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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 120 days

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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghouta chemical attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghouta chemical attack at the Reference desk.

A news item involving Ghouta chemical attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 August 2013.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 21, 2015, August 21, 2020, and August 21, 2023.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Syria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Chemicals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mattis has admitted they have no evidence, and wikileaks has sad it was planted and not the full story Al Farwazirip ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Do you have any sources? If you are referring to Jim Mattis' press conference in February 2018, I suggest you read the transcript. He said Assad's government had used the nerve agent sarin during both the Obama and Trump administrations (referring to the attacks in Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun). He then says "and now we have other reports" of sarin use and he does not yet have evidence of these recent reports, but he is "not refuting them".

Here are the relevant parts of the transcript (with emphasis added):

• Mattis: We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
  ...
  Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
  Mattis: Yeah.
  Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?
  Mattis: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, 'cause they used it again during our administration.
  And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

Additional sources:

• "A Litmus Test for Detecting Syria Trolls" by Stephen R. Shalom (February 17, 2018).
• "Newsweek Engages in Easily Debunkable Syria Chemical Weapon Trutherism with the Help of Ian Wilkie" by Eliot Higgins (February 9, 2018).

CowHouse ( talk) 03:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Very misleading. This article states that the Syrian government was the perpetrator as fact. Wikipedia should be neutral and not function as a vehicle to perpetuate propoganda of certain states. As is also stated, different government investigations came to different conclusions. 2600:4040:7CD4:AE00:2FCD:4999:37A0:193B ( talk) 20:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Since this page seems to have been largely neglected in the past year, I added a section detailing important new legal developments in the national criminal justice systems of Germany, France, and Sweden; in my view, the page as it stood did a disservice to readers by failing to live up to its encyclopedic aspirations. That is why, despite the fact that this is not an area where I consider myself to have specialist technical knowledge, I made these additions; with this in mind, and since I know this issue is contentious and that nuance and precision are important - especially in legal matters - I invite feedback from other editors on the new section. Publius In The 21st Century ( talk) 00:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The header image currently used is too gruesome with its depiction of a dead man and two dead children. I suggest either the image be changed, or at least their faces blurred out of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahdriyami ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Agree. There has to be a better representative picture that doesn't show dead bodies right as you open the article. Starlesspicturesofthemoon ( talk) 02:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Doubtful to me that there is any better representative picture of a mass murder than dead people. Please see WP:OM and WP:NOTCENSORED. VQuakr ( talk) 04:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

As of now the page is heavily editorialized and breaks multiple rules of neutrality and sourcing, I would like to revert it to a previous version of 13:40, 24 November as it doesn’t contain the editorializations and doesn’t break neutrality rules Bobisland ( talk) 20:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

No, if there's something in the relatively limited changes since then that's concerning to you, let's address them specifically not mass revert 8 months back. VQuakr ( talk) 20:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok then the first sentence which is editorializing, has no source and is very poorly worded, the removal of claims on perpetuators and U.N investigation which isn’t neutrality, the replacement of the attack and U.N investigation in the intro with blames of responsibility which is also editorialized and poorly worded Bobisland ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The replacement for everything I listed would be what was previously in its place Bobisland ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Those are all improvements; no we don't need to remove them. We don't generally cite content in the lead that summarizes the body, but we can add a cite for Russia and Assad blaming others if you feel that's important. VQuakr ( talk) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Many pages cite in the lead where there is a follow-up later in the body, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for instance. Providing sources in the lead provides credit to the article for the reader, as the lead is the main focus of an article unless someone dives into the article details. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 06:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ KeepItGoingForward: assuming you're discussing this proposed edit? It duplicates (not references) two sources and also a footnote. I'm assuming you meant to reference them not duplicate? Why those two, and why add the duplicate footnote? No I don't think any additional cites are needed here nor do I think it will reduce vandalism to have them. VQuakr ( talk) 05:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

You appear to be the only editor with this view. Bobisland, also is of the view that we should have quality citations in the lead paragraph. Can you revert your reversion until there comes a time that a different consensus is reach by the article editors? KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 06:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

No, Bobisland had a different suggestion, to roll back the article months. Suggest a new section for your idea. Rather than interjecting it into this old discussion. And no, the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus before making changes. VQuakr ( talk) 07:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for linking me to that page, as it states, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." This page receives a large amount of challenges, so I was citing as stated by Wikipedia:Verifiability. The first sentence that includes, "carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad" especially gets challenged so could be cited as per the guidelines. Please revert the changes and feel free to improve it. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 16:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Bobisland was proposing a reversion to a previous iteration of the article that primarily involves a change to the infobox - see the link I posted below. No other editor has supported this, and at least two of us, VQuakr and myself, have opposed it (possibly also Kleinpecan). So there is certainly no consensus for that reversion. KeepItGoingForward appears to be making a new proposal but has not spelled it out on this talk page or gotten support for it yet. That should be done in a new talk page section to avoid confusion. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC) I've created a new section below where we can gain consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• For reference, here is the comparison. Lots of very minor edits that would be a major mistake to revert, some trimming of tangential stuff, only slightly significant difference is in the infobox and the lead, both of which seem improved to me. The first sentence is easily verified. Oppose this suggestion. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That’s not neutrality and it’s disputed, it was investigated by the U.N which concluded it most likely used Syrian chemical stockpiles but didn’t conclude it was carried out by the Syrian government while the Syrian government and Russia accused rebels of committing the attack, stating accusations as facts breaks neutrality editing rules on Wikipedia Bobisland ( talk) 10:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The consensus among reliable sources is overwhelming. The dissenting views are already reported here under Reactions, but they are basically fringe. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The Syrian and Russian government aren’t fringe and are key figures in the incident, the reliability is accusations by opposing countries, the U.N already did a investigation which didn’t conclude Syria committed the attack, saying these sources are fringe is bias Bobisland ( talk) 21:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia articles are based on independent sources, not on the claims of the article's subject(s). And yes, Wikipedia is biased. Kleinpecan ( talk) 04:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I was implying biased to the point where the page is being disrupted due to its political nature and that doesn’t excuse removing key figure statements using 3rd party sources Bobisland ( talk) 10:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

We give the Russian and Syrian government positions in the article already. Which "key figure statements using 3rd party sources" have been removed that you want to go back in? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

All the ones that were previously in the info box Bobisland ( talk) 11:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

But no refs or claims have been removed in the edits you're talking about. Rather, three refs have been added to the infobox. You're going to need to spell out what you want, otherwise this is both pointless and confusing. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The info box in perpetrators, each accusation was listed with its source but then someone removed them all over time excluding the Syrian government that’s what I’m referring to WP:CONFLICTING Bobisland ( talk) 00:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

It didn't in the version you're requesting we restore. WP:CONFLICTING is an essay not policy. We don't use infoboxes to give equal weight to fringe views as mainstream views. The Russian and regime claims are reported in the article body. I'll stop here unless your request gets support from other editors. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes that’s the version I want to restore in the perpetrators tab and it’s not “regime” it’s the Syrian government and the key perpetrators and U.N aren’t fringe Bobisland ( talk) 09:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

We say government not regime in the article (outside of direct quotes). Or are you complaining about calling the Syrian regime a regime on the article talk page? If so, stop. I agree with BobFromBrockley that rolling this back would not be an improvement. VQuakr ( talk) 12:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The article already calls the Syrian government the regime outside of quotes along with other bias wordings and I’m not looking to argue only reach consensus which isn’t happening Bobisland ( talk) 11:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't. Current version. VQuakr ( talk) 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attack was committed by the Syrian regime and called on Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, "to apply all pressure within his powers to pressure the Syrian regime." ^[1] The last quote also doesn’t exist in its source regardless I wasn’t trying to dispute any of this only the edit that removed all the links in the infobox Bobisland ( talk) 06:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That's an indirect quote; it's not in Wikivoice. Good catch on the referencing error; I added a cite directly after the direct quote. VQuakr ( talk) 21:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Discussion in previous section on the inclusion of references in the lead. Diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=next&oldid=1117101956 Justification per KeepItGoingForward: Many pages cite in the lead where there is a follow-up later in the body, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for instance. Providing sources in the lead provides credit to the article for the reader, as the lead is the main focus of an article unless someone dives into the article details. Also cites WP:ONUS that all material likely to be contested should have a source. Opposed by VQuakr on grounds of avoiding duplication of refs. Key policy: MOS:LEADCITE, which states The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Just out of curiosity, I am curious why this has turned into a large debate? All I am suggesting is adding citations to the first two sentences as I once did after a likely vandal used the lack of citations as an excuse to change the page. Since this event is controversial aka suggesting more citations and there also also people that challenge the statements in the first two sentences so as per MOS:LEADCITE why not add a couple of citations in? I don't see it taking away from the readability of the article. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 09:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

It really isn't much of a debate. You want to add unnecessary cites and no one else seems to think it is necessary. Vandals are gonna vandal regardless of cites. VQuakr ( talk) 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The lead is not exempt from citation policies and guidelines regarding contentious material. It's not an anti-vandalism method, it's required as part of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Fortunately the content is indeed verifiable, so we're in line with that policy. VQuakr ( talk) 05:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Wiki policies are rather clear about the citations being in the lead for this type of complex and controversial article including for verifiability as stated by Thebiguglyalien and other earlier comments. BobFromBrockley also commented about the lack of citations in the lead sentence in their comments on "Page should be reverted to version 13:40, 24 November 2021". It does appear at the moment that the consensus is for citations in the lead over limited to no citations in the lead as put forth by VQuakr. VQuakr what is your thinking about having a couple of more citations in the lead would take away from the readability of the sentence? To me they are barely noticeable unless you want to click them to following up with the credibility of a statement. To me they don't take away from the readability of an article. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 07:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

No, there is nothing like consensus for your proposed change. You don't get to count support from someone who happened to mention refs in another context. Quit referencing WP:V; that's already been addressed. Existing sources provide plenty of support for the lead as-is, and as already noted spamming more isn't going to prevent vandalism. VQuakr ( talk) 21:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

As per WP:V and WP:Verifiability as stated in this talk page and census reached on the talk page except for one dissenting view references are being added back into the lead. As can be seen it does not remove from the readability of the article. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 04:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You're the one proposing the change; you don't have credibility to judge consensus here. VQuakr ( talk) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from personal attacks of credibility. Myself and others have tried to engaged in a conversation with you of why you don't want any additional citations in the lead as per WP:V and WP:Verifiability and to understand why you believe the citations would take away from the article. In the earlier talk of "Page should be reverted to version 13:40, 24 November 2021" I also provided an example of a page that is similar that uses citations as I have edited and proposed here in the lead 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I realize you have done lots of reversions on this page, but you also need to realize as editors we are also here to help improve the page. We don't want to take anything away from the article. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

That's not a personal attack. You can read about what does and doesn't constitute and attack at WP:NPA. WP:V and WP:Verifiability are the same policy and we would be fully compliant with it with zero cites in the lead (direct quotes excepted). As has already been explained. VQuakr ( talk) 20:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

As per WP:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material." It also states lower down, "Attribute all of the following types of material to reliable, published sources using inline citations:"..."all material whose verifiability has been challenged"..."all material that is likely to be challenged"..."all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons." You will also notice numerous citations in WP:Verifiability in the lead portion of the article. I see no lead exception stated in the WP:Verifiability policy.

The first sentence of this article is, "The Ghouta chemical attack, was a chemical attack carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in the early hours of 21 August 2013 in Ghouta, Syria during the Syrian civil war." This material has been challenged and will likely be challenged in the future and also includes reference to a living person Bashar al-Assad.

My apologizes about double linking WP:V and WP:Verifiability.

I am also trying to understand besides your interpretation of Wiki policy how do you believe the citations would take away from the article? You believe a certain citation lower down in the lead is sufficient as a citation? KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I know what WP:V says. And the content is indeed verifiable. Nothing in that policy says we need multiple cites after ever sentence. Yes, extant sourcing in the lead is adequate. Spamming in more unnecessary cites is an example of bloat. VQuakr ( talk) 00:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

KeepItGoingForward asked me on my talk page to chime in here. I think WP:LEADCITE is pretty clear in allowing the proposed citation ("neither required ... nor prohibited"). But I think the more relevant guidance is this: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Since we know the accusation is controversial, why shouldn't the footnote appear in the lead? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Mikeblas: supporting footnotes are already in the lead. The proposal is go increase the count from 3 to 6 which I find excessive. VQuakr ( talk) 00:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. Is it not possible to reach a compromise with just one reference per each sentence? When the statements are echoed in the body of the article, all of the references can be reused, not just the highlited ones for the lead. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 01:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, I am happy to do less references such as one or two on the first and second sentence instead of three, but since it is so controversial and involves a living person I am of the view why not provide a diversity of sources. Does the number of sources take away from readability on the wiki? The last sentence of the lead has three references, so I am unsure how the first two sentences are somehow an exception. The first two sentences of the article has no references provided. We already have the three sources in a none-lead part of the article that would fix the issue and are the ones I have placed in the past before the reversions.

Additionally, only one of the citations in the lead as far as I can see from a quick read directly states that it is the Syrian regime that caused the attack. The other state the Syrian regime may have done it or are references for death tolls from other chemical weapon attacks. They are not stating who the perpetrators are.

I am of the view of following the guidance quoted by Mikeblas of "any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." and I would also add that the WP:LEADCITE also states that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." -- KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 09:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

What if, in the lede, we have a reference each for: lower bound of death toll, upper bound, deadliest since, and the actor? That's only three. All the references can stay in the body of the article, of course. Should the lede acknowledge there is dispute about the actor? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 18:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, we can spread the lead references out. I will start working on that.

Per the dispute about the actor I think it is mainly rhetoric without evidence that the actor was not the Syrian Military? I worry that adding in the dispute part may create confusion, but I also could see some value in putting it in the lead too to keep the article neutral to the extreme. I am not sure what would be the best approach and how wiki usually approaches this situation? KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 19:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Great, I think it should be fine for everyone if there's fewer refs in the lede, but still refs in the lede. would you agree VQuakr?

pI don't know much about this conflict or event, but it's just the regular matter of vetting sources. If the sources saying something are reputable (see WP:RS), then we use them. If they're not reputable (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories for example) we don't use them. It's possible that reliable sources say two (or more!) different things; when that happens I just write "some think foo [references], and some think bar [references]'" ... and maybe explan or expand those positions. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The Syrian government's counter-claims weren't viewed as credible (and were viewed as quite predictable since it was their SOP) and do not merit mention in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. "carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad" is not a BLP statement; I'm not sure why BLP is being brought up here. It isn't necessary to end every sentence with a cite; end of paragraph is editorially favorable when there aren't quotes. VQuakr ( talk) 18:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The guidelines specifically states, "any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." That means after every sentence. Bashar al-Assad is a living person. I agree about not mentioning the counter-claims in the lead due to the none-credible nature. KeepItGoingForward ( talk) 05:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I support the edit proposed by Mikeblas and to leave the counter-claims, which are non-credible, out of the lead. It really doesn't hurt to have the citations in the lead, and it wards off some of the drive-by objectors. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ KeepItGoingForward: Bashar al-Assad is indeed a living person, but the statement is not about him. It merely mentions him. So BLP does not apply here. Regardless, I appreciate the effort you put forth in the article-space edit to declutter the cites to the extent feasible. VQuakr ( talk) 17:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a message to VQuakr. You seem to push a POV against multiple users on this page. Namely, you seem to imply that the Assad army is responsible for the attack. Many sources disagrees, many wikipedia users told you to stop. Please discuss before reverting any new changes. Thanks 109.210.109.124 ( talk) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Your count is weird (it is one person, not "multiple users")
• You refer to a discussion that is one year old and led to the consensus you are disturbing now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply