Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 12 July 2015 (Godwin's law - Undid revision 671061358 by My very best wishes (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Other editors involved

I believe Bobrayner should be invited too. He has not done much work on the article (none I believe), and seems to come in solely to "win" an editwar. His first edit was to support Sayerslles "contribution" as an IP-editor, ref. SPI, by reverting my attempt to find a third version. He also commented on the SPI case against Sayerslle (Ref. diff), which may have triggered this dispute. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's poisoning the well, which we can add to the list of problems to be discussed in mediation. (Along with canvassing, selective notification, false accusations of vandalism, extensive NPOV violations, &c). Perhaps we could keep this drama in the right place rather than spreading it to talkpages such as this one. bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That was nothing more than you deserved and this is the right place to discuss this request. Btw, that canvasser notice you charge me for, this I believe, was actually the opposite. I notified him as the user who introduced the -template. As for your other accusations, I will reply to them one-by-one if you wish. To make myself clear; I did not mean that your comment on the SPI case was the trigger, but that the SPI case (and probably this Edit warring report) against Sayerslle may have triggered this dispute. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Mediation is for content disputes. Please refrain from all conduct allegations here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nema problema. Ok, Rayner? Erlbaeko (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, stop it. Mediators would look dimly on you spreading drama then blaming me, whilst still adding NPOV violations to the talkpage. Two different editors have already told you to keep it to the relevant pages. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not add anything. I am "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", according to the consensus policy. You need consensus to remove material in articles. Again. Read WP:NOCON. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "stop this now" are you unable to understand? Stop this now. bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

bobrayner, my apologies: I hadn't seen these posts on the mediation talk page, which explain your edits here and here. In the context I understand your frustration. I hope you will accept that I didn't know where you were coming from at the time. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I got a note on my talk page about this case. @TransporterMan: please ping me if you want me involved. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we have a number of good faith parties already present for the acceptance of the case, we would need to have the existing parties all agree for additional parties to be part of the filing, and in general we'd want to have all the parties focus on content issues and finding a workable compromise for the article text rather than trying to point fingers. Does that sound OK to everyone - can we get a roll call of sorts? If parties don't plan to be active in the discussion they may as well recuse themselves now, and let's get all the parties that want to participate on the same page, please. Address your comments to me about whether you'd like to participate and what you'd like to do for the article and then I will mediate the conversation between parties as necessary. Andrevan@ 01:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in. What I would like to do is decide whether the policies of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT allow 1) a short mention that the Syrian opposition had a motive to perpetrate a false flag chemical weapons attack in order to draw outside powers into the conflict directly on the side of the opposition and/or 2) a short paragraph on prominent people who believe the attack was actually a false flag operation. I think 1 could be written with RS speaking in their own voice, but am willing to discuss using in-text attribution. 2 would definitely be with in-text attribution. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The article structure could use significant revision, so once this policy/content debate is concluded, I expect to have a discussion on how best to implement it. NOTE: I am not advocating that the Ghouta chemical attack was a false flag or that the article should say anything other than that this hypothesis is a minority view. Only that 1 and 2 shouldn't be completely excluded from the article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I also believe the view that the motive was "to defeat opposition forces" should be fully explained. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrevan, I think that all who want to be involved, should be. Thanks for agreeing to mediate. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is very simple. The initiator(s) of this mediation can provide any reasonable text they want be included, with references. However, the most important thing is sourcing. The reliable secondary RS must show that the theory is a "significant minority view" and therefore should be included. The "minority" means minority of people who qualify as independent experts on the matter. For example, one could use a couple of books by recognized historians who support this theory. The opinions of people, and especially politicians who made their name by intentionally lying to public on political matters (such as that one), for example Lavrov, must be excluded I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - is this the place where this discussion is going to happen? I'm OK with that, I just want to be sure. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, this is probably not a place for discussion. I only responded to the question by Andrevan ("what you'd like to do for the article"). I would like to see if anyone trustworthy supports this theory to qualify as a significant minority view. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MVBW. Andrevan, I'd like major views or uncertainties about the Ghouta Attacks to be returned to the article, perhaps expanded in some sections, and perhaps reduced in others. Those include doubts or suspicions voiced in the American intelligence community, and views published in international news sources, including Russian and even Syrian sources, with attribution where necessary. -Darouet (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I want as many people as possible to participate in this mediation. I would ask @VQuakr: to participate. @Volunteer Marek: @Kudzu1: and @Bobrayner: have all been active since Andrevan announced a roll call. To those editors, please participate. You really have nothing to lose besides a little time. I suggest another call on the Talk page to announce this mediation. FYI, I haven't done this before, so I don't know what the etiquette is and what timeline to expect. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Mnnlaxer has asked me to be part of this mediation twice - on my talk page ~10 days ago and more recently here, above. I am willing to be part of the mediation process if that is acceptable to the other participants, but I am also willing to remain recused if there are objections. I have no objection to mediation with any of the other participants so far on board, and am willing to comply with the mediation of you and the rest of the mediation team. Do you want me to add my name and willingness to participate to the project page? VQuakr (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For my part VQuakr I think it'd be ideal if you were able to participate. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have no idea why User:VQuakr's participation would be unacceptable to anyone or why you are even talking about being recused. What am I missing here? Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The content and policies involved are going to be continually fought over unless there is something here to point to. I understand that the mediation might result in no consensus, but getting wide participation is worth it. At the very least, I want to work on how the policies of FRINGE and WEIGHT should be applied in this case. Not the results of that application, but how to apply them to the article. Without a third party involved, I don't think we will be able to have a productive discussion about that. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All right. Like My very best wishes, I believe that sources should not be twisted, nor the bar for truly reliable sources lowered to include the likes of self-published articles, Russian and Syrian propaganda, and conspiracy blogs, to accommodate the conspiracy theory (pushed for political reasons by the Assad government, whose butchery of its own civilians has been extensively documented, and its international ally and chief sponsor, Russia) that the rebels gassed themselves, which is prima facie ridiculous and is not considered a viable theory by the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources, last I checked. Right now, the article is structured like opposing arguments in a courtroom, which the addition of each source or "evidence" for one "theory" countered by an addition on the other side, and equal weight given to both the prevailing narrative that Syrian troops gassed the civilians in pro-opposition areas and the politically useful conspiracy theory that the opposition used WMDs on itself. That is a clear and direct WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL violation, and the use of unreliable sources to promote the "alternative" narrative is a WP:V and WP:FRINGE violation. I do believe the article should mention the rebels-gassed-themselves conspiracy theory, but it should not present a WP:SYNTH "case" for it, nor should it afford it the same prominence and currency as the narrative of what actually happened (according to basically everyone except the Syrian government, its ally Russia, and one or two self-publishing, Kremlin-friendly commentators). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudzu1. For the record, I agree that on first glance it is ridiculous to think the opposition gassed their civilian supporters (or at least fellow anti-regime civilians). But I also think a second, deeper look at the evidence is required. I welcome all ideas to restructure the article in order to improve it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The question of "whether the rebels gassed themselves or not" is a straw man and irrelevant to this - that would be as absurd as the Assad regime launching a major chemical attack in a suburb immediately adjacent to weapons inspectors they had invited themselves, in order to provoke an already promised foreign intervention against themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think the question here is not only the motive, but conclusions by any independent investigators about details of the crime. Who did it (the names) and how they did it? I am strongly opposed to placing any unsupported speculations in any[REDACTED] pages (even if they can be sourced), and especially if the article is already very long and provides a lot of factual materials on the matter. In was written in the part of text I removed that "In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack.. Yes, that was a speculation even in 2013, and it is still a speculation in 2015. I do not think we should include it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still officially unknown who carried out the attack, so assigning culpability to either side is "speculative." @Andrevan:, I will be away at the end of this coming week, and returning after the U.S.A.'s July 4th weekend, so I apologize if I miss the beginning of this mediation. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to be able to start soon? User:Andrevan has not been active onwiki since the day they accepted the case. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to give the parties a chance to get organized. There's been pretty continuous activity on this page since I posted on it. Andrevan@ 04:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is organized. The issue before us is clear. The way forward is not. Let's start. Mnnlaxer (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrevan: Since "My very best wishes" have withdrawn, I believe VQuakr should be invited to the case. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:VQuakr has been invited and is willing, see above. I think we should start. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, can we update the list of participants please. This is the page where we will do the first steps of the mediation. Andrevan@ 01:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: If you are willing to participate; please, agree by adding a comment here. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Andrevan, as I mentioned I'm away until after the July 4th weekend, but will be happy to help then, if I can. -Darouet (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If you still are willing to participate; please, respond in the Next step section below. If you believe it is a "total waste of time"; please withdraw, so we can proceed without you. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening framing

Andrevan@: As a framing exercise, would those who would like to add new content to the article, please describe in 2 sentences what sources support the content with specific quotes and citations. If you believe that you removed content from the article and for good reason, feel free to simply explain that below instead of making your full argument. Let's try to do this without engaging with other contributors. If you are mainly here to support someone else please just comment below with "Per <X>."

• Does this make sense to everyone? If not, please discuss or keep any crosstalk below and let's have this section get at least 4-5 discrete points of contention here.
• Example bulleted response here: I wanted to add the Foo Section back into the article. It is sourced to Document A by Person B, and Document B by Person A.
• Example bulleted response: I deleted the Foo Section because Document A doesn't say that and it was written in such a way that it implied Person B supported the original research POV of the author.

Please respond like the examples here

• Is it possible the Syrian Rebels (not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons? NPR, 27 August 2013. Quotes from Gwyn Winfield and George Lopez. I added text to the article that was reverted . Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  OK, great, thanks. This is what I wanted and now we are getting somewhere. You added text to the article, cited to this NPR page, that the rebels may have had the motivation to use weapons. This article does indeed say that they may have had this motivation. However it also says, cited to the same people (Winfield), " is feasible, but not particularly likely," "That is a lot of 'ifs,' though," and from Lopez, "Western intelligence has been standing on its head to monitor all intel about those groups hostile to the West and what they have in their weapons access and supply. The amount of gas agents seemingly used was way beyond what a clandestine group could mix and develop without detection. And it is unclear they would have the expertise to mix the agents. "Is it possible that a rebel group overran a storage facility of the government and captured some shells that were ready to be activated and then did so?" Lopez says. "Yes, but it would have had to have been a very large seizure preceded by a big battle between Assad top teams and rebels. It could not have happened without inside/outside knowledge." Reading this article we are left with the impression that these commentators don't think it's too likely that the rebels used the weapons. So if we offer this article as evidence that the rebels may have used the weapons, we're twisting the intent somewhat, wouldn't you say? Andrevan@ 21:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. This gets to the heart of several issues. The first is motive vs. what actually happened. They are separate issues. To use a colloquial example from US criminal justice: motive, means, and opportunity. These three topics are used to try to prove guilt. This isn't to say this example means anything beyond this argument, or that it is a part of any actual government assessment, just to show how motive relates to the final determination of what actually happened. One can say the rebels had a motive to perpetrate a false flag attack in order to provoke Western intervention against Assad without going so far as to say that's what happened. Winfield clearly falls into that category and it is okay to state that he does. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Another issue is the push-back some editors give when even a mild mention of rebel responsibility is added to the article. There are many examples to cite from the edit history. Generally speaking, claims of NPOV, UNDUE and FRINGE are put into the edit summary to completely remove any material hinting at rebel responsibility. They generally don't understand how NPOV or UNDUE works and they don't explain their application in any particular case on the talk page. This is the core reason I brought this issue to mediation. So help with this is vital in my opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Thirdly, this brings up is whether to have a Motivation section at all. I think probably not, but there is material in that section that could be used elsewhere. Depends on how the article is structured and where and how the material would be used. As I've said several times, the article could benefit from a look back from now at the furious frenzy of editing that occurred soon after the event. I'm open to all suggestions on this front and realize that it's probably going to be a slow organic process. But if somebody has some bring ideas or wants to create a Sandbox page with an outline, go for it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Another way of including the claim that the opposition had a motive to use chemical weapons in order to cross Obama's red line and provoke American action against Assad is to attribute it to someone or a group that obviously has a POV and the reader can decide what weight to give the statement. Here is one example:

  Mr. Markov argues, rebels are the only ones with an incentive to use chemical weapons, because they are losing on the battlefield and Western intervention is the one thing that could turn the tide. He says ever since President Barack Obama made his "red line" remark warning of intervention if poison gas is used, the rebels and the Persian Gulf nations known to be financing and arming them – Qatar, for example – have been desperate to create just such an incident.

  From Weir, Fred (17 September 2013). "Russia presses claims Syria rebels behind gas attack". Christian Science Monitor. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a text from before August 21, 2013 that shows the opposition would benefit from chemical weapon use in Syria. The wording is rather convoluted, but it is in the reporter's voice and that it is before the attack is significant. You can see the whole article with a free registration.:

  Russia’s system of strategic considerations could now be smashed by the issue of chemical weapons. The latter, beyond the double threat these weapons present – their use by the regime or their fall into terrorist hands – could serve as an excuse for outside military intervention, by Israel or the U.S., supported by Jordan and Turkey.

  From Bar'el, Zvi (29 January 2013). "A resounding Russian slap against the Assad regime". Haaretz. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• The other side of this is people expressing serious doubts that Assad had any motivation to perpetrate a chemical attack. Best source is this AP article, currently in use in the article as "APdoubts":

  The assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack's aftermath, has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people — especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground. ... "We can't get our heads around this — why would any commander agree to rocketing a suburb of Damascus with chemical weapons for only a very short-term tactical gain for what is a long-term disaster," said Charles Heyman, a former British military officer who edits The Armed Forces of the U.K., an authoritative bi-annual review of British forces. ... Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese army general who closely follows Syria's war, said it would be "political suicide" for the regime to commit such an act given Obama's warning.

  Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 29 June 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• This source has two uses. This quote that shows the opposition has tried to get direct Western intervention and were upset the chemical attack didn't seem to achieve this goal:

  The wavering from the West dealt an unquestionable blow to the Syrian opposition, which had thought it had finally secured military intervention after pleading for two and a half years for help from Western leaders that vocally opposed Assad.

  It is also a good RS if a simple attribution to the Syrian regime is what we decide on:

  Syria denies it was responsible and, with the backing of Moscow, blames rebels for staging the attacks to provoke U.S. intervention.

  Stewart, Phil; Oweis, Khaled Yacoub (10 September 2013). "Syria vows to give up chemical weapons, no deal yet at U.N." Reuters. Retrieved 29 June 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Minor mention, attributed to "some" intelligence officials, but directly on point and while it doesn't have to be used in the article as a cite for opposition motivation, it is good background to help this discussion decide to insert opposition motivation text:

  So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report.

  Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (29 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press. Retrieved 29 June 2015.Used in the article as ref "APnoslamdunk". Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• More pre-attack background. Used in the article under Foreign government assessments prior to the attack - Russian assessment (BTW, we might want to rename these sections to avoid confusion with post-attack assessments).

  The White House said this week that it was going to arm Syrian rebels after claiming to have evidence that President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons in the country's civil war. Lavrov, who spoke to reporters after meeting with his Italian counterpart, said it did not make sense for al-Assad to have used chemical weapons when the government already maintains a military advantage over the rebel fighters. "The regime doesn't have its back to the wall," Lavrov said. "What would be the sense of the regime using chemical weapons, moreover at such a large scale?"

  "Russia expresses doubts on Syria's chemical weapons use". Deutsche Welle. AP, Reuters, AFP. 15 June 2013. Retrieved 29 June 2015.

All of these sources could be used to support the inclusion of opposition motivation to perpetrate the attack to draw the U.S. over its red line. Note that these are English sources only, for every RS cited here, there are probably at least a dozen in other languages, particularly Arabic. Mnnlaxer (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Sort of, but I'm ready to get things started. Before I do, I'd like to thank @Erlbaeko: for putting in the work on the talk page to salvage the edit that ended up being the spark to get me to attempt a mediated solution. . I think the only issue not resolved from that edit is the Motivation section, which was completely removed. That will be a topic for this discussion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mnnlaxer. My biggest concern was actually the removal of material despite a lack of consensus to do so. I am fine with the removal of the Early opinions section according to the consensus now achieved on talk, and the other material that was removed has been added to the article to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the removal. So, except for the Motivation section, all that is fine now.

Regarding the Motivation section; I like everyone to note that this section have been in the article for a long time. Here is a revision from 21 September 2013, and here is a revision from 15 May 2015. Not identical, but quite similar. On 16 May 2015, I reorganized the section, with this edit. I added headings and moved some statements, but I didn't change the contents. Then a IP, later confirmed to be a blocked user, removed this statement "Given previous US comments about the use of chemical weapons constituting a "red line" prompting intervention, the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line.", and two references with this revert. As I described on the talk page here, this statement have been in the article at least since September 2013. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the consensus policy is that long standing material should be kept unless it is consensus to remove it. So, to keep it short, I believe the motivation section should be kept unless it is consensus to remove it. However, if it is consensus to do so, it can be removed, shortened and/or rewritten. I believe it is consensus to keep it, and I hope we can focus on rewriting the section to a more neutral point of view. Keep in mind that the perpetrators are still unknown, and so are the motives. We are therefor only talking about possible motives here. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

please keep discussion in the "discussion" section and let's answer my questions directly and without any crosstalk among contributors. After all, this is about content. So if Mnnlaxer and Erlbaeko would like to answer my question directly above, in two bulleted sentences directly pertaining to my question, we can start the mediation. Andrevan@ 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• (moved by mediator) Keep: The Motivation section as seen in context here, but remove the "To strengthen the morale" section as discussed here, OR, if it not is consensus for my reorganizing, revert to this version. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, this is closer, but I want a direct discussion of which sources support your edits, not links to diffs. Can you try again and focus directly on the sources which underpin the statements you want to have in the article. Although consensus is a core policy here, the core verifiability and referencing policies require any statements which have been challenged to be sourced reliably. Consensus will come back into the picture once you construct a source-based defense of the content which other contributors are challenging and removing. Does that make sense? Andrevan@ 21:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. As I said on my talk page, I believe the dispute is more about removal of sourced material, than it is about adding new material. Imo the Motivation section was well sourced before it was removed, and I have not added the statements or the sources myself. I have only reorganized the context and added some headings. However, I believe it can be improved, and I agree with Mnnlaxers contribution above. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Next step

Having accomplished the opening framing from the perspective of those who are adding material to the encyclopedia, for the next step in the mediation I would like to ask Erlbaeko and Mnnlaxer not to participate. What I'd like to ask is of those who are removing the material, or believe that the discussion of the possible rebel motivation for using the chemical weapons is being overrepresented. Could those for whom this is a position please write in no more than 2 sentences how they would like to discuss this matter in the article. Rather than "not at all," please adopt the constructive idea that we wish to clarify this matter for our readers who have heard about the possible rebel motivation for chemical weapons use and would like to know what sources say about the issue. If you believe these 2 sentences can be summarized better by paraphrasing the article as you feel it already describes the matter, that also works. Andrevan@ 02:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

While I would be happy to welcome User:Volunteer Marek and User:bobrayner to this discussion, I don't think it is likely they will participate. Can I respond to VQuakr and Kudzu1 now? Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to see this discussed in a matter compliant with WP:FRINGE. In particular, this would mean excluding sources that are clearly politically motivated (IE unsubstantiated claims by Lavrov) and sources that predate the attack - ideally, sources written months or years after the attack rather than speculation from August and September 2013. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

1) You don't exclude sources like Lavrov, you attribute them. This gets to WP:NPOV, which doesn't apply to a single sentence or a single source, but to the whole article. See some quotes I pulled together here User:Mnnlaxer#Some could profit by reading these statements. A similar principle operates for WP:DUE, which cannot be used to exclude a sentence or source, but to make sure it is appropriately used from the view of the article as a whole: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Using the example that there was a motivation for a rebel group to launch a chemical attack on civilian opposition supporters, I think I've shown that this is a significant viewpoint and that it has been published by reliable sources. The trick is the second clause, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Since I've asked for one sentence to be added to a long section detailing Syrian government motives, I think that is easily allowed under DUE. 2) Sources that pre-date the attack are particularly important to the rebel motivation issue, because that shows there is no possible contamination of the issues you are worried about. I looked to cite pre-attack sources because they are inherently stronger than any stated after the attack. 3) As for sources written months or years after the attack. Yes, that would be awesome. And scholarly articles and well-respected in-depth books with original reporting. But we don't have those. This subject has been a news black hole since only a couple of months after the attack. There was more talk based on Seymour Hersh's articles in December 2013 and _______ 2014. It is very likely that similar articles of any type from any viewpoint are not going to be written. You certainly can't - and shouldn't - count on future excellent sources and just wait until they are written. Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Lavrov is not a source any more than reporting on an article by the NYT that Hillary Clinton said X makes Hillary Clinton a source. The source is the publication. Lavrov's statements are inherently notable. Andrevan@ 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Source" is a term with many meanings in this context, so we should try to be consistent with its use here. I"m fine with Andrevan's usage, the third one, "the publisher of the work." But we need words for the other meanings. I suggest "article" for "the piece of work itself," because it will be clear when we are talking about the Misplaced Pages article itself. "The creator of the work" shouldn't pose any problem, but it would be helpful to have a term for the person quoted in an article. Names should do in most cases, just don't use "source." But if there is a generic term that works, please suggest it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The source can mean the author of the work, the article itself, or the publisher of the article. In this case none of them is Lavrov - the "work" is the article and the author is the byline on the article, not the person who is being quoted in the article. If Lavrov released a self-published op-ed that would be different. Andrevan@ 01:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to what is expressed above by VQuakr, I am concerned about the cherry-picking of sources (and material within those sources, in some cases) to promote a particular narrative that is being cynically advanced by certain self-interested parties (namely, the Russian and Syrian governments and a handful of so-called "leftists" in Western countries who support them). I do think this fringe narrative should be mentioned in the article, but I do not believe it should be accorded equal weight to the version of events presented by the preponderance of reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cherry-picking of sources", what does that mean? Can you provide an example? Every article uses some available sources and doesn't use many more. If a source is reliable and the text is supported by the source, then it can be used. Then you go back to DUE. "Material within those sources", that situation I understand, and can be applied to any particular situation. The problem becomes when one editor wants to use one part of the source, and the other wants to use another part, and they don't contradict. You can't just say this part is okay and that part isn't. Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think that VQuakr has hit the nail on the head. This is a WP:FRINGE view, and to the extent that we indulge it at all, it must be framed appropriately. The cherrypicking of sources to support fringe views is an ongoing problem which affects various parts of the topic, not just this one notion about rebel use of chemical weapons in Ghouta. bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I'm the fourth one to comment so I can't really add much more than User:VQuakr, User:Kudzu1 and User:bobrayner said above. There are issues of over-representing WP:FRINGE views, based on sketchy or biased sources, giving way too much prominence to politically motivated statements of certain individuals, cherrypicking of quotes etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think it's clear that FRINGE is a big point made by those removing the material. I'm afraid that some here are misrepresenting the idea behind the FRINGE policy. If a theory is being pushed by a major world government or it appears in the Associated Press sourced to a mainstream commentator, that's not a FRINGE theory. There may be some versions of the rebel-used-weapons theory that are FRINGEy but there also seems to be a fairly non-FRINGEy one that might be represented in the article. That also doesn't necessitate that this minority theory should be afforded equal weight. However, I'd like to see some specific reference to the wording of the policy in your argument. Above we have sources from RS including NPR, Haaretz, Seattle Times, Reuters, AP, etc., raising doubts. Also, Lavrov, as the Russian foreign minister, is a major world actor and not a conspiracy theorist, so his positions are basically inherently non-FRINGE although they can certainly be attributed to him directly and qualified with positions from others. Does this make sense to everyone? I want to get you all on the same page regarding the policy and then we can workshop specific article text. Andrevan@ 17:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:FRIND requires sources to be independent and links the essay WP:IS, the first sentence of which reads, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." This goes back to my desire to source any coverage of the "rebels gassed themselves" theory to material that is politically and chronologically separated from the event. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Except Andrevan said the example of rebel motivation is not a fringe theory. Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In what way does the Associated Press have a vested interest in the topic? The source is the publication, not the major world foreign minister whose positions are being reported on. Andrevan@ 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the AP has a vested interest in the topic. I think we are to the point where the specific text to be added with proposed citations would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We are to that point. I am very open to particular text and citation. I would suggest those objecting propose a text and citation from the many options above. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• As I said above, I'm fine with the article mentioning Lavrov's claims, Assad's claims, etc. But I don't think the article should give the "rebels-gassed-themselves" theory any more credence than what the preponderance of reliable sources have given it, i.e. very little. Sources are being cherry-picked to give the politically motivated maskirovka claims of the Syrian government and its largest international sponsors greater weight than is due. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. So does DUE allow one sentence in the article that says, with/without in-text attribution, that the rebels had a motive to launch a chemical attack on opposition supporters, hope the regime gets blamed, and the US directly involved in the conflict on the opposition side? Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• That make perfect sense to me, Andrevan. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I can not agree with mediator. "Fringe theory" is not about sourcing, but about the theory. Flat Earth theory can be easily sourced (and we rightly have such page), but it should not appear as a possible alternative to real knowledge in the article about Earth. Same is here. Speaking about Lavrov, he openly lied so many times in relations to Ukrainian events that his views about anything political should be trusted no more than books on History by Anatoly Fomenko. Let's keep his views for his own BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if My very best wishes comments here. The more discussion the better. The issue isn't sourcing, period, but the nature of the sources. The sources supporting Flat Earth theory are not reliable for a scientific issue. The sources I've shared are all reliable for their content. As for Lavrov, as Andrevan says, anything he says is inherently notable. The issue with using his statements is attribution. "Speaking about Lavrov, he openly lied so many times in relations to Ukrainian events that his views about anything political should be trusted no more than books on History by Anatoly Fomenko." That is exactly the type of ancillary point-making comments we should try to avoid here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, except that I do care if “My very best wishes” continue to comment. If he wants to participate, fine, but it is not fine if he just want to throw in a comment now and then. And of course, when asked to specify he quickly become very busy. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get lost in a sideshow here. Please move on. Contrary to what My very best wishes says, but in accord with Kudzu's comment, our job is not to exercise editorial control about whether we trust a specific politician's statements, merely to report what is said about them in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. VQuakr asked for a specific text proposal with sources. Andrevan@ 05:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Specific text proposals

Can Mnnlaxer and Erlbaeko create a proposal one sentence at a time. Start with the first sentence. Andrevan@ 05:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the section can start with something like:

The motivation and the timing of the attack have been questioned by many experts.

References

1. Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.

I can add other sources if needed, but I don't actually think it is an exceptional claim. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

These are what we call vague weasel words. Try again. Andrevan@ 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is only ment as an introduction to the topic. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it any objections to use something like that as an introduction to the topic? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an introduction to the topic, it's not going to be in the lead section. It's a minority view espoused in a specific way. A general introduction to the topic is a totally different thing. Andrevan@ 12:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal. I prefer this one:

The motivation and the timing of the attack have been questioned, since a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors were staying in a hotel just a few miles from the attack sites.

References

1. Lister, Tim (21 August 2013). "Suffering in Syria is clear, but cause and culprits are murky". CNN. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
2. Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
3. Steve Patrick Ercolani. "An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 September 2013.

Erlbaeko (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't support a Motivation section, so I don't support an intro sentence. I'll take a shot at it later today. Mnnlaxer (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I still believe there is enough reliable information to justify a separate section on this topic. Something like this, but I am sure it can be improved. Another proposal for the intro:

The motivation and the timing of the attack have been questioned, since a team from the United Nations Mission to Investigate Alleged Uses of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic arrived in Damascus just three days before the attack.

References

1. Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
2. "Final report" (PDF). United Nations Mission to Investigate Alleged Uses of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic. 13 December 2013.
3. Makdesi, Marwan (26 August 2013). "At least two mortar bombs hit Damascus near U.N. team's hotel". reuters.

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to use the active voice. Who is questioning it and when and quote their exact questioning. "Have been questioned" is passive. Andrevan@ 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is constructive. The AP article does f.ex. includes this statement “We can’t get our heads around this – why would any commander agree to rocketing a suburb of Damascus with chemical weapons for only a very short-term tactical gain for what is a long-term disaster,” said Charles Heyman, a former British military officer who edits The Armed Forces of the U.K., an authoritative bi-annual review of British forces.". Should some of that be included in the intro(provided that we include a Motivation section), or should it come longer down? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should a former British military officer, who is clearly just speculating, be accorded equal or greater weight to the governments and intelligence services of the United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Turkey? This strikes at the very heart of the problem I identified earlier, which is WP:GEVAL. It certainly doesn't belong in the lede, and per WP:DUE, I don't think it has any place in the article at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The task is first craft a sentence or two everyone can live with - you can't just say no - describing an opposition faction's motivation. Then put it in context, stating clearly it isn't a majority view, etc. No one is arguing for the text to go in the lede. I favor a section at the end of the article about everything related to a false flag operation: motivation, evidence, prominent supporters of the theory, etc. That section can very easily include context to comply with DUE. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The relevant weight to consider for UNDUE is the weight in the published material. Not the size or prominence of a government. Andrevan@ 02:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1, maybe you could provide some sources which are describing how "the governments and intelligence services of the United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Turkey" look at the motive? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Btw, Charles Heyman is not just a former British military officer. He have written many military books and was a regular contributor to the BBC and the rest of the international media during the 2003 campaign in Iraq. Ref. Charles Heyman. In the 1990s he was leading research teams for Jane's Information Group. Ref. inews He is also a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, but even if he had a wikilink, he wouldn't come close to Lavrov's import. Btw, looks like you have a new article to write! Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe we should include both Lavrov and Kerry’s statements about the motive, but we need also statements from established experts, and I believe Charles Heyman is one of them. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lavrov and Kerry would be good, but Heyman isn't needed. That would be too much content on motivation, and who is an expert on motivation? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

An expert in military tactics maybe? Erlbaeko (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrevan, I think it will be very hard to go sentence by sentence, as Kudzu1's objection shows. I will work with Erlbaeko and hopefully @Darouet: to craft a section for inclusion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, sentence by sentence is the only way to do this. You need to stop getting caught up in the crosstalk and focus on a single working sentence. "Many experts" is fluffy weasel language and is not going to cut it. Andrevan@ 02:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: The positions of governments and intelligence agencies from those countries, as well as Russia (and, for good measure, Israel), is pretty well documented at Ghouta chemical attack#Foreign government assessments (although there are some unfortunate WP:GEVAL and WP:DUE issues there, particularly in the "United States" section, that I'd like to address at some point in this mediation). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not well documented with regards to the motive behind the Ghouta attack. I can only find a statement by the U.S. government. That statement describes the motive as "a desperate effort to push back rebels from several areas in the capital's densely packed eastern suburbs." It is sourced to this article in the Washington Post, and seems to originate from the report that was published by the White House on 30 August 2013, which states "We assess that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21." Am I missing something? Erlbaeko (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a courtroom. We don't need to prove motive. See, this is one of my biggest problems with your approach. You act like we're two teams of lawyers who should be building winning cases for "our side". That is just the wrong approach. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, the purpose of this section of the mediation discussion is to develop the first sentence in a paragraph about rebel motivation for the attack, so it should be expected that motive will keep coming up. @Andrevan: is that a reasonable summary, or do I misunderstand what is being developed right now? VQuakr (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kudzu1 and VQuakr. The courtroom analogy is just that, an analogy to relate motive to responsibility. I'm sorry I couldn't summon the will to produce something comprehensive last night. @Darouet: are you available? I'll follow Andrevan's lead and suggest one sentence next. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what specific text proposals this section is supposed to discuss, but the primary issues to be mediated are the "Motivation section" and "Possible rebel responsibility". My proposal was intended to be the first sentence in the "Motivation section", and btw, that link to the Means, motive, and opportunity page was just to clarify that the motive with regards to the attack is the "reason the defendant committed the crime". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I asked you for some sources which are describing how western governments and intelligence services look at the motive for the attack, and you point me to a long section in the article that hardly touch the topic. If the majority view is that the Syrian government had a motive, as you claim, then it should be easy to find references that describe it. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

First attempt

(Yes, finally) Here it is:

Sergei Markov, an analyst connected to the Kremlin, said that only the Syrian opposition had an incentive to use chemical weapons on civilians. At the time of the attack, he said, the rebels were losing ground in the war and crossing President Obama's "red-line", which would trigger direct Western intervention on their side, was the only way to improve their position.

References

1. Weir, Fred (17 September 2013). "Russia presses claims Syria rebels behind gas attack". Christian Science Monitor.

The article text I'm using is above. I'm very open to changes, please suggest. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Great source! This Markov also said that "the entire international oligarchy, including Soros, the Rockefellers, the Morgans - all the wealthy families and networks" wanted to overthrow Putin . He was a member of Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests and famous for the most adulatory praise of the president . My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We are not offering this for the truth, merely that it was said. The source is the CSM, not the person they are quoting. Feel free to counter-weight this with other opinions. Do others have thoughts? Andrevan@ 01:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, my point is very simple: we are not going to provide an undue weight to fringe theories by quoting people who do not deserve any trust. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight is not no weight - while this particular quote may not be very important in context, the theory is clearly a minority viewpoint, but one with a major footprint in the references that have been presented in the mediation, especially when those connected to Russia's views are mentioned. You cannot censor a referenced POV because you disagree with it. It has appeared often enough above to qualify some mention, we just need to figure out what the mention should be. I agree there might be undue weight to call out Sergei Markov by name, but the fact that you recognized him and had a rap sheet to read strongly suggests he is notable. I'm not saying that is definitely the case and it's up to the various parties to find a good compromise. But the compromise will not be, no weight at all for a theory being mentioned by at least 2 notable individuals that we've discussed. Andrevan@ 01:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

But then this is the wrong approach to take in considering due weight, and it suggests a misunderstanding of WP:WEIGHT. You can't take a single quote or text snippet on an individual basis and decide whether that particular piece does or does not violate due weight. Due weight is about the proper representation of a POV in the article as a whole. In other words, the question is not whether this quote violates due weight but whether including it will violate due weight, given what's in the article already. Is the fringe theory mentioned in the article already? Yes. So why is it necessary to keep repeating over and over again (based on quotes from whomever)? That's a violation of WP:WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not heard of Markov earlier, but according to Svenska Dagbladet he is (or was?) Putins personal messenger.. I think we can use it, but we may quote Putin directly instead (or in addition): Erlbaeko (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• As I said in the beginning, this might be a notable scholarly minority view, rather than disinformation nonsense by the Kremlin. If so, it must be supported by quoting reliable 3rd party views by people with academic credentials who are not connected to the Kremlin. That would be fine. However, if this is only a disinformation theory (worse than "fringe" theory), it should not be included as a credible/legitimate view in the page. This is my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with My very best wishes. The article should give the theory as much credence as it deserves. In the past almost two years, I haven't seen a whole lot to persuade me it deserves any more credence than the theory that Ukraine shot down MH17 -- another Russian maskirovka attempt to muddy the waters and deflect blame from one of the Kremlin's clients. As I said, I do believe the Russian claims should be mentioned, but I find it unacceptable to present the "rebels-gassed-themselves" narrative with anything approaching equal weight to the commonly agreed upon sequence of events.

All of that being said: I think Mnnlaxer is on the right track, although I'm not convinced Markov is a sufficiently notable figure to have his claims detailed in this article. My bigger question would be about presentation. I am amenable to Mnnlaxer's previous suggestion of a small section toward the end of the article to briefly discuss Syria's denial of responsibility and Russia's claims. That being said, the Russian government's side is already clearly represented in the section of the article to which I linked above, alongside the views of several other governments who said they investigated the incident. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The view is also supported by Gwyn Winfield, the editorial Director of CBRNe World. I believe he is a notable figure. <redacted by mediator> Erlbaeko (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Who and what? No, I don't think so. This is grasping at straws. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Gwyn Winfield not notable? He was notable enough to be interviewed by Hala Gorani on Amanpour on the day of the attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• MVBW recent responses above and the first paragraph of Kudzu1 starting "I agree with MVBW." I am not, and I don' think anyone is, arguing for the false flag theory to get more than minimal credence. The issue has been outright rejection of even including any mention of it at all. It is very easy to use in-text attribution, surrounding context, and the overall article to keep its due weight low. MVBW's misunderstanding of the situation—attacking the speaker and asking for all people quoted to be unaffiliated academics (would that disallow any one from RAND?)—makes it hard to gain consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kudzu1's second paragraph. Thanks and I take your Markov/Russia point well. Honestly, I took the first one listed after Winfield above, because of the motive vs. responsibility issue already raised. I think the Russian view section is adequate and we can use any needed Russian mouthpiece there. So I think the last section option can be crafted to include third-party and Western (I know of mainly US, but there has to be European adherents and sources as well) questioners/believers/supporters of the false flag theory. A bit about motive, probably from the two AP sources above (Erlbaeko, I preferred Markov over Heyman, but Heyman might be a good choice if we keep all Russians to their own section), some explanation of evidence that is ambiguous or possibly favors rebel responsibility, and a listing of prominent people that believe the rebels were responsible. Wrap that up in 2-3 paragraphs with qualifiers like "Against the majority of evaluations, X said" or similar. That's my overall goal. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what to make of the repeated use of "rebels gassed themselves", often in quotes or dashes between words. Obviously, the other side uses it to denigrate even the idea of a false flag operation, but what exactly do they think their phrase means and why is it seemingly beyond the pale to even discuss it in the article? FRINGE is very easy to deal with by simply stating it is fringe and limiting discussion of it. But it seems to me there is an absolutist attitude about the barest mention of it, even on Talk pages. What gives? Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Mnnlaxer and Kudzu1 are on the right track I would ask them to please continue. I do not know what CBRNe world but I think Markov and Lavrov are probably better bets. Being connected with the Kremlin does not make your minority theories not notable. Markov is an academic and Lavrov is a politico. I would like to ask My very best wishes to stop participating in the mediation per your earlier comments. Andrevan@ 04:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. Why are you asking MVBW to stop participating? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi All, apologies for the long silence - I was away until quite recently, and see you've covered a lot of ground. Mnnlaxer, Kudzu1 and Andrevan, I wonder what you think of the following text proposal? --redacted by mediator

I agree with Kudzu1 that citing the CBRNe source directly is tenuous, especially when comparing the magazine to other sources, including the Seattle Times, which quotes one of their analysts. I apologize, in the first and middle paragraphs for two sentences that attribute belief vaguely - in this case I am following the sources' vagueness almost extractly, and so try to attribute to the sources (Seattle Times and AP). I note the possibility of a rogue commander launching the attack, following the Seattle Times, because I believe that is relevant to the question of motive. -Darouet (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's very good. I would take some of the first part out - let the other side pick which sources/people to quote/paraphrase - and keep Putin and other Russian sources completely out of this new section. I'd like to add a listing of prominent non-Russians who have spoken about rebel responsibility. I'm thinking we need to be limited to three or four multiple-sentence paragraphs. One on motivation, one on evidence, one on prominent people. Maybe there is one more topic. I'm also still waiting for any response to my question about "rebels gassed themselves". And I'd like to hear from User:bobrayner and User:Volunteer Marek in general. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the approach of taking one quote/snippet of text at a time and deciding whether that particular piece of text violates WP:UNDUE is wrong and actually violates the due weight policy, which is about representation of POVs in the article AS A WHOLE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with Volunteer Marek; we have a long term problem with undue weight devoted to conspiracy theories, based on sources like RT. Focussing on whether one particular piece of text is verifiable - rather than whether putting it the article worsens the neutrality problems - is missing the point. This is similar to many of our other disputes over WP:FRINGE beliefs; it's not rocket science. bobrayner (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that one sentence at a time won't work. I'm very happy to read Volunteer Marek's "in the article as a whole." I think Darouet's text can be used as the basis for the first paragraph on motivation following what I've said above. The other side should suggest a second draft of the first paragraph based on the above. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. We don't need quotes from every semi-notable commentator who mentions the "rebels-gassed-themselves" theory (BTW, I use the construction because I think it's absurd and implausible, based on the investigations, reports, and commentaries related by the preponderance of reliable sources, and deserves about as much attention here as any other ridiculous theory pushed for political reasons; a sound comparison would be an item recently featured on the front page, Navaly church bombing, where the article aptly assigns blame regardless of the guilty party's protestations and attempts to deflect responsibility), and we certainly don't need a laundry list of everyone in the West who buys into that narrative. Mnnlaxer suggested keeping the section regarding the conspiracy theory short, sweet, and toward the end of the page. Let's stick with that approach, and avoid polluting the rest of the article with undue nonsense or giving too much weight to people who don't merit it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

We have already established that this is an important minority view, and not a "fringe theory." Kudzu1, this has never been about the "rebels gassing themselves:" rebel factions and their international sponsors are as numerous and divided as the many bloody and inhuman atrocities committed by both sides in this civil war. As the sources we've been discussing here point out, it is highly unreasonable that the Assad regime would have invited promised western military intervention against itself, by launching a chemical weapons attack on a suburb immediately adjacent to UN inspectors they'd just invited. So I do agree that this is a minority view, but do not a priori agree that it should be relegated to the end of the article, or receive no mention whatsoever (even a clause) in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an "important minority view" -- I think it's typical Kremlin maskirovka, just like what we're seeing in Ukraine. Your argument here is flawed in a few critical ways. For one, just as the rebel groups are divided, Syrian command-and-control is shaky, and in fact, the German intelligence service and phone intercepts suggest the attack was either inadvertent or carried out by a "rogue" Syrian Army commander without official authorization to use chemical weapons. So the idea that the rebels are the only fractious party to the conflict is not correct. Secondly, if there are serious suggestions that perhaps one rebel group gassed civilian supporters of another group, I haven't seen them. That seems like speculative original research to me. And third, the Syrian military has carried out any number of well-documented mass casualty attacks on civilians before. There has been no prior indication that Assad is concerned about international conventions, considering the barrel bombs, chlorine gas attacks, white phosphorus bombs, etc., that the Syrian military has been documented using at various points in the conflict. And fourth, of course, the UN investigation found that the rockets that hit Ghouta were fired from deep inside government-held territory, and it was widely assessed that only the Syrian Army possessed the resources and capability to launch such an attack. So whether it "makes sense" to you isn't terribly relevant. It requires quite a contortion of the evidence to conclude the attack was either an elaborate false flag or an artifact of infighting among the rebels (again, not a serious postulation I've seen elsewhere). This conspiracy theory should be treated as any other, and the article should identify the Syrian Army as the attack's perpetrator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Chemical weapons attacks were described as a red line by the United States, and therefore obviously carried great risk of foreign intervention, as the sources state above. You accept that the rebels are divided, and point out that Assad's forces may be as well - I actually included that in the proposed text above. Considering CW capability, even U.S. intelligence sources have estimated (internally, and to journalists individually) that the rebels possessed this. I think we're getting distracted however by straying from available sources and proposed text - I don't see how general discussion, instead of specific proposal and source analysis, is going to solve this. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the time is now for the other side to propose acceptable text on rebel motivation. Debating anything but specific text and specific sources right now is distracting. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what your actual proposal is. Three different pieces of text were proposed, which are all essentially redundant. I pointed out that it makes no sense to discuss each piece of text individually but rather we should discuss the issue of WEIGHT within the context of the article as a whole. You agreed. So what exactly is the proposal here? To include all three pieces of text? To include one of them? That can't be right, since you were agreeing above that this isn't the way to proceed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast. I don't see why the comments Steve Johnson, a news editor of CBRNe World magazine, gave to a newspaper on the day of the attack, is more important than the written statement Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of the same magazine, published two monts after the attack. Did I mention that he is acknowledged as the world's leading journalistic authority on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence? Ref. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Winfield's statement isn't important, and maybe I shouldn't have dismissed it so quickly. There are aspects of the piece that I appreciate: it is relatively neutral, criticizing Syrian and Russian PR, while considering bias in perspective, evidence, and vested interests on all sides. Nevertheless, I think one sentence or less, similar to what I did with Johnson's comments, should be adequate? -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually believe Winfield's statement is the majority view on this issue, at least among military experts. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the whole section: --redacted by mediator-- Erlbaeko (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can't do what I ask and do this sentence by sentence, I shall refer the Mediation to Arbitration and call it a failure. There's no way we can feasibly workshop the text pasting in piles of text like this willy nilly - it's unproductive and will still have to be broken down sentence by sentence anyway to have a discussion that isn't Erlbaeko, Darouet, Mnnlaxer pasting blocks of text and the rest repeating invalid policy arguments about fringe theories. One of the major reasons why we should start with a "first sentence" is because, based on the undue weight policy, we probably can't spend more than a few sentences on this anyway. However, we definitely get a few sentences about it per the sources. We don't need to specifically name Lavrov, Markov, Wynfield, etc. We could do the whole thing with a few sentences like, "The Russian and Syrian governments as well as some analysts connected with them have put forth a theory, rejected by most Western sources, etc. that..." Mediation is a process, not a talk page pile-on free-for-all. So if you'd like me to continue with the mediation, we need to keep responses concise, limit them to discrete suggestions for article improvement and text without contributor crosstalk, and be constructive about specific changes rather than parroting invalid interpretations of the policies involving weight for minority ideas. Andrevan@ 01:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we need to have some general outline of what we're going to include, to proceed sentence by sentence. Most of the sources seem to address these issues:

1) The American "red line," and consequent suicidal character of a government CW attack,

2) The recent and nearby arrival of UN CW inspectors at the government's invitation,

3) The advantage gained by rebel forces by triggering a western intervention.

Additional issues might involve estimates of rebel CW capability (e.g. per Hersh and internal U.S. intelligence reports), defections/rogue actions by government officers, etc., if we all decided together these were somehow important in this section. What do you Andrevan and others think? -Darouet (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the proposed source for the "suicidal character" description of a government CW attack? The Syrian government's use of chemical weapons before and after the Ghouta attack is pretty well established. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

E.g., "Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese army general who closely follows Syria’s war, said it would be “political suicide” for the regime to commit such an act given Obama’s warning.". -Darouet (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, a retired military officer from another country thinks so, so of course we've got to include that in the article. For "balance". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm ill becomes you, Kudzu; I used that source as an example because Jaber is quoted by the Seattle Times and uses the exact phrase "political suicide." You've been following this discussion so you already know that every other source we've talked about here says something equivalent. Let's stick to concrete suggestions and avoid sniping please. -Darouet (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, Kudzu, but also Darouet please try to ignore such unproductive behavior rather than rise to the bait. Returning to the issue at hand, so far we have a number of people saying more or less "why would Assad gas the rebels knowing it would cause the West to interfere on their behalf, maybe it was a setup." Most sources don't support this narrative but a handful do mention it. Therefore this narrative gets a brief mention in the article. However, it does not necessarily get a point-by-point "Motivation section" with all of the talking points you want to hit. Figure out what is the 1-2 sentence summation of the entire argument, source it with the 4-5 sources that we have, and do so in an NPOV way that qualifies and justifies the weight. Andrevan@ 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Back to the suggested sentence at the top of this section, I suggest that a direct quote of Lavrov or Putin would be preferable to a direct quote of Markov (if we determine that a direct quote is the way to go). VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, if only because I think quoting a Kremlin-linked academic of dubious notability assigns undue weight and sets a negative precedent for such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

(copied to below section)

Andrevan: I do not fully agree. Motivation covers a topic that have gained significant attention in published reliable sources, and it is not outside the scope of the article. It is most relevant to have a section in the article that explain the significant views that have been published. The undue weight policy doesn't restrict that in any way. Nor does I agree that the written statement by Gwyn Winfield, the world's leading journalistic authority on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence, represent a minority view. However, I do agree that some are repeating invalid policy arguments, and I believe they do so to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. That is not allowed according to the behavioral guideline of gaming the system, so maybe this Mediation should be transferred to Arbitration? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Back to the suggested sentence at the top of this section - again, my problem is not with any particular sentence but with undue weight being given to a fringe view within the article AS A WHOLE. You can clean up one sentence and make sure it's properly sourced but if it's added to an already-overextended coverage of this minority view - which, BTW, Erlbaeko is expanding even further even as this mediation is ongoing - then I object to its inclusion. Simply because that view is already given too much space in the article as it is.

If you want to add a particular sentence about the fringe view, please tell me which sentences you're going to remove and how you will shorten the relevant text so that it doesn't violate UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I only expanded a statement that was abruptly truncated Erlbaeko (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in a mediation where a user is blatantly making personal attacks and not acting in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You can understand why I'm frustrated. And now that the mediator has made his vision for the disputed content more clear (which I do believe should have been done at the outset, or at least earlier in the process), and it's not to Erlbaeko's liking, Erlbaeko suddenly wants arbitration -- of course -- and is making up some phony reason to try to force the issue.

I have been dealing, off and on, with editors acting in bad faith on the Ghouta chemical attack article and other Syria- and Russia-related content for the past, well, however many years it has been. It's frustrating. Maybe there are times I could handle it better. I know there have been times I could have handled it a lot worse. But these things, it's like you give an inch and some editors want to take a mile, and that's not the way this is supposed to work. This is an opportunity to break a logjam and figure out a sensible resolution to what has been an ourobouros loop of "you don't have consensus" (colors removed by mediator) But it looks like Erlbaeko doesn't want to compromise. Erlbaeko wants to win. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say, don't comment on the contributor, comment on the argument, text, etc. If another contributor engages in unproductive behavior drag him or her back to the real world and set an example to follow of abstract, reasoned dispassionate discussion. Look for those who ARE willing to compromise - Mnnlaxer, Darouet, etc., and they will bring Erlbaeko around to a reasonable compromise as well if you feel you can't work with him. Can you make a productive comment about this argument without accusing Erlbaeko of bad faith (itself bad faith)? I don't really know a lot about this topic, merely what I've read for preparation here. Perhaps it DOES merit an entire section discussing the possible motivations. The parties seem to like what I have to say only when it suits them, one of the reasons I brought up referring to ArbCom. Do we want to give this another try -- if so, please speak in sentences, not paragraphs. Comment on discrete suggestions, not others' suggestions or behavior. Assume good faith. Take it slow and steady, give the discussion time to unfold. Don't jump in to disagree - participate and respond only if the previous comment pertained to an abstract logical point you'd like to make. Can we all agree on this? If not, I will call ArbCom to the table, and while some might appear eager for that, it often leads to rubber-band sanctions and occasionally topic bans for those who will not work within the civil boundaries of our system without grandstanding or POV-pushing. Andrevan@ 17:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't respond to my rant above. If you understand what I need to continue mediating, merely participate in the section below.

Discussing productive ideas for progress

Copied from section above: Back to the suggested sentence at the top of this section, I suggest that a direct quote of Lavrov or Putin would be preferable to a direct quote of Markov (if we determine that a direct quote is the way to go). VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, if only because I think quoting a Kremlin-linked academic of dubious notability assigns undue weight and sets a negative precedent for such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly a reasonable claim that Markov's particular take is idiosyncratic. His notability may not assign him a ton of weight in the treatment we settle on. I would like to hear what others feel about this particular point. Remember, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." So far we have named a number of adherents. The main critcisim seems to be that they are unreliable or have conflicts of interest. This does not make them not prominent, however. A great way to qualify a prominent, but unreliable source is to find an equally or more prominent, but more reliable source which questions the reliability of the other. Do you all have any sources on Markov's known or alleged unreliability? Andrevan@ 17:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about such an approach violating WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. MVBW already presented sources on Markov's unreliability; there are scads of sources as well detailing the tendency of the Russian government (Putin, Lavrov, etc.) to speak and act deceptively when it suits them as well. That's not to say they should be completely ignored. But I think getting bogged down over Markov, either in this mediation or in the article text itself, is the wrong way to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source about Markov's reliability, link it here. I don't understand the argument about SYNTH/COATRACK. I'm not asking us to come up with our own story here. This narrative appears in many reliable sources. Andrevan@ 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if Andrevan were to respond to Volunteer Marek's point about weight in the article, as I agree the conspiracy theory is already sufficiently represented, if not over-represented altogether, in the article as it exists now. Are we trying to work out how to add more about the conspiracy theory to the article? Or are we trying to figure out how to condense the mentions of the conspiracy theory to one or two smaller sections? I feel we need a clearer picture of what we're supposed to be working on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the article as written doesn't discuss the idea that the rebels may have had a motivation to create a false flag situation due to prior public statements by Obama etc (the "red line"). While I realize the article is in flux, when I read it now I merely see that the Russian government brought up the conspiracy theory without any explanation of what the theory is and why it's possible, according to those who have put it forth. Perhaps I have the "wrong version." Anyway, we can have additional discussion as to what needs to be condensed or rewritten after we agree on what needs to be said. Andrevan@ 17:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the false flag theory is actually mentioned in the intro to the article:

The Russian government called the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side.

The "red line" is specifically mentioned in the first section:

The attack came one year and one day after US President Barack Obama's 20 August 2012 "red line" remarks, in which he warned: "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." Syria was one of five non-signatories to the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention at the time. After the "red line" remarks, and before the chemical attack in Ghouta, chemical weapons were suspected to have been used in four attacks in the country.

References

1. Putin, Vladimir V. (12 September 2013). "A Plea for Caution From Russia". New York Times. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
2. "Obama warns Syria not to cross 'red line'". CNN. 20 August 2012. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
3. Ball, James (20 August 2012). "Obama issues Syria a 'red line' warning on chemical weapons". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
4. "Remarks by the President to the White House Press Corps". Office of the Press Secretary, White House. 20 August 2012. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
5. Ahuja, Masuma (21 August 2013). "A partial list of Syria's suspected chemical weapons attacks this year". Washington Post. Retrieved 9 May 2015.

Russian and Syrian officials are quoted in several more sections throughout the article claiming the rebels did it as "a provocation" or as an attempt to reverse their losses in the war, including Russian assessment, Government claims, Responses, Russia, and Domestic. Seymour Hersh, one of the more prominent Western skeptics of the official narrative, is also cited seven times throughout the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What I think the other parties feel it is missing is some logical connection between the "red line" and the "false flag." Other parties, please comment on this. Kudzu, I appreciate you stepping forward and being productive, but instead of responding to me, let's wait for someone who disagrees with you to offer a counterpoint in that vein. What you are pointing out is that the premises are well-represented, without the implied conclusion that is made by Lavrov, Markov, Winfield, etc. As far as your earlier comment about condensing/removing some weight, I would say the Wash Post blog about 4 attacks is speculative and probably on the chopping block from a weight angle, being a blog post. Andrevan@ 17:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly it, Andrevan. I want a concise description of the false flag possibility, from motivation, to evidence, to prominent supporters. I would prefer to keep Russians in the Russian government assessment section. As far as the other mentions Kudz1 links to, I'll have to take a look at those later. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Andrevan@ 18:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I will tonight. FYI, Marek's hid comment was before mine. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)