This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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.
Russians release lab analysis
October 29, 2013. Russia Claims Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons
The samples taken from the impact site of the gas-laden projectile were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Churkin said. He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. Churkin said the results indicate it "was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile "is not a standard one for chemical use." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3568731.html
Blade-of-the-South talk 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Capabilities section would be suitable, the lab, thats a good point. Its a distinguised lab, more notable than SOHR surely. See I think the capabilities section is a bit non neutral Question. For these sorts of issues, you say I say, is there a notice board to go to to get non involved editors involved to call it? Blade-of-the-South talk 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. One thing though, I have to point out that when you say 'Particularly for a story that predates Ghouta.' I dont understand you. I saw your edits on background and capabilities, material thats in it of course predates the attack. Why do you often use this as an excuse to exclude only certain material. Do you see how someone may think you are a biased editor? Blade-of-the-South talk 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Its late now I'll get back to it tomorrow. Thks for being civil. Blade-of-the-South talk 09:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like a summary (agreed upon first) of the above quote, in the capability section. I think its good enough to be in there and relevant and it has RS. Let me know what you think. I will then do a draft. If we still dont agree we can take it to content for a non involved editor. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll get some non involved editors to look at it. FYI I will propose an insert of data from quote to either capability, background or intel section. Possibly upgrading existing similar info. I will post the link here. Blade-of-the-South talk 07:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a new article about the incident and should be included. It is at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-and-the-role-of-saudi-intelligence-the-mint-news-report/5359154
Chris Bury ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that following consultation with expert Richard Lloyd, Brown Moses has now joined the WhoGhouta estimate of 2.5 km range for the rockets. Since Brown Moses / Eliot Higgins is considered a reliable source (he is quoted elsewhere in this article), the 'trajectory intersection' theory which assumes a 9.5 km range (Zamalka to Mt. Qasiun), can now be safely considered invalid. I recommend qualifying all references to this theory accordingly. For example, in the lead:
Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. Specifically, the inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these pointed to the government's elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun. However, more recent evidence indicates Mt. Qasioun is much farther than the rockets' range of 2.5 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawa ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've closed two RfCs in the archives, for those who are interested:
If there are any concerns, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
here. 189.12.179.231 ( talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Sayerslle, but I'm going to propose that we cut the EAWorldView commentary from the "Evidence" section of the article, because it fails, almost humorously, to understand the points made by the Hersh article:
The EAWorldView piece counters that the existence of a US government-provided transcript - which has nothing to do with a sensor system - shows that the sensor system did work. This clearly demonstrates that Joanna Paraszczuk and Scott Lucas don't understand Hersh's article. They furthermore quote from a WSJ article that is simply running through that very same transcript Hersh's sources say are manipulated.
EAWorldView is not a particularly notable source and, because it is confused about Hersh's piece, I recommend that we ditch it. - Darouet ( talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a new, extensive commentary on the issues by Seymour Hersh on the London Review of Books website. [1]. Hersh is obviously an excellent source, and the LRB website means it's not self-published. Podiaebba ( talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"Sophia @les_politiques 12h Hersh has published an authoritative investigation on Sarin in #Ghouta. Any rational being should b instilled w some doubt,no? .@Brown_Moses
Brown Moses @Brown_Moses 12h @les_politiques I've just written a piece for Foreign Policy highlighting a few key points he appears unaware of Sayerslle ( talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, describing one of the most storied investigative journalists in the U.S. as "senile," and his report as "gossip" and "musings," is disrespectful, and indicates that you lack the objectivity or competence to evaluate reliable sources. What Hersh has done, by the way, is get senior government officials, at the risk of destroying their own careers, to say that the Obama administration has been lying about Ghouta, and that many in the intelligence community are frustrated or angry with the misleading narrative. He also reveals that an Op Order (DIA, CIA) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that the rebels could deploy sarin. Regarding Eliot Higgins, he just runs a blog and, yes, has limited expertise or weight. But he has published a reply in Foreign Policy, and so his voice automatically has some authority in this issue. Secondly, I'd argue that his analyses, even without the FP article, have been important and worth considering (for us too). The other side of this is that the whogouta blog, whose conclusions oppose those of Higgins, is just as notable, and probably more reliable, considering the experts actually working for it. - Darouet ( talk) 15:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
@Darouet you 'don't actually think that the Hersh piece is arguing that the "rebels did it." ',- but the article is titled 'Whose Sarin?' is it not? Implying...? Do you see what he's implying? clever old codger . And if you say I'm guilty of not showing enough respect to one of your heroes , thats tough-people are free to admire whom they choose are they not? Sayerslle ( talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A recent article written by Seymour Hersh and published in the London Review of Books is currently cited 21 times - as near as I can tell more any any other source. This seems like undue coverage to me, particularly since the article is in a literary review journal, not a publication with a reputation for fact checking the work of their authors. Is there any reason this article has had Hersh's piece written in so heavily? VQuakr ( talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DENY
|
---|
|
No, Sayerslle, Hersh is probably the most respected investigative journalist in America right now, and has been for some time. - Darouet ( talk) 22:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Darouet -above, did you say @whoghouta is more reliable than brown moses? based on what? whoghouta announced a while back the rebels did it and embraced Russian claims with no evidence whatever, no? who is whoghouta anyhow? @snarwani embraced whoghouta too. seems to me the narrative of pro-regime ideologues shouldn't be seized upon and foisted on the article just because they feel power politics is going their way. you are a bit of a power worshipper imo. reality is the master. Sayerslle ( talk) 09:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's apparently a chemical used as an additive in sarin that the Syrian government was known to stockpile prior to the attack, and its signature was found at at least one attack site. Dan Kaszeta is credited with spotting the link in the UN report. Probably worth adding a mention to the article somewhere, but I'm wondering exactly where. [12] - Kudzu1 ( talk) 06:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Since hexamine is also widely available commercially, analysts noted, it is impossible to point to hexamine’s presence on the battlefield as conclusive evidence of who made the chemical weapons used in the Ghouta attack. Other chemists have said hexamine could have been used in the blaster components of the weapons that dispersed the nerve agent, but that would not explain why hexamine was on the list of chemicals in the government’s arsenal.
@fm - if RS continue to refer to his work, Wikipedia will I hope. He was interviewed and asked if he had any allegiance - he answered that he didn't - beyond being for the Syrian people in general and hoping the war could end as quickly as possible - I see no reason to assume he was lying - his work is not biased, just thorough about looking at the weapons. Sayerslle ( talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Robert Parry (journalist) at consortiumnews.com: NYT Replays Its Iraq Fiasco in Syria Podiaebba ( talk) 14:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In the UN team's recent
press conference, Sellstrom has clearly indicated the trajectory intersection theory is likely incorrect, and the rocket's range is probably 2 km.
It's ridiculous that this is still presented as evidence for regime attack on this page. I recommend removing it completely from the lead, and mentioning it only as a discredited theory.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Swawa (
talk •
contribs) 01:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
from brown moses - More pro-Hezbollah sites claiming the Volcano rocket is Hezbollah made, a very interesting claim... [19] Sayerslle ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC) and volcano videos from pro-government sources [20]
The article needs updating based on the evidence from the recently released MIT study, See for example here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html - Helvetica ( talk) 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the link I posted was to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, not RT, so that should be Western and mainstream enough to be considered "neutral," "reliable," etc. ;-) ( talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@User:Sayerslle - You need to work on getting your facts straight. First you claim that I shared a link from RT, which I didn't. I posted a link for a mainstream newspaper in Texas. Then you write: "yeh but just above you wrote - 'in arguing for Syrian government responsibility' - but that isn't what it said is it, ?;-)" When in fact that quote is completely fabricated.
In any event, Wikipedia is not limited to sources like HRW and the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," and certainly not the "Brown Moses" blog or the "Gay Girl in Damascus!" An MIT study reported by a mainstream daily with large circulation certainly qualifies as a reliable source. It strikes me that you're desperate to keep this perspective from being heard so you're engaging in disinfo and obfuscation in your comments here...
The case here is clear. New analysis has come to light. It's been published by a very reputable institution and reported by mainstream media. It deserves inclusion pure and simple. - Helvetica ( talk) 19:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@darouet - saw this on twitter - 'I wonder if @WhoGhouta will finally adapt to what we know now. @DanKaszeta was right, @Brown_Moses was right, regime did Aug21 CW attack.' - hell will freeze over before Putin/Russia and Assad regime speak real-ly, reality oriented, that's my guess. Sayerslle ( talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Hersh article. - Darouet ( talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors (inspecting previous attacks) were there. The deal was to do something spectacular.
Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it." [33] Sensational stuff - or senile fantasies? Sayerslle ( talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
'Richard Lloyd @Richard323232 · 8 mins @Brown_Moses @aliosaday no body knows..The fact that Syria has the rockets is not proof. u need to focus on the sarin.. that's the hard part @Brown_Moses @aliosaday I am talking about the rocket only... sarin is not my game.. good luck.' Sayerslle ( talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the latest analysis of Hersh’s article related to Ghouta gas attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1331 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Tow users, (@ Sayerslle: and @ Sopher99:) have several times removed a claim RT said was made by the Syrian government back in December 2012. The statement they remove is: “the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas, which is used in the production of sarin.” Is RT a reliable source for that claim when they stated (in March 2013) that “the Syrian government said in December that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas”? Ref: ( http://rt.com/bulletin-board/rt-news-21-march-2013-1700msk-605/) Erlbaeko ( talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The question is still if RT is considered a reliable source for presenting the Syrian governments claims? Erlbaeko ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions.
Regarding the SYN violation; I have not implied any conclusion. I have simply referred to a source that states that “the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas”, and I like that to be included in the perpetrators section in the infobox, under the government claim to promote WP:NPOV. I can find another references for the part of the sentence which says fluoride is used in the production of sarin, if that is the WP:SYN part you are talking about. Erlbaeko ( talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to see any consensus here, but most users seems to agree that it is the context of the article that is important when considering if it is reliable, not which News media who posted it. I will not include the statement in the heading of the article again (since the article is not directly linked to the ghouta attacks), but I will edit the info box so it doesn’t imply that the UN has concluded with respect to the perpetrator. Erlbaeko ( talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
article on the victims - [42] Sayerslle ( talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Important work by @hisham_ashkar to put a name & face to some of the victims of the Aug chemical weapon attack #Syria - r-tweeted by Nadim Houry - of HRW. ( I get your thought - WordPress, not RS - but I placed the info here for reference sake kind of thing - delete it , if i'm mis-using the talk page ) Sayerslle ( talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The word "declared" has been smuggled into the OPCW official's statement once and again, despite it has not been used by that person. In my opinion, this is a POV-push. -- Emesik ( talk) 13:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Only two responses so far to a deletion motion on the article Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability, from me and User:Erlbaeko. Visit the deletion discussion if you would like to contribute. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The UN reports do not indicate that opposition fighters were among the dead. Linking to an unverified, unreliable source is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask33c ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi VQuakr, I agree with Erlbaeko and am surprised by your removal of text about Hersh's first report. The reporter and venue have an impeccable record - far above many other sources used in this article (which include blog posts) - and the material concerns statements by a former U.S. intelligence official, typical of Hersh's reporting style. Furthermore, your edit summary mischaracterizes the nature of previous discussions here, which Erlbaeko linked in his revert. - Darouet ( talk) 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with the "consolidation" of the Hersh's reports, which for many critical aspects of these chemical attacks reduces the page to a single uncontested narrative. That narrative *is* in fact contested, not just by Hersh but by members of the United States intelligence community and by internal U.S. intelligence reports. It would be one thing to treat hypotheses or intelligence estimates presented by Hersh or his sources as fact in this article, but as they appeared, these estimates were attributed, and consensus reporting by U.S. news outlets were also noted as such. Removing the unofficial U.S. intelligence reports from many critical locations of this article however only does a great disservice to readers by limiting information available to them. It also has the effect of advancing the long-term and more or less openly stated positions that you Kudzu1, VQuakr and Sayerslle have adopted in this conflict, as if you were participants and not editors. That's unfortunate for the encyclopedia and certainly not necessary for any of you individually as participants here. - Darouet ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
How do we close this? I don't see any consensus for removing the Del Ponte's statement or for consolidation of the Hersh reports. According to WP:NOCON, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Anybody have a proposal to a text we can agree upon, or should we revert some or all edits since this version? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
After no consensus could be reached for this removal of Carla Del Pontes statement, ip 92.3.14.149, removed her statement again with this revert, calling it "synth", and asked what RS link her comments to Ghouta.
This article has many citations of the September 2013 report "Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013" and mostly treats it as "the" UN report. But the Final Report was issued in December 2013. The final report is barely referenced. I am going to change some headings to reflect this fact. It not my common practice to do so, but in this case is important enough that it needs to be done. I hope others will help update the article to reflect more information from the final report. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that the MIT Science, Technology, and Global Security Working Group report found at the link below has not been included in the Wikipedia article as it concludes that the rockets containing the sarin could not have been launched from any Syrian government controlled areas due to the aerodynamics of the modified rockets and the much reduced range as a result thereof.
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/docs/2014/01/16/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf
Mnnlaxer. Thanks for all your work on this article. I noticed you removed the "about 1500 * 500 meter in the Zamalka and nearby Ein Tarma area" statement. I believe that is relevant information, but it may be rewritten. Have you notised the map in the full report? The impact points are also listed in the table here: Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#Incidents Erlbaeko ( talk) 22:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the names of the neighborhoods that were not part of the attacks on 21 August 2013. These other neighborhoods did reflect movement of victims, so it makes sense to remove them and the disclaimer. I would like to find a different map that didn't highlight the names of these other neighborhoods, but I can't find any good candidates. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the Early Opinions section (the last one) was confused. In general, the VIPS letter wasn't an early speculation that was refuted by the later citations, although there was a tenuous link through another uncited article written by a member of VIPS on his own behalf (Phillip Giraldi at http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whats-the-evidence-behind-the-case-for-war/). But the link was a minor part of both the VIPS letter and Giraldi's article. So I moved the VIPS letter paragraph later (roughly chronological) in the section. There was also a noticeable POV that I tried to remove.
In general, the section is really more of a listing of reports and opinions about the claim that the rebels were responsible. The material would be better used in the other sections. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Removed paragraph:
This paragraph doesn't address motivation directly, but rather mentions earlier possible attacks and how Assad could ramp up use if he wanted to use chemical weapons. The first source is used the in April Jobar chemical attacks section. The second source is not straight reporting, but advocacy. The source for the first quote is unnamed and the second wrote a report for an advocacy think tank. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Mnnlaxer. The Jobar attacks in the background section refers to a series of alleged sarin attacks in Jobar between 12-14 April 2013. It appears from page 10 in the final UN report that they did't receive sufficient or credible information to support the allegation. However, I agree that the attack on government troops in Jobar on 24 August 2013 should be mentioned (and so should the attack on them in Bahhariyeh on 22 August 2013 and in Ashrafiah Sahnaya of 25 August 2013). It is all covered in the final UN report. Erlbaeko ( talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The above paragraph was removed from the Communication section. The first sentence doesn't concern communications, but chemical sensors placed in Syria by US intelligence. The second part does refer to communications, but it is not from the WSJ article ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579194203188283242 available to read if the first sentence is googled). The quote is from EA Worldview. ( http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/syria-special-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-wasnt-seymour-hershs-exclusive-dissected/) It refers to the WSJ article, but it doesn't respond to Hersh's chemical sensor claim. I also question whether EA WorldView is a reliable source. It is cited in another part of the article. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose removing the Timing section. The attacks occurred at different times and there are sources in the Attacks section supporting them. Only the first citation BBC isn't used elsewhere in the article and I will move that citation to the Eastern Ghouta section. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@ FutureTrillionaire: I removed the map "Ghouta chemical attack map" created by user FutureTrillionaire located on Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ghouta_chemical_attack_map.svg according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." There is no attribution of a source for this map. If one can be produced, great. If not, I would recommend deletion of the source file from Commons. It is currently being used on about 15 Wiki pages, mostly non-English versions of the Ghouta attack pages.
I also note that Ayn Tarma on this map is placed on the south side of the river, while it is actually on the north side. This was MapQuest's error, but they have corrected it. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
These sections overlap. I proposed moving the Capabilities section into the Evidence - Capabilities sub-section and adding an Evidence - Perpetrators sub-section. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the Perpetrators section right now. It hasn't changed since I started editing this article:
I'm going to WP:Be bold and move the first paragraph to a new section at the end of the UN investigation section, as it is derivative of the UN Mission report. And move the second paragraph to the Chemical weapons capabilities section.
This leaves no Perpetrators section.
I don't think this is a problem. There are plenty of sentences, sources, motivations, and evidences that call one side or the other the perpetrator. But since a separate Perpetrator section would only recite these items again in summary, I don't think it is necessary. I don't have a problem with re-creating a Perpetrators section, and maybe it is necessary, but it certainly should not be just what is currently written there (above). Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This statement "According to Robert Fisk, the chemical attacks in the night of 21 August were part of "one of [the Syrian army's] fiercest bombardments of rebel areas. In 12 separate attacks, it tried to put special forces men inside the insurgent enclaves, backed up by artillery fire. These included the suburbs of Harasta, and Arbin."", in the Witness statements section is supposed to be backed by this article. But the article don't say the chemical attacks were a part of the Syrian army's campaign. It says the Syrian army's campaign started "long before the use of sarin gas on 21 August and continued long afterwards". Erlbaeko ( talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe the weather information deserves a separate section for two reasons:
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The term Ghouta is used in a lot of different ways. I've done some googling, but can't find a definitive source that is usable yet. It seems to have originally meant the natural oasis caused by the Barada river, which flows south and then east from the Anti-Lebanon mountains, ending before the desert to the east of Damascus. The western part of this oasis was the site where Damascus was founded, and as it developed, the agricultural area was moved east and expanded by irrigation. To keep this green oasis meaning today, it should mean the natural floodplain and the irrigated agricultural land on either side of the Barada. However, it is used in some places as just meaning the Damascus suburbs to the east and south. This sort of makes sense, as urbanization and now drought have turned the formerly fertile land into dense habitation and dry fields.
From the UN and HRW reports, Ghouta, Eastern Ghouta, and Western Ghouta are completely embedded in this article's subject. So I'm not saying their use should end or be curtailed. However, it doesn't help that the article Ghouta is unsourced and it is used in different ways in this article's sources. I started a discussion on the Ghouta talk page to try to add sources to the general concept. For this article, I will try to clarify what it means in context from the sources used. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]
This is five reverts in a 48 hour period. This includes three reverts that were done within 24 hours, on an article which is under discretionary sanctions.
This is disruptive behavior.
On top of that, the text being added in is obviously a WP:NPOV violation AND based on a non-reliable source ( WP:RS). It's basically conspiracy junk.
AND on top of that, the edit summary claims "consensus" and requests discussion where it's pretty obvious that there is no existing discussion on the talk page nor is there any consensus for inclusion of this junk. Hence, the edit summary is (purposefully) misleading. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are three parts to the deleted/reverted content:
The sources (1 and 3) are opinions, I agree they should not be used. But what is objectionable about the statement (2)? It is close to just basic common sense, barely requiring citation if it weren't so controversial to claim it happened. Even the suggestion seems to get some people enraged. But this section is about motivation, not what actually happened. Here are some sources that explain the motivation:
Also note that the last section of the article lists several prominent people who have publicly called the attacks a "false flag" to get the US involved. So how could the statement here be denied?
My suggestion is to add the text above, either as is or rewritten, to the article in its previous spot sourced to any of the three articles here.
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Look. You're trying to insert some wacky conspiracy theory into the article. All you got to support it is either a) non-reliable bullshit sources or b) reliable sources which document the fact that this is a wacky conspiracy theory. You're very busy trying to pretend that the b) kind of sources are sufficient to present the wacky conspiracy theories as if they are true. They're not. All they could support at best is the statement that there exist some wacky conspiracy theories out there which are not worth paying attention to. So why should we pay attention to them? You're flipping every relevant Wikipedia policy on its head. It's manipulative and disruptive. It's WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from sources to craft a sentence with. I think the best compromise would be to use attribution for the claimed motivation.
But, it could be in a RS voice with a combination of the Haaretz quote, any Obama "red line" quote, and this: "The wavering from the West dealt an unquestionable blow to the Syrian opposition, which had thought it had finally secured military intervention after pleading for two and a half years for help from Western leaders that vocally opposed Assad." Stewart, Phil; Oweis, Khaled Yacoub (10 September 2013). "Syria vows to give up chemical weapons, no deal yet at U.N." Reuters.
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
On 30 August 2013, a Canadian radio host and commentator, Jeff Kuhner, questioned how "striking Syria on behalf of Al Qaida" would boost U.S. interests. He also questioned the motive of the attack, stating that the "Syrian dictator has no rational motive to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" and that the rebels "have a major incentive to use WMD upon their own population to garner international sympathy". He continued, "The Islamist opposition cannot win unless — as in Libya — they enlist Western military intervention." [1]
References
I don't want to use Erlbaeko's suggestion. Kuhner isn't very prominent and it's an op-ed. I think either of the two choices I presented, with attribution, are sufficient. As for the larger FRINGE or WEIGHT issues, I will start a new section. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Peralta, Eyder (27 August 2013). "Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?". NPR. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
"Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons." Lopez is George Lopez, a professor of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame and Winfield is Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of CBRNe World. Winfield in particular makes adding the motivation a slam dunk.
I consider the part of the discussion on possible motivation closed. I have waited to see if any editors agreed with Volunteer Marek's large deletion of the Early Opinions section, but it seems like that could be closed too. I will comment more below on that later. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html
I think this should be at least mentioned considering that it contains more than the "he said, she said" you see in official statements (from both sides).
One more source (same document) in case the first one doesn't work:
This document is used in the article, although it could be used more. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit [50].
The included text says: "Gywn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, said that the rebels may have had the motivation to use chemical weapons"
What the source actually says: ""[A rebel attack] is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield." and ""This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario (attack by rebels - VM) just doesn't make sense.".
So yes, it's possible that they could "have the motivation" but the guy goes out of his way to say that they probably didn't do it. And yes, I understand the difference between "likelihood" and "motivation". I also understand the difference between POV and NPOV. If you only put in a statement about "motivation" and omit the statement about the LOW likelihood that the source repeatedly emphasizes, you're bullshitting, trying to pull a fast one, engaging in shenanigans, playing fast and loose with sources, misrepresenting them, being tendentious, pushing POV and otherwise behaving disruptively. I'm sorry, did you think that you were talking to someone who is too dumb to read the actual source? Now quit this stupid game. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons. "This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario (attack by rebels - VM) just doesn't make sense." For one thing, the alleged chemical attack happened in the Ghouta region of Damascus. It is controlled by the rebels, and civilians in the area sympathize with the rebels. "The smart thing [for the rebels] would be for you to aim for barracks and maime[sic]/kill a significant few hundred soldiers as the best chance for reverberations that played to your advantage," said Lopez. "This was not done."
Also recall above that I suggested attributing the sentence to either a Russian diplomat or Assad supporters. I really think the NPR article with a Winfield quote is a better solution, but if Volunteer Marek objects to using Winfield for attribution, surely he can't claim I'm misrepresenting either of those sources. How about one of those? What can't be argued is keeping the sentence out of the article. As the opening sentence of NPOV states: articles should include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Under possible government motive a section is called "To strengthen the morale". It is sourced, but imo it should be removed anyway. Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion of whether this article is a reliable source for this statement; "The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic", included in the initial claims section at RSN - Attributed statement sourced by RT news article. -- Erlbaeko ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I seek consensus and understanding that this edit by User:Volunteer Marek be reverted now. At the minimum until mediation is rejected or complete, but as I will try to show, in any result it would be better to revert and make discrete changes rather than delete material from all over the article for different reasons. I will divide the edits up and sign each one so that any discussion can happen within the different edits.
So... you're asking other people to revert on your behalf? bobrayner ( talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.
References
I have reverted the edit and if there are objections to any part of this large edit, I expect all editors to break up their changes into smaller pieces and fully explain their reasons for the changes here. Including addressing my arguments above. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack. One report published by Mint Press News that was widely circulated said that the casualties were caused by leaking, accidentally opened, or intentionally released canisters of chemical weapons stored by rebel forces in tunnels. [1] Several reports rebutted this claim. [2] [3] [4]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Some acting and former intelligence officials were critical of the report, the AP quoting unnamed officials stating the report's evidence was "not a slam dunk". [1] The AP also characterised the evidence released by the administration as circumstantial and said the government had denied its requests for more direct evidence, including satellite imagery and communications intercepts cited in the government assessment. [2]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Motivation
The motivation of the attack have been questioned, and the timing seems odd, since a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors were staying in a hotel just a few miles from the attack sites. [1] [2] [3]Possible Government motives
To defeat opposition forces
The Syrian government would have had a motive to use chemical weapons tactically if it believed there was no threat of international reprisal. However, it would seem like rather odd timing from Assad's perspective, since the attack came just days after a team of UN weapons inspectors landed in Damascus. Still, the attack might simply have been launched in an area designated as off-limit for the UN inspectors. [3]
A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by opposition in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention. [1] While another reporter, James Miller, pointed to the fact that the affected area had strong opposition leanings, and was a major supply route to the front lines in the fighting in east Damascus. Miller added that "Assad's forces in both Mt Qassioun and in the Mezzeh airport have this area very zeroed in for rocket (typically Grads) and artillery strikes." [3]
A reporter for The Daily Telegraph also pointed to the questionable timing given government forces had recently beaten back opposition in some areas around Damascus and recaptured territory. "Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?" The reporter also questioned why would the attacks happen just three days after the inspectors arrived in Syria. [4]
Syrian human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouneh, who is a member of the Syrian opposition, argued that the Assad government would launch a chemical attack because "it knows that the international community would not do anything about it, like it did nothing about all the previous crimes." [5]
Israeli reporter Ron Ben-Yishai stated that the motive to use chemical weapons could be the "army's inability to seize the rebel's stronghold in Damascus' eastern neighbourhoods," or fear of rebel encroachment into Damascus with tacit civilian support. [6]
Revenge for an attack on the Assad family
Western officials and Salim Idris, commander of the Free Syrian Army, said a purported assassination attempt against Assad earlier in August suggested the chemical attack on the rebel enclaves was a reprisal for the attempt, which killed an Assad family bodyguard. [7] [8]
Possible opposition motives
To trigger a western military intervention
According to military experts, both sides are locked in a political and military stalemate, and the opposition cannot win without western military intervention or support. [9]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Is it consensus to remove it?
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Early opinions
In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack. One report published by Mint Press News that was widely circulated said that the casualties were caused by leaking, accidentally opened, or intentionally released canisters of chemical weapons stored by rebel forces in tunnels. [1] Several reports rebutted this claim. [2] [3] [4]
The claims of two European writers held hostage by the rebel Abu Ammar Brigade also attracted some attention. After being released in early September 2013, Pierre Piccinin, a writer from Belgium said they overheard some captors say that the Syrian regime was not responsible for the attacks. Domenico Quirico, a journalist from Italy, said this is only a conjecture. [5]
As newspaper budgets for field reporters have decreased and Syria has become dangerous for reporters, non-governmental advocacy groups have played an increasing role in reporting; and news organisations have been less capable of independently evaluating their claims. As noted by Carroll Bogert of Human Rights Watch, "We do feel that as journalism has ebbed, we have a responsibility to flow." [6]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 08:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Lavrov further stated that the Syrian government had no motive to use chemical weapons since the government already maintained a military advantage over the rebel fighters. [1] On 9 October, a US spokesman stated the administration lacks the "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" some American voters are seeking but that a "common-sense test" implicates Assad. [2]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an issue in the current article where the second sentence above and another that attributes and cites Hersh are post-attack. I'm moved these two sentences to the United States section for the post-attack assessment. [53] We can work on integrating them better later. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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.
Russians release lab analysis
October 29, 2013. Russia Claims Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons
The samples taken from the impact site of the gas-laden projectile were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Churkin said. He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. Churkin said the results indicate it "was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile "is not a standard one for chemical use." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3568731.html
Blade-of-the-South talk 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Capabilities section would be suitable, the lab, thats a good point. Its a distinguised lab, more notable than SOHR surely. See I think the capabilities section is a bit non neutral Question. For these sorts of issues, you say I say, is there a notice board to go to to get non involved editors involved to call it? Blade-of-the-South talk 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. One thing though, I have to point out that when you say 'Particularly for a story that predates Ghouta.' I dont understand you. I saw your edits on background and capabilities, material thats in it of course predates the attack. Why do you often use this as an excuse to exclude only certain material. Do you see how someone may think you are a biased editor? Blade-of-the-South talk 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Its late now I'll get back to it tomorrow. Thks for being civil. Blade-of-the-South talk 09:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like a summary (agreed upon first) of the above quote, in the capability section. I think its good enough to be in there and relevant and it has RS. Let me know what you think. I will then do a draft. If we still dont agree we can take it to content for a non involved editor. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll get some non involved editors to look at it. FYI I will propose an insert of data from quote to either capability, background or intel section. Possibly upgrading existing similar info. I will post the link here. Blade-of-the-South talk 07:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a new article about the incident and should be included. It is at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-and-the-role-of-saudi-intelligence-the-mint-news-report/5359154
Chris Bury ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that following consultation with expert Richard Lloyd, Brown Moses has now joined the WhoGhouta estimate of 2.5 km range for the rockets. Since Brown Moses / Eliot Higgins is considered a reliable source (he is quoted elsewhere in this article), the 'trajectory intersection' theory which assumes a 9.5 km range (Zamalka to Mt. Qasiun), can now be safely considered invalid. I recommend qualifying all references to this theory accordingly. For example, in the lead:
Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. Specifically, the inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these pointed to the government's elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun. However, more recent evidence indicates Mt. Qasioun is much farther than the rockets' range of 2.5 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawa ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've closed two RfCs in the archives, for those who are interested:
If there are any concerns, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
here. 189.12.179.231 ( talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Sayerslle, but I'm going to propose that we cut the EAWorldView commentary from the "Evidence" section of the article, because it fails, almost humorously, to understand the points made by the Hersh article:
The EAWorldView piece counters that the existence of a US government-provided transcript - which has nothing to do with a sensor system - shows that the sensor system did work. This clearly demonstrates that Joanna Paraszczuk and Scott Lucas don't understand Hersh's article. They furthermore quote from a WSJ article that is simply running through that very same transcript Hersh's sources say are manipulated.
EAWorldView is not a particularly notable source and, because it is confused about Hersh's piece, I recommend that we ditch it. - Darouet ( talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a new, extensive commentary on the issues by Seymour Hersh on the London Review of Books website. [1]. Hersh is obviously an excellent source, and the LRB website means it's not self-published. Podiaebba ( talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"Sophia @les_politiques 12h Hersh has published an authoritative investigation on Sarin in #Ghouta. Any rational being should b instilled w some doubt,no? .@Brown_Moses
Brown Moses @Brown_Moses 12h @les_politiques I've just written a piece for Foreign Policy highlighting a few key points he appears unaware of Sayerslle ( talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Sayerslle, describing one of the most storied investigative journalists in the U.S. as "senile," and his report as "gossip" and "musings," is disrespectful, and indicates that you lack the objectivity or competence to evaluate reliable sources. What Hersh has done, by the way, is get senior government officials, at the risk of destroying their own careers, to say that the Obama administration has been lying about Ghouta, and that many in the intelligence community are frustrated or angry with the misleading narrative. He also reveals that an Op Order (DIA, CIA) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that the rebels could deploy sarin. Regarding Eliot Higgins, he just runs a blog and, yes, has limited expertise or weight. But he has published a reply in Foreign Policy, and so his voice automatically has some authority in this issue. Secondly, I'd argue that his analyses, even without the FP article, have been important and worth considering (for us too). The other side of this is that the whogouta blog, whose conclusions oppose those of Higgins, is just as notable, and probably more reliable, considering the experts actually working for it. - Darouet ( talk) 15:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
@Darouet you 'don't actually think that the Hersh piece is arguing that the "rebels did it." ',- but the article is titled 'Whose Sarin?' is it not? Implying...? Do you see what he's implying? clever old codger . And if you say I'm guilty of not showing enough respect to one of your heroes , thats tough-people are free to admire whom they choose are they not? Sayerslle ( talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A recent article written by Seymour Hersh and published in the London Review of Books is currently cited 21 times - as near as I can tell more any any other source. This seems like undue coverage to me, particularly since the article is in a literary review journal, not a publication with a reputation for fact checking the work of their authors. Is there any reason this article has had Hersh's piece written in so heavily? VQuakr ( talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DENY
|
---|
|
No, Sayerslle, Hersh is probably the most respected investigative journalist in America right now, and has been for some time. - Darouet ( talk) 22:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Darouet -above, did you say @whoghouta is more reliable than brown moses? based on what? whoghouta announced a while back the rebels did it and embraced Russian claims with no evidence whatever, no? who is whoghouta anyhow? @snarwani embraced whoghouta too. seems to me the narrative of pro-regime ideologues shouldn't be seized upon and foisted on the article just because they feel power politics is going their way. you are a bit of a power worshipper imo. reality is the master. Sayerslle ( talk) 09:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's apparently a chemical used as an additive in sarin that the Syrian government was known to stockpile prior to the attack, and its signature was found at at least one attack site. Dan Kaszeta is credited with spotting the link in the UN report. Probably worth adding a mention to the article somewhere, but I'm wondering exactly where. [12] - Kudzu1 ( talk) 06:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Since hexamine is also widely available commercially, analysts noted, it is impossible to point to hexamine’s presence on the battlefield as conclusive evidence of who made the chemical weapons used in the Ghouta attack. Other chemists have said hexamine could have been used in the blaster components of the weapons that dispersed the nerve agent, but that would not explain why hexamine was on the list of chemicals in the government’s arsenal.
@fm - if RS continue to refer to his work, Wikipedia will I hope. He was interviewed and asked if he had any allegiance - he answered that he didn't - beyond being for the Syrian people in general and hoping the war could end as quickly as possible - I see no reason to assume he was lying - his work is not biased, just thorough about looking at the weapons. Sayerslle ( talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Robert Parry (journalist) at consortiumnews.com: NYT Replays Its Iraq Fiasco in Syria Podiaebba ( talk) 14:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In the UN team's recent
press conference, Sellstrom has clearly indicated the trajectory intersection theory is likely incorrect, and the rocket's range is probably 2 km.
It's ridiculous that this is still presented as evidence for regime attack on this page. I recommend removing it completely from the lead, and mentioning it only as a discredited theory.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Swawa (
talk •
contribs) 01:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
from brown moses - More pro-Hezbollah sites claiming the Volcano rocket is Hezbollah made, a very interesting claim... [19] Sayerslle ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC) and volcano videos from pro-government sources [20]
The article needs updating based on the evidence from the recently released MIT study, See for example here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html - Helvetica ( talk) 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the link I posted was to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, not RT, so that should be Western and mainstream enough to be considered "neutral," "reliable," etc. ;-) ( talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@User:Sayerslle - You need to work on getting your facts straight. First you claim that I shared a link from RT, which I didn't. I posted a link for a mainstream newspaper in Texas. Then you write: "yeh but just above you wrote - 'in arguing for Syrian government responsibility' - but that isn't what it said is it, ?;-)" When in fact that quote is completely fabricated.
In any event, Wikipedia is not limited to sources like HRW and the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," and certainly not the "Brown Moses" blog or the "Gay Girl in Damascus!" An MIT study reported by a mainstream daily with large circulation certainly qualifies as a reliable source. It strikes me that you're desperate to keep this perspective from being heard so you're engaging in disinfo and obfuscation in your comments here...
The case here is clear. New analysis has come to light. It's been published by a very reputable institution and reported by mainstream media. It deserves inclusion pure and simple. - Helvetica ( talk) 19:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@darouet - saw this on twitter - 'I wonder if @WhoGhouta will finally adapt to what we know now. @DanKaszeta was right, @Brown_Moses was right, regime did Aug21 CW attack.' - hell will freeze over before Putin/Russia and Assad regime speak real-ly, reality oriented, that's my guess. Sayerslle ( talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Hersh article. - Darouet ( talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors (inspecting previous attacks) were there. The deal was to do something spectacular.
Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it." [33] Sensational stuff - or senile fantasies? Sayerslle ( talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
'Richard Lloyd @Richard323232 · 8 mins @Brown_Moses @aliosaday no body knows..The fact that Syria has the rockets is not proof. u need to focus on the sarin.. that's the hard part @Brown_Moses @aliosaday I am talking about the rocket only... sarin is not my game.. good luck.' Sayerslle ( talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the latest analysis of Hersh’s article related to Ghouta gas attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1331 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Tow users, (@ Sayerslle: and @ Sopher99:) have several times removed a claim RT said was made by the Syrian government back in December 2012. The statement they remove is: “the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas, which is used in the production of sarin.” Is RT a reliable source for that claim when they stated (in March 2013) that “the Syrian government said in December that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas”? Ref: ( http://rt.com/bulletin-board/rt-news-21-march-2013-1700msk-605/) Erlbaeko ( talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The question is still if RT is considered a reliable source for presenting the Syrian governments claims? Erlbaeko ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions.
Regarding the SYN violation; I have not implied any conclusion. I have simply referred to a source that states that “the Syrian government stated in December 2012 that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas”, and I like that to be included in the perpetrators section in the infobox, under the government claim to promote WP:NPOV. I can find another references for the part of the sentence which says fluoride is used in the production of sarin, if that is the WP:SYN part you are talking about. Erlbaeko ( talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to see any consensus here, but most users seems to agree that it is the context of the article that is important when considering if it is reliable, not which News media who posted it. I will not include the statement in the heading of the article again (since the article is not directly linked to the ghouta attacks), but I will edit the info box so it doesn’t imply that the UN has concluded with respect to the perpetrator. Erlbaeko ( talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
article on the victims - [42] Sayerslle ( talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Important work by @hisham_ashkar to put a name & face to some of the victims of the Aug chemical weapon attack #Syria - r-tweeted by Nadim Houry - of HRW. ( I get your thought - WordPress, not RS - but I placed the info here for reference sake kind of thing - delete it , if i'm mis-using the talk page ) Sayerslle ( talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The word "declared" has been smuggled into the OPCW official's statement once and again, despite it has not been used by that person. In my opinion, this is a POV-push. -- Emesik ( talk) 13:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Only two responses so far to a deletion motion on the article Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability, from me and User:Erlbaeko. Visit the deletion discussion if you would like to contribute. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The UN reports do not indicate that opposition fighters were among the dead. Linking to an unverified, unreliable source is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask33c ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi VQuakr, I agree with Erlbaeko and am surprised by your removal of text about Hersh's first report. The reporter and venue have an impeccable record - far above many other sources used in this article (which include blog posts) - and the material concerns statements by a former U.S. intelligence official, typical of Hersh's reporting style. Furthermore, your edit summary mischaracterizes the nature of previous discussions here, which Erlbaeko linked in his revert. - Darouet ( talk) 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with the "consolidation" of the Hersh's reports, which for many critical aspects of these chemical attacks reduces the page to a single uncontested narrative. That narrative *is* in fact contested, not just by Hersh but by members of the United States intelligence community and by internal U.S. intelligence reports. It would be one thing to treat hypotheses or intelligence estimates presented by Hersh or his sources as fact in this article, but as they appeared, these estimates were attributed, and consensus reporting by U.S. news outlets were also noted as such. Removing the unofficial U.S. intelligence reports from many critical locations of this article however only does a great disservice to readers by limiting information available to them. It also has the effect of advancing the long-term and more or less openly stated positions that you Kudzu1, VQuakr and Sayerslle have adopted in this conflict, as if you were participants and not editors. That's unfortunate for the encyclopedia and certainly not necessary for any of you individually as participants here. - Darouet ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
How do we close this? I don't see any consensus for removing the Del Ponte's statement or for consolidation of the Hersh reports. According to WP:NOCON, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Anybody have a proposal to a text we can agree upon, or should we revert some or all edits since this version? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
After no consensus could be reached for this removal of Carla Del Pontes statement, ip 92.3.14.149, removed her statement again with this revert, calling it "synth", and asked what RS link her comments to Ghouta.
This article has many citations of the September 2013 report "Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013" and mostly treats it as "the" UN report. But the Final Report was issued in December 2013. The final report is barely referenced. I am going to change some headings to reflect this fact. It not my common practice to do so, but in this case is important enough that it needs to be done. I hope others will help update the article to reflect more information from the final report. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that the MIT Science, Technology, and Global Security Working Group report found at the link below has not been included in the Wikipedia article as it concludes that the rockets containing the sarin could not have been launched from any Syrian government controlled areas due to the aerodynamics of the modified rockets and the much reduced range as a result thereof.
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/docs/2014/01/16/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf
Mnnlaxer. Thanks for all your work on this article. I noticed you removed the "about 1500 * 500 meter in the Zamalka and nearby Ein Tarma area" statement. I believe that is relevant information, but it may be rewritten. Have you notised the map in the full report? The impact points are also listed in the table here: Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#Incidents Erlbaeko ( talk) 22:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the names of the neighborhoods that were not part of the attacks on 21 August 2013. These other neighborhoods did reflect movement of victims, so it makes sense to remove them and the disclaimer. I would like to find a different map that didn't highlight the names of these other neighborhoods, but I can't find any good candidates. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the Early Opinions section (the last one) was confused. In general, the VIPS letter wasn't an early speculation that was refuted by the later citations, although there was a tenuous link through another uncited article written by a member of VIPS on his own behalf (Phillip Giraldi at http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whats-the-evidence-behind-the-case-for-war/). But the link was a minor part of both the VIPS letter and Giraldi's article. So I moved the VIPS letter paragraph later (roughly chronological) in the section. There was also a noticeable POV that I tried to remove.
In general, the section is really more of a listing of reports and opinions about the claim that the rebels were responsible. The material would be better used in the other sections. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Removed paragraph:
This paragraph doesn't address motivation directly, but rather mentions earlier possible attacks and how Assad could ramp up use if he wanted to use chemical weapons. The first source is used the in April Jobar chemical attacks section. The second source is not straight reporting, but advocacy. The source for the first quote is unnamed and the second wrote a report for an advocacy think tank. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Mnnlaxer. The Jobar attacks in the background section refers to a series of alleged sarin attacks in Jobar between 12-14 April 2013. It appears from page 10 in the final UN report that they did't receive sufficient or credible information to support the allegation. However, I agree that the attack on government troops in Jobar on 24 August 2013 should be mentioned (and so should the attack on them in Bahhariyeh on 22 August 2013 and in Ashrafiah Sahnaya of 25 August 2013). It is all covered in the final UN report. Erlbaeko ( talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The above paragraph was removed from the Communication section. The first sentence doesn't concern communications, but chemical sensors placed in Syria by US intelligence. The second part does refer to communications, but it is not from the WSJ article ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579194203188283242 available to read if the first sentence is googled). The quote is from EA Worldview. ( http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/syria-special-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-wasnt-seymour-hershs-exclusive-dissected/) It refers to the WSJ article, but it doesn't respond to Hersh's chemical sensor claim. I also question whether EA WorldView is a reliable source. It is cited in another part of the article. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose removing the Timing section. The attacks occurred at different times and there are sources in the Attacks section supporting them. Only the first citation BBC isn't used elsewhere in the article and I will move that citation to the Eastern Ghouta section. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@ FutureTrillionaire: I removed the map "Ghouta chemical attack map" created by user FutureTrillionaire located on Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ghouta_chemical_attack_map.svg according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." There is no attribution of a source for this map. If one can be produced, great. If not, I would recommend deletion of the source file from Commons. It is currently being used on about 15 Wiki pages, mostly non-English versions of the Ghouta attack pages.
I also note that Ayn Tarma on this map is placed on the south side of the river, while it is actually on the north side. This was MapQuest's error, but they have corrected it. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
These sections overlap. I proposed moving the Capabilities section into the Evidence - Capabilities sub-section and adding an Evidence - Perpetrators sub-section. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the Perpetrators section right now. It hasn't changed since I started editing this article:
I'm going to WP:Be bold and move the first paragraph to a new section at the end of the UN investigation section, as it is derivative of the UN Mission report. And move the second paragraph to the Chemical weapons capabilities section.
This leaves no Perpetrators section.
I don't think this is a problem. There are plenty of sentences, sources, motivations, and evidences that call one side or the other the perpetrator. But since a separate Perpetrator section would only recite these items again in summary, I don't think it is necessary. I don't have a problem with re-creating a Perpetrators section, and maybe it is necessary, but it certainly should not be just what is currently written there (above). Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This statement "According to Robert Fisk, the chemical attacks in the night of 21 August were part of "one of [the Syrian army's] fiercest bombardments of rebel areas. In 12 separate attacks, it tried to put special forces men inside the insurgent enclaves, backed up by artillery fire. These included the suburbs of Harasta, and Arbin."", in the Witness statements section is supposed to be backed by this article. But the article don't say the chemical attacks were a part of the Syrian army's campaign. It says the Syrian army's campaign started "long before the use of sarin gas on 21 August and continued long afterwards". Erlbaeko ( talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe the weather information deserves a separate section for two reasons:
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The term Ghouta is used in a lot of different ways. I've done some googling, but can't find a definitive source that is usable yet. It seems to have originally meant the natural oasis caused by the Barada river, which flows south and then east from the Anti-Lebanon mountains, ending before the desert to the east of Damascus. The western part of this oasis was the site where Damascus was founded, and as it developed, the agricultural area was moved east and expanded by irrigation. To keep this green oasis meaning today, it should mean the natural floodplain and the irrigated agricultural land on either side of the Barada. However, it is used in some places as just meaning the Damascus suburbs to the east and south. This sort of makes sense, as urbanization and now drought have turned the formerly fertile land into dense habitation and dry fields.
From the UN and HRW reports, Ghouta, Eastern Ghouta, and Western Ghouta are completely embedded in this article's subject. So I'm not saying their use should end or be curtailed. However, it doesn't help that the article Ghouta is unsourced and it is used in different ways in this article's sources. I started a discussion on the Ghouta talk page to try to add sources to the general concept. For this article, I will try to clarify what it means in context from the sources used. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]
This is five reverts in a 48 hour period. This includes three reverts that were done within 24 hours, on an article which is under discretionary sanctions.
This is disruptive behavior.
On top of that, the text being added in is obviously a WP:NPOV violation AND based on a non-reliable source ( WP:RS). It's basically conspiracy junk.
AND on top of that, the edit summary claims "consensus" and requests discussion where it's pretty obvious that there is no existing discussion on the talk page nor is there any consensus for inclusion of this junk. Hence, the edit summary is (purposefully) misleading. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are three parts to the deleted/reverted content:
The sources (1 and 3) are opinions, I agree they should not be used. But what is objectionable about the statement (2)? It is close to just basic common sense, barely requiring citation if it weren't so controversial to claim it happened. Even the suggestion seems to get some people enraged. But this section is about motivation, not what actually happened. Here are some sources that explain the motivation:
Also note that the last section of the article lists several prominent people who have publicly called the attacks a "false flag" to get the US involved. So how could the statement here be denied?
My suggestion is to add the text above, either as is or rewritten, to the article in its previous spot sourced to any of the three articles here.
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Look. You're trying to insert some wacky conspiracy theory into the article. All you got to support it is either a) non-reliable bullshit sources or b) reliable sources which document the fact that this is a wacky conspiracy theory. You're very busy trying to pretend that the b) kind of sources are sufficient to present the wacky conspiracy theories as if they are true. They're not. All they could support at best is the statement that there exist some wacky conspiracy theories out there which are not worth paying attention to. So why should we pay attention to them? You're flipping every relevant Wikipedia policy on its head. It's manipulative and disruptive. It's WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from sources to craft a sentence with. I think the best compromise would be to use attribution for the claimed motivation.
But, it could be in a RS voice with a combination of the Haaretz quote, any Obama "red line" quote, and this: "The wavering from the West dealt an unquestionable blow to the Syrian opposition, which had thought it had finally secured military intervention after pleading for two and a half years for help from Western leaders that vocally opposed Assad." Stewart, Phil; Oweis, Khaled Yacoub (10 September 2013). "Syria vows to give up chemical weapons, no deal yet at U.N." Reuters.
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
On 30 August 2013, a Canadian radio host and commentator, Jeff Kuhner, questioned how "striking Syria on behalf of Al Qaida" would boost U.S. interests. He also questioned the motive of the attack, stating that the "Syrian dictator has no rational motive to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" and that the rebels "have a major incentive to use WMD upon their own population to garner international sympathy". He continued, "The Islamist opposition cannot win unless — as in Libya — they enlist Western military intervention." [1]
References
I don't want to use Erlbaeko's suggestion. Kuhner isn't very prominent and it's an op-ed. I think either of the two choices I presented, with attribution, are sufficient. As for the larger FRINGE or WEIGHT issues, I will start a new section. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Peralta, Eyder (27 August 2013). "Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?". NPR. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
"Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons." Lopez is George Lopez, a professor of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame and Winfield is Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of CBRNe World. Winfield in particular makes adding the motivation a slam dunk.
I consider the part of the discussion on possible motivation closed. I have waited to see if any editors agreed with Volunteer Marek's large deletion of the Early Opinions section, but it seems like that could be closed too. I will comment more below on that later. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html
I think this should be at least mentioned considering that it contains more than the "he said, she said" you see in official statements (from both sides).
One more source (same document) in case the first one doesn't work:
This document is used in the article, although it could be used more. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit [50].
The included text says: "Gywn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, said that the rebels may have had the motivation to use chemical weapons"
What the source actually says: ""[A rebel attack] is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield." and ""This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario (attack by rebels - VM) just doesn't make sense.".
So yes, it's possible that they could "have the motivation" but the guy goes out of his way to say that they probably didn't do it. And yes, I understand the difference between "likelihood" and "motivation". I also understand the difference between POV and NPOV. If you only put in a statement about "motivation" and omit the statement about the LOW likelihood that the source repeatedly emphasizes, you're bullshitting, trying to pull a fast one, engaging in shenanigans, playing fast and loose with sources, misrepresenting them, being tendentious, pushing POV and otherwise behaving disruptively. I'm sorry, did you think that you were talking to someone who is too dumb to read the actual source? Now quit this stupid game. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Lopez and Winfield agree that the rebels may have the motivation to use chemical weapons. "This anarchic, killing stalemate" could motivate anyone, Winfield says, but such a scenario (attack by rebels - VM) just doesn't make sense." For one thing, the alleged chemical attack happened in the Ghouta region of Damascus. It is controlled by the rebels, and civilians in the area sympathize with the rebels. "The smart thing [for the rebels] would be for you to aim for barracks and maime[sic]/kill a significant few hundred soldiers as the best chance for reverberations that played to your advantage," said Lopez. "This was not done."
Also recall above that I suggested attributing the sentence to either a Russian diplomat or Assad supporters. I really think the NPR article with a Winfield quote is a better solution, but if Volunteer Marek objects to using Winfield for attribution, surely he can't claim I'm misrepresenting either of those sources. How about one of those? What can't be argued is keeping the sentence out of the article. As the opening sentence of NPOV states: articles should include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Under possible government motive a section is called "To strengthen the morale". It is sourced, but imo it should be removed anyway. Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion of whether this article is a reliable source for this statement; "The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic", included in the initial claims section at RSN - Attributed statement sourced by RT news article. -- Erlbaeko ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I seek consensus and understanding that this edit by User:Volunteer Marek be reverted now. At the minimum until mediation is rejected or complete, but as I will try to show, in any result it would be better to revert and make discrete changes rather than delete material from all over the article for different reasons. I will divide the edits up and sign each one so that any discussion can happen within the different edits.
So... you're asking other people to revert on your behalf? bobrayner ( talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.
References
I have reverted the edit and if there are objections to any part of this large edit, I expect all editors to break up their changes into smaller pieces and fully explain their reasons for the changes here. Including addressing my arguments above. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack. One report published by Mint Press News that was widely circulated said that the casualties were caused by leaking, accidentally opened, or intentionally released canisters of chemical weapons stored by rebel forces in tunnels. [1] Several reports rebutted this claim. [2] [3] [4]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Some acting and former intelligence officials were critical of the report, the AP quoting unnamed officials stating the report's evidence was "not a slam dunk". [1] The AP also characterised the evidence released by the administration as circumstantial and said the government had denied its requests for more direct evidence, including satellite imagery and communications intercepts cited in the government assessment. [2]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Motivation
The motivation of the attack have been questioned, and the timing seems odd, since a team of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors were staying in a hotel just a few miles from the attack sites. [1] [2] [3]Possible Government motives
To defeat opposition forces
The Syrian government would have had a motive to use chemical weapons tactically if it believed there was no threat of international reprisal. However, it would seem like rather odd timing from Assad's perspective, since the attack came just days after a team of UN weapons inspectors landed in Damascus. Still, the attack might simply have been launched in an area designated as off-limit for the UN inspectors. [3]
A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by opposition in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention. [1] While another reporter, James Miller, pointed to the fact that the affected area had strong opposition leanings, and was a major supply route to the front lines in the fighting in east Damascus. Miller added that "Assad's forces in both Mt Qassioun and in the Mezzeh airport have this area very zeroed in for rocket (typically Grads) and artillery strikes." [3]
A reporter for The Daily Telegraph also pointed to the questionable timing given government forces had recently beaten back opposition in some areas around Damascus and recaptured territory. "Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?" The reporter also questioned why would the attacks happen just three days after the inspectors arrived in Syria. [4]
Syrian human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouneh, who is a member of the Syrian opposition, argued that the Assad government would launch a chemical attack because "it knows that the international community would not do anything about it, like it did nothing about all the previous crimes." [5]
Israeli reporter Ron Ben-Yishai stated that the motive to use chemical weapons could be the "army's inability to seize the rebel's stronghold in Damascus' eastern neighbourhoods," or fear of rebel encroachment into Damascus with tacit civilian support. [6]
Revenge for an attack on the Assad family
Western officials and Salim Idris, commander of the Free Syrian Army, said a purported assassination attempt against Assad earlier in August suggested the chemical attack on the rebel enclaves was a reprisal for the attempt, which killed an Assad family bodyguard. [7] [8]
Possible opposition motives
To trigger a western military intervention
According to military experts, both sides are locked in a political and military stalemate, and the opposition cannot win without western military intervention or support. [9]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Is it consensus to remove it?
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Early opinions
In the interval between the attacks on 21 August 2013 and the UN's initial report on 16 September, there was speculation in the media and by public officials regarding alternate theories surrounding the attack. One report published by Mint Press News that was widely circulated said that the casualties were caused by leaking, accidentally opened, or intentionally released canisters of chemical weapons stored by rebel forces in tunnels. [1] Several reports rebutted this claim. [2] [3] [4]
The claims of two European writers held hostage by the rebel Abu Ammar Brigade also attracted some attention. After being released in early September 2013, Pierre Piccinin, a writer from Belgium said they overheard some captors say that the Syrian regime was not responsible for the attacks. Domenico Quirico, a journalist from Italy, said this is only a conjecture. [5]
As newspaper budgets for field reporters have decreased and Syria has become dangerous for reporters, non-governmental advocacy groups have played an increasing role in reporting; and news organisations have been less capable of independently evaluating their claims. As noted by Carroll Bogert of Human Rights Watch, "We do feel that as journalism has ebbed, we have a responsibility to flow." [6]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 08:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This material, as seen in context here, has been removed from the article several times.
Lavrov further stated that the Syrian government had no motive to use chemical weapons since the government already maintained a military advantage over the rebel fighters. [1] On 9 October, a US spokesman stated the administration lacks the "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" some American voters are seeking but that a "common-sense test" implicates Assad. [2]
References
Is it consensus to remove it? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an issue in the current article where the second sentence above and another that attributes and cites Hersh are post-attack. I'm moved these two sentences to the United States section for the post-attack assessment. [53] We can work on integrating them better later. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 17:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)