Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 25 September 2023

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Douma chemical attack, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douma chemical attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War 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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War 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.

A news item involving Douma chemical attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 April 2018.

[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

OPCW tangents

So, Supreme Deliciousness just restored a very long section on various OPCW "whistleblowers" that had been removed from the article back in November by Volunteer Marek (it was briefly restored by Alaexis with the edit summary "rv removal of sourced info; the level of detail is probably excessive but then we need to summarise them rather than removing everything"; then My very best wishes removed it again). I haven't looked back further to see how long it had been there. I reverted Supreme D's edit yesterday, and s/he swiftly reverted. The article is under 1RR so obviously I won't revert again.

I believe that this huge section was undue back in November, and hence the version without it became the stable consensus version. However, now that the OPCW-IIT report was published in January, which deals in a very evidence-based way with all the concerns raised by "Alex" and Henderson, this older material is even less due. The new version of the article has much more on the arcane details relating to these "whistleblowers" than it does to the IIT report, which can't be right.

The edit also includes a major change to the infobox and lead to change the attribution from the Syrian gov to "Unknown", despite the exhaustive UN investigation and the overwhelming consensus in the real world being clear about who is responsible. That seems to me straightforwardly pushing a fringe POV.

Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

While I was writing this VQuakr reverted the new edit (thanks!) so we are back to the consensus version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me. I think that the version you reverted had way too many details and must be trimmed. However, the version you restored is also problematic: since the leaks are not mentioned it's not clear what differing views Fernando Arias is talking about ("Fernando Arias reaffirmed his defense of the FFM report, saying of differing views..."). Similarly, it's written that Bellingcat criticed Henderson's report ("Bellingcat published a report in which it said it had found problems with the engineering assessment") but again the reader finds itself confused about the contents of the report. Please take a look at the compromise version. Alaexis_¿question? 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I've made some small edits to the compromise version for clarity etc. I still think this needs to made much more concise, and the final IIT report get more weight than this back and forth. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"and hence the version without it became the stable consensus version." ... the info was removed without any discussion or consensus so the removal slipped under the radar. This is NOT any "stable consensus" VQuakr and Bobfrombrockley are now edit warring to remove important information that the reader now will be unable to find. There are large doubts about the OPCW investigation by several journalists and whistleblowers so the removal of this from the article heavily distorts what has happened. The article now is completely one sided and censored. It is still an allegation that the Syrian Air force carried out the attack, it is still denied by Syria and Russia.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. You don't get to show up after six months and decide to restore some version that fits your narrative. The tag bombing is disruptive and an indicator that you shouldn't be editing in this subject area. Giving more space to the conspiracy theory than the mainstream is obviously undue. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

SD, A single edit (to restore a stable version) is not “edit warring”. When you reverted my edit, I refrained from editing and brought it to talk, tagging you. Please assume good faith instead of criticising editors personally. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

“Dubious”

Re this edit: I strongly oppose it. No reliable sources support any doubt about the perpetrator. To suggest otherwise is to give credence to WP:FRINGE positions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

see the info removed here: the entire event is questionable and denied by Syria and Russia. There is no 100% conclusion.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That material (most of which is back in the article - see talk thread above) does not include a single reliable source saying that there is any doubt about the perpetrators. Russia and Syria denying it (a fact mentioned several times in the article) doesn’t mean there’s any real

doubt about their guilt BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The information about "Henderson concluded in his assessment that the evidence encountered at the site in Douma indicated that the liquefied-chlorine cylinders were not dropped from helicopters, but manually placed in their respective locations." is sourced to The independent and is a reliable source, that info has been removed from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sourced from an opinion piece in the Independent. Not noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:FALSEBALANCE. They would deny it, wouldn't they? VQuakr (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, you removed the Syrian and Russian response to the OPCW IIT report and claimed "WP:FALSEBALANCE". Syria and Russia are two heavily involved parts in this occurrence. The first line of "WP:FALSEBALANCE" says: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic" , Syria and Russia are indeed two significant viewpoints, it allegedly happened in Syria and Syria is accused and Russia are their partner in the war so their response deserves to be in the article. Your removal is therefore highly inaccurate. It is also more accurate and encyclopedic to present it in the article as: "the OPCW IIT report concluded that Syria was behind the attack" instead of just saying "Syria was behind it", and that Syria and Russia rejected the report, this has nothing to do with "WP:FALSEBALANCE" because the Syrian/Russian response is presented as a Syrian/Russian response and not as a "fact" of what happened. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

We give the Russian/Syrian POVs due weight in the article. Those viewpoints are not being excluded. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that Syria and Russian rejects and criticizes OPCW-IIT ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia's denialism is mentioned repeatedly in the article, throughout. In particular, see the "Reactions" sections but we also include a quote that refers to it in the "OPCW-IIT Findings" section. If anything I think we should reduce the Russian/Syrian POV per WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is also more accurate and encyclopedic to present it in the article as: "the OPCW IIT report concluded that Syria was behind the attack" instead of just saying "Syria was behind it" That might be plausible if only the IIT concluded this. However, every serious piece of research and investigation has concluded it. Some voices deny that climate change is real or that the earth is round, but we don't need to attribute when the consensus is overwhelming. We give weight to the denials already. Adding in more (see WP:MANDY) is unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

OPCW fact-finding mission review

I recently came across a review, submitted to the European Parliament, entitled A Review of The Organization For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-Finding Mission Report Into the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Douma: Evidence of Manipulation, Bias, and Censorship. It can be read here. It is credited to the following four authors:

• Hans-Christof von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
• José Bustani, Brazilian ambassador and first director-general of the OPCW
• Richard A. Falk, Professor Emeritus of international law at Princeton
• Piers Robinson, professor and co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies

This seems quite notable, and I'm surprised that I don't see any reference to it here. Perhaps one reason is its size - it is 162 pages long, and contains 192 endnotes. Perhaps we can work together here to parse out what is of most use for the Misplaced Pages article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some editors here who don't allow any info that challenges the "official" Israeli/US/NATO version. They resort to edit warring to keep relevant info out of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I hope you'll be proven wrong in this instance. I do think that this source, indisputably, must be included in the article, but I think the best way to decide what to include is to bring it to the talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

3 out of 4 authors listed here are known for fringe claims, and two work for a disinformation group, the SPM. I clicked through the links to the authors pages to learn this.

Further, this report doesn't seem notable. It looks like intentional disinformation. Any crank can mail a report to any parliament. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I have to say, that's an odd response. Guilt by association, and a blanket dismissal of "it looks like intentional disinformation?" What evidence do you have for that rather bold conclusion? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a self-published report by experts in the field. It was submitted to Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. Have they commented on it and has this generated coverage by other sources? Burrobert (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Good questions, both. There are three sources that I am aware of, and I will search for others. They are:

• The UN ambassador to Brazil commented on the report. The full text is: "He expressed concern over the latest report, circulated by the Berlin Group, on the process that led to the publication of the Fact-Finding Mission’s final report deployed to investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma in April 2018, noting: “The document raises a host of extremely concerning issues that the OPCW should not ignore.” In this context, he expressed hope that OPCW Director-General and Technical Secretariat will address the issues raised in the Berlin Group review by the OPCW Executive Council’s next session."
• Zeit Fragen published an article about the report. It discusses the context, and analyzes the text of the report at length.
• Berlin Group 21: OPCW investigations on alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria are unprofessional. By SANA. I would hesitate to use a government-funded source if it were the only source, but it's not. If nothing else, it helps to further establish the notability of the report. It's a fairly short, reasonably balanced summary of the report.

I'm sure there are more sources, so I'll post them as I find them, and encourage others to do the same. But there's a starting point. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A former Assistant Secretary General of the UN and the founding Director-General of the Organization of the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, not to mention a Princeton Professor Emeritus, doesn't prima facie look like "any crank" just mailing some report to parliament. Trying to suppress this kind of controversy looks to me like itself some kind of information operation (which these days are often accompanied by accusations of disinformation). Mentioning this controversy in a neutral way is required, in my view, by Misplaced Pages values. 82.131.85.107 (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There definitely is some kind of suppress information operation going on at this article, see the editing history of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you may have accidentally been logged out. These are known cranks, this isn't a controversy. This article is full of reliable sources. There is no need for a wp:falsebalance when it comes to genocide. If you have reliable sources that deny Syria killed unarmed people with chemicals, offer those. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

These people are known for spreading misinformation. I have about 20 more links handy about their various debunked conspiracies

Clearly, none of this is fit to be believed. You really should start with academic sources for these things. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:PRIMARY source. Are there any secondary sources that describe or rebut or respond to the report, or cover how it was received? Andre🚐 06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed - I listed two directly above your comment, and just added a third. I would very much appreciate it if you add any additional sources, and I'll do the same as time allows. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Those may also not be independent or reliable enough. The latter is also a primary source. Anything in a reliable mainstream source? If not, then I think this report should be excluded. Andre🚐 13:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty shocked by the idea that the source should be excluded altogether, along with each and every one of the accompanying secondary mentions. I hoped that the conversation would take the form of "wow, in what way should the report be mentioned? A passing note of its existence, an analysis?" I also assumed that editors would jump on the 192 endnotes and start discussing those, as well. With an attitude of "what here can we use to improve the article?", not "how can we find a way to exclude this from the article?"

The idea that none of this information can be used to improve the article leaves me scratching my head. And it's not because I don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. I do.

I'm not sure what the goal is here. If the goal is to make the article more informative to the reader, I don't see a reason to Wikilawyer this source down the memory hole. I'm sure you would at least concede that the existence of the report should be noted, no? To be absolutely clear: nobody other than Malibu Sapphire is suggesting that this source is "disinformation", correct? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Told you so. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, when I search Google for "Organization For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-Finding Mission Report" I get almost nothing back, 3 results. So it's a question of whether this report was significant or WP:ROUTINE, is it mainstream or WP:FRINGE. When I searched further I found they were related to Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Which led me to this article in bellingcat Andre🚐 03:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The report was significant enough for a UN ambassador to make remarks about it at the United Nations Security Council. As I assume you know, UN representatives in these meetings do not get much time to make their remarks. Every word counts. Trust me, for a representative to dedicate the majority of his remarks to the Berlin Report means that the report was considered very significant. I don't see any coherent argument for this being a "routine" report, such as the "planned coverage of scheduled events".

Perhaps, in the broadest possible sense of the word, the report is "fringe", since the English-language mainstream press is highly unlikely to go anywhere near this story, for reasons much more complex than the factual accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Berlin Report. This in no way suggestions exclusion. It would be farcical for Misplaced Pages to pretend that the report doesn't exist. When a former UN assistant secretary general, a professor emeritus of Science, Technology, and International Security at MIT, the founding director of the OPCW, A professor emeritus of international law at Princeton, independent newspapers from Lebanon to Switzerland, Syrian state media, and a current Brazilian ambassador to the United Nations are all expressing the same opinion...that's a pretty notable opinion, and it would be silly for Misplaced Pages editors to decide otherwise based on our own POV.

I think this definitely meets the notability threshold. If you don't agree, I would still argue that the report merits at least a passing mention, per common sense and WP:5P5 It should at minimum be noted, with reference to its authors and the Brazilian UN ambassador's remarks. We don't need to dig into the report itself and quote from it, although it would be wise to look through the endnotes for usable material.

Here's a fourth source that's mentioned the report. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but when one of the authors of this source, founding director of the OPCW Jose Bustani, was blocked by the US, UK, and France from testifying in front of the UN Security Council, Noam Chomsky made the following remarks:

"We won’t discuss it, we won’t see if they’re right or wrong, we’ll just ban it. Well it tells a reasonable person something: they want to ensure that it’s not discussed, meaning they have no confidence in their own conclusions, meaning the U.S. bombing of Syria was undertaken on false presences. Whether their report is correct or not, I have no judgment. But what we do know is the United States and its allies don’t want it discussed… And the OPCW is capitulating to this, which is pretty shocking."

I'm not suggesting we use this quote as another source, it's just another reference point to establish notability. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs