only two where medical directors said they had not seen fighters or civilians affected by gas attacks." (emphasis added). I really am not clear on why this is in dispute. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue may be the implication that the reporters personally saw Syrian Army firing CW. What they saw was chemical attacks coming into rebel areas, and they (not unreasonably...) held the Syrian Army responsible. The Jobar chemical attacks is clear on this; the wording here need clarifying slightly, including respecting the possible distinction between chemical attacks and chemical weapon attacks. Podiaebba (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What would be the revised wording? The source says "chemical weapon." VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The quote you gave is from the article's summary, but there is nothing in the actual article to support these claims. The only thing that actually happened is one reporter witnessing people choking and vomiting. That's it. I think the full text is a more reliable source than the summary, and it does not give any information that is relevant to understanding the Ghouta attack. I therefore suggest removing it.--Swawa (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually quoted where the article says substantially more than that. The source is used as support in the background section. If you still want to remove this and related articles, feel free to start a new section on it so it can get proper treatment. In practice, it seems improbable that it will be removed since you have not presented a policy-based rationale. VQuakr (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the source of the misunderstanding in our communications. With your permission, I'll try to explain again: The quote you gave is from the summary of the article - a short text that is written by editors to draw readers. However, the full text of the article does not contain any report that matches the description in the summary. Since the full text is a more reliable source than the summary, we should not quote the summary when it contradicts the full text. Hope I explained myself better this time.--Swawa (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I will start a new discussion section below to continue discussion in a less clunky format. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

4. I agree, can just write "around 2 AM".

Agree remove. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

5. This is one quote made at one place, which is heavily overused in this article. I doubt any RS will ever take the time to correct it. Again, I don't know WP procedures well enough, but I'm pretty sure we should not be giving quotes that can be proven wrong in 30 seconds of work. Maybe WP:IAR? --Swawa (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned below, but additionally this was not "proven wrong" by the primary source. The sampling frequency, accuracy, geography, and reliability of the wunderground data, in this case, is not sufficient to show that the secondary source was proven wrong. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

RE heavily overused in this article. Yes ! Unbalanced use. Needs reworking Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Every night of that week, for the whole night, the wind is blowing from Damascus to East Ghouta. How can the statement "[this] was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs" be anywhere close to true? --Swawa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the weather station you cite is at Damascus Int'l Airport, 10+ miles from the chemical attack in a topologically diverse environment. Is it accurate for Ghouta? This is why we rely on secondary sources to interpret data, as we do in this case in the article. As for overuse, it is briefly mentioned twice in the article. This does not seem like overuse to me. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Damascus sits on a plateau to the south-east of the Anti-Lebanon mountains (cf Damascus and File:Damascus SPOT 1363.jpg); Damascus Intl Airport is part of that plateau, sightly further out in a south-easterly direction from the centre of Damascus than the Ghouta areas at issue. There's no problem with its wind measurements. Podiaebba (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; this is classic original synthesis and inappropriate, particularly since we have secondary sources that have reached a different conclusion. This is not simple stubbornness for the sake of process on my part - Damascus is a big place, and the distance of the weather station from the attacks is just one of the reasons I disagree with your conclusion. As we appear to be at an impasse, I suggest a request for comment to seek additional opinions. Do you agree that this is a reasonable path towards resolution, and would you like me to post a request? VQuakr (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should not start a meteorological discussion. The point here is that we have only one person making this statement, and it is used multiple times in the article to imply culpability. A simple search brings evidence that seriously questions the reliability of his statement. We should therefore be responsible and not use it.--Swawa (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If all the weather data were on one page, it would be a trivial summary of a single source. Having the data on multiple pages makes no material difference; it's still not generating a novel conclusion that a moderately educated person couldn't easily manage. If it takes an RFC to get agreement that this primary sourcing is sufficient to use either to exclude the opinion or to balance it, so be it. Podiaebba (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Yes, thank you!

VQuakr dont keep changing it back. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Different (related) issue. "Classified" by definition means "unreleased". I suggest a new section if you take issue with the wording per WP:BRD. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

7. The source provided does not support the claim. It only says they "had not been previously documented or reported to be in possession of the insurgency". The M14 was also never reported to be used by the Syrian Army, and the 360 mm was seen used, but not with a sarin warhead (which is the current wording). --Swawa (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The specific individual M14 rocket recovered was exported to Syria. Your statement "The M14 was also never reported to be used by the Syrian Army" is demonstrably false - this system was the premier Syrian multiple rocket system at the time Syria was starting its chemical weapons program. I am fine with rewording to make clear that this rocket has been largely replaced by the Grad and had not been seen frequently (ever? what do RS say?) in use by Syria during this conflict. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is key data -Swawa I agree. It must be in correctly. The ref is used badly at times. abused. VQuakr when you constantly change this data I do truly wonder about what you are up to. As agreed I will reinstate again. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying this is a 1967 rocket exported to Syria and not witnessed during the conflict. The 360 mm should not be said to be exclusively in the arsenal of the syrian army - no RS support for that.--Swawa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. The 330mm rocket has only been documented as used by Syria. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a RS saying that. Can you share? Even if there is, it is definitely not the "sarin filled" version, as currently stated.--Swawa (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

8,10. Yes, thank you!

12. It was removed from the HRW section. I think it is important that it be quoted in the Capability section, which currently only gives a claim by western intelligence agencies. I think this should be balanced by the claims of a UN investigator and Russia - both at least as reliable. --Swawa (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Russia changes their story almost daily; while they are not always wrong, their official accounts have consistently supported Assad throughout the war. Del Ponte's statement is interesting, but should be used carefully and in context since it predates Ghouta. "Woo" web sites have been taking it out of context and out of proportion, which we are not going to emulate here. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

CAn you ref this VQuakr'Russia changes their story almost daily' . Del Ponte is important I agree. VQuakr you keep chopping it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Both Russia and the West have been distributing ridiculous claims. However, on the issue of Khan Al Assal, Russia has sent an investigation team which presented a detailed report implicating the opposition with using sarin. They never changed their story on that. If we are quoting the US assessment in the Capability section, we should provide the opposite opinions by Russia and the UN investigator. Currently it is very biased. --Swawa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Ghouta. I would be curious to hear on the relevant talk page, though, what you found particularly convincing about the Russian claims. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why it's convincing is an interesting discussion we should have elsewhere. My only problem at this point is that we're only quoting US intelligence in the "Capability" secion. Either we remove it, or we add Russia and the UN investigator.--Swawa (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

13. No problem.

15. We don't need reliable sources to directly say the map is misleading. It's enough that RS currently claim differently than what RS reported a few days after the attack. Today, all reliable sources report an attack only in Zamalka and possibly Moadamiyah. I think the map on the HRW report, page 4 is much better.

Thank you again for your help.--Swawa (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

re: 15: is the focus on Zamalka/Moadamiyah not down to the UN's decision/ability to visit those sites? Has there been any clear rejection of the other claimed sites? Podiaebba (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever see a retraction of that, because the only ones to clearly make this claim is the US, for which any retraction has political implications. On the day of the attack hospitals all over the area reported treating poisoning victims, and that created the impression of a wide-scale attack, but on the next days all eyewitnesses said they were poisoned in Zamalka and all rockets and impact sites were found there. Then after 4 days there was one video of an M14 rocket body in the street (not in an impact site) taken in Moadamiyah. Since the UN's only goal was to verify that chemical weapons were used (and not where and how), they went to the places they thought are most likely to test positive - the vicinity of the rocket bodies. Also note that the HRW map predates the UN report. --Swawa (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Again you qualify the attack on Moadamiyah as if it were in question. To be clear, the UN report is quite explicit that both regions were hit with CW on August 21, and in the absence of major new and reliably reported information we can present that as fact in the article. It will be interesting to see if any additional areas are mentioned in the UN's next report due out this month, though I agree that currently nearly all sources focus on these two regions. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There was indeed no chemical attack in Moadamiyah, but this is irrelevant to the discussion here since it is not yet in RS, and I never once suggested making such a change to the article.--Swawa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Will review tomorrow, thks for the efforts -Swawa Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot directly use the map from the HRW report because Wikipedia's image use policy prevents us from using non-free images when a free equivalent exists or could be created. I do not have the technical skill to create a free equivalent, but someone around here might. The White House briefing image should be kept, though I am certainly open to the idea of moving it to the US intel reports section. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the skills and software, maybe later if I get some time. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment, now that we have closed many of these out it might make sense to start discussion sections for the items that could need additional discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Following the discussion above, here are the final changes I suggest. Any objections?
1. Adding after all references to Iraq's sarin: "However, Iraq failed to produce high-purity sarin."
Reasoning: Whoever provided this quote was obviously trying to mislead the public. Instead of saying "the sarin was not of the quality typical to a military source", he chose to compare it to a failed military program. We should not assist his efforts.--Swawa (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be enough information available to make a quantitative comparison, rather than a qualitative one. We should do that instead. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But which of the quantities to quote? 60? 45? 31? 30? 20? 10? 1? All of these are mentioned in the UN report.--Swawa (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2. Whenever trajectories are used to imply culpability, add: "However, this assumes a 9 km range to a non-aerodynamic rocket whose range is currently unknown."
Reasoning: While not in RS yet, there is very strong evidence that this rocket's range is nowhere near 9 km, making the whole trajectory intersection theory invalid. We are doing a disservice to our readers when we treat this story as reliable just because a human rights group with no understanding of rocket science drew two lines on a map.
The "non-aerodynamic" is quoted from HRW.--Swawa (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Non-aerodynamic" is not terribly quantitative language. If range information contradicting HRW's (and others') conclusions is not in reliable sources, then there is not "very strong evidence." The HRW report supports, not counters, the claim that the 330mm muntion was launched by Syria. Re your language of "yet" see our guideline on forward-looking statements. We should be writing this article based on what the reliable sources say now. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The reliable sources say this assumes a 9 km range, that it is not aerodynamic and that they do not know the range. I think you are misusing WP guidelines against the WP spirit. There is a video showing the rocket doing 2.5 km. I guess bureaucracy requires that we quote this obviously wrong trajectory calculation, but at least let's give the full picture.--Swawa (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Le Monde - wait for a conclusion in the discussion below.
4. Winds - Issue RFC
5. Remove "The truck-launched 330mm rockets with about 50 to 60 litres of sarin and 140mm Soviet-produced rockets carrying a smaller sarin-filled warhead are both known to be in the arsenal of the Syrian armed forces. Neither weapon has been identified as in the possession of the insurgency forces"
Reasoning: No source was provided. There is a source for the 140 mm being imported in 1967, but if we use it, we should also state that it is not one of the rockets known to be part of Syria's chemical program (see the french intelligence report).--Swawa (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I contest this proposed change. The French report you link states, "The analysis of information we have now gathered leads us to consider that, on August 21,2013, the Syrian regime has launched an attack on some suburbs of Damascus that were being held by the opposition forces, using together conventional means and a large amount of chemical agents." and "Since the beginning of the conflict, our intelligence confirms the use by the regime of ammunitions carrying a lesser volume of chemical agents, adapted to a tactical use, more focused and local." This source supports, not counters, the claim of a 140mm rocket munition being used to carry sarin. Sources are readily available for the "Neither weapon has been identified as in the possession of the insurgency forces." quote if it is indeed currently unreferenced. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(a) It doesn't matter that elsewhere they think Syria did it - that's quoted in "foreign government assessments". (b) The french report lists the rockets they know are part of the Syria chemical program. The 140 mm is not one of them. (c) I asked before that you provide a source for "both known to be in the arsenal of SAA". If there is none, we should remove this.--Swawa (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Capability section: Balance the claims of western intelligence with those of Russia in its Khan Al Assal investigation, and Del Ponte's testimony.
Reasoning: It is currently very biased.--Swawa (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Russia has not made its Khan Al Assal investigation public or allowed it to be scrutinized by third parties. Del Ponte's statement, as previously noted, predates Ghouta. The mainstream consensus is that there is no evidence the opposition had or has the capability to mount an attack of this scale, and as such I disagree with your assessment that this section is biased. That said, there is always room for improvement; what particular phrasing did you have in mind? VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested text: Western intelligence agencies have publicly dismissed the possibility of rebel responsibility for the attack in Ghouta, stating that rebels are incapable of an attack of its scale. However, a Russian investigation implicated the opposition of using sarin in the Khan Al Assal chemical attack. Additionally, Carla Del Ponte, a senior UN investigator who interviewed victims of previous attacks, shared her personal opinion that chemical attacks were initiated solely by the opposition.--Swawa (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 6. I like the neutrality of this suggested text. It seems non POV while the existing is very biased as stated. VQ you clearly know your way around Wikipedia but I cant see why anyone would have a problem with this suggested text. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

She never opined that pre-May attacks were "solely" by the opposition (though she certainly put her emphasis on the opposition). Putting the responses to chronologically earlier events seems unnecessarily confusing and potentially misleading because it makes it appear that these were counterarguments instead of references to suspicions of earlier, smaller actions. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

She says "we have no indication at all that the [regime] used chemical weapons". I think that's pretty clear. "solely" should stay. I'm okay with removing "However". Are we in agreement?--Swawa (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

7. Maps: Blade will prepare a new map.--Swawa (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 7. Not yet. IMHO the mood here is still too disputed for me to put the effort into a map for it to be nit picked. I will say though that despite too much friction the article is less biased than it was, so those truly neutral editors have changed the tone significantly. There is still more to go, and I suggest we put in 6/ to move this along. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the status of the 'accidental Syria launch' theory?

If there's no further mainstream media discussion of the 'Syrians launched CW by accident theory' since the one passing mention in an early editorial before all the facts were in, we should delete it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm theres an editor here Poidpedia something hes into that I think. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was "into" it at one point because it solves the motivation problem for being a Syrian govt attack (which hasn't been solved, even as the problem has been acknowledged by many mainstream people and then mention of it sort of faded away). Remember there are two versions of the accidental launch scenario: the first is mix-up between conventional and CW. This is basically ruled out by the UN confirmation of the missile types, I think. The second is that there was a mistake in the CW loading, and that the attack was supposed to be small-scale and deniable, and turned out to be larger-scale. This possibility is one various sources (including I think some official Western ones) have for a long time been arguing: that the Syrians have been experimenting with small-scale attacks intended to be tactically useful but politically deniable - hence the dozen or more small attacks claimed by the US in 2012/13. I've not seen anyone make the link between those prior claims and Ghouta, however, despite the relative obviousness of the possibility, and the usefulness in fixing the motivation problem. Podiaebba (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The first theory became implausible once the quantity, nature, and variety of weapons used became understood. As for the second, this is actually part of the official US view - that the high number of casualties surprised the Syrians as evidenced by intercepted communications shortly after the attack. I would not consider that scenario an accident, though. Sarin is used to kill, plain and simple. Are there reliable sources that describe this second scenario as an "accident"? VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? An attack that is intended to be small-scale and deniable that becomes large-scale due to a mixing error clearly has an element of accident. But the label isn't important, what's important is finding some reliable source that links that with the well-established motivation problem. Podiaebba (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for the "mixing error" portion of this hypothesis? In any case, nothing about this attack was "small scale." VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember sourcing; I'm pretty sure it was mainstream US. I should go look for it I suppose; maybe you could too. I don't know why you say nothing about this attack was "small scale." because it's (a) irrelevant (small-scale is the intention, in the scenario) and (b) somewhat debatable, since precise casualty numbers for the entire attack are not known and there were a number of locations, the scale of each not being precisely known either. Podiaebba (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hundreds of liters of sarin would have been "small scale" only in the darkest days of cold war chemical warfare planning back in the 60's. I actually did poke around but didn't see any sources fronting this particular hypothesis, and it certainly seems to me that it is reasonable to ask you about it since you seem to have read it somewhere. VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

hundreds of liters would have been "small scale" only... - perhaps, though that isn't actually proven. This is getting pretty off-topic though. Podiaebba (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Found a source: According to a well-informed Western source, the Syrian authorities have gone so far as to use mixtures of chemicals, notably with the addition of tear gas, to make it harder to identify the source of the symptoms.(Le Monde, 27 May). Podiaebba (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And: Is it possible that we are looking at exposure to multiple causes of injury? Were some of the examined victims exposed to other things in addition to Sarin? I am not stating that Sarin was not used. It clearly was. My point is that it is either not behaving as we have understood it in the past or that other factors were at work in addition to Sarin. CW expert Dan Kaszeta Podiaebba (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing this for now, then:

"Whilst much of the debate has assumed that the attacks were carried out deliberately (thereby raising questions of motivation), a former UN weapons inspector has pointed out the possibility of an accidental launch by Syrian government forces. Rod Barton said that mixups between chemical and conventional weapons had sometimes happened in the Iran-Iraq war, as the rounds themselves are distinguished only by markings whose interpretation would be limited to forces attached to chemical weapons units. In the chaos of war, rounds could sometimes end up in the hands of forces unaware of what they contained."

Can be re-added if evidence is provided that a RS continues to maintain this particular theory. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Motive

Motive section? Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons when the combined UN team of OPCW and WHO investigators arrived in Syria to investigate the earlier use of chemical attacks? Can anyone tell me.

It was the US, Britain, and France that prevented an UN investigation that could assign responsibility for any chemical weapon attacks from taking place because it was very likely the insurgents were behind the chemical attacks in March 2013. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

See Ghouta_chemical_attack#Motivation and Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack#UN_Investigations. Podiaebba (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

March 2013 predates the Ghouta attack. By definition, any discussion about motive (outside of a confession by the guilty party) is speculation. We already list some of this speculation in the article; in my opinion adding more would not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. See also Argument from incredulity. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Still VQ you can see how sus this looks. Rebs gas some people, Syria complains request UN team, UN team parameters hammered out, US allies oppose team pinning blame cause its gunna be bad if rebs nailed, Rus China manage to get compromise. team cant pin blame but can id chemicals. This is the team sent in. So what happens. Chem attack next to their hotel. Cmon. Ghouta stinks of desperation to shift blame after earlier rebs gas attacks about to be exposed. Why IS Barry scared of that? Because hes not only on Al Qaeda's side now that side is gassing people.

Now of course Im not saying shove that in, but Ghouta is just too Convenient, and for me it makes me look harder at the circumstantials, both ways. AND Lo I find the US story line data flawed, very flawed, hence me being here. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

why do you say 'US allies oppose team pinning blame cause its gunna' etc I've read 'The report did not assign blame for the attack' - but I've not read that this was at the insistence of US allies. as for your saying over and over you know the rebs done it I don't see how that moves anything forward withregard the article. your asinine opinions are known by this point and need no further reiteration imoSayerslle (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I say that because the team was in Syria to investigate earlier Attacks, where it is likely the insurgents, rebs, were to blame. Research it. The mandate, dont assign blame check 4 sarin was for the earlier attack investigation and was transferred to ghouta by Ban Ki Moon when ghouta erupted.

That mandate dont assign blame check for sarin was the mandate watered down by the usa for the earlier attacks. Do you get it? They wanted a weak mandate because a strong one could have nailed the rebels for the earlier gas massacres. What if you are wrong Sayer? What if you have been taken right in and it comes out? Imagine that. Lets not exclude that possibilty, remember Iraq. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Then when reliable sources are updated, we will update the article. No drama or hysterics required. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, till then take any refs you dont like to appropriate board and discuss here. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Secret US intel

Washington has claimed that the orders to use chemical weapons were intercepted, but has failed to provide the transcripts or to give any names of Syrian officials. I think till it does this sort of ref is unreliable. Russian officials have also assessed that the chemical attacks in Ghouta were part of an intelligence operation conducted by Saudi Arabia. But thats not in. the US claim is the same, no intel is supplied. Its not notable. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "notable" as it's not an article subject, and as long as it's clearly presented, reliability is an issue for readers to judge. The problem is editing/editors removing or downplaying key information that allow readers to judge - including leaks suggesting that specifically these intercepts were misrepresented by the US. (The whole "Evidence" section does a particularly good job of ignoring such caveats - but they're also excluded from the Communications section. Basically anything that doesn't fit the US narrative is explicitly or implicitly labelled "early opinion" or "response", etc.) Podiaebba (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No Blade, reliable sources have reported this claim by the US. We just attribute it to the US, not delete it. Russia has continuously changed their story via dissemination through semi-official news channels; it is silly for you to claim this is the same as an official intel report. Their statements regarding SA also fail on plausibility. Podiaebba, have leaks criticizing the representation of the phone conversations made it into reliable sources? That could be worth including in the section about the US Intel report (along with the commentary already there that the 12-page classified summary was unconvincing). VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

have leaks criticizing the representation of the phone conversations made it into reliable sources - as I've said before, Timmerman/Daily Caller is a good enough source to mention in appropriately attributed form when it's been cited by a US Congressman in a New York Times op-ed as the sole specific intelligence example in his discussion of the quality of the Assessment. Podiaebba (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you have indeed posted it before, but could you please provide a link? VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well after Iraq I think the reliability of US intel refs has been hammered. The thing holding the line for the US POV here on Syria is the RS battle. Thats the fight now. I urge people to check out Western and US media bias on wiki. I suggest combing the net for new RS refs exposing the gaps of the official Obmama / Saudi / Israeli Syria storyline. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure: Grayson op-ed, referring to this Timmerman article. Podiaebba (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I opened this up because the deleting of refs is becoming a problem. If editors have problems with refs talk about it below. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Overview section

Bring up any concerns here. Say about RS refs. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the imperative voice is unhelpful. So, I take it you are defending the Centre for Research on Globalization as a reliable source now? You must be a big fan of Quadaffi and holocaust denial... anyways, noise like this is an unnecessary and annoying distraction from the difficult task of building an article on this complex subject. Blade, educate and elevate yourself. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr your tone is much changed from Bbb23's talk page. Im shocked. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I interpret that as agreement that the source is unreliable? All contributions on this site are public, and Bbb23 certainly has the technical competence to review my edits. VQuakr (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I take it you are defending the Centre for Research on Globalization as a reliable source now? You must be a big fan of Quadaffi and holocaust denial - that is an appalling thing to say even if it were true that CRG supported either, which (AFAIK) isn't. We've been over CRG's reliability recently, there's no need for this kind of lowering of the tone. Podiaebba (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Facetiousness communicates much more poorly over text than frustration. No one currently editing this article has expressed sentiments that reflect support for the late Quadaffi or holocaust denialism, and it was wrong of me to communicate in a way that in any way could be construed as accusations as such. To rephrase, I think that CRG, which has consistently and demonstrably hosted dubious content, does [not]_{added ~0100} come close to approaching the standard of a reliable source outlined at WP:RS. I continue to maintain that it is a waste of our (all editors here) time to be having a conversation about CRG's reliability since the source is, quite simply, that bad. VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is abusive Podiaebba to the extreme esp since I am an ED registered nurse. Helping people. And my grandfather was a Jew. I think P that QV got a slap down because he thought to sic Bbb32 onto me. Really his reversal of discussed edits started this. Now hes become abusive. Sad really. QV maybe you need a break from this. Its only an article. Podiaebba should I take it further? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor you are addressing is VQuakr, not "QV", not "VQuack" or "Quack" or any of the other silly names you've called him. Honestly, it's amusing how you'll goad editors and then claim to be shocked and appalled when they bite back. And considering that VQuakr just admitted he was wrong to make the Qaddafi/Holocaust denialism remark and attempted to steer the conversation away from a personal dispute and onto discussion of a topic germane to the article, your whining about him being "abusive" and disingenuously suggesting he "needs a break" really comes off very poorly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Slightly rich Ku. I remember you suggested I retire once> Im pretty sure I also never used Quack. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

He apologised. People occasionally say bad things in anger, and/or things come across differently than intended. So let it be. And please try to get VQuakr's name right - it's not that long a username, and if you're going to abbreviate it, it's obviously VQ, not QV. Podiaebba (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes fair points. I accept the apology from VQ. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead there is the sentence 'The governments of Iran and Russia sided with the government's characterization of the attack as a false flag operation by terrorists to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side.' and there is a ref to a story that doesnt mention 'false flag' - just that the regime says the reports are designed to disrupt the UN investigation, and to make up for reverses on the ground - the ref seems to say that the regime said early on - oh this is rubbish , an invention' - so the sentence needs better refs imo. Russia has changed its version of what happened and why lots actually as brown moses has detailed on his blog, they began with -'Aleksandr Lukashevich claiming a "homemade rocket with a poisonous substance that has not been identified yet – one similar to the rocket used by terrorists on March 19 in Khan al-Assal - was fired early on August 21 [at Damascus suburbs] from a position occupied by the insurgents.' [2]- and they went from there -Sayerslle (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If the complaint is with the term "false flag", we can discuss it, but I think the meaning of the term is quite clear and can be applied even if the Russians and Iranians didn't use that exact wording. As for refs, here's Putin saying rebels used gas "to provoke intervention"; Iran has been rather circumspect on the issue, so I would lean toward removing it from the sentence altogether. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the ref for Putin and took iran out. Sayerslle (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Areas attacked

Should we perhaps make a subsection for "areas attacked"? This remains an issue of unclarity. For instance, Spiegel (source in article) says most of the victims in Irbin/Arbin (neighbouring Zamalka) came from Zamalka. Separately, there is also the issue of subsequent alleged attacks which I'm not sure are covered anywhere on WP, and possibly should be at least linked from here. Podiaebba (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

the areas in the UN report are Moadamiyah in west ghouta, and Ein tarma and Zamalka in east ghouta - where is the unclarity? Spiegel says they weretaken to Irbin because the hospital was better equipped. Sayerslle (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The UN report isn't even clear about which sites it visited: the team visited Mazzeh, but the report doesn't mention it. But anyway, they were only able to visit a selection of reported sites. Podiaebba (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial reports (particularly from the US White House) stated or implied that other surrounding areas were hit. The UN report made clear that for time and safety reasons they did not visit all alleged sites, but it is less clear if any areas geographically distinct from these three had rocket landings. Podiaebba, the report you linked was from 5 days after the attack. Generally speaking, early reports are frequently wrong so I think that if there are no reliable sources indicating rocket strikes outside of these areas from the last month or so we probably do not need to mention these areas. Again, we might get some new information from the UN late this month - the US seems to be preoccupied with domestic issues, so they are not quite as rushed to get something published. VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial reports may be wrong, absolutely. But we have a map which goes well beyond the UN sites visited, and we should try to clarify it as much as possible. Initial reports with a certain amount of detail (as given in the Spiegel article) are also less likely to be wrong. Podiaebba (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be worth having a section to spell out where casualties were reported and where casualties were confirmed (and by whom, of course), perhaps with a small amount of background on each area where available. We don't need to go back to Antiquity, but for instance, I know that Douma (which wasn't itself hit, but an outlying area was hit) has already played a notable role in the war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be worth trying to do. Podiaebba (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confused about the intended scope here. This article is about chemical attacks in Ghouta, historically limited to the attacks on August 21 (if there are other attacks on other dates that rate mention, I would suggest separate articles). I am probably misunderstanding you, Kudzu1. VQuakr (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting going beyond the Ghouta attacks within the scope of this article, no. I'm suggesting outlining which areas were hit on 21 August and providing some context both for the claims they were attacked (AFAIK, most if not all of the attack sites have been independently corroborated) and what their history in the war was prior to the attacks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now. Yes, I agree good idea; my only concern is how to accomplish it without making the article (particularly the portion dealing with background) too long. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jobar

This is a breakout from an earlier "buffet" discussion to allow a little more depth and clarity. The subject is if and how we should discuss the Jobar chemical attacks in this article. Currently, we mention them in two places:

1. In the Background section, After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Jobar chemical attacks. French intelligence later said that samples from the Jobar attack in April had confirmed the use of sarin.
2. In the Government attacks section, The French newspaper Le Monde reported in the months before the Ghouta attacks that its journalists embedded among opposition fighters had personally witnessed several chemical attacks on a smaller scale by the Syrian Army against rebel positions.

References that support these statements in the article now are [3], [4], and [5]. A glance at the Jobar attacks article suggests that there are additional sources available that could be added, as well as at least one source from June expressing doubt that Le Monde is describing a nerve gas attack [6].

@Swawa: You have stated a couple of times that "The only thing that actually happened is one reporter witnessing people choking and vomiting." This is directly in conflict with Le Monde, ie Le Monde's photographer suffered blurred vision and and respiratory difficulties for four days., ...those who stayed on the front lines – with constricted pupils and wheezing breath..., In the morning, ambulances managed to get through by driving at maximum speed under tank fire and reached the front, where a new chemical weapons attack had just taken place., so please consider further explaining your reasoning. I have not seen any valid justification for removing this material from the article, though I think the excerpt from the Background section could do with some rephrasing. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. First of all some background - this article is a meeting of very problematic interests: Reporters who naturally want a good story, in a situation where no one can verify their claims, and rebels who know a regime chemical attack will bring foreign intervention. This means we should be very careful in reading the article, and require strong evidence when strong claims are being made.

Now, let's read the article. Most of the claims are reports from rebel sources and doctors. They're very unreliable, and if we quote them we should state the real source. The only direct observation claimed is the one you quoted. Besides the very dubious claim of a photographer witnessing an amazing story and not recording it, what he reports is symptoms. That's it. No chemical weapons, no Syrian army, and definitely no civilians. Since there are other more reliable reports of rebels suffering symptoms, I see no use for this report.

There's also a weird sentence "Reporters from Le Monde witnessed this on several days in a row". Without explaining what "this" is. The sentence before it describes evacuation. If that's what they witnessed, it's not very interesting.--Swawa (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well SW you cut right to it, I agree Most of the claims are reports from rebel sources and doctors. They're very unreliable, and if we quote them we should state the real source. This sort of thing is a problem and is the underlying bias in the article. As you say, 'Since there are other more reliable reports of rebels suffering symptoms, I see no use for this report.'

Suggest delete. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The "very dubious claim" of a reliable source, Le Monde, one of the most respected newspapers on the entire planet? I think it's going down a very dangerous road to second-guess reliable sources based on our own personal feelings. And it's WP:OR, which is against guidelines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Le Monde is good, I agree. I mean what other paper writes this. 'What other country could magnanimously spend $4-6 trillion on two “good wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq against lightly armed minority insurgencies without winning or accomplishing a thing? ' [7] So yeah, Im with Le Monde here. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing Le Monde Diplomatique with Le Monde. Podiaebba (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr - There is no universal reliable source. It all depends on the context. As I pointed out, this is a case that is easy to manipulate and Le Monde editors have no way to verify claims. The "dubious claim" is dubious because there is no journalist photographer in the world that keeps his camera in his pocket when witnessing an event of such importance. And once again, those are just background claims. If you're uncomfortable with them feel free to ignore. The bottom line is that there is no Le Monde reporters witnessing chemical weapon use by the Syrian Army on civilians, and that should be reflected.--Swawa (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what RS are telling us. I'm going to take the Le Monde report over your personal feelings about what the newspaper's employees should or should not have done while suffering the effects of nerve gas exposure. Please review WP:V. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem appears to be interpretation of the source, rather than the source itself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Forget about the "dubious claim" thing. Ignore it. Imagine it was never said. Now please show where the article (and not its summary, which is less reliable), describes reporters witnessing chemical weapon use by the Syrian Army on civilians. If we can't support it, it should be deleted. Very simple. --Swawa (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted a query at the reliable sources noticeboard to try to get additional opinions. VQuakr (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No journalists have reported directly seeing nerve gas being used?

Several respondents have asserted that we have no journalists reporting personally seeing poison gas being used.

There is no tactful way to ask this. Do you guys know how nerve gas works?

Nerve gas is extremely deadly. It is not like chlorine gas. Victims don't have to breath it in. It can be absorbed right through exposed skin. Even getting a minuscule droplet on your skin is enough to cause a horrific death.

Do I have to spell out to the complainers that any journalist who actually saw nerve gas being used would die? We are not going to get any reporting from journalists who actually saw nerve gas being used -- ever. Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Some of us know its a false ref. We have to go thru the process to get it removed. I know how it works also. As you say, deadly. In time this and the weather ref below will be removed Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's actually not true. Nerve gas exposure is not always fatal. It depends on the dosage level, which can be affected by a variety of conditions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The point he made is also who is going to hang around to chance death or life long damage. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually interpreted what Geo Swan said to mean that the photographer had nothing to photograph in the incident that sickened him - nerve gas is invisible, and if they were close enough to the munition to photograph it he likely would not have survived. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information

The article currently makes the following statement in the subsection Government attack: "....however, the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs." This statement is supported by Richard Guthrie quoted in New Scientist. A cursory search has not yielded additional secondary sources either corroborating or refuting his position. An editor has stated that his or her analysis of a primary source, wunderground.com, shows the wind direction at Damascus International Airport about 10 miles away was similar for the morning of the attack and the morning before (though according to this source the wind speed was higher the day of the attack).

Which of the following three options are appropriate for this case?

• Option A - Remove the existing statement regarding wind direction.
• Option B - Keep the existing statement in the article, but qualify it with a summary of the primary source.
• Option C - Keep the existing statement in the article effectively unchanged.

Please reply to the survey with one of the three options and a brief justification. Replies and threaded discussion can go in the following subsection. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C (as nominator). In my opinion, this primary source cannot be interpreted as in conflict with the statement without specialized knowledge such that the interpretation would violate WP:SYN. Similarly, the information in the primary source does not contraindicate the secondary source so strongly as to conclude that the secondary source must be unreliable. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option C is my preference. Wikipedia policies are quite clear about the primacy of secondary sources on this website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option A. No brainer. I dont have a stake here, Im not doing this as a job, and its not personal. Its not option C. Hes just plain wrong. Having a stressful day. Example. 'Wednesday was the only day this week the wind blew in from the sea' -Joe Blog. Then someone tells Joe to check the weather report, where it shows the day before wind blew in from the sea also. I mean seriously you two what is the issue with just reporting what is rather than trying to bend it to support the POV you both seem to favor. I dont get how you two are both Wikipedia knowlegeable, but have this bent to skew things pro Rebels / Al Qaeda / USA Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• A, obviously. Demonstrably wrong opinions should not be included unless they're so widely reported as to be notable. Podiaebba (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia policy does not accept primary sources as acceptable for demonstrating that the claims of secondary sources are false. There's our own personal impressions of who is likely to be more factually correct, and then there's our guidelines for what Wikipedia accepts. Often-times we have to overlook the former in order to evaluate the latter, as policy requires of us. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Verifiability, not truth. Snow (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not accept primary sources as acceptable for demonstrating that the claims of secondary sources are false. - where does it say that? WP:Verifiability seems to be written on the premise that "reliable sources" can never be wrong, and nor can they ever contradict each other. It is also entirely about material included in articles; it is not about the strength of evidence required to exclude information believed to be false. Podiaebba (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Believed by whom? The entire reason we have the secondary source verifiability standard is to take subjective and personal appraisal of the facts out of the equation. We do not report what we suspect -- or even feel we know -- to be the truth; we report what valid (secondary) sources say on the matter - virtually exclusively, with the few exceptions not being of relevance here. If not for this approach, any obstinate editor could make an intractable, unending mess of any discussion on content they wished to remove by citing any manner of baseless primary source -- including but not at all limited to what they believe to be their own personal authority on the subject matter. Luckily, that's simply not the way Wikipedia operates. And no, WP:Verifiability, and the long-standing community consensus that it developed from, do not assume that all secondary sources are correct, only that they represent a better standard than primary sources and that the quality of the project as a whole is vastly improved by relying on them to the exclusion of primary sources. Nor does the policy assume that secondary sources cannot contradict one-another; we actually have a very specific process for when this occurs (as it does on millions of Wikipedia articles) -- we present the perspectives of all relevant sources and do our best to detail the context and specifics of the debate on the issue. This is far from the first time the argument you present has been forwarded, but the community consensus has remained clear; primary sources are not valid for determining any manner of evaluative content on articles, regardless of whether said sources are intended to support or oppose a particular claim. Snow (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of general words, but nothing at all about the specific issue of how WP:Verifiability is supposed to prevent us relying on a real WP:PRIMARY source (not needlessly conflating it with unavoidably-WP:OR "my opinion" ...!) that shows a specific secondary source is wrong in order to judge that the source should be excluded. After all, it is explicitly part of the policy that even secondary source claims believed to be correct (i.e. with no contradiction in sources) can be excluded for no reason but that editors think it's better that way. As for resolving contradictions between sources - well obviously that happens all the time, but I see nothing in the policy that would aid in doing so. Declaring that primary sources, however good, are always overruled by secondary sources would be one aid to resolving such contradictions, but the policy doesn't do that. Podiaebba (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

After all, it is explicitly part of the policy that even secondary source claims believed to be correct (i.e. with no contradiction in sources) can be excluded for no reason but that editors think it's better that way. Yes, but as a general rule, such exclusions are done only when editors are in agreement that the information is unwarranted; if the info is relevant to subject matter and sourced, there's really no policy argument for keeping it out, regardless of how much some parties doubt the veracity of the claim or simply dislike it for other editorial reasons. Clearly this is a contentious piece of content and therefore it cannot be excluded on that basis (though I understand you weren't necessarily making that case anyway). But in any event, it is certainly against the spirit of policy and community consensus to remove content on the basis of original research; the distinction you make between primary sources and the more blatant forms of OR is not without merit, but we'd still be well over the line on this one. All of that being said, I don't mean to suggest that you don't have a leg to stand on; I think there is a policy argument for calling the claim of the secondary source into question here, but it's not the one you or anyone else is making. Specifically, I'm alluding the to the principle that "extraordinary claims should be supported by strong verification." Now, that's an infrequently invoked principle, because it requires such subjective assessment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say it applies here and it's the primary reason why I think the compromise option (B) is an acceptable approach, where in most cases I think option C would be the only approach allowed by policy where a primary and secondary source conflict. The compromise is imperfect to say the least, but it will allow us to present the reader with the same ambiguous situation that we are struggling with until such time as further secondary sources clarify the matter. Snow (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• A. It's not only that it's likely wrong. It is used multiple times to imply regime culpability. This is a very grave claim that should not rely on such weak evidence.--Swawa (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• A. According to data from the NOAA, the statement is factually incorrect. -140.247.0.13 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• B (Edit: whoops, I meant C), (Edit: when I said B I assumed by ['primary source' you meant to cite Richard Guthrie, not the wunderground, as the primary source to add, but I think now I misread the question) since no additional secondary sources could easily be found, and I can't find anything on the expert NS cited (perhaps he was just the expert that NS happened to have in its Rolodex). Agree the original research violates WP:SYN: the source of the wind information and whether wind direction varies between Ghota and the unknown reporting Damascus weather station both are non-obvious, to the point that whoever brought this up originally is in violation of Wikipedia polices by wasting editors' time with their personal primary research. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• B or C are really the only options here if we are to be even vaguely consistent with Wikipedia policy. Frankly C really probably ought to be the only one considered, since we have a valid secondary source that has not as yet been proven to be in error by other secondary sources, and primary sources are not allowed under policy for supporting content or disproving the claims of secondary sources. That being said, B seems an acceptable compromise approach for the time being until other secondary sources shed some light on the matter. It's not strictly speaking consistent with policy, but if the primary source is notable enough to be remotely trusted, it can't hurt to make the reader aware of the controversy. This source should be clearly marked in the text as "unconfirmed" though. And my strongest support still goes to C. Snow (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I know practically nothing about the conflict and have no axe to grind apart from the wish to enable WP to present as much information as possible as neutrally and helpfully as possible. This is hardly possible at all in a matter such as the present where many people have intense personal concerns (justified or otherwise) and many others have strong personal opinions, all more or less in conflict. In such conflicts participants routinely engage in destructive polemics that might or might not favour their preferred points at issue, but in WP we are not supposed to indulge either undue tactics to present desired misinformation, disinformation, or simply doubtful material or error, nor to indulge the application of Wikilawyering to the silencing of valid material inconvenient to particular parties. Although it is not necessarily invalid to impugn the quality of some sources when there is adequate basis for doing so, it does not follow that every niggle provides justification for omitting material with inconvenient citations. The point of citation is to enable the interested reader to persuade him/herself, not to present incontrovertible proof of every point, and the choice of citation should reflect this; a weak citation that readers can access and evaluate to their own satisfaction trumps a notionally incontrovertible source that is unavailable, for example. Having had a quick look at the material in the article, and not having checked the citations myself, I am of the opinion that the accusations of synthesis, OR and the like are poorly supported. At worst, a few minor rewordings should be adequate to deal with anything like the synthesis accusations and I reject the idea that research to obtain independent sources and materials has anything to do with OR. To suggest anything of the type is inimical to the aims and function of WP. For my part then, in this article I suggest at most a little careful editing and possibly some work on the citations from either side should be quite adequate to deal with the events in a manner appropriate for WP and informative to the reader. Not that I imagine that these keystrokes will have any effect of course, but I was asked... JonRichfield (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"I was asked..." - by who? And, er, what did you actually say? Are you even posting in the right section? It's not entirely clear what your rather general comments refer to. Podiaebba (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have those questions also. Who asked? And briefly what are you saying? I would have thought checking the citations was critical for an informed opinion. Blade-of-the-South talk 05:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jon means that he was responding to the Request for Comment (RfC). -Darouet (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• B - Due to the fact that no secondary sources have yet been found, it is best in this case to pursue this option in line with Wikipedia Policy. If further secondary sources such as actual weather data can be located then option C should be taken.

Threaded Discussion

Abu Sakhr, a paramedic interviewed by the VDC, estimated chemical weapons to have first been delivered by mortars at about 02:00. (from article)

20th 2 am. wind direction WSW

21st 2 am. wind direction WSW

Guthries statement is wrong. What is the issue? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A few corrections to the RFC description: (a) It's not just the day before, but every day of the week. Some of these day had stronger wind. (b) The problem is not just whether it is correct, but also the context in which it is used: a sole weak claim used to imply culpability, which is a grave issue. (c) Defining this as 'analysis' is a bit misleading. It was a simple search in a weather database.--Swawa (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also textbook WP:SYNTH and a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not. No one is suggesting writing anything based on this information. It is only used as a tool to evaluate reliability, which is perfectly fine. And anyway, WP is very clear that guidelines should not be used against the WP spirit. Please let's handle this like grown-ups: The quote is very likely mistaken, and is used to support a very heavy claim. It's irresponsible to leave it in.--Swawa (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If this info were available on one webpage instead of 7, it would clearly be a trivial summary of a single source. That the information is on 7 pages on the same website doesn't make the summary any less trivial. WP policy clearly permits obvious conclusions of this type. Podiaebba (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine my position on this one is clearly known, but to reiterate - the primary source provided shows hourly weather updates, for a location some distance from the scene of the attacks. Interpreting whether this data is relevant to an assessment of the wind at Ghouta, and whether the data is of sufficient collection frequency and quality to draw conclusions is nontrivial, specialist interpretation that would be in violation of WP:SYN. I would have the same opinion if the linked primary source was, for example, 7-day weather history listing each day's wind on the same web page. VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Or we have in a quote from someone who appears to have made it up, gives no primary source and what he states is unverified, unconfirmed or backed up. In fact he appears to be the only one on the planet who said what he said. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The location isn't that far away, in an area which is all flat; and it's technically still part of Ghouta. The frequency is quite obviously sufficient and there is no reason to doubt the quality. And do you honestly not see the significance of the fact (pointed out below) that Guthrie's claim has not been repeated by anyone whatsover? When plenty of people are falling over themselves to try to collect and publicise evidence pointing at the Syrian government, and this is a pretty damning claim which has been in the public domain since 28 August? Podiaebba (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I must also point out the Dog That Didn't Bark problem: no other sources have made this claim, even though if true it's strong evidence for the mainstream US narrative, and even though some mainstream sources have talked about wind conditions that morning re the sarin drifting down into basements, which were commonly used as shelters from conventional weapons. Podiaebba (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

where do mainstream sources mention 'wind conditions that morning re the sarin drifting down into basements' ? -the UN report says ' a falling temperature between 0200 and 0500 in the morning means the air was not moving from the ground upwards, but rather the opposite maximizing CW impact as the heavy gas can stay close to the ground and penetrate into lower levels of buildings where many people were seeking shelter' - it also says 'the rockets are believed to have arrived from the northwest' - (zamalka/Ein Tarma findings) - but why do you call it 'the mainstream US narrative', these are statements from the UN report - - is it the narrative opposed to the Putin-SharmineNrawani-Podiablade/ assad regime /davidicke/globalreearch/ narrative? Sayerslle (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well firstly, I labelled it "mainstream US narrative" for convenience and because I was thinking in terms of US mainstream media not reporting the claim Guthrie made (from Guthrie or others or first-hand data). It's obviously a narrative shared by various others, so let's not get bogged down in that. Secondly, and rather more importantly, what exactly do you call air moving downwards due to weather? I'd call it wind. And regardless of labelling, discussing those air movements without reference to the alleged difference with other days is the core Dog Not Barking point. Podiaebba (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The poll. Its about wind direction. No one knows if Guthrie used a primary source. Do we need an impartial admin here, someone new to this page. I think so. This has become silly. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

According to NOAA, the wind direction just SE of Damascus from the 19th through the 24th, was blowing from the SW in the direction of NE (there's considerable variability within that general range). Unless I've completely misinterpreted the data available from their site. Wind direction is 280, 210, 220, 250, 260 at midnight, 1AM, 2AM, 3AM, 4AM on the night/early morning of the 21st. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This link will be available for the next 7 days: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/8087486645586dat.txt. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, I see that from 00:00 on the 19th August through to 23:00 on the 24th, average wind direction was blowing from 245 degrees (WSW) towards ENE; the standard deviation from that average, during that time period, was 33 degrees. -Darouet (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The link allowing anyone else to generate this data can be found at this NOAA site. When I look at wind speed from August 1st through to the 21st, I see that average hourly wind direction is 255 degrees, with the same standard deviation. Basically, wind was the same all throughout the month of August. -Darouet (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you see what exactly the location of the NOAA data collector is? I'm not familiar with the site and I can't figure it out right now. Podiaebba (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure Podiaebba. If you zoom into the greater Damascus area, you can see that the nearest climate/weather station is the Damascus International Airport about 12 miles ESE of the center of Damascus. The first data I mentioned (from the 19th through the 24th) used only that station. The only other station in the immediate area is the Darayya airport, 4.5 miles WSW of Damascus. For the larger date range I mentioned above, covering most of August, I selected a larger area whose center was ESE of Damascus, including both stations. I believe that the NOAA uses interpolation to give a best estimate of wind speed direction (and other variables) for a given selection, however it's possible that the data returned was only for the Damascus International Airport.

I tried to select a much larger area incorporating 10 stations, but the site returned an error. -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at wunderground.com, [8] Its a secondary source. A secondary source is based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Wunderground does this. Its also using public domain data. It interprets primary data, rather than make it. So it can be used directly in the article to refute Guthrie or remove him.

From link. 'The service distributes Internet radio feeds of NOAA Weather Radio stations from across the country, as provided by users'. 'Most of its United States information comes from the National Weather Service (NWS), as information from that agency is within the public domain by federal law'.

Even if some quibble on this. Take note. 'Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True™. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does'.

This applies here, since Guthries comment is NOT independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, and probably not subject to editorial control / checks. An it IS unreliable, biased, possibly self-serving. Then either Wunderground can be used as a secondary or primary to help the reader with this unverified, in fact refuted comment. I suggest a simple removal WP:UNDUE. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why you are bringing up NWS info, since we are talking about the weather in Syria. Anyways, as used wunderground is obviously a primary source - it does not "contain an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." - which is what a secondary source would do. As for your last paragraph, please frame your reasoning in the context of policy rather than as a rant. As near as I can tell the only reason you are malaising this person so much is that they happen to disagree, in this case, with your preconceptions. Elsewhere Guthrie has been publicly critical of the White House intel report, and he has been frequently cited by other sources as an expert. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 'I am not quite sure ...' Establishing wunderground has secondary characteristcs. Its neither wholly primary either. Look stop yr own rant, look at the poll. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If we were talking about Jeff Masters's Blog on wunderground, it would be a secondary source. Simply republishing raw data (whether from NWS info for North America or from wherever they get the Damascus Intl weather station info in this case) does not a secondary source make. This portion of the discussion is so unambiguous that it amazes me that you are attempting to contest it - this is not where the contentious part resides. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: you and the word "rant" -- you're kind of like a six-year-old who has learned a new word and now wants to use it every time he opens his mouth. Not that I have great expectations that you won't demean other editors' arguments because they don't comport with your own, but you should know it's fairly insulting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you, Ctrl + F 'rant' and see who comes up using it first. BTW lets look to business and look at the poll. Its been what 6 or 7 days. 7 valid votes, last vote 3 days ago. 'Option C lost with 2 votes. Option A wins with four votes. 1 for option B. The changes the straw poll supports will be made. Blade-of-the-South talk 05:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and RfC's are not closed by involved editors. VQuakr (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Blade-of-the-South talk 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)OK, Im still learning Wiki Blade-of-the-South talk 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring in circles: what to do?

Started as a discussion about re-addition of material to the article, the discussion has thoroughly drifted from article content. Let's move on.

This discredited WP:UNDUE conspiracy theory popped up again: "However Top UN rights investigator and former war crimes prosecutor, Carla del Ponte stated before the Ghouta incident that 'According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas." I feel like we're edit-warring in circles; is there anything that can be done? I have a couple other edits that should be undone and additional edits to add, but it's not a very good use of my time if it's just going to be silently reverted. Would it help to protect the page so that only admins can edit it? If nobody has any good ideas, I'd hate to just admit defeat and abandon this page to the conspiracy theorists. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Shes got many good refs. [9] [10] She was UN. She talks in plural. It happened. 'The commission is gathering evidence for possible future trials of individuals and military units suspected of committing abuses in the 18-month-old conflict in which forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad are seeking to quell an uprising against him'.[11] Its relevant. Its notable. Its uncomfortable. Its so not US POV. Its neutral. On her, shes notable. 'Laura Dupuy Lasserre, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council, said she had appointed del Ponte and Vitit Muntarbhorn to the Commission of Inquiry to join Brazilian Paulo Pinheiro and American Karen Abuzayd. "Both have a long track record which has been recognised at the highest possible level internationally," she told the Council at the end of a three-week session. "Their reputation is of impartial, independent and objective human rights work." Del Ponte's eight years at the Hague-based court International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were dominated by the pursuit and trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who died in 2006 before sentencing. "She brings strong investigative skills and an ability to better systematise and use the huge amount of information that the Commission of Inquiry is putting together with a view to prosecution one day," European Union (EU) Ambassador Mariangela Zappia told Reuters. So do tell Rolf how is this discredited? Like the wind direction has been. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) unless del ponte has spoken directly about the attacks of August with relevant things to say it looks like her - equivocal May 2013?- remarks are being dragged in - SYNTH-ily - isn't she a widely discredited figure anyhow - accused of allowing bribing , and bullying etc[12] - shes like that nun - she has nothing to say about GHouta from knowledge, but is dragged in by pro-Regime apologists and pov pushers -Sayerslle (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I'm going to disagree with you. I think Del Ponte is notable, albeit problematic -- people can decide that for themselves -- but there's a pretty obvious WP:SYNTH problem with using her comments from before August to make it appear as though somebody important thinks the rebels carried out the attacks. If it belongs in the article at all, it's in a "Background"-type section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I Have to agree shes extremely notable. Where to put it? I liked background also until someone made a capability section. Shes fits in there well. As well. Blade-of-the-South talk 22:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I think you're completely missing the point. No one used this quote to imply the attack was done by the rebels. It is only used to estimate rebel capabilities. Before this edit, it only had the very biased and unreliable opinion of US Intelligence. Now it also has an unbiased source. How is this not an improvement? And just for the record: "A terrorist organization attacked civilians to advance political goals" is not a conspiracy theory. "A government targeted its own unarmed population for no conceivable reason" is a conspiracy theory. It doesn't mean it's necessarily true, just that it's not a conspiracy theory.--Swawa (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Both sides have attacked civilians; unfortunately, there is no moral high ground in this conflict to be assigned. "Conspiracy theory" is a somewhat amorphous term, but the fringe theory that the rebels attacked themselves to trigger a western response against Syria is pretty clearly more conspiracist than the idea that a dictator with chemical weapons used them, again. You are the sole judge of what you can conceive, but "no conceivable reason" is a bit off. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC) It may be a fringe theory, but it's not a conspiracy theory. Also, the "rebels attacked themselves" is a very unlikely interpretation of the facts. A much more likely scenario is a targeting mistake during a chemical attack on SAA. Another possibility is that the attackers are from a foreign fundamentalist organization that don't view the locals as their own people. They may even view the FSA-dominant Zamalka as infidels (FSA is at war with several fundamentalist factions). Syria is a much more complex story than "dictator attacking peaceful protesters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawa (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC) That's completely arbitrary and speculative. You and all these other people keep insisting you only want to discover "the truth", but honestly, it seems like you've already made up your minds: the rebels did it, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and you're trying to prove it. When you're blogging, that's fine, it's your blog, whatever. But when a cadre of editors is working from that perspective -- trying to find and insert information to color the incident a certain way or implicate a certain faction, and in some cases change wording to be more sympathetic to the Assad government -- I think it's devastatingly unhelpful to Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Indeed my own research shows the evidence clearly points to a rebel attack. This is my motivation for editing this page - I always enjoyed Wikipedia's balanced description of disputed issues, and when I saw an article leaning in an obviously wrong direction, I wanted to help. However, I'm perfectly aware of WP guidelines, and I think all the edits I offered so far are clear improvements in the WP spirit. Is there anything I did that you feel was "unhelpful to Wikipedia"? As to the discussion above: It got a bit sidetracked. It was just funny to see Rolf use the term "conspiracy theory", when its common use is the exact opposite: a government conspiring against its people. I think we can close this discussion now. It shouldn't have started. I am however very interested in the "overwhelming evidence to the contrary". Since I haven't seen anything of the sort in weeks of research, it would be great if you could give me some pointers. Thanks!--Swawa (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Well said Swawa I too saw the unbalance and refute utterly Kudzu1s rant including 'in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary'. Phooey as Nero Wolf would say. Puerile. If he can rant so can I. That it is clearly a false flag event does not stop me being NPOV and unbiased. Unlike some, who may indeed be totally uninformed and ignorant of the vast Gas Pipeline project via Syria to bypass Russia's Euro gas dominant status. And who funds such a project? Why those who fund the rebels, rebels who are failing hence the need to vilify Assad with this chemical attack and bring in the Wests firepower. Thanks to Putin it all failed. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC) As you said, Swawa, this discussion never should have started. I believe -- based on the UN investigation, the intelligence reports from myriad governments, the shiftiness of the Syrian and Russian governments, the witness reports, and everything else -- that the Syrian government committed yet another atrocity in this war in an attempt to gain ground. But unlike, say, Blade-of-the-South, I haven't devoted virtually every edit I've made to this article to advancing my own personal POV. I've removed poorly sourced arguments in favor of the opposition position, I've added and fleshed out statements by those saying the rebels carried out the attacks or there's no proof the government did it, and I've made various other contributions to the article that have nothing to do with who was the perpetrator. Reasonable people can disagree, and while I find the public evidence to strongly suggest the Syrian Army's culpability, I recognize that some people are more reflexively skeptical. What annoys me is when editors single-mindedly make their entire purpose in "contributing" to the article advancing their personal POVs. And yes, I have criticized editors on both sides of the issue for POV-pushing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Im going to tell you something about you kudzu1 that you dont know about yourself, but claim to, but others here know about you. This here you wrote, describes you fully. is when editors single-mindedly make their entire purpose in "contributing" to the article advancing their personal POVs. [13] Room 2 is the aspects that others see but we are not aware of. Blade-of-the-South talk 07:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Citing a list of reports is not evidence. If you can point to what exactly is the overwhelming evidence that implicates the regime, I would still be very interested in seeing it. Thanks!--Swawa (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I removed the del Ponte quote before, as it was done misleadingly. I've fixed it a bit this time, but it's still misleading without the context of the UN's update/response, which was basically "whoa there" AFAIR (I don't have sources but I'm sure they can be found). Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic might be the place to clarify this. More generally: I've given up on having a reasonable summary of the Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability related article here, and for those who haven't, the del Ponte quote is a very poor substitute for attempting that. Podiaebba (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry to hear you have given up on a section. Giving up is not in my mindset. Blade-of-the-South talk 05:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Image discussion

This image File:Hrw froth.PNG is non free. According to policy Wikipedia:Non-free content: Unacceptable use: 5. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article. This image is not iconic, has not received media attention, is not discussed in the article, therefore it's unacceptable use. USchick (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; this image has indeed received third-party media attention. This is specifically noted in the image's description page, which links to this article which includes the image with commentary. This is oulined at WP:NFCI: Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. As I noted on your talk page, the appropriate venue for whether non-free content is used appropriately is thataway. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This image does not meet the requirements you listed. There is no commentary in the article about this image. There are free alternative images on Commons. USchick (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Which specific commons image do you propose as a free equivalent replacement (please pick one that you have not recently and spuriously nominated for deletion)? That is sufficiently relevant to editorial improvement of the article that we can discuss it here. Again, you have been provided the link to the location non-free content review if you are still confused about our image use policy. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about a specific image in this article. According to policy, the discussion should happen on the talk page of this article. If we move to a general discussion about images, we can go to a different discussion. None of the images on Commons have been deleted and can be used if appropriate. This image is against policy. If no appropriate image can be identified, it's ok not to have one. USchick (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about a fair use rationale. The appropriate place is the noticeboard, per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Reporting_inappropriate_use_of_non-free_content. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, see you there. USchick (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Hrw_froth.PNG. VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ref Discussion

There are two refs, spread out, one in the lead and two in the box on right, one in the body that may not be RS or viable. This is ref 11. VDC [14] Its used to say this. ' not less than 51 of whom were rebel fighters.'Its not saying that.

Also here is the link for 502 deaths in the box on the right. [15] Its not there in the link. Neither is the VDC numbers of deaths in the same box. Can the person who put these in clear these up, by finding the right refs if they exist. tags applied

The other issue is Facebook SOHR. I noted Kudzu1 said FB was not RS on edit history article. I agree. Can we get some consensus on FB as a RS. FB seems Unencyclopedic.

Blade-of-the-South talk 08:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Blade and I are in rare agreement on this. If there's no reliable source for these numbers, they shouldn't be included; considering I have been wholly unable to corroborate these numbers with a reliable source, I'm thinking if these numbers are included in the article based on a source with encyclopedic standing, they should be duly attributed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your statements. Kudzu1 we have had our differences but I have always thought your editing work was of a high quality while at other times we disagreed (some times dramatically) on what should be in and the POV balance issues. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr I could be wrong but didnt you revert this material, or some of it back in here > 04:03, 28 October 2013‎ VQuakr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (147,661 bytes) (+191)‎ . . (add rebel fighter deaths back to article ....) Im wondering if you used the wrong ref. Would you mind either self reverting or adding the correct ref? Blade-of-the-South talk 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. FYI you can link to a specific diff like this or this. VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nifty. Ref 11 still wrong. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I updated it. The ref said 621, not 619 so I changed it in the title box. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The VDC ref is correct. You only had to bother to make the correct search on that site to get the proper numbers for the overall number of dead from the attack and how many of them were documented as rebels (51). VQuakr has updated the url so it now directly goes to the list and the number itself also shows. As for the Facebook issue, I have given up on trying to insert it. However, even though I also agree Facebook is not a reliable sources (like Wikipedia says), it was agreed over a year ago by most of the Syrian civil war editors that SOHR Facebook posts are official posts and not made by individuals and since SOHR is cited as a reliable sources by the news media we agreed to use their reports as references. In any case, like you requested Blade, VQuakr has added the info both in the main body of the article as well as the lead with a proper ref. So I see no reason for you to continue your opposition to this. EkoGraf (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess things change over time. I will take FB to the board again to check RS. Thanks. Blade-of-the-South talk 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

[16] Blade-of-the-South talk 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Intercepted Syrian military communication

This is interesting and could sort of balance out the alleged Syrian military communication interception.

'According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report. 'According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.'

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/

Blade-of-the-South talk 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this claim before, but The Daily Caller is a tabloid and isn't reliable at all. This is the same media outlet that ran a series of fake stories in an attempt to implicate a U.S. senator in a scandal involving Dominican prostitutes last year; it turned out the prostitutes it "interviewed" were being paid to read a script. We'll need a better source if we're going to include this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The source is not just "the daily caller", it's Kenneth R. Timmerman, and the claim was the sole specific intelligence issue raised by Alan Grayson in his NYT op-ed about the (lack of) quality of the US Govt Assessment. That the Daily Caller ran the Menendez stories knowing they were based on paid-for lies is unproven (or if it is, their WP article needs updating). In any case, most major media outlets have published things they knew or should have known were probably not true - not least the NYT in relation to the Iraq War. Podiaebba (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Timmerman cites "former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports." Any idea who this is a reference to, or why former military officers would have access to a report that those who allegedly doctored it would obviously want kept secret? It seems that if his opinion piece is verifiable, there would be better sources available for such an exceptional claim. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 and its sources (including AP) make it plenty clear that there are current US officials very unhappy about the way the US Govt presented the evidence - to the point, lest we forget, where the assessment was published by the White House and not the ODNI as would normally be the case. Timmerman's claim was widely noted in Washington (according to Alan Grayson) and the US govt had every opportunity to refute it by publishing full transcripts or at least releasing them to the relevant Congressional bodies. It's hard to provide any convincing security reason for not doing this (the intercept is mentioned in the unclassified assessment). I'm not aware even of an official denial of Timmerman's claims (though I assume there must be one, at some White House press conference). Podiaebba (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have criticism of the WH representation of the intercept in the article. Timmerman is making a more specific claim here that muliple, retired officers have reviewed the edited and unedited documents. This seems implausible to me so I am trying to understand what the context would be that could make this possible. The WH frequently chooses not to address accusations at all, so absence of a denial does not equate with capitulation. I would like to see a more current and reliable ref for this since this opinion piece was published 8 days after the attack and there were many rumors since shown to be incorrect. Was the Egyptian report public? BTW, thanks for the convenience links, very kind! VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing implausible here once you accept that significant elements of the US intelligence community were unhappy with the way the intelligence was being spun, to the point of refusing to release the assessment in the form the White House wanted, so the WH had to do it themselves. That position makes leaks entirely plausible, and it only needs one leak of the material for it to get passed around. Given the ability of the WH to pressure mainstream media , non-reporting of this in itself proves nothing. Furthermore the WH's non-response isn't just a non-response to Timmerman, it's also a non-response to critical Congressmen like Grayson who reviewed the classified version of the Assessment. Was the Egyptian [military intelligence] report public? - gee, what do you think? Podiaebba (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I seem to have missed something on page 2 of Timmerman's piece, which is worth quoting in full:

An Egyptian intelligence report describes a meeting in Turkey between military intelligence officials from Turkey and Qatar and Syrian rebels. One of the participants states, “there will be a game changing event on August 21st” that will “bring the U.S. into a bombing campaign” against the Syrian regime. The chemical weapons strike on Moudhamiya, an area under rebel control, took place on August 21. “Egyptian military intelligence insists it was a combined Turkish/Qatar/rebel false flag operation,” said a source familiar with the report.

The funny thing is that this is very close to a claim from Yossef Bodansky which was edited out (cf Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_2#Yossef_Bodansky), despite Bodansky's significant history as Congressional aide. Perhaps it should be at least included as an "Egyptian military intelligence" view (with explicit attribution to Timmerman). Podiaebba (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Still too fringe to merit inclusion, see WP:UNDUE. His September 1 article was probably a rehash of Timmerman's August 29 article, which of course would explain the similarity. VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

His September 1 article was probably a rehash of Timmerman's August 29 article - absolutely not. Bodansky's article provides details not present in Timmerman's, notably the date and location of the pre-21 Aug meeting (given by Bodansky as 13-14 Aug in Antakya). Podiaebba (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think its like the wind direction issue. Unless we can compromise and include some mention I think we will need some independent editors to make the call on what and how much should be included. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Timmerman is making an exceptional claim and is in conflict with multiple other secondary sources. That is a significant distinction from the wind direction RfC. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

One mans conflict is anothers neutrality issue perhaps. I think we have the neutrality banner because of a lack of co operation here. Different views are accommodated in WP and it makes for better reading by the public to have a well rounded balanced article. Its 70 % there IMO. I noticed Swana left due to what he perceived as a lack of common sense. Thats a pity. I think we lost a good editor there. Which is another reason why we need non involved editors IMHO. Blade-of-the-South talk 04:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

One mans conflict is anothers neutrality issue perhaps. Not sure I understand this statement. Are you saying that sources that report different information than Timmerman are not neutral? VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The explanation followed it. Im not sure what WP calls it but its called expressing and acknowledging others different viewpoints in real life. In the case of this article, lets say we in the west on MSM see and hear mostly a certain viewpoint, call it scenario A : but there also exists a conflicting view, scenario Z with less refs in western MSM. Neither is conclusive, but considering the implications if Scenario A is wrong for western democracies and our troops, Scenario Z retains significance. Esp post Iraq WMD and concern over the USA re Snowden / NSA.

I think having both scenarios represented is healthy and NPOV right, according to WP? For some this may be conflict, but for the truly neutral editor it is a neutral position. Do you understand now? IMHO Swana was trying to achieve neutrality. He is a loss. It is for the continuing edit issues I call for more neutral editors. Blade-of-the-South talk 05:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so a comment on editors rather than content in the article talk space then? Moving on. VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this is the key Timmerman claim:

The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

[17]

This is an exceptional claim, one that has been brought up here on the talk page multiple times already. In the roughly two months since Timmerman published this, have follow up stories explained how these anonymous, retired personnel got their hands on a classified report that would be so damaging to the White House's credibility? Why have these personnel not gone to more respected, reliable, nonpartisan sources than The Daily Caller? This is not close to meriting inclusion; it fails on plausibility. As a reminder, NPOV is our target, not "equal weight." VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about plausibility, you're suggesting that an experienced defence correspondent has either deliberately published lies or been sold lies by US intelligence officials for purposes unknown. As to why the sources didn't go elsewhere? Jesus H Christ this sort of comment is so aggravating. Intelligence sources only talk to people they trust when it comes to communicating things they'll probably be prosecuted for leaking if identified - this is hardly in dispute is it? So they're not going to go around hawking their claims to every mass media outlet. And this is before we consider the role of the administration virtual war on the free press with its efforts to spy on journalists etc etc (cf James Rosen (journalist) for example). Podiaebba (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Trust me when I say that not all journalists are created equal and some are more trustworthy and reliable than others. Even veterans of the news business aren't all great/accurate/professional reporters. And I don't think Kenneth Timmerman (who, again, only appeared on my radar when he made a quixotic bid for Congress as a Republican in Maryland last year) is such a huge and unimpeachable name to make whatever he writes notable even when he offers no substantiation of his claims, his piece runs on a right-wing blog instead of in a credible news outlet, and his claims are so extraordinary as to contradict basic common sense (e.g. you generally don't let people who have left the command structure and given up their security clearances have access to classified intelligence) as well as other reports. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

you generally don't let people who have left the command structure and given up their security clearances have access to classified intelligence - that would be why it's called a leak (from current officials to trusted former colleagues, obviously, who in turn spoke to Timmerman). You might also familiarise yourself with who Kenneth R. Timmerman actually is - his career as a Middle East and defense correspondent and currently being an expert for Wikistrat, as well as various other positions which suggest being well-connected to the intelligence community. I've also just noticed that Timmerman and Bodansky may be acquainted - both worked for the US Congress in the mid-1990s in the area of foreign affairs. Podiaebba (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I didnt see the other discussions so I didnt know it occurred. This what talk pages are for. Maybe something will back it up in time, like the wind direction claim. You wrote this, 'In the roughly two months since Timmerman published this, have follow up stories explained how these' If I do this, ' In the roughly two months since Guthrie published this, have follow up stories explained how this weather reports was obtained'. My point is, as Swana pointed out on his talk page, a little common sense will help. If we have one set of rules for Guthrie they should apply all round. Timmermans claim has precedent via Iraq. So its not exceptional anymore. Bush did it to. I think its valid. Lets get someone not so involved to call it. Blade-of-the-South talk 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Blade-of-the-South: I didnt see the other discussions so I didnt know it occurred. Really? You contributed to the last three discussions about this source, here on this talk page. You should probably read discussions before replying to them. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well it does not matter, we are dealing with it now as its clearly unresolved. Moving on. Blade-of-the-South talk 22:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that Le Monde is a newspaper of record in France, and The Daily Caller is a right-wing tabloid that publishes fabricated hit pieces. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What does Le Monde have to do with this discussion? Zip: the comparison was with Guthrie's claim in the New Scientist. Also, as pointed out above, WP's The Daily Caller article doesn't show they knew the material in question was fabricated when they published it, or that they have done this repeatedly, as you imply. And as I said before, many mainstream media have published things they knew or should have known were false, not least the NYT in relation to the Iraq War. Blade's point about double standards is entirely fair, and you seem to be trying hard to distract from it. Podiaebba (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the New Scientist piece mixed up with yet a different reliable source the Assad boosters have been trying to discredit. My complaint is with the repeated attempts of editors attempting to push a "rebels did it" POV by trying to introduce low-quality sources making extraordinary and unsupported claims, apparently for the sole purpose of counterbalancing what they see as "bias" in the article reflecting a near-consensus of reliable sources (which happens to roughly align with what Western and pro-Western governments are claiming and what the UN report seemed to suggest). Wikipedia isn't supposed to work this way. The Daily Caller is a piece-of-crap tabloid, and whether they made up the Menendez story or simply glommed onto it after being tipped off by someone with an anti-Menendez vendetta, I think it clearly demonstrated their journalistic scruples and how reliable a source they should be considered (hint: not a reliable source at all). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Im going to repost this as it didnt get commented on. It sums up why we need neutral help here.

In the case of this article, lets say we in the west on MSM see and hear mostly a certain viewpoint, call it scenario A : but there also exists a conflicting view, scenario Z with less refs in western MSM. Neither is conclusive, but considering the implications if Scenario A is wrong for western democracies and our troops, Scenario Z retains significance. Esp post Iraq WMD and concern over the USA re Snowden / NSA.

I think having both scenarios represented is healthy and NPOV right, according to WP? For some this may be conflict, but for the truly neutral editor it is a neutral position. Do you understand now? IMHO Swana was trying to achieve neutrality. He is a loss. It is for the continuing edit issues I call for more neutral editors. Blade-of-the-South talk 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I did too reply to this. Short version: review WP:VALID. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

AP Link Dead, removed

Here is the link, removed by AP. [18]

This is what it allegedly said. 'U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces August 29, 2013'

Has anyone seen this story anywhere? Blade-of-the-South talk 01:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's from the Dozier/Apuzzo 29 Aug AP article: AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'. Podiaebba (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the neutrality this quote gives. Very sane. VQ what are your objections to include it? Blade-of-the-South talk 01:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I need some more background here. That story appears to be currently used in the article, several times. Had I objected to it at some point (plausible, since it could be misused, but I do not recall doing so)? VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I will do some checking just to be sure, thanks. Blade-of-the-South talk 05:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have some material for the background section perhaps. Chronological insert maybe. It would be good one day to remove the disputed neutrality banner. Could this sort of insert would help the issue along.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats – including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community has no proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use.

The official conceded there are caveats in the report and there is no proof saying Assad personally ordered the attack. There was no mention in the report of the possibility that a rogue element inside Assad's government or military could have been responsible, the senior official said’. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/us-syria-conflict_n_3834544.html

Blade-of-the-South talk 02:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this and the above are sufficiently covered. The U.S. government line continues to be that Assad or one of his deputies ordered the attack; we have noted in this article and a related article that there is not 100 percent agreement among the U.S. intelligence community and allied countries that there's irrefutable proof of that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right. Give me a day or so to reread the bits involved. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Capabilities section ref

The possible source of sarin. Capability section?

Al Qaeda may have chemical weapons, Spain's counter-terror chief warns. Al Qaeda could have acquired such arms in Libya. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9735472/Al-Qaeda-may-have-chemical-weapons-Spains-counter-terror-chief-warns.html

Libyan Weapons Depot Unguarded, Open to Looters http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/libyan-weapons-depot-unguarded-open-to-looters/

Libya's Prime Minister Confirms Presence of Chemical Weapons http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/30/libyas-prime-minister-confirms-presence-chemical-weapons/

Needs to be linked coherently if possible. Might be best in a linked article on Sarin. Blade-of-the-South talk 02:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems like WP:SYNTH to connect that to this article. It's not new information that terrorists may have access to some form of chemical agent somewhere in the world; what reliable sources are saying is that major intelligence agencies have said the Syrian rebels don't have chemical weapons, at least not enough to stage a major widespread attack like this one. They may be right, they may be wrong, but it's not our job to "build a case" on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, any statements about rebel chemical capability need to be connected to Ghouta by the source. Sources that predate August 21 obviously will not contain analysis about whether rebels were capable of an attack of this scale. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no mention of sarin. I've added the sources to Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Chemical_weapons. Podiaebba (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He also said there is some sarin gas that is unaccounted for. Ctrl + F sarin. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/30/libyas-prime-minister-confirms-presence-chemical-weapons/ Blade-of-the-South talk 23:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That quote is from 2004. Quite a stretch to connect it to 2013 Syria. VQuakr (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Since Gaddafi’s fall in 2011, vast quantities of his abandoned Soviet-made arms have fallen into the hands of rebel groups and al-Qa’ida-affiliated insurgents. Russia’s new “evidence” about the attack includes the dates of export of the specific rockets used and – more importantly – the countries to which they were originally sold. They were apparently manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1967 and sold by Moscow to three Arab countries, Yemen, Egypt and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya.Robert Fisk — The Independent Sept 22, 2013. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fisk is quick to point out that Russia has provided no support for their claim. [19] VQuakr (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

He is which is a credit to him. His other point stands about al-Qa’ida-affiliated insurgents. Blade-of-the-South talk 04:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That Libyan conventional weapons have made their way to Syria? I do not think that is a contentious statement, but this article is about a chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are sections in the article saying the rebels dont have the capability re Sarin. I would like that tempered a little. They could well have the capability. We just dont know for sure. But its possible. The way it reads now would convince a reader the rebels did not have capability at all. Thats biased IMHO. Hence we may need some game changer editors Blade-of-the-South talk 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We write to match the reliable, secondary sources, not the beliefs of individual editors' humble opinions. If you want some fresh eyes on this I suggest a post at WP:NPOV/N with a brief summary of why you think there is significant bias in this article. Remember though that this is a volunteer project, so there is no way to guarantee that you are going to convince anyone else to join what I think you would agree is a challenging effort. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be challenging, but I will keep it on simmer. Like Iraq and Libor it takers time to turn conspiracy into fact Blade-of-the-South talk 01:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Background or capabilities section

Russians release lab analysis

October 29, 2013. Russia Claims Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons

The samples taken from the impact site of the gas-laden projectile were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Churkin said. He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. Churkin said the results indicate it "was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile "is not a standard one for chemical use." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3568731.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/russia-new-evidence-rebels-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks/4966616

Blade-of-the-South talk 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Huffington post article predates Ghouta. The information in the late September article is already in the article (summary: Russia disputes all evidence that points to Syria; provides no backup). VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Capabilities section would be suitable, the lab, thats a good point. Its a distinguised lab, more notable than SOHR surely. See I think the capabilities section is a bit non neutral Question. For these sorts of issues, you say I say, is there a notice board to go to to get non involved editors involved to call it? Blade-of-the-South talk 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple dispute resolution methods and noticeboards available; for a summary see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE which includes a convenient list. Third opinions are great for simple questions when it is a discussion between two editors; usually a much faster turnaround than most other methods. Which lab? Russia has been consistently making claims related to Syria without any backup, so the Russian ambassador making claims is not worth including in the article. Particularly for a story that predates Ghouta. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. One thing though, I have to point out that when you say 'Particularly for a story that predates Ghouta.' I dont understand you. I saw your edits on background and capabilities, material thats in it of course predates the attack. Why do you often use this as an excuse to exclude only certain material. Do you see how someone may think you are a biased editor? Blade-of-the-South talk 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding how you are proposing to use this source, then. We already mention in the background section that Russia blames rebels for Khan al-Assal. What specific changes to the article are you proposing? The capabilities section should only include sources that discuss capability of an attack on the scale of Ghouta per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr Im taking you on good faith, that you are not wasting editors time. I dont see how you dont understand how a previous chemical attack in the same conflict just a short time before is not relevant to who may have carried out the later Ghouta attack. I propose that the article updates the rebels capability to have possibly done it due to Russias lab results / conclusions on them doing the earlier attack. I will take this the the board I think in the next day or so. Blade-of-the-South talk 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to tell someone you are assuming good faith, you just do it because it is how Wikipedia operates. The two attacks were different, particularly in scope, so we would want to use sources that explicitly makes the claim that the rebels were capable of the Ghouta attack. A source that predates Ghouta may be appropriate for the background section (though I think we already have that covered and do not need to stack in more sources that repeat the same unsupported claims by Russia), but is unlikely to be appropriate for the capability section per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Putin Russia Notability update

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article.

There was a lot of trouble getting things Russian 'in'. i.e Intel reports section. Now its official Putin is more powerful than Obama. 'Forbes ranks Putin world’s most powerful person, downs Obama'. “clear idea of the shift in the power towards Putin on the global stage.” [20]. Please keep this in mind in up coming edits. Blade-of-the-South talk 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC) George Orwell : "A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. - his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right." Sayerslle (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Moving on. Putins notability has increased. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)