Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Douma chemical attack. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Should title be "Alleged Douma chemical attack"?

It is customary in societies that respect the rule of law to use the word "alleged" in reports of possible criminality, until the case has been properly investigated and a conclusion reached by the appropriate body. Can we agree that, at least until the OPCW has completed its investigation, the article should be titled "Alleged Douma Attack"? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the vast majority of sources do not refer to the event as the alleged Douma chemical attack. The current title best satisfies WP:CRITERIA.- Mr X 🖋 15:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the suggestion that no attack occured at all is a WP:FRINGE theory by a party with a long standing history of lying, denial, and obfuscation about exactly this sort of thing in this conflict. The viewpoint is notable so it deserves some sort of mention, but is need not affect the title of the article or cause us to pepper the article with "alleged." VQuakr (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX - The BBC puts "chemical attack" in inverted commas, as does Channel 4, while ITV and Sky TV use the word "alleged". These are the main TV news outlets in the UK. Perhaps in countries where there is less respect for the rule of law this is not the case, but Wikipedia should aspire to the highest standards. It should be about the quality of sources rather than the quantity suggested by a supposed "vast majority" of sources.

For your argument to be persuasive, you would need to convince us that UK-based media is more reliable than media based in other countries. I'm not sure what you mean by "countries where there is less respect for the rule of law". Are you referring to Syria or Russia?- Mr X 🖋 18:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The BBC is the world's oldest national broadcaster by number of employees, the largest international broadcaster and probably the most respected broadcasting institution in the world; it sets the standard for the UK. Moreover, all journalists have to be wary of UK libel laws and careful not to be in contempt of court by prejudicing the outcome of a trial. As a result, it is standard practice to use the word 'alleged' or to put alleged crimes in inverted commas, no matter how certain we may be that a crime has been committed or that a person is guilty. The presumption of innocence and a fair trial are considered to be the foundation of all liberty, and respect for the rule of law is so deeply ingrained in the UK media that it is extended to the deliberations of the OPCW. So it should for Wikipedia. I was not referring to any specific countries, but I certainly do believe that there is less respect for the rule of law in Syria and Russia, as is the case with very many other countries. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@VQakr - The suggestion is not that no attack took place at all, it is that it was not a chemical attack. This is not a 'fringe theory' or the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 News and Sky news would not use quotation marks or the word 'alleged' when they refer to the 'chemical attack'. Nor is it a theory held by only one party. It is a view that has been reported by western journalists and expressed by many residents of Douma, including medical personnel; although we should be sceptical, we are, as yet, in no position to dismiss this evidence. Please can you tell us which party you are referring to and can you provide specific examples of its 'long-standing history of lying, denial, and obfuscation'? This sounds like the kind of rhetorical flourish we might hear from the UK's eccentric Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson who is definitely not the sort of chap to rely on for an NPOV.

Instead of writing 'alleged', I suggest we use quotation marks. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely not going to happen. Please consult WP:TITLEFORMAT.- Mr X 🖋 18:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I take your point that quotation marks should not generally be used in titles, however "Exceptions can be made when they are part of the proper title (e.g. "A" Is for Alibi) or required by orthography ("Weird Al" Yankovic)" Since the title used in media reports(at least in the UK) is often Douma 'chemical' attack or Douma 'chemical attack' it could be argued that it is justified by orthography as well as legality. WP:TITLEFORMAT also says that the word 'alleged' ... should be avoided in a descriptive title, but that there is an "Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as “allegations". This is very much the case here as chemical weapons use is a crime under international law. Thus it is appropriate to describe the allegation that this was a chemical attack as an allegation in the title, and it might be orthographically appropriate to use quotation marks for 'chemical' or 'chemical attack', which would also be legally appropriate. One way or another, WP:TITLEFORMAT tells us that we have to make it clear that so far this is an allegation. We are also expected to use common sense, so quotation marks might be the most sensible way of doing what is legally appropriate. I strongly believe it should be changed so as not to prejudge the outcome of the OPCW investigation. Not doing this seems just plain wrong and contrary to the most elemental principles of justice. It is frankly disturbing that this is not being done. What do you suggest? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is probably premature. I think we should wait for the results of the OPCW investigation to be published, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Until the OPCW has published the results of its investigation, Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that it is appropriate to include in the title the fact that this is currently an allegation that is being investigated by a legal body. The question is - do we use quotation marks for 'chemical' or for 'chemical attack' or do we say - Alleged Douma chemical attack or Douma chemical attack allegations - or something else that carries the same meaning? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that we don't use "alleged" or WP:SCAREQUOTES in the title of Bowling Green Massacre, it seems unlikely that you are going to find consensus to included either here. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bowling Green Massacre was a ridiculous and totally fictitious misstatement by Kellyanne Conway that swiftly became a matter of ridicule. No serious allegations were being investigated or tried by a legal body, whereas the allegation in the case of Douma is an actual accusation of illegality under international law, discussed as such by reliable sources, and not yet proven by the legal body examining the evidence. See WP:TITLEFORMAT (Neutrality in article titles: Non-judgmental descriptive titles) which says, "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as “allegations". WP's rule on this is very clear. Why should we not respect it? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The UN and the OPCW plus major broadcasters, such as the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, ABC and CNN, preface references to the Douma 'chemical attack' with words like 'alleged' or 'suspected' or use quotation marks. Wikipedia guidelines are clear: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial;" Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. This also applies to titles. Expressions of doubt should generally be avoided but there is an exception for "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as “allegations"." Wikipedia:Article titles As far as I am aware, there is no consensus for editors to ignore Wikipedia guidelines, to dismiss the position of the UN and the OPCW as WP:FRINGE in a matter under their jurisdiction or to fall below the ethical standards of reliable sources.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting that BBC/etc use "suspected" or whatever requires some major cherry-picking. If we had specific claims about a living person related to this then yes, we would follow WP:BLP. We are not ignoring policy, we are ignoring your incorrect interpretation of it. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It requires no cherry picking at all. It's near universal. Google BBC Douma. You will have to cherry pick to find exceptions. Same goes for the other broadcasters. It's standard practice. To make your point stick, you need to prove that 'a vast majority' (MrX's phrase) of BBC/etc reports on the Douma chemical attack lack 'expressions of doubt'.

The guideline refers to "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under the law'. It neither says or implies that the 'topic' has to be a person, so your reference to WP:BLP is irrelevant. To refer to the Douma chemical attack without expressions of doubt is to state that a chemical attack took place and that is unambiguously and undeniably 'an actual accusation of illegality under the law', so the guideline must apply. My interpretation is absolutely correct and I'm afraid you are acting in direct contravention of policy. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are many, many sources that now call this an alleged attack after the OPCW report, certainly WP should simply reflect the consensus of reliable sources even if it requires making embarrassing changes to an article. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's see these alleged "many sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. @Huldra That the title is "premature" is precisely the point. If, as you say, a responsible approach is to wait for the results of the OPCW investigation, then the attack should be acknowledged as "alleged" until those results are available. I think something must done to acknowledge that this chemical attack remains controversial and has not yet been confirmed by an authoritative third party. The astonishing Fisk controversy above highlights this (which I contributed to by adding the Fisk paragraph, yet then did not realize it was being debated here, being still shamefully untutored in proper Wiki editing, for which I sincerely apologize). I support @Kiwicherryblossom on this. Hope my contribution here is more appropriate. Tafkira2 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, (a little late...) So, we have exactly zero proof that this was even a chemical attack. (Chlorinated chemicals are exceedingly common...I have them in my bathroom and under my kitchen sink....and I am not making bombs... ;P ) OPCW found NO PROOF of any chemical bombs. I suggest we move this article to Douma 2018 attack. (I really don't like article with "alleged" in the title; that sounds totally unencyclopaedic to my ears) Comments? Can I move it, or do I need to start another RfC? Huldra (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean a move request? Please first list the reliable sources that are now calling this "the Douma attack".- Mr X 🖋 23:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected

Having tried unsuccessfully to make a few edits to the text, including referring to the Douma chemical attack as "suspected," (because that is how the referenced BBC article described it), and having had a brief chat on VQakr's talk page, VQakr has suggested I return to this talk section to discuss the matter. VQakr said: "The BBC article was from the day after the attack; there have been multiple confirmations since then. This really should be being discussed on the article talk page, but briefly - whether or not a nerve agent was used, some sort of chemical caused the scores of fatalities. Therefore, "suspected" is an unneeded qualifier that violates WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)" This seems an extraordinary thing to say. I understand the BBC article was from the day of the attack, but if it is no longer appropriate, why continue to use it? If it is a valid reference then so is the word 'suspected'. The most authoritative view is provided by the OPCW interim report, which does not refer to "multiple confirmations" or conclude that a chemical attack took place; instead it refers to "alleged sites" and "alleged incidents", and says "This document contains an update on the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria (FFM) regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma". The report found no evidence of sarin (as had been claimed by the rebels, various NGOs, the USA and others) and the chlorinated organic chemicals referred to have many domestic uses (as Huldra has pointed out), so their presence is not proof of a chemical attack. For VQakr to say, “whether or not a nerve agent was used, some sort of chemical caused the scores of fatalities” Therefore, "suspected" is an unneeded qualifier that violates WP:NPOV.” is to beg the question and describing “suspected” as an "an unneeded qualifier that violates WP:NPOV” seems to turn the truth on its head. Where is the evidence for this? How does VQakr know, for example, that the casualties seen in the hospital were victims of a chemical attack rather than, say smoke or dust inhalation from conventional bombing or that they were not simply being sprayed with water by people desperate to elicit military support from the West? How does VQakr know that the people lying dead in the basement were victims of a chemical attack? How can we be sure that they did not die from smoke or dust inhalation or were not murdered by the rebels and then manipulated to look like chemical attack victims - some bodies had definitely been moved. Has anyone seen the autopsies? VQakr seems to know more than the OPCW or perhaps s/he has seen the final report? If not, it seems to me that since the OPCW has disproved the sarin claims and continues to refer to the “alleged use of toxic chemicals” as a weapon in Douma”, so should we. I move that we follow the lead of the OPCW and the BBC and refer to the Douma chemical attack as "alleged" or "suspected" or some similar term in order to make it clear that it is as yet unproven that a chemical attack took place in Douma. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: other editors are not going to be familiar with, or care about, discussions on my user talk page. How about you concisely rework your opening statement to be content-focused instead of editor-focused? VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, they won't be familiar with the discussion which is why I repeated it. Whether they care or not is up to them. How about you address serious questions, rather than avoid them in order to be concise or vice versa?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The current wording is preferable. We need to look at more than one source, and preferably ones that are more recent such as this BBC article: [1] or this Reuters article: [2]. Also these: [3][4]- Mr X 🖋 12:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC

We do need to look at more than one source. However, other than DW, none of the other references make your case. Even the rather poor BBC article refers to "reported chemical attacks" re Douma. Reuters says: "It was also seeking to verify the identity of a substance used in an attack in Douma, Syria." It does not say it was a chemical attack. The other says "Sorry, this content is not available in your region."It may have its flaws but why is the OPCW regarded as less authoritative than DW? Do you really believe the current wording is preferable to that used by the OPCW or the BBC?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is preferable. We already cite and quote the commission in the lede, which concludes it was a chlorine attack (a conclusion not incompatible with the interim OPCW report). The BBC article from the day after the attack is outdated for a conclusion of who was responsible, but it still fine as a source for things that have not been updated over time. The OPCW didn't get the authority to assign blame for attacks until June of this year, so they are always going to be indirect about this attack or others that occurred prior to then. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MrX and VQuakr. There are two relevant policies. One is WP:BNS, which says: " Plan to replace all breaking news sources in the future with solid secondary sources." It is better to go with later sources that distill more information than with breaking news sources. Second, where there are numerous reliable sources, we should go with the weight of what reliable sources say. As MrX points out, Reuters and DW don't use "suspected"; nor do AP, NYT, or other reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of brevity, but I am responding to MrX, VQakr and Bobfrombrockley. At least my intervention has caused the glaring inconsistency of the BBC report to be recognised. However, the replacement from the Telegraph, like the BBC, also refers to a "suspected chemical attack" as do the Guardian, NYT etc, while the OPCW interim report uses "alleged". MrX's Reuters link is about cyber attacks and doesn't refer to the Douma attack at all, although a Reuters report that does concern Douma refers to "an attack in Douma, Syria," without using the word "chemical". Fox13, is a local US channel, unavailable in my area, and is not reliable compared to, say, the BBC or the OPCW.

VQakr's argument rests heavily on the commission However, the Commission's enquiry is being carried out under the auspices of the UNHRC, which is a body, often accused of bias, not least by the USA. It was boycotted by the George W Bush administration and the USA quit again in June 2018 with Nikki Haley calling it a "cesspool of political bias". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44537372 . In 2015, the UN was criticised "for appointing a representative from the Saudi Arabian government as the head of an influential human rights panel". https://news.yahoo.com/u-n-watchdog-slams-scandalous-160650242.html?guccounter=2 I would suggest that the UNHRC Inquiry is not a reliable source and is certainly a less authoritative body that the OPCW, particularly in respect of Douma, since it is specifically the OPCW that is carrying out the investigation. VQakr's point that "the OPCW didn't get the authority to assign blame for attacks until June of this year, so they are always going to be indirect about this attack or others that occurred prior to then" is irrelevant, since we are discussing whether or not to describe the incident as a "chemical attack", not whether or not we can attribute blame for it. The OPCW has not yet described the incident as a chemical attack, which is why it still uses the word "alleged".

The AP reports in Bobfrombrockley's Google link used 'Syria attack' in the title and 'suspected chemical weapons attack' in the text. Even DW generally uses "suspected" or "alleged" in its reports so we should not cherry-pick an atypical article. I agree with Bobfrombrockley who says "we should go with the weight of what reliable sources say" which is without question, "suspected" or "alleged" in the text, and perhaps the omission of the word "chemical" in the title. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I've misread the Reuter's source, but is says:

"At the time, the OPCW was working to verify the identity of the substance used in the Salisbury attack. It was also seeking to verify the identity of a substance used in an attack in Douma, Syria."

I believe it's referring to the attack documented in this article, not a cyberattack. (I've taken the liberty of inserting line feed into your comment where it seems you were trying to create paragraphs. If you press enter an addition time when you create a new paragraph, it will make you lengthy comments more readable.) - Mr X 🖋 22:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the paragraphing and apologies. It does say that, however it is not an article about Douma, and it does not refer directly to a "chemical attack". It refers to "an attack". I'm not sure how an aside referring to "an attack in Douma" makes the case for using the phrase "Douma chemical attack," especially as we now know that Sarin was not identified as a substance used during the undoubted military attack and the chemicals that were identified have not been linked to that attack by the OPCW, If anything, the Reuters article supports my case for omitting the word "chemical" in the title. Do you agree with me on this and that the weight of reliable sources say, "suspected" or "alleged"? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Reuters article unambiguously notes the Douma attack was a chemical attack, and presents it as fact while noting the specific chemical ("substance") used is still under investigation. I also contested a proposed injection of POV here. Kiwi, I agree that mention of sarin in the 3rd sentence is undue at this point, but I think this is a case where the lead can be improved by removal rather than insertion. I propose that instead we shorten "Medics on the ground reported smelling a chlorine-like substance, but said the patients' symptoms and the large death toll pointed to a more noxious substance such as nerve agent sarin." to "Medics on the ground reported smelling a chlorine-like substance.", as this better summarizes the overall sourcing available regarding the attack. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi VQ. I can’t agree that “the Reuters article unambiguously notes the Douma attack was a chemical attack and presents it as fact”. The full quote is: “At the time, the OPCW was working to verify the identity of the substance used in the Salisbury attack. It was also seeking to verify the identity of a substance used in an attack in Douma, Syria.” There was certainly a military attack in Douma, but it was not necessarily a chemical attack, and the substance need not have been a banned substance - it could have been explosive residue - whereas In Salisbury, any attack could only have been a chemical attack. Also, of course, the Salisbury attack has been identified by the OPCW as a chemical attack, while the “attack in Douma” has not. An article that is not about Douma and that does not use the phrase “chemical attack” cannot be used to justify our using it, especially as the overwhelming majority of credible sources (I have seen), including the OPCW, appropriately use WP:Expressions of doubt See also CNBC report ref below, which uses "suspected".

I don’t think the sarin mention is undue in the lede, because sarin was referred to several times in the USA intelligence report ^[1]and widely reported in reliable sources, as well as being cited by “medics on the ground” as the cause of the reported symptoms. It is also a banned chemical whereas chlorine is not, so it is more significant than chlorine and has to be mentioned if the overall sourcing is to be accurately and fairly summarised. However, since no traces of sarin were found by the OPCW, this must also be mentioned in the lede. I accept your criticism of the wording, so I shall change it to “However, according to the OPCW interim report, no sarin or other nerve agents were detected”.^[2] I hope this is ok.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

That seems too repetitive with the third paragraph of the lede (which, obviously, would qualify to most as an existing "mention" of the OPCW report in the lede). VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have said 'opening paragraph' not 'lede'. Obviously the first reference to the OPCW's should not be left to the third paragraph, but I take your point.

I note you didn't disagree with my comments about about the Reuters article and the need to use expressions of doubt such as 'suspected' or 'alleged' when referring to the Douma attack.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, I've disagreed with it repeatedly, as have a number of other editors over a period of months. We don't need to repeat that disagreement every time we post to this talk page for the consensus to remain clear. (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Without comment on the other sources, the Reuters article in question does not "unambiguously note the Douma attack was a chemical attack," as the words "chemical," or "sarin," don't appear anywhere within it. If we're looking for something that's unambiguous surely there's a source that actually says what you are looking for. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I agree with Darouet that the Reuters article in question does not "unambiguously note the Douma attack was a chemical attack," as the words "chemical," or "sarin," don't appear anywhere within it.” Please can you explain why you think it does “unambiguously" note that the Douma attack was a chemical attack? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. " It was also seeking to verify the identity of a substance used in an attack in Douma, Syria.". Unless you believe a substance is not a chemical.- Mr X 🖋 12:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the talk reflist.

First of all, a passing and ambiguous reference in an article about Salisbury, ""...seeking to verify the identity of a substance used in an attack in Douma...", isn't sufficient to demonstrate that yes, major news sources agree that a chemical attack occurred in Douma, especially if many of them still refer to it as "suspected" or "alleged."

Regarding "substance," did investigators take soil and other samples and check for the presence of compounds, like sarin or chlorine, or did they find some liquid or residue that they knew was poisonous, and were trying to figure out what it was? None of this is going to be clear from a single clause found in a Reuters article about a different subject.

Lastly, is it true that this OPCW investigation didn't find any poisonous substance? If so, that certainly doesn't mean mean a poisonous chemical wasn't used, as I think I recall investigators were blocked from accessing the site for some time. Nevertheless if they couldn't find such a chemical that does need to be clearly stated somewhere. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet: the OPCW found "no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products" in the samples collected. We do clearly state this, in both the lede and the body. The Reuters source is clearly talking about a chemical attack. Alone I agree it is a relatively passing mention, but it does not exist in a vacuum. As discussed above it is one of many sources, including the UN commission, that identify this as a chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey VQuakr, thanks for that. I'll be honest, I haven't done a search to check and see how recent articles have treated Douma, so please accept that major caveat and the correspondingly limited scope of this comment. Just reviewing the four articles that MrX listed in their earlier comment,

The BBC article [5] always uses "reported" or "alleged:" "...alleged chemical attacks were Kafr Zita, in Hama province, and Douma... Douma, the biggest town in the Eastern Ghouta, was the target of four reported chemical attacks over four months... the incident in Douma... the site of the reported attack in Douma..."
The Fox13 article [6] does the same: "...several Syrian activist groups reported that a brutal gas attack on the remnants of the rebel-held city of Douma... [the groups] said toxic gas inside barrel bombs dropped by helicopters over Douma caused people to suffocate..."
The DW article [7] clearly calls the attack a chemical attack: "...following the Douma chemical attack in April, also blamed on the Syrian government...". However in that reference, which is a single sentence, the DW links to a longer article actually dedicated to the topic [8] which also calls the attack alleged: "...the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons on civilians...".

Unless I have time to do a survey of recent references to Douma, I'll just leave my comments at that for now. -Darouet (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Darouet.

Since the OPCW report, even the pro-interventionist Guardian has used expressions of doubt to describe the Douma attack. Here,^[1]Douma is referred to as "the site of an alleged chemical attack".

It is much easier to find reliable sources that use "alleged", "suspected" or other expressions of doubt than those that don't, and it is appropriate to do so (especially following the OPCW report)

Wikipedia is unambiguous about what we should do. WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". I move that the case has been made for expressions of doubt to be used to describe the alleged/suspected chemical attack at Douma in April 2018.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/price-of-peace-calm-returns-to-damascus-as-assad-eyes-victory

Wikipedia uses "suspected" regarding the Aleppo attack in the article here. Please can VQakr explain the inconsistency? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there have been many "Aleppo" chemical attacks. If you are talking about the 24 November 2018 entry on the table, because the word "suspected" occurs within a direct quote. But even if it weren't a quote, what's the relevance? It is a different, more recent attack in a summary article. VQuakr (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @VQuakr:, the 24 November 2018 Aleppo attack. I would agree to using "suspected chemical attack" etc in direct quotes. There is no shortage of sources. Yes, it is a different attack to the one in Douma, but I cannot see any difference relevant to this discussion. The relevant comparison is that, as with Douma, it has not been proven as an attack by the OPCW and in both cases, the use of chemical weapons has been described by the OPCW as "alleged," which, like "suspected" is an expression of doubt. So why would we not use "suspected" (or "alleged" etc) in both cases, especially when reliable sources are far more likely to use them than not? "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. … Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars". WP:OSE

Could you also address the other points I raised? - the Guardian's use of "alleged" since the OPCW report? The view that it is easier to find reliable sources that use expressions of doubt than those that do not, and the fact that WP:Manual of style says expressions of doubt like "alleged" are "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined", which is exactly the case here. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The 24 November attack is much more recent. Has OPCW released any kind of report? Have there been other international and national assessments released? If not, then it would be wrong four different ways to internally compare a dissimilar article about a dissimilar attack to draw conclusions about dissimilar usage of a word. Your quote from WP:OSE doesn't apply - your analogy was given thought and consideration before being rightfully tossed in the bin.

You've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to reject any source that doesn't match your viewpoint. The only point you've raised is that among sources that you are willing to acknowledge, expressions of doubt are not uncommon. But even if we found 51% of news articles contained "alleged", so what? As already pointed out to you both here and when you've tried the exact same argument elsewhere, the decision on whether to include such expressions of doubt regarding a historical event is editorial, not prescriptive. And editorially speaking, given that we have confirmation of long-lived chemical remnants by the OPCW (despite two weeks of delay in being able to collect samples), confirmation of chemical barrel bombs as assessed by multiple governments as well as the UN HRC commission, and widespread in situ reporting from witnesses to the chemical attack as reported by various reliable secondary sources, I am comfortable omitting weasel words like "alleged" regarding the occurrence of this attack from the article anywhere where doing so doesn't cause BLP or attribution problems. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You may be comfortable saying in WP voice that these things occurred; I am not.

The "chemical remnants" to which you refer do not exist; they are really just chemical compounds. OPCW never referred to 'remnants'. You made that up. They never said that the chlorine compounds they found were associated with chlorine gas, still less that they were 'remnants' from chemical weapons.

Which assessment by the UN HRC Commission are you referring to? I am not aware that the "UN HRC Commission" has conducted an assessment of the available evidence, much less visited the site. I take it you are referring to the Human Rights Commission? That'll be the HRC, not the "HRC Commission". I'm not aware that the HRC is competent to judge whether chemical weapons have or haven't been used in any particular incident. There are agencies that have staff skilled in the matter of chemical weapons; the HRC is not one of them. It's staff are skilled in matters of human rights. MrDemeanour (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

They are a chemical fingerprint of an attack with chlorine gas, a fingerprint which has been identified in other chlorine gas attacks in Syria and for which the presence of, as a group, there is no other plausible explanation. Are you really going to claim the OPCW must have coincidentally come across a chemical laboratory in a residential apartment building and found TCA, and still found fit to include the results in their report? All chemical test results will be in the form of identifying "just chemical compounds" - that is what reaction products, the remnants of the chemical attack with volatile Cl2, are. I am referring to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, which was established by the UN Human Rights Council, ergo: HRC Commission. We cite them in the article, and I do not particularly care about your personal analysis regarding their competence. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: The idea that there is no other plausible explanation than a chemical attack is obviously false, otherwise the OPCW would have said so, rather than repeatedly refer to the "alleged" use of chemical weapons as you refuse to do. As you well know, the real significance of the report is the absence of sarin, the use of which was confidently alleged to justify bombing Syria, and which took us to the brink of war with Russia. Admitting this dreadful error requires quite a climbdown, I do appreciate that. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Commission operates under the auspices of the UNHRC, but as I pointed out earlier (7 Dec), the UNHRC is a body often accused of bias. In 2008 "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the organization’s widely-criticized Human Rights Council to drop rhetoric and bloc voting and get on with actually defending ordinary people from abuse." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-rights/u-n-chief-tells-rights-body-drop-rhetoric-blocs-idUSTRE4BB67820081212.

In September 2015, the HRC was criticised for the appointment of a representative from the Saudi Arabian government as its head. https://news.yahoo.com/u-n-watchdog-slams-scandalous-160650242.html?guccounter=2

In June 2018, the USA withdrew from the UNHRC. Mike Pompeo denounced the council as "a protector of human rights abusers”, and Nikki Haley called it a "cesspool of political bias”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44537372

ANNEX 3 of the Commission's document cited by our article gave Turkey the opportunity to give "information" on "Operation Olive Branch". Turkey was enabled to tell us that Operation Olive Branch "has shown to the entire world how a counter-terrorism operation can be conducted without harming civilians and civilian infrastructure."

All of this strongly suggests that the UNHRC is not an impartial source and that a paragraph from its Commission of Enquiry on the Douma attack is a far less reliable source than the OPCW. We should not use it. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this is pathetic. I'm struggling to think how accusations that the HRC is too influenced by Russia and has been denounced by the US, make its agreement with the US and disagreement with Russia suspect. To be clear to any other editors lurking just how far this editor is reaching to try to discredit the source: the selection of a Saudi, Faisal bin Hassan Trad, to lead the panel was indeed contentious. He was in the role for one year, in 2015 - the current cycle's president is Slovenian. 2008 was, ya know, a decade ago. Annex III (which was, as the Commission makes clear in their report, provided verbatim by Turkey) is not the section of the report we quote in the article. The US left the council this year due to the council's willingness to criticize Israel. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you are "struggling to think" may help to explain why you prefer to base our editorial stance on an evidence-free paragraph cherry-picked from a report by an institution described as a "cesspool of political bias" rather than on the detailed findings of the OPCW FFM that forensically examined the site of the attack. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The HRC and OPCW findings compliment each other; they do not conflict. Your accusation of cherry-picking is nonsensical. VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not say they conflict. You have missed the point, yet again. The OPCW is the body investigating the Douma attack, while the HRC commission's task is to look at the Syrian Civil War as a whole from a human rights perspective. It relies on information from the OPCW, not the other way round. As yet, there is insufficient information from the OPCW to justify the commission's claim that a "gas cylinder containing a chlorine payload delivered by helicopter struck a multi-storey residential apartment building located approximately 100 metres south-west of Shohada square". The OPCW investigation is ongoing and has not yet reached that conclusion. Given this and the poor reputation of the HRC, it is obvious to anyone who is not being wilfully obtuse that the OPCW's interim report is a more reliable source than a paragraph from the HRC commission's report. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The Commission is under the authority of the HRC, but it is independent of it, and none of the criticisms of the HRC cited here relate to the work of the Commission. The role of the Commission is not exactly to "look at the Syrian Civil War as a whole from a human rights perspective", but to investigate allegations of human rights abuses with a view to assessing evidence for future prosecutions. The OPCW are expert in the specifics of chemical weapons and have been stopped from attributing responsibility by the Russian veto; the commissioners are legal experts who assess a range of evidence, including but not limited to that provided by the OPCW, to see if the standard of evidence is sufficient for prosecution. They have direct access, I believe, to the OPCW evidence, but also have the power to seek other testimony and look at other sources. So I don't think your attack on the HRC is relevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I take your point Bob, but in my experience, 'independent commissions' under the authority of corrupt or biased organisations tend to reflect the biases of those organisations. The fact that the HRC commission ignores legal norms, by effectively pre-empting the outcome of a possible prosecution, demonstrates its lack of impartiality. Particularly as it does so as an aside in a single paragraph without providing any of the evidence upon which it has based its enormously significant claim and, presumably, as you suggest, in full knowledge of the OPCW's cautious interim report.

Russia vetoed the JIM, but the OPCW is now able to assign responsibility, although it may not be able to do so in this case. Nevertheless, and this is a mistake that has been made before on this talk page, it is irrelevant whether or not the OPCW has assigned responsibility, because its primary job is to determine whether or not a chemical attack has taken place at all. It has not yet done that, which is why it refers to the "alleged" use of chemical weapons etc, without regard to which party may have used them, if they were used. It has found chlorinated organic substances, the presence of which can be explained in a number of ways but no sarin, as had been alleged and as was used to justify the US,UK and French bombing of Syria. The situation is therefore highly political and the decision is of great consequence, but our task is to remain as impartial as possible.

WP:WORDS is clear that in criminal cases, we should use expressions of doubt "when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined," so surely the same principle applies here? As previously mentioned, Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War refers to the recent alleged chemical attack in Aleppo as "suspected," but what is even more difficult to reconcile with this article's current editorial position, Douma, Syria refers to a "suspected chemical attack" and links to this article!

Also, since the OPCW report, I think it is noticeable that reliable sources, such as the Guardian, have increasingly used expressions of doubt while most UK sources, including the BBC, have done so from the beginning and continue to do so. We all have different opinions about what happened and we may not even agree with whatever conclusion the OPCW reaches, but it seems to me that in the interests of impartiality, consistency, and common practice amongst reliable sources, we should accept its authority when deciding whether or not to use expressions of doubt in respect of alleged CW use, both before and after it has reached a verdict. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Chlorine is a chemical weapon

Chlorine gas is a chemical weapon. Here are some sources relevant to the Douma chemical attack:

Having now read a few dozen sources, I'm left with two questions:

Have chemical weapons been used in Syria in the recent past?
Base on the evidence presented in the body of available, reliable sources, is it more likely or less likely that chemical weapons were used in the Douma attack?

Regardless of whether some sources straddle the issue using words like "suspected", "alleged", or "reported", we have to use editorial discretion to come up with our own way of summarizing the subject in an objective, encyclopedic way. The arguments in favor of using weasel words are not compelling, and simply repeating the arguments over and over is not changing that.- Mr X 🖋 12:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This section header perfectly illustrates a logical fallacy on which the article is partially based. Saying 'chlorine is a chemical weapon' is like saying, 'wooden furniture is a rocking chair'.

Chlorine can be a chemical weapon but usually it is not, so its discovery does not imply its use as a chemical weapon. This is one very good reason why we need to qualify the phrase "chemical attack" with expressions of doubt like "alleged" or "suspected", as do most RS, until the OPCW has completed its investigation and made its decision. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you MrX for doing the work to come up with these sources. I also agree completely with your comment that "we have to use editorial discretion to come up with our own way of summarizing the subject in an objective, encyclopedic way." -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet:@MrX: We do have to use editorial discretion. In this case, the claim that the OPCW has found proof of chlorine being used as a chemical weapon is known to be false, so articles that make this claim are not reliable sources. "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." This exactly defines the misrepresentation of the OPCW report in some of the articles referenced by MrX . The OPCW interim report merely says that it found chlorinated compounds at the site, and given that these chemicals have a wide range of domestic uses, this cannot be taken as and was not offered by the OPCW as proof of their use in a military attack. Therefore, like the OPCW and all reliable reports of the OPCW's findings, we must use expressions of doubt such as "alleged" or "suspected". To do otherwise is to use weasel words. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your opening link (to a Wikipedia article, which is not a WP:RS) is a distortion; chlorine gas can be used as a chemical weapon is more accurate.

Despite their headlines, all of your news sources are actually saying that the substances found at the site were "chlorinated substances", not uncompounded elemental chlorine. Loads of everyday objects and materials (kitchen cleaning materials, refrigerators, various plastics, weedkillers, the list is endless) contain compounds of chlorine; that's not the same as chlorine gas. Note that chlorine gas will disperse in an hour or so; inspectors arriving months later will find no chlorine gas. Chlorine gas might react with materials it's exposed to to create chlorine compounds; after all it's a highly reactive substance. Chlorine gas will readily react with moisture in the air to form hydrochloric acid. But none of your sources suggest that these substances were 'chlorinated' because they were once exposed to chlorine gas.

Despite the fact that ignorant sub-editors have chosen to headline their articles so as to suggest that a chlorine gas attack occurred, the OPCW did not in fact say that; and nor do your sources, if you read on one or two sentences past the headline. If the headline misrepresents the substance of the article, you can't just ignore the substance, and rely solely on the headline as your source.

"Chlorinated substances" is not weasel-words, by the way; it's the words used in the OPCW report (the report that these so-called journalists are supposedly summarising). Saying that because chlorinated substances were found, therefore a chlorine gas attack must have occurred, is reckless, ill-informed synthesis by click-bait hacks.

BTW I have no idea why the OPCW reported on the presence of chlorinated substances at the site; they would have found chlorinated substances if they had looked in my bathroom (which, for the record, has never been the target of a chemical attack). It seems likely to me that politics may have played a part in their decision to use that term. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @MrDemeanour: We cannot regard articles that misrepresent the OPCW interim report as reliable sources.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of these sources say chlorine was used in the Douma attacks based on the OPCW report. That is in addition to the eye witness accounts. The fact that chlorine is not always used as a chemical weapon is an unhelpful distraction.- Mr X 🖋 15:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Independent, Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye make the demonstrably false claim that the OPCW said chlorine was used in the Douma attack. The eye-witnesses are not neutral and they say different things. Most eye witnesses remaining in Douma after it had been retaken by the Syrian government said there was no chemical attack, while most of those who left with the Jihadist rebels said otherwise. The fact that chlorine is only very rarely used as a chemical weapon, but commonly used for domestic purposes all over the world is not an unhelpful distraction.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Chlorine gas has been used not at all "very rarely", but indeed extensively as a chemical weapon in Syria. We list scores of examples here. Long lived reaction products of Cl2 such as TCA that were found at the impact locations (identified as chlorine barrel bombs by the commission) are by no means common outside of a laboratory (or perhaps industrial) setting. And no, asphyxiation doesn't cause chlorine smell or corneal burns. VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @VQuakr: thank you for your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood my point, which was that chlorine (including chlorinated organic compounds) is used for domestic or industrial purposes far more often than for chemical warfare. This means that the chlorinated organic compounds found are statistically more likely to have been used for domestic or industrial than military purposes, which is why I replied to MrX that referring to the domestic uses of chlorine "is not an unhelpful distraction".

I can't really comment about the likely domestic or industrial use of the specific chemicals, but it is certain that they do not exclusively indicate their use as a weapon and they are not scheduled substances. I'm not sure what you mean by the commission. I agree that asphyxiation doesn't cause chlorine smell or corneal burns, but the French government is not really a neutral or reliable source in the context of Syria.

As to your main point, it is obviously a matter of dispute as to how often chlorine has been used as a chemical weapon, but I notice that the most recent chlorine attack is described in your WP link Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War as a "SUSPECTED chlorine attack". Clearly if we use an expressions of doubt for an as yet unproven chemical attack in one Wikipedia article, we should do so in this one? We have to be consistent, so I hope, this time, you will agree with me that we must use expressions of doubt in this article. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that the claims of these sources that chlorine was used are "based on the OPCW report", because the OPCW report says no such thing. The reporters who wrote those articles have not visited the site, and have no evidence to evaluate, other than the OPCW report itself. The testimony of unnamed YouTube activists on the ground is not evidence, and certainly isn't a WP:RS. If that's what your headline-writers are relying on, then we cannot rely on them.

Your sources don't claim that chlorine was used either, for that matter, if you read past the clickbait headline. Hey, it's easy enough to check if I'm telling the truth. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comment leaves me wondering whether you even read any of the sources before you commented:

"A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine in its bombardment of Douma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent Sarin."
— BBC

"Chlorine was used in an attack on the Syrian city of Douma that killed dozens of civilians in April, the world’s chemical weapons watchdog has found."
— The Independent

The world's chemical weapons watchdog says it has found proof that chlorine was used in an attack in April on the Syrian town of Douma which killed dozens of people, according to medics and rescuers.
— Aljazeera

"The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has found chlorine in samples collected near the Syrian town of Douma, the FFM said in an interim report released on Friday."
— TASS

"Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites,” it said in Friday’s report, indicating that chlorine may have been used as a weapon."
— Japan Times

"Preliminary analysis by the world's chemical weapons watchdog found chlorine was used in an attack in Douma, Syria, in April that killed dozens of civilians and prompted air strikes by Britain, France and the United States, it said on Friday."
— Middle East Eye

"Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites," it said, indicating that chlorine may have been used as a weapon."
— U.S. News and World Report

- Mr X 🖋 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the first source — the BBC — is quoting US officials in the quote you provided above: it should be attributed to the US Defense Department as reported by the BBC, and not to the BBC itself. The BBC reports in an article a few days before [9], "A report by the chemical weapons watchdog suggests chlorine may have been used in April's suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma. The interim report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said "various chlorinated organic chemicals" had been found (in samples taken from two locations), but there was no evidence of nerve agents."

In the specific BBC article you quote, MrX, [10], the BBC writes: "The chlorinated compounds included those used to treat drinking water, as a disinfectant, a wood preservative, or a flame retardant. However, the same compounds were detected at other sites in Syria where the OPCW has concluded that chlorine was likely used as a weapon, including Saraqeb and Latamina."

The Independent positively declares that the OPCW has found that chlorine was used to attack Douma, as you quote, and the Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera write the same.

However, the other sources you cite, the Japan Times and U.S. News & World Report, use the BBC's language, stating that the finding indicates chlorine could have been used in the attack. -Darouet (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Douma was attacked with chlorine and possibly other chemical weapons. I don't see that there is any other reasonable interpretation of the sources. - Mr X 🖋 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the OPCW reports they found chlorinated substances, did not find nerve agent, and does not state that Douma was, or was not, attacked by chemical weapons. Reliable sources, to quote the BBC [11], state the OPCW's findings "suggests chlorine may have been used in April's suspected chemical attack." The BBC notes those compounds can be "used to treat drinking water, as a disinfectant," but has also been found at sites where the OPCW has "concluded that chlorine was likely used as a weapon." So both the OPCW and the BBC are unsure: they have evidence that the attack may have occurred, but the evidence available does not allow them to be certain.

Your statement "Douma was attacked with chlorine and possibly other chemical weapons" however conveys certainty. Are you asking Wikipedia to convey your certainty to readers? This would entail ignoring text from reliable sources (e.g. BBC) [12][13][14][15][16] stating that the evidence is suggestive but not clear, but accepting text from other sources (e.g. The Independent) [17][18][19] that declares a chemical attack occurred, period. You're doing real work, finding sources, which is a great help to all of us and to this discussion, and that needs to be recognized. But the analysis you're giving us requires reading only certain phrases implying certainty of culpability, and ignoring phrases expressing doubt and uncertainty. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Darouet. The case he has put is irrefutable. We must use expressions of doubt in the article as a matter of urgency.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Show me the specific phrases that say that the OPCW doubts that Douma was attacked by chemical weapons and we can have a discussion about that. My reading of the sources is that Douma was almost certainly attacked by chemical weapons, chlorine gas being at least one of them.- Mr X 🖋 22:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll show you some @MrX: The title of this BBC report referenced by Darouet, ^[1]provides this specific phrase expressing the OPCW's doubts. The title says. "A report by the chemical weapons watchdog SUGGESTS chlorine MAY HAVE BEEN used in April's SUSPECTED chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma." "May have been" and "suspected" are expressions of doubt, as to a lesser extent is 'suggests'.

Here are some specific phrases expressing doubt from the OPCW report itself. These are direct quotes.

"This document contains an update on the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria (FFM) regarding the ALLEGED use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018."

"On 10 April 2018, the Secretariat and the Permanent Representation of the Syrian Arab Republic to the OPCW exchanged notes verbales regarding the urgent dispatch of an FFM team to Damascus to gather facts regarding the incident of ALLEGED use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma on 7 April 2018".

"Security and access to the sites of the ALLEGED INCIDENTS"

"The aim of the FFM, as specified in mandate FFM/050/18, was to gather facts regarding the incident of ALLEGED" use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, eastern Ghouta, the Syrian Arab Republic, as reported in the media.

"On 7 April 2018, reports began to circulate on social media and in the press regarding an ALLEGED chemical attack."

The word "alleged" is an expression of doubt. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44746147

"Douma was attacked with chlorine and possibly other chemical weapons."

Well anyone can make bald POV assertions like that. Try this: "The only body in a position to have evidence about the use or otherwise of chemical weapons in Douma is the OPCW, which has clearly stated that no such evidence exists." Oh look - my utterance is not POV at all, because it cites the only half-way reliable source available.

TASS is not a RS. I don't think that either AlJaz or ME Eye are considered RS either. US News is not a journal I know much about, WP says they are nowadays best-known not for international reporting, but for ranking academic institutions.

And exactly none of these organs has had a reporter on the ground in Douma; they are all relying on either the OPCW, or on some other scruffy rag that is relying on the OPCW, or they have simply made it up. Only the OPCW has inspected the site.

When the Indy says that the OPCW found that chlorine was 'used', they are simply lying; that's the opposite of what the OPCW said unless they meant that chlorine was used to purify drinking water, in the form of hypochlorite (which I think is the 'chlorinated substance' usually used for that purpose). Yes, that's right - tap-water also contains chlorinated substances. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Just no.- Mr X 🖋 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: "No just no" is not an argument.

I agree with @MrDemeanour: and @Darouet:. They are plainly correct. The OPCW report absolutely does not claim that chlorine was used as a chemical weapon. It simply says that chlorinated compounds were found, and as MrDemeanour points out, Chlorinated compounds have a multitude of domestic uses. In respect of the collected samples the report mostly says "no CWC scheduled chemicals detected" or something similar. The Independent, Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye articles made undeniably false claims, so obviously those specific articles must not be used as sources.

The OPCW refers to "an alleged chemical attack" and "the alleged use of toxic chemicals"; it is self-evident that we should do likewise if Wikipedia is to be a trusted source of information.

There appears to be a developing consensus for using expressions of doubt in the article. I move we edit the article accordingly. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You agree with everyone who agrees with your opinion about this content. What a surprise. I will not respond to someone who dismisses reliable sources that we use in 1000s of cites throughout Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm done arguing about this. I presented actual sources that are crystal clear on the matter. I rest my case. Feel free to argue with the others on this page if you wish.- Mr X 🖋 00:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with people who agree with me! How can I not? You agree with BobFromBrockley, VQuakr and Volunteer Marek on a regular basis and, guess what? They agree with you.

I might disagree with reliable sources if they are wrong, (as were some of the sources referring to the OPCW report), but I will usually give my reasons. Please can you provide me with an example of a reliable source that I have dismissed?

I'm afraid you have presented actual sources that are either clearly factually incorrect or which, upon close scrutiny, do not support your case. Please look at the examples of expressions of doubt you asked for above.

Incidentally, do you understand yet that the quote you gave earlier, "A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine in its bombardment of Douma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent Sarin."|source=BBC}} is a direct quote from the US government report, not the view of the BBC? You can read the whole report here to confirm this. It was you, not MrDemeanour, that didn't read your own sources. You owe him an apology.^[1]

Actually it is true that I didn't read the sources cited by MrX sufficiently closely; in particular, I missed the sense of the opening sentence of the Independent article, possibly because deep in my soul I couldn't believe that organ would perpetrate such a bare-faced piece of propaganda and mendacity. And I certainly didn't read closely those organs I've never heard of, like that Japanese paper. So my claim that none of them said that a chlorine gas attack had occurred was false, and I withdraw it. Some of them clearly did say that. They were just wrong or lying, based on the one source that they were all relying on. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

^ www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/read-white-house-assessment-of-suspected-chemical-attack-in-syria.html

Fair enough @MrDemeanour:. Very honest of you. Mr X had clearly misunderstood the BBC source, but, I guess he doesn’t owe you an apology! Yes, it is barely believable that the Independent would lie so egregiously, but they appear to have done so, unless the journalist responsible hadn’t bothered to read the OPCW report. Nevertheless, the media usually use expressions of doubt about Douma, especially after the OPCW report.

VQuakr linked to the WP article Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. It’s a list of ‘chemical attacks’, and the most recent incident is correctly described as a "suspected chlorine attack". It makes the resistance to describing the Douma attack as ‘suspected’ or ‘alleged’ even more difficult to justify. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Kiwi, you are transparently ignoring editors and sources that do not agree with you. You clearly do not have consensus for your proposed change. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr Quakr, you are projecting. I do not ignore editors or sources. Quite the opposite. I always try to examine sources and discuss matters with editors, although I don't always get a constructive response. In an earlier discussion you even criticised me for being "editor-focussed". You can't have it both ways. Perhaps you could give me an example of a source or an editor you think I have ignored?

I said there appears to be a developing consensus, I did not claim to have consensus.

Again, I note that in your comment above, VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC), you link to another WP article,here in which the latest alleged chemical attack, in Aleppo, is described as "suspected" and the chemical attack allegedly carried out by Turkey on the Syrian Democratic Forces in February uses the term "SOHR suspects". It is difficult to see why we should use "suspected" or other expressions of doubt with some unproven (by the OPCW) chemical attacks and not others. Please can you explain this inconsistency? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

[20]. Avoid repetition. Avoid repetition. VQuakr (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Very droll, VQ, but misplaced. This was the original comment on your linked article. I repeated it in a shortened form under the "suspected" sub-heading because I thought you might prefer that location. I was only thinking of you. See reply above. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It applies either way, and to a great many of your posts (not just two). VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I usually have to repeat things for you VQ. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)::A couple of comments. The editors arguing for expression of doubt frequently base their arguments on the inaccuracy of the mainstream media or the bias of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry. For example, "When the Indy says that the OPCW found that chlorine was 'used', they are simply lying" or "The Independent, Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye make the demonstrably false claim", or the HRC is a "cesspool of political bias". However, this implies we know better than the journalists, editors or war crimes investigators. If Wikipedia considers a source reliable, we have to consider that source reliable, unless the weight of reliable sources show it to be wrong in a specific instance. Similarly, it is not our job to speculate on other uses of chlorine, which would constitute synthesis, but to simply say what the sources say. Second, using the caution of the OPCW to justify weasel words is completely wrong. The CoI report is very clear: “A vast body of evidence collected by the Commission suggests that, at approximately 7.30 p.m., a gas cylinder containing a chlorine payload delivered by helicopter struck a multi-story residential apartment building." I don't have time to look at the coverage of the CoI report, which is more recent than the latest OPCW one, but here's a Fox report based on AP reporting. I recommend this piece by the Guardian's former Middle East editor on how to understand the CoI report: https://al-bab.com/blog/2018/09/syria-conflict-unanswered-questions-about-douma-chemical-attack Finally, Kiwicherryblossom can you please use Wikipedia conventions and indent your comments appropiately - see WP:THREAD for guidance. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Bob, you need to distinguish the general from the particular. In the particular cases you refer to, the articles sourced from what you like to call "the mainstream media" happen to be inaccurate. I do not habitually criticise the Indy; it published an excellent article on Douma by Robert Fisk which no one in their right mind could possibly regard as inaccurate, but the claim made in the article Syrian conflict: Chlorine used in Douma attack that left dozens of civilians dead, chemical weapons watchdog finds is simply untrue, as is Al Jazeera's report Interim OPCW report finds proof of chlorine used in Syria's Douma The OPCW report makes no such claim. Sources that may usually be relied upon are not infallible and when we know they have made mistakes, we have to point them out. This was a matter of fact. Their claims about what the report had said were "demonstrably false" and I did know better, because I had read the report.

I have referred to reliable sources with approval for their widespread use of expressions of doubt. It is VQuakr who disregards the media by saying, "... even if we found 51% of news articles contained "alleged", so what?" As for describing the HRC as a "cesspool of political bias," that was Nikki Haley, voicing a criticism that has been widely made for well over a decade. Don't blame the messenger. I was not aware that Wikipedia regards the UNHRC or its commission as an infallibly reliable source. You do, I don't. Can we really ignore the criticisms of bias that have been consistently levelled at it or the fact that in this case it has pre-empted the final OPCW report in contravention of basic legal norms? I was making a case for its rejection as a reliable source, both on specific and general grounds.

The principle source here is the OPCW report and it did not say what that small unrepresentative group of inaccurate articles said or what the commission claimed without evidence, which is why it repeatedly used the word "alleged". To suggest otherwise is pure sophistry. These are not weasel words because you say so. They have a serious purpose. It is crass to accuse the OPCW of using weasel words, unless you have direct knowledge that it is withholding information.

And thank you for Brian Whitaker's report, it backs up what I have been saying. "Unlike nerve agents, use of chlorine in an attack is difficult to detect after the event. It's a very common element found naturally in many different compounds, so the question is how to distinguish chlorine released by a chemical attack from chlorine that already exists in the environment". I have one or two quibbles (for example, the rebels do - or did - have helicopters they captured from government forces and a couple of trainer jets) but on the whole his article is solid, not least because it mostly refers to the OPCW report, which is obviously much more detailed and reliable than the commission's recent offering. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Be careful with the Fisk report. It is published in the Indy's "Voices" opinion section, as all his writings are, indicating that he is not part of their World News reporting team and his articles do not go through the same fact-checking as their own Syria reportage. It should be treated the same as an op ed. I don't think there is any reliable sourcing saying any rebels near Douma in Spring 2018 had helicopters; us speculating on this this is original research and synthesis and we should simply report what reliable sources and, with attribution, noteworthy analysts say so that question isn't relevant. I am not accusing the OPCW of weasel words. It has a particular legal remit and is thus very constrained over what it can say. We are an encyclopedia and thus not constrained in the same way and need to go with weight of the reliable sources which, along with the CoI, are clear that a chemical attack happened, just not which chemicals were used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I was using the Fisk report to highlight your inconsistency in insisting we accept one Independent report, without question, as a reliable source, while not accepting another. You reject the Fisk article, a first hand report from Douma by one of the world's most respected middle east correspondents, but accept Harriet Agerholm’s, even though her report of the OPCW report is factually incorrect. Whoever did the fact-checking on her second-hand reporting did a poor job.

According to The Independent, Harriet Agerholm is a “news reporter and also The Independent's Grenfell correspondent”, while “Robert Fisk is The Independent’s multi-award-winning Middle East correspondent, based in Beirut. He has lived in the Arab world for more than 40 years, covering the war in Syria and Lebanon, five Israeli invasions, the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Algerian civil war, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq and the 2011 Arab revolutions,” yet you think Agerholm is WP:RS on Douma, while Fisk is not? That is not a reasonable POV.

My comment on helicopters was an aside, not intended for inclusion in the article. The information is tucked away in the 3rd and 4th JIMs and elsewhere, but not in any report on Douma, so I assumed it would be OR. I only mentioned it in passing because you linked me to a (mostly accurate) article that inter alia claimed that the rebels don’t/didn’t have aircraft, something that is widely believed but not strictly true. It’s a shame we can’t mention it, but I accept the rules. I thought you might like to know though.

Yes, the OPCW is very constrained over what it can say and rightly so. It cannot say a chemical attack has taken place until it has enough evidence to conclude on balance that it has and nor should we. Of course you are accusing the OPCW of weasel words, but they are anything but weasel words. They go to the heart of truth and justice and, in our case, impartiality and due weight.

What makes you think that the “weight of the reliable sources” which, along with the CoI, are clear that a chemical attack happened”? Unless we carefully read every single reliable source (assuming we can agree on which are and are not RS) we cannot really know where the weight lies. As I have said before, most WP:RS (certainly the BBC) I have read generally use expressions of doubt, especially since the OPCW failed to find sarin.

Bellingcat told us to look out for the indicators of sarin in the upcoming OPCW report, but there were none. This is the first time the OPCW has been able to visit the scene of an alleged chemical attack and they found no sarin. The discovery of commonplace chlorinated substances do not imply their use as a chemical weapon, only the possibility of their use and even the questionable CoI admits that it “cannot make yet any conclusions concerning the exact causes of death, in particular on whether another agent was used in addition to chlorine that may have caused or contributed to deaths and injuries.” Sarin has effectively been ruled out by the OPCW report (which is not mentioned), so it seems likely the brief comments on Douma were written before the interim report was published and are now out of date, despite the late publication date of the commission's report.

Can you explain why we should use “suspected chemical attack” in the WP article on Douma, Syria but not in this article? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Fisk: I'm not saying Fisk is a worse reporter than Agerholm; I am just saying we should use his piece with caution as we would any opinion piece, given that it is not considered news reporting by the Independent - that's not being inconsistent; it's saying opinion pieces are different from news articles. If we were to report his fringe views here we would need to balance it by showing it is contradicted by the CBS, AP and Swedish news crews who were there at the same time as him.

Helicopters: This is a red herring. It may be the case that some rebels at some point in the war have had helicopters, but absolutely nobody has seriously claimed any rebels near Douma in April 2018 did, so Whitaker's point seems pretty solid to me.

OPCW caution: We are not the OPCW; we are an encylopedia, so we don't need to use the same language as them.

Bellingcat and sarin: This is besides the point. Nobody has said it is a fact that sarin was used. What our article says (and should say) is simply that chemicals were used. The absence of sarin does not mean it was not a chemical attack. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Fisk: Fisk's report was not an opinion piece. Unlike Agerholm’s, his article was unambiguously a report from the scene by an experienced Middle East correspondent. Ageholm’s was a desk job, probably derived from other non-primary sources. It was sloppy and inaccurate work from someone who is not a specialist. She cannot have read the report. It is entirely possible she got her misinformation from al Jazeera or ME Eye. Clearly Fisk’s report is more RS than Agerholm’s. He just reported what he saw and heard. Of course, if others found conflicting evidence, we should include that. CBS’s Seth Doane’s reporting on what he called “that suspected chemical attack” and “eye witness accounts that can be confusing and contradictory” for example.^[1] Oh hang on, Seth Doane's CBS report is mentioned, albeit minus the caveats.

Helicopters: Red herring or not it would be original research, and as you say nobodyhas claimed that the rebels flew helicopters over Douma so I don’t propose including it in the article. I had no problems with Whitaker’s piece apart from that. It’s interesting you concede the possibility that it “may be the case that some rebels at some point in the war have had helicopters”. It’s a very open-minded view. Dan Kaszeta discounts the possibility as did the French government in its account of an alleged chemical attack on Saraqueb in 2013, but the rebels (al Nusra) certainly had them - or had captured government helicopters at least. Whether they could reach Douma or not is moot.

OPCW caution: The OPCW FFM is certainly a special case in that it is a primary, secondary and perhaps even tertiary (it analyses news reports) source rolled into one. Maybe we don’t need to use the same language as the OPCW, although the OPCW is RS and most RS also use the same language. I don’t understand why we are taking such an eccentric and committed stand. I suppose encyclopaedias reflect the prejudices of their time, but surely it would be better not to?

Bellingcat and sarin: Bellingcat emphasised the importance of finding sarin traces, mostly because they remove ambiguity. Sarin does not have peaceful uses, chlorine does. Also sarin is extremely difficult to remove all traces of. However, the USA produced evidence to claim that sarin had been used and used it to justify their attack on Syria. "Some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent sarin ... doctors and aid organizations on the ground in Duma reported the strong smell of chlorine and described symptoms consistent with exposure to sarin ... The symptoms described in reporting from media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other open sources—such as the WHO—include miosis (constricted pupils), convulsions, and disruption to central nervous systems. These symptoms, in addition to the dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries reported, suggest that the regime also used sarin ...It is the only actor in Syria with both the motive and the means to deploy nerve agents". ^[2] It is therefore highly significant that sarin was not found by the OPCW. This significance needs to be reflected in our article. It doesn’t mean no chemical attack occurred, but it does mean that a significant part of the US narrative was false and, of course, that falsehood helped take us to the brink of war with Russia. We cannot ignore that and it is not an original analysis. It is clear from a faithful sourcing of RS.

Our article currently hints to anyone that might not get past the first paragraph that sarin might have been used and then fails to mention sarin by name in the reference to the OPCW. In any case we don't know whether or not chemical weapons were used, otherwise what is the point of the OPCW? We should not say "simply that chemicals were used" until the final OPCW report is released, and says so. We might not personally agree with the OPCW's assessment, but WP should accept its authority.

Again, Bob, how come the WP Douma, Syria article (the one about the town) refers to a "suspected chemical attack", but this article doesn't? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: it is trivial for anyone to confirm that the Fisk piece was published in the Independent's opinion section, "Voices". VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

So why mention it? I put quite a bit of thought into responding to Bob's comments and that's all you can say. What is your point? It was Bob that made that confirmation. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd use of language, but I think I see what you mean now. I concede "Voices" is an opinion section, but it was a factual report by a supremely experienced and hugely respected Middle East correspondent, so I don't think it is fair to dismiss it as a mere "opinion piece". Even if it is so regarded, WP:IRS says "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint" and Fisk certainly qualifies as WP:RS on that count, especially as "sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". It is certainly impossible to justify his exclusion from the article. What did you think of my other points? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We already had an RFC about Fisk; it is in archive 4. No need to WP:REHASH the rest of your wall o' text. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I know, I mentioned Fisk in passing in a response to what I thought was an unfair generalisation by Bob, who then made a thing of it, which you made an issue of. His report should be included in our article, but I have no intention of pursuing the matter here, which is precisely why I asked, 'what did you think of my other points?' Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley All of the mainstream reports claiming that chlorine gas was used were based on the findings of the OPCW; none of them have any other sources of information, other than anonymous YouTube videos. No mainstream reporters visited the site. And the OPCW did not say that chlorine gas was used. Are you saying that these mainstream sources are reliable, despite the fact that they have no evidence, and that their reports contradict the source on which they are relying?

We have to use common sense when we rely on so-called 'reliable sources'. Sometimes it's obvious to a blind man that they've just made stuff up. The opening sentence of the Indy's report is a case in point.

I do not want Wikipedia to become full of made-up stuff. Lots of editors spend a lot of their effort on trying to stop that happening. It's a minority (I think) that insist that nonsense propagated by mainstream media is not nonsense, because they are 'reliable'. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream media is generally regarded as a WP:RS for current affairs - and definitely trump WP:TLDR WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think mainstream media trumps the very source it is relying on, as a WP:RS. As I said, we have to use our common sense. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR. In a subject rife with conspiracy theories by various "far out" nut jobs (as well as a dose of totalitarian state propaganda) - we stick to mainstream sources. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and Bobfrombrockley: It's important to note that many mainstream outlets are not stating that the OPCW report demonstrates that chlorine gas was used at Douma. Instead, they are writing that the presence of chlorinated compounds suggests that that might be true. It would be a major editorial failure to convert their tentative language into encyclopedic certainty. I have reviewed this issue in these comments: [21], [22]. -Darouet (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If we need to choose between the BBC and Independent's reporting - that's a way forward. WP:OR is not. I will note that OPCW does not seem to be the sole source for much of the reporting - RSes also seem to be relying on various intel reports and witness stmts - so being cagey in relation to OPCW (in regards to chlorine vs. other substances) does not mean they are cagey regards a chemical attack. Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not OR to call out mendacity and made-up nonsense. I am aware of claims by Western government stooges; they are not WP:RS. Nor are claims made by anonymous YouTube posters.

The OPCW (let's be clear: this is the only body that has attempted a scientific examination of the site) was quite clear that there was no evidence of nerve agents. What 'other substances' are you referring to?

Please stop trying to muddy the waters. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We do need to use our discretion. Where we know information from a usually reliable source is out of date or factually incorrect, we do not use it. I would argue that the BBC trumps the Independent which has failed to correct an article that misrepresents the OPCW report. Also the evidence in Robert Fisk’s article suggests that the chemical attack was staged. So which one is RS? The BBC has never suggested the attack was staged, but has fairly consistently used expressions of doubt, which seems like a sensible middle ground until the facts are better known. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody here is saying our article should definitively say chlorine was used, just that there was a chemical attack. Note the opening of the consensus-based existing lede: "On 7 April 2018, a chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma reportedly killed at least 70 people. It was unclear what chemical had been used." First, re "All of the mainstream reports claiming that chlorine gas was used were based on the findings of the OPCW; none of them have any other sources of information, other than anonymous YouTube videos." All mainstream sources report that there was a chemical attack; they speculate that the chemical might have been chlorine, and note that the OPCW findings might support this. They have multiple other sources, such as video and other open source material, as well as witnesses they spoke to, as in the NYT report. They also have the CoI report, which draws on the OPCW as well as other sources ("a vast body of evidence" as the CoI put it). Re "No mainstream reporters visited the site." Nonetheless, NYT interviewed witnesses by phone and within days AP[23], CBS[24], and Swedish TV[25] visited the site. I'm afraid if you think mainstream media is nonsense and not reliable, maybe Wikipedia, which has a view on reliable sources, is not for you? Does mainstream media "trump the source it is relying on"? Well, using the primary source counts as original research, so we generally use secondary summaries of primary sources rather than primary sources, so in one sense yes the reportage trumps the primary source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the lede. It is just that we cannot get a consensus to change it. “Reportedly” refers to the number of deaths rather than the attack, but the OPCW has not confirmed that a chemical attack took place at all, which is why the report refers to the “alleged use of chemical weapons”. It has found no sarin, but has found chlorinated organic substances, that do not exclude the possibility of CW use, so if there was a chemical attack it would have been a chorine attack. At the moment we do not know if there was a chemical attack let alone who was responsible. However, if you are suggesting using quotation marks around the word “chemical”, that might be a way forward.

It is not remotely true that all mainstream sources report that there was a chemical attack as has been shown repeatedly. Many, including the BBC use expressions of doubt about the chemical attack itself. The Daily Mail refers to “the suspected April 7 chemical attack on Douma” ^[3]

The BBC refers to "April's suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma"^[4]

The Guardian says "In Douma, the largest town near Damascus and the site of an alleged chemical attack in April"^[5]

The NYT phoned anti-government activists, who said there was a sarin/chlorine attack, while The Independent (Robert Fisk) visited Douma and interviewed residents face to face who said no chemical attack took place. Both the Independent and the NYT are considered RS, so who is right? We don't know yet, so we should exercise the same caution as the OPCW. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

References

It is not correct that using primary sources is equivalent to original research. You made that up, and you know it. Primary sources need to be handled carefully, to be sure, but they can be reliable sources.

In this case we have secondary sources - supposedly reliable ones - directly contradicting their only plausible primary source. How can we take the secondary source as correct, while rejecting the information they are supposedly summarising? That flies in the face of common sense. Are we a bunch of robots, parroting a line propagated by a handful of news corporations? Are we forbidden to exercise judgement, even when it's obvious that the news corporations got it wrong?

FWIW It is not my opinion that mainstream media is all nonsense and unreliable. However when war-drums start banging, it is my experience that the mainstream media line-up with 'intel sources', and push a line that the public enemy of the day has done wicked things, and has to be punished for it. I have seen this happen time after time - I first noticed it at the time of the Kosovo conflict, but I'm sure that's just when I started noticing. Newspapers and TV news are not reliable on matters of international conflict. I am familiar with Media Lens, and with Hermann and Chomsky; but the experience I am referring to long predates my exposure to those media critics. So does the term 'The Street of Shame' (it refers to Fleet Street, where most UK newspapers once had their offices). Mainstream media is not an honourable profession. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that the secondary sources we are discussing "directly contradicting" with the OPCW interim report is false. If a secondary source analyzes the OPCW report and other evidence (despite your bizarre claim to the contrary, there is a great deal of primary sourcing available beyond the OPCW report) and concludes it was a chlorine gas attack, we should report that - not disregard the source because you disagree with the result. And yes, we correctly disregard your personal synthesis that leads you to this false claim. You are completely off the conspiracy theory deep end at this point (further exemplified by your talk of "government stooges" and your eagerness to disregard their findings as unreliable), which is not an appropriate use of this talk page or WP in general. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

In the examples referred to, the articles (by the Independent etc) misreported the OPCW report. They claimed the report had said chlorine was used in a chemical attack when it said no such thing. It was an error on the part of the reporter and sub-editor, not an analysis. There is a big difference. The vast majority of news outlets did not make that mistake. We should not use sources that we know have misreported. Even the most reliable news outlets sometimes make mistakes, so prematurely relying on usually reliable sources carries risks, which is why, we should use expressions of doubt until the OPCW has completed its far more detailed analysis.

The BBC once mistakenly reported that English comedian Bill Bailey had died. If he was standing next to you, chatting away, would you edit his WP page to say he has died, because a WP:RS had reported his death? No, in that case you would use the primary source to correct the secondary source, I hope.

Yes, there are other sources besides the OPCW; open source videos, interviews with witnesses both known and alleged, and so on, but these are also being examined by the OPCW, so we should wait for its assessment, not present premature, often opinionated and occasionally mistaken analysis by deadline-driven media outlets, reliable or otherwise, as if they were fact, especially when so many reliable sources (the vast majority that I have read) actually do exercise the appropriate caution by using expressions of doubt. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

MrDemeanour - you have twice now accused other editors of making things up, which is a very personalised way to have these discussions. Please read WP:PRIMARY and think about how it applies to the OPCW report and why we should use secondary sources to interpret the OPCW report rather than interpret it ourselves. Kiwi- In the Bill Bailey case, I'm afraid actually it would be against WP practice to refute the secondary sources based on our own experience. That's the very definition of original research. The research that you or I do may be better than that in the mainstream media, but this is not the place to publish it. There is no reason for us to wait for the OPCW before we report what the CoI and other reliable sources say; there is no reason that the OPCW should have some sacred status here, and it moves very slowly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand all that Bob, but, in the case of Bill Bailey, you would not , I hope, edit his WP entry to say he was dead in the full knowledge that he was alive, on the authority of an RS that had made an obvious mistake. If you had merely discovered that WP had repeated the BBC's mistake you might get Bill to give the BBC a call or suggest he reassures the world he is alive on his twitter account, so that RS will provide WP with a better-informed update. Then you would expect WP to react accordingly You wouldn't spend months insisting he was dead because one WP:RS had said so, would you? I am not saying that we don't report what has been written in reliable sources, but that, like most reliable sources, we qualify the as yet unconfirmed information with expressions of doubt. The OPCW has already published an interim report which contradicts the US, UK, activist and SAMS narrative (no sarin) and which does not confirm that chlorine was used, just that chlorine has been found, as it would be anywhere. We should not therefore treat articles that misrepresent the report as credible sources, even though they are from normally RS outlets. The Independent, Middle East Eye etc do exactly that. We know they got it wrong because we have read the OPCW report and it definitely does not say what they say it says. They are wrong, we know they are wrong from the most reliable source, and to repeat information we know is wrong from more reliable sources is not what we should be doing. We must not blindly repeat false information from a few atypical sources because it fits a POV, especially when most RS are not doing so.

Also, it is at best misleading to regard a brief and probably outdated entry in a HRC commission report on the human rights aspect of the war as a whole as more authoritative than the (interim) detailed forensic examination of the Douma evidence by the body set up for that particular purpose. All I am asking for is the use of qualifiers to make it clear that we do not yet know whether or not there was a chemical attack or if there was, who was responsible, but we should report the allegations and the evidence for those allegations as clearly and as honestly as we can. It is essential that we use expressions of doubt. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian report you're linking to saying 'even the Guardian uses 'alleged', ' is from July , and since then there has been the Commission of Enquiry Interim Report. Have you got the Guardian saying 'alleged' in a more recent report? Your insistence that the text say something like 'according to RS we know nothing' and 'that, according to RS, if we know something, we know nothing about how the something happened' is too crap to bother with, its not true. Read the RS. Read the interim report from the Commission of Enquiry.Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you blathering on about? I do read RS and I have read the two relevant, if evidence-free, paragraphs from the CoI, but you appear not to have read what I have written. My point is that we should use words like "alleged" and "suspected" when dealing with allegations and suspicions, just as the RS usually do and as the OPCW always does. Now get back under that sink before you cause a flood. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact you call the report 'evidence free' says it all really. The CoEnquiry :'A Vast body of evidence suggests ..a gas cylinder containing a chlorine payload. You are saying they'd write that without any evidence? the report is 'evidence free' you say, means that you think it is all invented out of thin air, this statement? This is the mindset of the conspiracy theorist, or a committed partisan for one side who will not admit any evidence that implicates his side. That statement from the Commission of Enquiry derives from a mass of evidence. Thats what the RS collectively say. You keep prioritising your pov over RS (and political sanity.) And I guess you haven't got a Guardian source, since the September C of Enquiry statement, using the language you demand? Enough. Dan the Plumber (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the word 'evidence' does not constitute actual evidence, so perhaps you can tell me just exactly how much of the 'vast body of evidence' is in the report? I'll save you the bother. The answer is none. I said the paragraphs (re Douma) were 'evidence-free' and they were, apart from the word itself. Of course the panel has seen evidence and obviously I don't think the statement was invented out of thin air, but no evidence has been presented, because it is a very generalised report by a panel whose main focus is not the Douma attack. The body whose main focus is the Douma attack is the OPCW FFM, and WP:COMMON suggests we should give it a much higher priority than the CoI which also says it "cannot make yet any conclusions concerning the exact causes of death." Even the CoI has its doubts.

You have the mindset of a partizan and conspiracy theorist I'm afraid, because you will only tolerate your own POV and you appear to exhibit delusions about anyone who doesn't automatically share it. In the real world, some of us have the POV that it was a chemical attack, others have the POV that it was not. If we describe the incident as "an alleged chemical attack", we allow for both POVs. If we describe it as "a chemical attack", we allow for one, which I suspect is your POV. The OPCW and most RS refer to an "alleged" or "suspected" chemical attack or something similar for that very reason. I think we should do the same. That is all. You may think we should ignore the great weight of RS in order to push your own POV, but I don't.

The point is that even the Guardian eventually had to recognise the serious doubts that remain about the outcome of what is essentially a criminal investigation. Naturally most media articles about the Douma attack were written in its immediate aftermath and you will have to look for yourself to see if you can find a more recent article, but it is largely irrelevant because from the very start this article has maintained its refusal to adhere to the WP:WORDS principle that “alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined”. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to a UPI report about an 'alleged' chemical attack from November this year. You'll notice whilst 'alleged' is used for the Aleppo 'incident', there is no such language used about Douma.[26]. You obviously got a thing about how your preferred regimes have nothing to do with sarin or chemical attacks, but RS seem to be fairly consistent in their reportage on Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun, Douma. The regime denied sarin and barrel bombs, like the Russians denied the invasion of Crimea, and they denied the Salisbury tourists. Until they didn't deny Crimea and the little green men , and then made a joke of it. Wikipedia articles do well to resist as far as they can being made jokes of by the propagandists imho. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I’m not sure if an organisation run by the Moonies is RS, but it took you a while to find it so I guess it’s the best you can do. The RS fairly consistently use expressions of doubt in respect of Douma and other alleged attacks not yet determined by the OPCW as chemical attacks, but if you think Wikipedia should join the Moonies there's not much I can do about it. We've discussed the Aleppo chemical attack on this talk page. I brought it up because WP also, rightly, calls it 'alleged'. I suggested it was an inconsistency, which it is. I also pointed out that WP:Douma, Syria called the Douma attack 'suspected', as you well know because you changed it today. I wondered how long it would take. The reason why you think 'suspected' applies to Aleppo but not to Douma is painfully obvious, so I won't go into it. You have your opinions to which you are entitled; I just don't think they should be imposed on Wikipedia. Sadly they are and Wikipedia loses credibility as a result, in my opinion.

Khan Shaykhun is different. It is rightly described as a chemical attack, without expressions of doubt because the OPCW designated it a chemical attack and the JIM allocated responsibility to the Syrian government. The relevant bodies have decided. Having read their report, I happen to disagree with the JIM's assessment, but I accept it was the official body whose job it was to make the decision and that therefore Wikipedia should respect it. My opinion or original research is irrelevant. The KS article should, however, have used expressions of doubt until the OPCW and the JIM reached their respective decisions. My view about this article is that not using expressions of doubt while the investigation is taking place is in breach of WP rules and of the basic standards expected of the media in a free society, where the rule of law applies. It is disappointing to see these basic principles being discarded but there it is. No need to thank me for helping you to find the leak. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Moonies ownership. Theres this from Reuters and The Independent ( owned by a bloody Russian oligarch, but what can you do), [27]. This is all superseded anyhow by the September Commission of Enquiry. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't know, but you should always check the provenance and reliability of sources. We've discussed Reuters and The Independent above and I've already explained why the 26 page OPCW interim report that provides significant evidence carries more weight as an RS than a couple of evidence-free paragraphs in a more general report about Syria from the CoI, which operates under the auspices of the UNHRC, a widely distrusted organisation recently described by Nikki Haley as a "cesspool of political bias". The OPCW and most RS use expressions of doubt and so should we, until the OPCW gives its final verdict. That's what is expected in a free society where the rule of law prevails. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

a free society where the rule of law prevails. Sounds great. bbc how chemical attacks helped assad. Nikki Haley apparently didn't like Israel being criticised. That has no relevance to this article. Dan the Plumber (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've read the BBC's article and it's not terribly convincing or balanced, (to be fair, the Syrian government refused to talk to them), but crucially they are careful to use the kind of expressions of doubt we should use here. Like WP, they weight the balance in favour of the generally accepted POV rather than sticking to strict neutrality, but they refer to "the alleged attack," "reported attacks", "chemical attacks alleged to have happened" and admit they "were not able to categorically verify the evidence". This is why I have used the BBC as an example to follow. The BBC maintains the standards that are essential in a free society. I hope they have changed your mind.

Yes, Israel was the specific reason for Haley's remark, but it has been a recurring view of many people over the years in different contexts (as discussed above). The criticisms are about the HRC as an institution rather than any particular issue. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/read-white-house-assessment-of-suspected-chemical-attack-in-syria.html

[2] ttps://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1645-2018_e_.pdf

[3] ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/price-of-peace-calm-returns-to-damascus-as-assad-eyes-victory

[4] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44746147

[5] www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/read-white-house-assessment-of-suspected-chemical-attack-in-syria.html

[6] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_gpBch0Fs

[7] ttps://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/united-states-government-assessment-assad-regimes-chemical-weapons-use/

[8] ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5927001/Watchdog-finds-evidence-chemicals-Syria-gas-attack.html

[9] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44746147

[10] ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/price-of-peace-calm-returns-to-damascus-as-assad-eyes-victory

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]