Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 11 April 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

A news item involving Khan Shaykhun chemical attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 April 2017.

[REDACTED]

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Deleting government claim of missile factory strike

I don't know how this 1RR crap works for reverting IPs, but one has twice deleted a government claim from the government claims section. If we're just deleting stuff that doesn't fit the fuck Assad theme, that hardly seems fair, but I'm not getting blocked for this. If someone else finds it useful for a wider picture, maybe restore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

And it's back, before I even complained. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

The f'uck, this is the worst source ever, they are paid to lie for the sadist Assad regime--2A02:8108:1900:3E24:C0C7:E9CB:C4BC:595A (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And others are paid to lie against the sadist Assad regime. That's war for you. If readers don't trust the source, they don't have to believe the story. But it seems useful to have someone saying something (somewhat) specific about why the town was hit, where and by what. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

I see you've deleted a third time, against two editors. I suppose as an IP, our one revert rules are powerless to stop you. Must be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

1RR only applies to reverting registered users' edits. Revert to your heart's content (well, not quite, but you know). ansh666 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Re Volunteer Marek, what do you mean with "it is known". Do you seriously believe that five days after the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the United States' policy on Syria is no longer focused on making president, Bashar al-Assad to leave power,ref he go on an order the deadliest chemical attack since the Ghouta attack in 2013? Do you realy think he is that stupid? Come on. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what Assad thinks or his level of intelligence. Neither do you. See WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

He is smart enough to be a doctor. Anyway, no independent investigation has taken place, and no credible journalist has been at the site. So the perpetrator is still unknown, and that is what the info box should state. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Blowing up sarin destroys it

How do they put it in rockets then? I find this statement axiomatically incorrect and think it should be removed. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need rockets to drop chemical weapons, and even if you used rockets they don't have to contain explosives.68.199.221.23 (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarin is combustible. If bombs were dropped as claimed, then ideologically the sarin will be burnt up. That's what the statement refers to. Regardless, we don't use our own interpretation on what to add or remove. All sides must be presented if they are notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The sarin attack was in the early morning, while the attack on the ammunition depot took place between 11:30 and 12:30. Doctors Without Borders said victims of the attack were exposed to at least two different chemical agents, and suggested that some had been exposed to chlorine, so it is possible that the strike on the ammunition depot hit the rebels chlorine stockpile (that they stole from SYSACCO). Erlbaeko (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Erlbaeko but I still think it is a dumb comment. If it must remain, we should at least balance it with independent suspicions that the rebels did it. . RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There's more to blowing stuff up than setting it on fire. A big part of any explosion is the blast wave, which does the titular blowing. Fire mostly sucks. Without knowing more about what exploded where, it's hard to say whether any hypothetical stuff is likely to burn up or spread out. Hard to know so, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Here the Guardian shows the blast hole left from the obviously explosive warhead that some claim was "laced with chemicals" or some such rubbish. They even put a biochemical warning label on the large blast crater left in the road. There's no evidence of any shell casings or physical proof that should be easily retrievable, if people are putting signs on it. What it does show is that the alleged chemical rocket did "blow up" a substantial amount of concrete and in the (frankly incredible) suggestion that the chemicals were in the warhead, this explosion did not destroy them as the General claims. Any reasonable person seeing that blast crater must surely push for the removal of this comment as completely unreliable and really, I have to say it again, a dumb thing to have on an intelligent encyclopedia. Firing warheads at chemical weapons could do who knows what to them from mild leaking damage to destruction, where still the gas would go somewhere. Unless we want to lead people to believe that gasses can just blink out of existence by will of God. RaRaRasputin (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Whose territory is it?

The infobox mentions the location of the incident as "Ahrar al-Sham-controlled territories". However, the lede itself describes the town as being part of the rival Tahrir al-Sham. The two groups are rivals and have clashed woth each other often. If HTS controls the town, then it doesn't make sense as to why it is called Ahrar al-Sham territory. A source used here says Ahrar al Sham is the main group in the town but it is a Twitter source, if what it says is true then it cannot be said to be "Ahrar al-Sham controlled" as there are other groups controlling parts as well. I wonder if it fulfills WP:SPS. We cannot use it if its unreliable and there are other reliable sources contradicting it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Idlib Governorate clashes (2017) and the cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War Khan Shaykhun is currently controlled by Tahrir al-Sham. I am not sure how reliable of a source "Charles Lister" is. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Sarin Gas attack in Hama Gov. 11 Dec. 2016

No mention of the suspected Sarin attack in Hama from December. This took place in vicinity of town of Uqayribat in Eastern Hama Governorate.

Guardian reports 93 dead.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria

Notable for its high death toll and the suspicion that it was not another chlorine attack, but a nerve agent. Perhaps the first major nerve gas attack since 2013, with the 2017 one being the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That incident should have it's own article, and it should be referenced here: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war Please consider creating an account and editing! MeropeRiddle (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

US and the UK

Its not just trump and johnson. The US state department, congress, and defense department all share the view. As does Theresa May. Please change it to say "The United States and United Kingdom placed.." 68.199.221.23 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian

The guardian went into detail on the unlikeliness of the regime's claim. Please add the following:

|Finally, the Syrian manufacturing process for sarin involves creating and storing two key components, both far more stable than the nerve agent itself. They are mixed to create sarin hours – or at most days – before it is used, said Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and former officer in the US Army’s chemical corps.

So an airstrike on a storage facility would be unlikely to release sarin itself. And because one of the two components is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol, or rubbing alcohol, you would expect a fireball, which has not been observed.|

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun

68.199.221.23 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag edits

Hello, Yihman1, The Wicked Twisted Road, Scientific Alan 2, Editor abcdef, and Cyrus the Penner. Can we please discuss on the talk page or have some consensus on whether or not to include accusations of a false flag rather than having a whole editing war back-and-forth? Also, I believe WP:3RR was violated so I'm not sure how to proceed with that. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is actually under WP:1RR. Now that Yihman1 knows that, I don't expect any more multiple reverts from them. --NeilN 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We definitely DO NOT include this unless the topic has been covered consistently and repeatedly by multiple reliable sources. The two sources Yihman1 was providing both seemed unreliable. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Seemed unreliable". Could you please be more specific. Why did they seem unreliable? Roberttherambler (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag rubbish should obviously be kept off this article (WP:UNDUE). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Think that a false flag opinion can be included in somekind of reaction section, if there's a reliable source(s) and reliable/notable opinion(s), but for now I do not see anyhow the possibility of a separate section about the false flag claims. The chemical attack was fairly recent and there's not enough reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence either that it was, or was not, a false flag attack. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. However, this page claims the "false flag" theory prominently, even in the lead. Look at the 4th paragraph in the lead: "However, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem later explained that "the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support."". Please fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Syrian governments view must be explained, My very best wishes. It's a requirement according to the Neutral point of view policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Noticing the claim by Syrian government ("we did not do it") in the lead is fine. I am saying that the text in lead is not a proper summary of corresponding section Syrian_government_claims and it gives improper weight to conspiracy theory in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The policy says we should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, so it have to be included. However, I agree that it was not a proper summary of the Syrian government claims section. I fixed that. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Military engagement

Please make a new article for the military response, keep the summary of the military response short and sweet here. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Shayrat strike

If the military response is limited to the single cruise missile attack against a Syrian military airfield, then it hardly warrants an article of its own. -- ToE 02:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

That "single missile attack" involved at least 59 warheads - many of which were no doubt cannister bombs that unleashed hundreds of grenade-sized bomblets that more effectively close down military aircraft runways. This story is just beginning and will be a big news topic internationally for days to come - an article is justified.104.169.28.48 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Tomahawk missiles don't work that way. But inasmuch as this is Trump's second military raid, I concur that it is notable. kencf0618 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

NewSniffer as a reliable source

Some content in the "Syrian government claims" section is sourced to NewsSniffer, i.e. content is sourced from what NewsSniffer claims is an old version of a BBC article. Is NewsSniffer a reliable source, and is it standard policy to use old versions of articles in this way? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The source being cited is the BBC, NewsSniffer is used as an archive link. This is somewhat non-standard; Misplaced Pages suggests using either the Internet Archive or WebCite for creating an archive link. Augurar (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

timing of gas attack

Questions for editors who have had the time to sift through all the reports

Timing of Khan Shaykhun air attack

_ some sources 7:00am eest local time

_ Russian sources 11:30am-12:30pm eest local time

Or were there two air attacks reported, a dawn attack and a noon attack? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to separate fact from fiction, but:

• the head of Idlib's health authority, Mounzer Khalil, said "this morning, at 6:30 a.m., warplanes targeted Khan Sheikhoun with gases, believed to be sarin and chlorine", ref.
• An activist, Samer al-Hussein, said "We woke up, as usual, to the sounds of warplanes that barely ever leave the skies of Idlib province." and that he got word from fellow opposition activists that new strikes had targeted a nearby town, Khan Shaykhun. Ref.
• The Russian Defence Ministry said “According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions.", ref.

So, the strike on the ammunition depot might be compleatly unrelated to the sarin attack. If no objective monitoring data shows flights over the area in the early morning, the rebels are simply lying about it. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False flag question

Can someone with far more experience at writing current event articles please fix this? Neutrality of POV would be nice.

my story; my source code; my life in strings of text 23:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney Stencil (talk • contribs)

Use of explosion for dispersion

I removed the content "(however, in oppose, explosive dissemination in one of nerve agent deployment method)" as it was unsourced. However, it was re-added by Mykhal, saying "probably wikilinked content should be removed then". I suggest that we remove this - it is the definition of WP:OR. If explosive dissemination is not mentioned in relation to Khan Shaykhun, then it should not be in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to read e.g. ("... Two U.S. soldiers were exposed to small amounts of sarin in Iraq in May 2004 when an artillery shell containing the nerve agent, rigged as an IED, exploded.") and use it as a reference. —Mykhal (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Reorganize the "Responsibility" section

I think that the title of the "Responsibility" section doesn't accurately describe its contents. Although the rebels are clearly identifying a specific group of people as having responsibility for an intensional release of the chemicals (i.e. the Syrian government), the Syrian government is NOT claiming that the rebels are responsible for an intensional release of the chemicals. All parties agree that the chemicals were, in one way or another, a consequence of the bombing (i.e. either chemicals dropped by the government or else the result of a conventional explosion releasing chemicals that were already on the ground). This is an important distinction that I think (a) is not clearly identified in the "Responsibility" section (b) is not accurately reflected by the title "Responsibility."

So I propose that we form two separate sections: "Attributions of responsibility" and "Competing accounts of the chemical release". (Now although this title is a little long, it's still shorter than the title "Supranational and non-governmental organizations" that's currently in the article. Maybe we could shorten it to "Accounts of the chemical release"?) The two section would then describe the following:

• "Competing accounts of the chemical release" would have couple of sentence briefly describe the two main completing claims.
  • This will have two subsections: "Syrian opposition account" and "Syrian government account", which will present each side's claims, supporting evidence, and counter claims.
• The "Attributions of responsibility" section will go into detail about all claims of responsibility (and corresponding rejections) by all important groups, which includes: the Syrian rebels, the Syrian government, the U.S. government (which also holds Russia responsible), and then one section for all other governments, individuals, and organizations that make attributions of responsibility.

I also think that these are sections that can be easily expanded now and probably also in the future. Your opinion?selfworm 20:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the section is fine as it is. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this may need some changes per recent publications to reflect more assertively that it has been in fact committed by Assad government, but certainly not in the way suggested by selfworm. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright thenselfworm 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As it is related to the section, User:El C you removed sourced information relevant to the section, basically substantiating it by WP:OWN policy. I partially agree with Selfworm's proposal, and note that information and status of the investigation is really important to be mentioned, and should not be ignored. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't own a page I never edited before. No nationalism, please. El_C 08:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism has nothing to do with my comment neither I mentioned it. Please comment on content change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have violated 1RR. Please self-revert. No, never mind, that's a different user.El_C 08:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

We're really gonna go with unknown, that's the consensus? El_C 08:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown.

Everyone is fine with that? El_C 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, just to get it out of the way, I do think that it was the Syrian government, but I'm not here to write the article from my POV (remember NPOV) since I recognize that I may be wrong because I wasn't there and the only thing that I have to go off are the statements of others. The fact of the matter is that although there are a lot of claims being made, there is no "smoking gun" evidence that the Syrian government is to blame while at the same time there are people (like Jerry Smith from the the politically neutral Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) who say that Assad's defense can not be discounted. In addition, since this is English Misplaced Pages, the overwhelming majority writers hail from countries (a) whose governments want to overthrow the Syrian government, and (b) whose populations largely oppose Assad. At the same time, these writers will get most of their information from English language news outlets which again, overwhelmingly oppose Assad and want to see the the Syrian government overthrown. This represents Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias#Availability of sources may cause bias, Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias#English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate, and Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias#An American or European perspective may exist.
The point is that it is extremely likely that this article will develop into an article that (even with all statements having proper citations) (1) takes the position that there is WORLD-WIDE consensus that the Syrian government is to blame (where although this consensus only exists in the Western world it is clearly not world-wide,), resulting in giving readers an incorrect impression and pushing a non-NPOV, and (2) minimizes the non-Western viewpoint by simultaneously:
(a) dismissing all sources from Syrian/Russian/Iranian news as Non-Reliable to suppress a major party's viewpoint, while simultaneously
(b) using Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill with Western sources to conclude that a consensus exists against the Syrian government (when in reality this would just show that such a consensus exists in the Western world).
Remember that "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and that importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
The original reasons for my proposal was to try to give the article a NPOV, as well as to make more clear to the reader which statements are uncontested, which are contested, the origin of contested statements, and any likely bias that a source may have. So at least for now, I support having the perpetrators be "unknown" or possibly "accident caused by conventional bombing by Syrian government or a chemical attack by the Syrian government (contested)". selfworm 19:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

To add to article

Can the type of plane (Sukhoi Su-17) the bombs were dropped from be added to the article? Also, do any rebel groups in Syria own or use such planes, or only the Syrian military? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You can, if you have a source for that . Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"current" tag

See WP:WTRMT, #5, this is still a current event with breaking news. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

i agree with this. there was no proper investigation yet from the side of the UN or another group not involved in the war, also the follow-up of the attacks are not yet completely clear (e.g. if there will be NATO ground troops in Syria. Thus I am convinced we should make clear that this is a current event and that we still dont know all that happened in Khan Shaykhun. User:Nirmaz(PS: sorry if i didnt get the layout for talk pages right i am a relatively new user) 20:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The current tag is not a maintenance tag, used only while an article is heavily edited. WWGB (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"this time"

"On 8 April, the town was attacked again by unknown aircraft, this time using conventional bombs, with one death resulting." This sentence assumes that the original chemical attack was delivered by an aircraft borne chemical weapon full of sarin. It made a big crater with explosion marks, virtually eliminating that possibility. I don't think we should make assumptive statements like this without any evidence. RaRaRasputin (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Npov section

The perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown.

I dispute the neutrality of that edit. Reliable sources are clear that it was the Assad regime who was behind the attack. El_C 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are clear there exist a dispute on responsibility and the investigation on the chemical attack is ongoing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I dispute that it should be phrased as "the perpetrators who are responsible for attack are unknown"—the perpetrators are known. They are the Assad regime: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html El_C 09:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, what you're saying is against WP:NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality (due weight) of your addition. We have to follow what the mainstream of reliable sources say at this time. Widely attributed to Assad should be the first thing mentioned under Responsibility for the attack, not the second thing. El_C 09:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The addition is neutral and objective, and is primary (like with 2013 chemical attacks) - perpetrators are not known and disputed as the investigation is ongoing. What you're saying belongs to secondary claims or consideration category for which even exist sub-sections. We can not push an one-sided subjective narrative and degrade the factual status of the perpetrators.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The passage should switch the sentence order in the interest of due weight—what is widely considered should be the first thing mentioned. El_C 10:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It can not because it is not factual - the due weight is given as widely attributed consideration (mainly by US) is mentioned first in the second sentence, compared to Syrian or Russian consideration, which is specifically about the claims for responsibility.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What's factual is whatever represents the consensus in the reliable sources. As for consensus here, what do everyone else think? El_C 11:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I note you once again, there's no consensus in the reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Whereas I note that that is your interpretation—another is that it is widely believed the Assad regime was behind the attack. El_C 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pushing and accusing other editors for interpretation whereas you're doing it. Widely believed claims, mainly by US, do not represent the consensus. Factually there's no consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm doing it. We each have our interpretation of what the consensus among reliable sources is. It's not an accusation nor is anything "pushed"—it's a statement of fact. At this point, I'd like to hear from someone, anyone else. El_C 11:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS as it is not a fact. We, editors, should not and can not twist things as we please. Think a WP:THIRD opinion (please request it) could help the current dispute.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

So you keep saying. No need for third opinion, there's enough editors watching this article. Just be patient. El_C 12:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE applies. British and American intelligence believe the attack was carried out by the Syrian government - this having been widely reported. Munitions experts have dismissed the Russian claim that a government airstrike hit a warehouse storing chemical weapons (). We should attribute the attack to the Syrian government. The Russian and Syrian governments previously denied that Syria possessed chemical weapons right up until the moment they agreed to surrender them in September 2013. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, British and American believe&claim one thing, Syrian and Russian believe&claim another thing, sources show there's no consensus on the dispute, investigation is ongoing, thus to partially attribute the attack to the Syrian government, on personal opinion and SYNTHESIS, would be a violation of Wikipedian policy. Actually, the reply was not that relevant to the specific issue discussed above.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, when I checked the sources, there are no munition experts and it is an opinion, basically - if anything else, the UNDUE applies to this.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming consensus in the Western press, and British and American intelligence believe that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government. Your repeated references to an "investigation" are a red herring. If there is a UN inquiry, its findings will have to be accepted by the Security Council, which means it won't attribute the attack to any party. Giving WP:UNDUE credence to the Syrian and Russian position would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Only overwhelming consensus in the Western press is that US&allies "claims" it was carried by the Syrian government. If such fallacious criteria and interpretation of NPOV is considered, we will be violating WP:ASSERT as we must "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Also see, "responsibility for the chemical event in Khan Sheikhoun is still very much in question".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this section a little. It is definitely the case that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government, meaning this is an "majority view" - agree with L.R. Wormwood. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

By fixing is not meant removal of a reliable source which more than well explains that the responsibility is still in question. Stop considering and portraying an opinion as a fact, as it does not mean it is a "majority view". You're playing around with Wikipedian editing principles--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly in question to some degree, meaning that investigation is needed. However, you put as the first phrase the following: "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack". No, this is not main idea of the paragraph. The "majority view" is that the attack was committed by Assad regime. The majority view should go first. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Western media sources have, in many cases, adopted positions on this issue. I believe you have also misinterpreted WP:ASSERT; if something is widely reported, even if it remains disputed, it could not be considered "stating opinion as fact". It would appear you will only accept attributing responsibility here if the Russian and Syria governments concede that the Syrian government carried out the attack. I would therefore suggest that you have not offered a valid set of criteria for closing this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I no longer dispute due weight in that section, now that "widely attributed to the Syrian government" has become the opening sentence. El_C 20:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The words "British" and "American" should be firmly attached to any claim that Assad carried out the attack. Most of the European countries in their responses are very ambiguous about who actually carried out the attack and don't claim one way or the other. I don't think we can even say "Western media sources", since they simply report that the British and the Americans are making the claim. Miki Filigranski is essentially correct there, as far as I can tell. Other than active combatants like Turkey and Qatar who are funding the Islamist opposition, which countries categorically state that Assad for sure carried out the attack? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, by this edit (with invalid substantiation) was removed neutral and realibly sourced factual sentence "It is disputed who are the perpetrators responsible for the attack", and caused cite error only to be fixed by a Bot. If this sentence is excluded, if is mentioned that the attack is "widely attributed to the Syrian government", which is factually wrong as nor it is widely attributed nor US sided claims makes a majority viewpoint nor such a consideration is mentioned or can be concluded from the cited source (32; ) nor the sentence is supported by multiple sources - on the article is ideologically pushed a one-sided narrative and violated neutrality. I propose to revert the first sentence and place it in the beginning of the section, while remove the second sentence as it is not supported by the source (among other issues) as well in the same section is a whole paragraph dedicated to the US claims. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to

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

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

User:Claíomh Solais Specifically in regard to your comments:

"Most of the European countries in their responses are very ambiguous about who actually carried out the attack and don't claim one way or the other."

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

Except that the Russian/Syrian claim is not that the attack was caused by a Syrian airstrike that hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”. "The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

So, "Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists". OK. But this "explanation" was already included in the body of the page. Should it also be included in the lead? Hardly. It is enough to note the denial by Assad. But it is already noted in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

United States government claims

We need "United States government claims" sub-section. They are the main source for the narrative that it was an attack by Assad, yet we don't have a sub-section which mentions on what evidence and reasoning they claim it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you find any quote or consideration by Niki Haley from the UN Security Council? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, we do not need such subsection in the section "responsibility" because USA is not an alleged perpetrator of the chemical attack. Only sides which were claimed in a number of RS to be involved in the attack and denied the involvement should be included. I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, I could agree with such a reasoning.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's problematic to list the US as just another reaction among many uninvolved—but it was also problematic listing them under responsibility. I think they need their own section under US response (changed to US reaction). So, I have done this. El_C 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Lead section

Currently the Lead section does not inlcude the Syrian governments view in any way, since Volunteer Marek removed it here, with his personal analysis in the edit summary. I believe we, according to the Neutral point of view policy also should explain that side. Should we include the Syrian governments view that, "the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support.", in the lead? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images of alleged munition

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

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

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

Timing

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

Yes, but that is not the case. As discussed above (see the end of the Npov section), the Russian/Syrian claim is not that the attack was caused by a Syrian airstrike that hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”, as theGuardian claim. "The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to Ghouta-Mintpress theory

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

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

International reactions

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

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs