Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Background

There have been several reversions by the same IP user. There are a huge number of adequate citations on this section, but the prose does not always reflect the content of the citations. For example, in background, after Human Rights Watch documented 85 instances, there was previously no mention that HRW says majority CW attacks were by the government (which seems a vital fact). Similarly as background that UN NGO has reported CW attacks from both sides. Instead of reverting and removing perfectly good citations (and inserting information which belongs in the OPCW investigation section) please comment below if you wish to discuss how this section should be worded. Please refrain from personal attacks on me or any other editor. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 18:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let the section follow the Reuters source which is the most pertinent to the article subject. Perhaps you can set out which part of the sources you are using for your 'background' edit about how rebels and regime alike use cw. It seems you want to make a point about a kind of equivalence of cw use, or something , but that is a tendentious pov , and not supported by RS. your 'background' edit is just an obvious ploy. By following the Reuters source, which perpends exactly on OPCW concern about cw attacks , and chlorine , it better suits the article imo. You obviously got some kind of weird animus against Bellingcat also, but wp is not Sputnik, Bellingcat is not regarded like Sputnik. 78.144.95.235 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing two citations. Whatever your reasons for doing so, they have been in the article for some time, are from mainstream reliable news sources, and are available via the archive link. Citations from more than one news agency are preferable.

To answer your question which you have now deleted "U.N.-OPCW...concludes that Syrian government forces used chlorine...militants used sulphur mustard." (Reuters, your preferred source). There is also ample documentation in the main CW in Syria article.

Kindly refrain from positing your imagined motives to my editing. If I were seeking to make a point about equivalence I would not have inserted a sentence about HRW's sources saying majority of CW attacks are by government. I am editing to restore the prose to be faithful to the citations given; it is currently missing context and obviously biased in several vital areas.

As an introductory sentence the fact that both sides are alleged to have used chemical weapons is important background to the subsequent sections on OPCW investigations etc. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I have no "weird animus" — whatever that means — regarding Bellingcat. In fact I know very little about it other than that it is not a mainstream organisation. Impetus for removal is the previous discussion — to which I was not a party — in RS, where there was a very clear majority indicating it was not regarded as a reliable source. If you read WP:BURDEN you will note that if someone wishes to include a source previously disregarded it is their responsibility to raise a request thereto. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

How is sulphur mustard relevant to the background to this attack? You know Bellingcat is not 'mainstream organisation'? Wtf are you on about. Ive just added sentence or two to the Skripal poisoning page about a joint BBC/Bellingcat investigation into a GRU agent involved in that attack. It is 'mainstream' enough I think. You just keep revealing how far off in your biases you are. Go edit articles about sulphur mustard attacks, stop making dumb edits here that are meant to deflect. You don't know what an 'animus' means? Fucking hell. 78.144.95.235 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: can you link that discussion? I don't see it. Remember that a source isn't generally "unreliable"; context matters. VQuakr (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Sure, I linked one (of several) RS discussions when removing the link initially here. While context certainly matters, self-published sources are not considered reliable, and per WP:BURDEN, the use of a source with a previous understanding as not reliable requires those advocating its use to establish it as RS. It also fails several of the tests of WP:ELNO. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 16:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see that RSN discussion is from 2015, so it is pretty dated since IIRC Bellingcat was basically just Higgins's blog at that point. It also doesn't show any consensus, so please ease up on the attempts at burden-shifting. This isn't a SPS. Which specific points of WP:ELNO do you think it fails? VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The burden is not being shifted; it lies on the editor advocating the source's inclusion by default, because of the previous 14-5 RfC discussion toward it not being a reliable source — this is unrelated to its status as an SPS. "use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." While no doubt a highly interested party, the individual operating the site has no special scholarly qualification or recognition in the field. If you are keen to include the link by all means have the discussion, but it is not a foregone conclusion when the source has already had a strong consensus against, your denial notwithstanding. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you're trying to say. Are you claiming that Bellingcat is a SPS? VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat just won a Peabody Award. how open source reinvented investigative journalism. The idea that this is some kind or 'fanzine' or some such , if that is CambialYellowings delusion, is beyond ridiculous. 78.144.83.73 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And a European Press Prize. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL IP, but yes citing an old RSN discussion (that even then contained mixed results) that this source can never be used in any context seems a bit of a stretch to say the least. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has won Newspaper of the Year seven times. Its journalists have won numerous awards. Winning an award is not the test for assessment as a reliable source.

As to whether it remains a SPS - clearly, the division between SPS and professional publishing is one which involves shades of grey. Bellingcat has a similar model to sites like Global Voices (in fact they're even funded by some of the same foundations). Its reliance on "citizen journalism" rather than professional journalists (or, more relevant to this case, IS scholars and CW technical & proliferation experts) means they and their methods lack scholarly credibility.

On a more technical point - the specific link used is a tag result, i.e. a search page within the site, which is specifically prohibited by WP:ELNO. The link can go to anything and everything published - old and new - on the site, with no assessment of the accuracy of the specific articles located. We might just as well link to a list of CNN search results for Douma. Links to all results are prohibited for good reason - the relevance and accuracy of published information and links are to be assessed on a case by case basis, with RSN as a starting point. While you may have blind faith in everything bellingcat publishes, that is not how wikipedia operates.

Finally, the notion that a link to a specific video interview, of a veteran professional journalist with particular expertise on the region, by a 20+ year news organisation with wide syndication, is not relevant, but every article published from the "citizen journalist" of 3 years standing whose narrative you happen to prefer, is relevant, is really beyond parody. Your desire to push your POV is clear; this is not the place. WP:JDL Cambial Yellowing(❧) 17:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And , to dip down to your level of argument, - 'while you may not have faith in anything Bellingcat publishes' - , is not how wikipedia operates either. Bellingcat is acclaimed - for a reason. Deal with it however you like, but please don't make wp articles trashier with your pov driven pushing of 'fringe material. In the meantime one can wait for the OPCW IIT to report. 78.144.83.73 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

'Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would be sending the newly created Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) to Syria to determine who was responsible for nine recent chemical attacks in Syria, including the one that took place on 7 April 2018 in Douma:

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - A new team established by the global chemical weapons watchdog to attribute blame for the use of banned munitions in Syria will investigate nine alleged attacks during the country’s civil war, including in the town of Douma, sources briefed on the matter told Reuters. Both Russia and Syria opposed the formation of the IIT, or any fault finding mission. While consistently claiming that the US lead terrorist jihadists are behind every chemical attack in Syria, they have just as consistently opposed any investigation of these attacks with the power to place blame. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of member states to the OPCW voted to give the IIT the power to find fault. Now it is beginning its investigations and has named the CW attacks it will be investigating. And now the Syria government is refusing visas to the IIT investigators, and is refusing to turn over relevant materials to them. This would seem to be very strange behaviour to come from a government that insists none of the evidence should indicate it was responsible for any attack.

This is one reason Russia, and its minions, have been making war on the OPCW. They need badly to discredit it ahead of any finding of the obvious, which is that the same war criminals that have been massacring civilians from the air with conventional explosives, have also occasionally done the same by dropping chemical weapons on them. (Clay Claiborne). 78.144.83.73 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

None of which has any relevance to the specific question under discussion, but thank you for your input, copypasta and spittle notwithstanding.' Cambial Yellowing(❧) 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the specific question. Is Bellingcat good enough for this wikipedia article? Well, yes it is. 78.144.83.73 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: your analogy to the Daily Fail is inapt: consensus about it as a source in general was determined by a pair of meticulously closed and massively publicized RfCs, not by your vote count. WP:ELNO doesn't say what you imply it does, assuming your handwave is at ELNO#9. I am open to further discussion on Goodman, though I am unclear on why it is better as an EL vs a source I also don't see why it needs to be an either/or situation. You don't believe Bellingcat has consulted subject-matter experts in their articles? Based on what information? VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from making edits which you know are currently under contention. That is what talk pages are for: once content is known to be disputed we use the talk page rather than trying to deliberately start an edit war.

What you call an analogy to the Daily Mail was, quite plainly, limited to pointing out that winning an award is not a sufficient condition, whereas you had posited it as evidence for its inclusion. You know that, and it is unhelpful to pretend otherwise. Regards WP:ELNO; I didn't imply it, I directly said it rules out search result inclusion - referring to that as a "handwave" to make it seem ambiguous serves nothing but your own sophistry. "generally avoid providing external links to... Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches" — this could not be much clearer. However this point is moot as IP user has already amended the link to a specific article in response to my previous comment (I would argue that the only pertinent article for inclusion is this one for reasons I'll discuss below, but will hold off on making that change). Higgins makes no reference in either of his articles to consulting those with expertise in what is a highly complex technical subject area. We do not assume that they have consulted experts unless they state otherwise; that line of reasoning is absurd. We assume they do not, unless they claim otherwise and back that claim up. Higgins also makes a number of unsupported value judgements.

Were the phrase airstrike to be included in the infobox it would require a citation. It needs to be a non-partisan scholarly source (i.e. not yet another news article). There have been a number of academic journal and university press publications on the subject of Douma; I am yet to come across one which specifically refers to it thus, but I have not finished reading them. If you know of one I will obviously not argue its inclusion.

Having been through the bc articles, a good argument can be made for the inclusion of the Keith Ward article, as his expertise is relevant to the subject, and for the time being I think it should be. The caveat to that is that if a scholarly source can be found it would supersede the useful information in that article, given that article's content has not undergone peer review, nor any other professional editorial process.

What you point out about it not being an either/or situation is absolutely correct and I apologise for joining in an unnecessary conflation of the two issues. We should treat them entirely separately. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 07:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Note by the Technical Secretariat OPCW of 21 May 2019 makes it clear doesn't it that the experts, ballistic, mechanical etc regard an airstrike as the cause?note technical secretariat update opcw fact finding mission syria Answer 3:1 , for example.78.144.83.73 (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Cambial, it's WP:BRD not WP:BoldAndThenWhateverCambialDoesIsTheDefault. You don't own the article, and you are the one trying to force through your proposed content by edit warring. Respect the status quo and pursue consensus if you desire a contested change - this is particularly crucial in a revert-rule restricted article such as this one. You are reverting multiple other editors without a modicum of support on the talk page. The observations about Bellingcat getting journalism rewards were in response to your calling it (rather bizarrely) a WP:SPS. As it happens, your mention of Daily Mail brought up a totally relevant example of what would constitute an example of a blanket "not reliable" finding at RSN - which is conspicuously absent regarding Bellingcat. The proposed link is not a search results page, and your cite to ELNO#9 is therefore irrelevant. We already cite ABC News which says of Higgins, "He has become in recent years one of the foremost experts on the munitions used in the Syrian conflict and a vital resource to journalists", [1], which I find more convincing than your personal opinion on his expertise. We do not need citations for the infobox if the information is cited in the article per WP:LEADCITE. This isn't seriously contended information. VQuakr (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You are projecting your own behaviour. Do not try to define what is the status quo by "what VQuakr likes". Bar some minor tidying, the page had been stable for ~ 3 weeks (which for Syria articles is significant) prior to 3 days ago. I have reverted exactly 2 editors - you and an IP user who you know canvassed your support because their original account was blocked.

Please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. I have never argued for a blanket not reliable "finding". I pointed out that given the previous RSN discussion with a consensus against, the burden lies on those advocating its inclusion to show that the specific article(s) are reliable, which would include opening it to RfC rather than you and 1 or 2 other expressly partisan editors' opinion. If I were advocating a "blanket finding" I would not have just advocated the inclusion of the Keith Ward article.

The previously proposed link (prior to IP user amendment) was exactly a search result page - a tag page linking all blog content with that tag. So it is relevant, and IP user was correct to change it. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can review the article history and see who is acting as gatekeeper here. "I purged the source three weeks ago, so that's the new status quo" is not going to convince anyone. The page has been on my watchlist for well over a year; I wasn't canvassed here. A tag page is not a search engine result. Bellingcat is not a blog. Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

But a metadata index page is an internal search result i.e. an individual website search; its content is subject to change according to whichever posts are added. And they are posts - that is how bellingcat itself refers to them. If you are certain of a bellingcat article's wide acceptance, I suggest you open it to comments at RSN. As I have said since June, the earlier consensus as not reliable puts the burden on its advocates to show an article is reliable. That is not the same as me positing a "blanket finding" or any of the other straw men you wish to conjure. If you are so sure of the reliability and wide acceptance of an article, why not start an RfC? Are you perhaps concerned that not everyone will share your point of view? Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

An index is not a search page. There has been no previous consensus regarding Bellingcat's reliability. Your sentence about straw men is incoherent. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Simply denying easily checkable facts is not a form of argument. It also borders on incivility, and is a bit weird. Let me know what you found difficult to understand and I'll be happy to explain. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What "facts" do you think you've presented? That is not the same as me positing a "blanket finding" or any of the other straw men you wish to conjure. In a conversation about inadequate reliability, a source can be found to be inadequate for the information it is being used to support. Much more rarely, it can be found to be unreliable in any context, such as is the case with the Daily Mail. You haven't mentioned any context, so you are implying that you think Bellingcat must be unreliable in all situations. I am unclear on why you think this observation would be one of multiple straw men. VQuakr (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The precise facts you think you refuted by simply typing the words: "x is not y" over and over again. A tag page is a metadata index page. A metadata index page searches and returns all posts on the blog with that tag; new content, old content, everything. It fails the test in ELNO. Your sentence so you are implying that you think Bellingcat must be unreliable in all situations is helpful in explaining the sentence I wrote that you apparently found difficult to understand. Where have I implied this? Not in the sentence you quoted. This is an example of the straw men I refer to. Plainly, the context is chemical munitions, delivery systems, and the physics of CW release and dispersal, with specific reference to the events in Douma. Basically, this article. If I have not explicitly stated as much at the start of every comment it was so as not to insult your intelligence; if that was a misjudgement I apologise. The point I made regarding Bellingcat I have already made in plain language which I am not going to spend time rephrasing, because at this point it is readily apparent you are deliberately being obtuse. "the earlier consensus as [generally] not reliable puts the burden on its advocates to show a [specific blog post] is reliable" for the purpose for which they want to use it, before it is added. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 23:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe ease up on the insults, there. If you dislike concise refutations the 2nd/3rd/4th time around, don't WP:REHASH the same refuted statements. A link to an index that uses tags is not the same as search engine results. We want the link to be updated when new relevant articles are written by Bellingcat; that is the point of the link. Using Wikipedia as an analogy: this link wouldn't violate ELNO#9; this would. Do you agree that there is a difference between those two links?

That is not what "context" means when discussing source reliability on WP. It means one needs to assess the source paired with the specific information it is intended to support. The examples at WP:REDFLAG are helpful to illustrate the extreme end of the "exceptional claim" spectrum (we do have some special sourcing requirements for a general subject area at WP:MEDRS, but I can't immediately think of any other similar subjects that have this sort of restriction). If you say a source is unreliable without clearly indicating what prose you think the source is insufficiently reliable to support, you are implying that you believe it is universally unreliable. No straw man, just someone interpreting what you didn't say.

No, your attempt at burden-shifting (still) has no basis in policy, but since there's now a much more recent discussion at WP:RSN it's water under the bridge either way, agreed? VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you look up refutation in the dictionary. It does not mean simply denying something. You can refer to something as "refuted statements", but you're just using the word, with no apparent grasp of its meaning. You have not refuted the point. Sophistry is unhelfpul and will get you nowhere.

Linking to WP:REHASH, really? I had to scroll up about 3 inches to find you writing almost identical phrases: "A tag page is not a search engine result." "A link to an index that uses tags is not the same as search engine results." I already responded to this the first time; I agree that it's not a "search engine result" but it is an individual website search, which actually comes before 'search engine' in the sentence referred to at ELNO. Rather than altering your response to this, you simply repeat yourself. Then you link to rehash without a trace of irony.

I stated above that I thought we should include the Keith Ward article, given his expertise. Please explain how you interpreted this as my implying that the site is "universally unreliable" (your quite silly phrase). It will be helpful if you show good faith by reading what I actually wrote, rather than imagining an argument that you think is easily refutable, and then trying to bend the meaning of the words I did write, to fit what what you would like to refute. That's the definition of a straw man, which is why I referred to it. It serves nothing.

You say "We want the link to be updated when new relevant articles are written by Bellingcat". Actually that's what you want. What you are arguing for is the inclusion of a link to a page that will include material that has not yet been written. We cannot simply assume that new material on a blog is going to be reliable or relevant. That is not enyclopedic content. Given what you say about context and individual source/use assessment - which is absolutely correct - I don't really understand why you are so keen to do so, and I'd appreciate it if you will explain. If you really want to pursue this I suggest we go to DR. It's not going to be a long discussion. Should we include links to pages where new blog posts are going to be added by unknown authors, and which therefore has had no assessment of its provenance, relevance or reliability? A: No. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If we encounter a blog someone wants to add to the EL section, we have our direction. How is that relevant to Bellingcat? VQuakr (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Bellingcat coverage

There is a clear consensus is to keep Bellingcat as a source in this article, with several editors saying that content from Bellingcat should be attributed to them. This is consistent with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard RfC close here.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Bellingcat be excluded as a source from this article as most recently proposed here? The two specific articles are [2] and [3], and the info they are used to support is in the first diff. 15:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This concerns the reliability of a source and belongs on the RSN noticeboard. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 16:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The RSN does not have a monopoly on RS discussion. Indeed, as stated prominently at the noticeboard: "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy." Additionally, while reliability has been a concern voiced, it is unclear whether that is the only concern. The article talk page is the place to determine consensus for or against your proposed removals. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep both - the first ref (2018/04/11) is markedly straightforward - it and the ABC source overlap in content but the ABC provides better context and refers to the research done by Bellingcat. The two compliment each other, and no change in article content other than the sourcing is being considered. The second ref (2019/03/01) is already in our external links section and there do not appear to be any ongoing concerns regarding reliability from anyone who has posted on this talk page. Regarding context, neither source is being used to support contentious information - are there any real concerns that the information cited isn't accurate? VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Plainly, the questionable reliability of the source is what is causing contention, and has been the only subject of detailed debate. This article is not the place for the discussion, and your wish to keep it here is an attempt to serve your desire to limit the breadth of opinion. As such, a 'debate' between you and one banned user here will not serve to show the wide acceptance necessary to overturn previous RSN consensus on this highly dubious blog and specifically on its primary author. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 06:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Your contention that discussion about reliability must occur at the RSN and no where else is utterly unsupportable. Where did you come up with such an idea? I'm not going to WP:REHASH the rest of your already debunked claims. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Bellingcat's coverage of the Syrian Civil War has been highly reliable and recognized as such by numerous independent reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bellingcat (August_2019). VQuakr (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. On the RS noticeboard, I explain why Bellingcat is generally reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as long as attribution is included. Bellingcat may have its flaws but it is at a minimum notable for its work and commentary. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no compelling reason why either source would not qualify as WP:RS on the topic. Certainly I would expect that any claims supported by these sources would be clearly attributed, but that caveat made, the sources themselves seem to meet every important test under our RS standards. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, per others, and Bellingcat as a ref really shouldn't be a hill to die on. Stikkyy t/c 21:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: as long as it is clearly mentioned that Bellingcat is the source (per Darouet) I don't see a problem with it being included. However I think the same should be the case for the Institute for Public Accuracy article about the leaked engineering report that was strangely ignored. Any reason why this isn't in the entry?

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a hijack; why not start a separate section if you'd like to propose inclusion of that press release? VQuakr (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It may be that you haven't read the RS/N thread recently or Higgins' latest (4 August 2019) piece in which he responds to Postol without so much as mentioning analyzing or linking to the engineering report which had been leaked two months earlier. That article is very strange insofar as it attempts to discredit Postol without looking at the primary evidence that supports Postol's argument about the Douma chemical attack. Here is Higgins' article in which he simultaneously calls Gabbard's presentation of the situation a mess and talks about just about everything except the Douma attack (which is what Gabbard is talking about, not things that happened in 2013...) Strange practice for a reliable source, IMO.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems remarkably irrelevant, but no I don't see anything glaringly wrong with Bellingcat's refutation of Gabbard's position. Gabbard uncritically citing Postol is indeed something of a red flag, no? That Bellingcat article does discuss Douma, despite your bizarre claim to the contrary. We mention the leaked "report" in the article... it's not the bombshell you seem to think it is, pardon the expression. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Rereading what I wrote, you are right. I should have said Higgins did not discuss the "primary evidence" Postol used to make his assessment (the engineering report which concluded the chlorine bombs were less likely to have been dropped from the air, than placed in the building). Higgins does mention it, but does not analyze or link to it. (I have corrected my statement above accordingly. I won't add "at length" to my comments above, though that is the problem I see, the text about Douma is very minor as compared to the other elements discussed.)

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the matter and would certainly not pretend to know the truth about such ballistic matters, I just notice when reports attacking people seem to avoid providing readers with both sides of the story with an appeal to OPCW authority without providing links to contradictory reports. (The OPCW is not supposed to "establish responsibility" and so Fernando Arias said, "all of the information given by any inspectors is considered, but sometimes it is not fit to the conclusion" cf. 14:35 here or from 1:40:50 here, specifically at 1:42:08).

It's interesting that the en.wp entry distorts this quote, the misquotation being sourced to Scott Lucas (an "adjunct professor with the Clinton Institute at University College Dublin") at eaworldview.com (a self-published source used 10 times on en.wp). I've updated the article to note that this entry sources the quote to a blog (providing a link to the blog's entry at en.wp). I also added quotes to fix the copyright violation I found in the entry.

Concerning Gabbard's position (keeping an open mind as evidence comes out), I'm not sure exactly how such a position can be "refuted"...🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OPCW email

If anyone has objections with this report being included, here would be the place to air your concerns. It was sent by someone who was on the fact finding team, so it should be included, in my opinion. Please don't just remove it unless you get consensus here. Nate Hooper (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The letter was dated June 2018, and the final report supersedes it. The letter has not been excluded has it. Its mentioned, given due weight. The FFM final report is the main thing, no? The Bone Dorchester (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"What I cannot understand is why people like Tim Hayward, Jonathan Cooke, Vanessa Beeley and Max Blumenthal continue to write obsessively about the threat of American intervention as if Syria were Iraq in 2002. You have to be delusional to think that a “false flag” chlorine gas attack could function in the same way as Colin Powell’s WMD speech to the UN. It did not seem to matter to them that on July 7, 2019 Trump cut off all funding to Syrian rebels. This decision foreshadowed the “axis of resistance” that made Trump, Putin and Erdogan partners in the burial of the dying embers of armed resistance to a mafia state." Louis Proyect. Yep.The Bone Dorchester (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Does the final report have the ppb mentioned? This information needs to be seen. If the ppb is not in there then the criticism remains legitimate. If it does have it, then that NEEDS to be in the article Nate Hooper (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: @VQuakr: Can we get some independent input from you guys. The question is weather the whistle blower's account should be included. I say is should because it is vital information. Dorchester says no because it was dated too early. Ping anyone else who might have an opinion, I just searched through the page and you two seemed to have contributed the most, hence why I pinged you both. Nate Hooper (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty unimportant, not sure it warrants a sentence. As various sources have noted, some of his feedback was incorporated in the final report by toning down some of the conclusions. See also WP:RECENTISM. VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

But what about just a single sentence on ppb? It can be earlier on in the article. Just one mention of the fact that the concentration was 1-2 ppb? We don;t even have to mention the wikileaks report (other than maybe using it as a source) Nate Hooper (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What reliable sources have stated that the units of measurement of the chlorine compounds are particularly important? VQuakr (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What? You think the concentration is unimportant? If it was 1 ppt, what would you make of that? Reliable sources are always talking about concentration (when talking about the presence of a chemicals in an environment). Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere not an important measure for climate scientists? Is not the concentration of chlorine in drinking water a concern for people managing water supply? I just... you know how when you read something that is so unexpected and random, that you pull your head back and start blinking quickly 5 or 6 times? Because that just happened to me after I read your update. I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. I mean, how is the concentration not important? Nate Hooper (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Concentration is not unimportant exactly , as I understand it, but it is not particularly helpful as chlorine is quite unlike sarin and its markers are more problematic and fleeting, ( for exposure). And, 'Chlorine is a very common element which occurs naturally in many different compounds and can also be introduced into the environment by various forms of human activity.' (Whitaker) Something like that.

'The FFM's final report does make some comparison of levels, but only within the two "cylinder" buildings. It notes raised levels of some chemicals close to the suspicious gas cylinders and says a wood sample from underneath one of the cylinders "had the highest content of chlorinated organic compounds of all wood samples taken". (from Brian Whitaker.)

Tell-tale substances

Overall though, the FFM was more concerned with identifying specific compounds that could result from a chlorine attack and then trying to eliminate other possible explanations for their presence.

One potentially tell-tale substance found in wood samples from Douma was trichlorophenol which can be produced by exposure to chlorine gas. However, it can also be produced by contact with sodium hypochlorite which, as the FFM's report noted, is the main component of chlorine-based bleach.

The FFM's report goes on to suggest that chlorine gas is the more likely possibility as "there were no visible signs of a bleach agent or discoloration due to contact with a bleach agent" at the two locations investigated in Douma.

However, the Courage panel's document picks up on this absence of "visible signs". It says the panel has been informed that "no such observation was recorded during the on-site inspection". It doesn't appear to be suggesting there were signs of bleaching but describes the reported non-observation of them as "tenuous and unscientific".

'A large part of the problem here is the way Alex has gone about his whistleblowing. He might, for example, have released his evidence to the public along with a written explanation of his grievances. That way, we would know more clearly what he is saying and what his reasoning is. ' (from Brian Whitaker)

Instead he went to a crowd of Assad supporters. Why ? And when all is said and done, 'Alex' like Henderson seems to point to a staged scenario being the only explanation that fits, so jihadis had to 'construct the fins, harness, axis, and wheels that are necessary for both loading into and then dropping them from helicopters? If you are going to frame Assad, you’d better be in a position to replicate the weapon he has been using for at least five years. Would Henderson and Alex argue that the pictures of the two weaponized chlorine tanks seen in the OPCW report were photoshopped? If not, how do you construct the fins, harness, axis and wheels from scratch? Did HTS make them in a machine shop? As someone with a night school diploma in lathe and milling machine from my days colonizing industry, I can tell you that this is not an easy task during constant bombardment and electrical blackouts.' (Louis Proyect)

What makes me pull my head back and start blinking are the people who find endless false flag scenarios more convincing than for a moment considering that the helicopters and planes over rebel held areas might seriously be intent on wrecking the morale and infrastructure, hospitals, homes and markets of the people they have demonised and murdered and tortured from day one . 'Assad or we burn the country'. The Bone Dorchester (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nate Hooper: no aspect of a subject is important because editors say it is - we establish a level of coverage proportional to the acceptance of the viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. So if you think a particular aspect of a subject needs more coverage, you can reasonable expect that other editors are going to ask what sources led you to that conclusion. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat is State-sponsored Propaganda, Should be Treated the Same as Pentagon Press Releases

Elliot Higgins, aka Bellingcat, is funded directly by the National Endowment for Democracy and paid to manage the regime change narrative of the CIA and State Department of the United States. The NED is funded directly by US Congress. This is state propaganda that should be treated as such, not some "grass roots" search for truth. 173.230.187.144 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose this as consensus-compromise:

To rate the US government financed Bellingcat in the same sources "reliableness" category as Russia Today (RT).

These two outlets provide interesting fact and arguments, but are not blindly to be trusted, so not giving Bellingcat the highest trust source category of Wikipedia. This decision recently taken is obviously contentions and seemingly made by people without some classical history teaching. In war the first, what dies is truth. So war parties provide propaganda. This is true since classic Roman atiquity at least (as documented on Octavian .. later Augustus fighting his opponent).

This "!" caution state should be reintroduced, and kept as such, as long as the US is involved in the Syrian Civil war and Bellingcat reports on events in that war.

Greetings from the neutral center of Europe .. Middle Europe to be precise.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

At all times, Wikipedia uses reliable sources based on previously reached consensus. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#RT (controversial topics, international politics) indicates RT (and some other websites connected with the Russian government) are inadmissible sources for editors to use. The previously reached consensus is to accept Bellingcat (see the same Wikipedia article above) as a legitimate source regardless of the claims made against the organisation. There is no accepted equivalence between RT and Bellingcat. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I know this, what Wikipedia uses, it can be read in the policy documents you recommended to read, thank you. However, you do not answer my questions above.

I never implied an equivalence, you are distorting my words. My intention is to reclassify the trustworthyness. Bellincat is not trustworthy enough to have the utmost best mark of Wikipedia, the consensus was none, there were severy counter arguments.

There is new evidence out on the performance of Bellingcat and its financing. A news outlet financed by a war party is not an impartial source. Or do you think Bellingcat is impartial and utmost trustworthy in the case of the Syrian Civil War (Q 1)?

And statements of Wikipedia are not century statements like of a pope (on the trustworthyness of Bellingcat). And even popes change their opinion over times (think of Gallileo).

So you think the Wikipedia source status of Bellingcat will stay/should stay here for years, decades? (Q 2)

Please be so kind to reply to my Questions (Q) above. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

KR, 212.186.108.228 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You write in your first post: "I propose this as consensus-compromise: To rate the US government financed Bellingcat in the same sources 'reliableness' category as Russia Today (RT)." Then in your response to my explanation you write: "I never implied an equivalence, you are distorting my words."

If I were you, I would make a Request for Comment (RfC) over your suggested change in WP policies and see if you can do any better with whoever responds.

The "evidence" you claim exists appears in the same kind of sources which cannot be used on this site without consequences for continued editing privileges. You talk page suggests you are aware of all this by now. Philip Cross (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: Dear Dr. Cross, I want to answer your central question on the new evidence on Bellingcat. The source of the evidence is the website of Bellingcat itself. Two issues. It regards first the lack of transparcy: It is not enough to say who gives you money, you have to say how the proportions are and what your total budget is, that is the standards Transparency International sets (and does provide for by its own public reporting of course) and my old Alma Mater has done in the US already beginning of the 1990s. I can you provide you with all the evidence for this statements. Secondly it is the reaction of Bellingcat in questioning their evidence on their comment page. And the missing reaction of Bellingcate to the new (14th of December 2019) evidence provided by WikiLeaks on 20 experts of the OPCW challenging the misleading conclusions in the final reports of their own organisation. But I can wait patiently some days for reactions of Bellingcat on that lates Wikileak Release (Part 3).

Do you agree to wait a bit (1-2 weeks) for our discussion on judging the new performance evidence of Bellingcat? - This is my fourth specific question (Q 4) to you. I hope you reply to that one specifically. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)KR,

It is not the job of a specific article talk page to make a ruling about the reliability of a source. That is done on the RSN. Just a couple of months ago there was an extensive RfC about Bellingcat. This was closed with the conclusion that the site is "generally reliable and use it, preferably with attribution." BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Wikileaks talk page

An RfC which may interest editors who have been following the recent revelations about the OPCW report on the 2018 Douma Chemical attack has commenced at the Wikileaks talk page. Burrobert (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks will always promote the narrative of the current propaganda of the government. This became obvious to me as George W. Bush's administration was lying us into a war over a non existent weapons of mass destruction program. But good luck, Don Quixote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.190.94 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I am flattered by the comparison with the great Don but can’t seem to make any sense out of your comment. Wikileaks didn’t exist when GWB lied the US into a war. Also to what are you referring in the phrase “narrative of the current propaganda of the government”? Burrobert (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sébastien Braha

Surely this chap deserves a mention in this article? After all, he put sooo much hard work and expense into it? Phantasmic Fox (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

He needs to mentioned in reliable sources to gain sufficient notability even for a mention let alone an article. So far only mentioned by fringe websites Wikipedians do not cite. Philip Cross (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the smearing any source that mentions his name will take but surely there's someone else honest working for a reliable sources out there, willing to put their job on the line to tell the truth about what happened to those poor children? Their angry ghosts are crying out for it. They can't all be THAT chicken can they? Phantasmic Fox (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Udo Ulfkotte explains some of the factors compromising the reliability of newspapers (much of it comes down to journalists wanting to keep their jobs):

Information Clearing House - Paul Craig Roberts - Journalists Are Prostitutes,15 October 2019: In 2014, the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte published a book that created a big stir, describing how the journalistic profession is thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated by intelligence services.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Not what would be viewed as conventional reliable sources, but, in my opinion, worth reading for the light it casts on those which would be:

• truthdig - Scott Ritter - Chemical Weapons Watchdog Is Just an American Lap Dog, 18 December 2019: A spate of leaks from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international inspectorate created for the purpose of implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, has raised serious questions about the institution’s integrity, objectivity and credibility.
• Moon of Alabama blog - Media Suppressed Evidence Of The OPCW's 'Chemical Attack' Manipulations - There Is Now More Of It, 15 December 2019.
• Tareq Haddad blog - Lies, Newsweek and Control of the Media Narrative: First-Hand Account, 14 December 2019: Until several days ago, I was a journalist at Newsweek. I decided to hand my resignation in because, in essence, I was given a simple choice. ... It was while investigating this story that I started to come across growing evidence that the U.N.-backed body for investigating chemical weapons use, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued a doctored report about an alleged chemical attack in Douma in April of 2018, much to the anger of OPCW investigators who visited the scene.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks articles about the OPCW Douma report: [4]. "OPCW-DOUMA - Release Part 4" of 27 December 2019 mentions the "e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW, where he instructs that an engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the organisation." (... a mention in The Morning Star)     ←   ZScarpia   00:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Another link on Henderson's findings - Russia Today.

Wizzy…☎ 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lots of garbage sources don't equal one good one. They equal a larger pile of garbage. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References