Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

OPCW

To this very day, the OPCW finding remains questioanble so should not be used as a "final statement", unconditional with the language of sanction. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Any reliable neutral source supporting this, aside from the RT propaganda?-ז62 (talk)

Your claim of "propaganda" in the above is argumentum ad nauseam. Apart from that, what is a "neutral" source? --Coldtrack (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's actually not my claim... Please read the linked article. Anyway, such fringe sources should not be given the same weight as to the reliable ones. --ז62 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your claim, Donald Trump's claim - it's all the same here. Until such time it has been proven it remains argument from repetition. I know the FRINGE rules but since when was the Syrian position relegated to FRINGE? This is a diplomatic dispute with players sat on opposing pews. Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated yet what a "neutral" source is. Note that neutral and "reliable" don't mean the same thing. The latter is an arbitrary conception which does not share cross-Wiki language consensus. I know that the New York Times' of this world are WP:RS but I just want to read what the hell "neutral" is supposed to mean where reporting on irreconcilable conflict. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from further unwarranted personal attacks. If you sincerely believe your claims that "OPCW findings are somewhat 'questioanble'" you should be certainly able to prove that claims with reliable sources (independent from the Russian and Syrian/Assadist government propaganda), shouldn't you? No offense meant. Please do also read what your initial edit summary was - just for the consistency's sake. Again, no offense meant. Sincerely -ז62 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No attack was intended so I'll try to rephrase myself better this time (I apologise for real). Again you use the term "propaganda" ad nauseam. At this rate, the very existence of Russian media is "propaganda", otherwise what Russian material exists that is not propaganda? The revision to which you reverted treats the OPCW as a silver bullet. If so were the case, and the "analyses" had been released for peer review or deeper alternative examination, Syria could have done nothing more than concede that it had been lying. But it doesn't, and neither does Russia, and this report is one of many which explores the scenario. Claiming not a reliable source is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't personally consider the BBC reliable, and if Wikipedia ever operated a policy which rejected the BBC, I would do far better than claim it is not RS, I'd have the integrity to examine the source and expound why it is wrong. On this occasion, I was using the RT clip in discussion to demonstrate how the matter is looked upon from outside, and moreover to allow anyone else to see exactly what is being claimed so they can judge for themselves without poisoning the well. Propaganda may be one thing, but the analysis of the report and the verifiable evidence provided (across various other reports) shatters any claim of disinformation. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from such clearly false accusations. I've used the term "propaganda" just twice - as many times as you did. And I had not claimed that "'very existence of Russian media is "propaganda'" - I just pointed out that the RT network is an propaganda channel under control of the Putins's régime - which is a generally known fact, not my personal opinion.

I've reverted to the last consensus version, based upon reliable neutral sources, not upon someone's subjective opinion or original research.

Clip by RT can by perhaps used for demontrating what the Russian régime is claiming and/or attempting to divulge to the public, but it would be extremely naïve to use its claims in stead of the reliable sources.-ז62 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So it's the Putin "regime" is it? Can't be the Putin "government" can it as that wouldn't sound inimical enough. RT is on record as reporting from the Kremlin's perspective, yet mainstream apologists act as if the network actually denies this. And so what? If being a state-sponsored news network means it has to be false then this is called affirming the disjunct, and if that means we shouldn't listen to them, then that is called poisoning the well. Two successive fallacies and still nobody can demonstrate why any RT report is misleading or must be unreliable. I apply the term "regime" to Washington, Israel, the Saudis and certain other affiliates, so forgive me for using the term "Russian government" (may be tit-for-tat, but once a reporter speaks of the "Assad regime", he has already betrayed his political position). I suspect you didn't watch the clip. It did not explore opinions of people in the Kremlin, it was an analysis of the OPCW and the flaws of the investigation and the unanswered questions, and to be honest, there are more like this - but they come from Press TV, sometimes China's CCTV, media from other countries or from outside the mainstream - but they are all rebuffed as "not RS". But I am not campaigning for their usage, I am only showing how other standpoints exist and we should not treat controversy with the language of sanction. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to look up the régime, if you're still somewhat unsure about it. Also, if you have some reliable neutral source(s) to support your claims, please add it/them here. And please stop with your allegations and attacks unsupported by reliable sources. And again - please read what exactly you've been claiming here. Rants about "poisoning the well" can perhaps sound quite good, but can not possibly stand under closer examination, e.g. when someone notice that your edit was made without mentioning any source. Also, you can not claim that you're not supporting Communist Chinese/Putinist Russian source and pushing them - at least not simultaneously). If any neutral sources supporting your claims do exist it should not be such a great problem to link them. Thank you and please refrain from further vulgar attacks in the future.-ז62 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Three times I enquired what is a "neutral" source, and to date you have failed to answer. I have given you enough evidence to show that the OPCW reported one thing, and Russian media responded to the report. You can't get more reliable than the horse's own mouth. That is totally different from making a claim and using the "unliked" source to back it up. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: Yes - you've been repeatedly attempting to dodge from the original issue of this discussion. You can perhaps try it fourth time, with the usual touch of ad hominem assaults, but it's certainly nothing to be proud of.-ז62 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing I didn't say in the last post is that it doesn't matter what the regime article says, I was not complaining about it being used when sources use it, I was more picking at people who themselves apply the word and to whom they choose to apply it, and why they do so. If you want, I won't bring that up again. Note there was no "rant". I am sorry if my English is not as good as yours but I know of no other term for rejecting Russian state media for substantiating a point other than poisoning the well which an editor does when he states it is not RS. It's a type of fallacy, and your appraisal of my edit listed in your penultimate post does not demonstrate that the community's attitude to Russian media is not a case of poisoning the well, you are simply informing me that you have an objection to my edit and that is fine. Soooo....let's get back to the issue you believe I am trying to dodge. State your question once more and I will endeavour to answer without intentional ad hominem remarks. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This personal discussion of editors' motivations is unhelpful. Wikipedia has clear policy on use of Russian state sources - State-associated news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency, SPH news such as The Straits Times and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News may also be questioned. But they might be reliable sources for stating what the official claims of these governments are. In other words, use with extreme caution, especially on controversial topics relating to things like Russian foreign and miltiary policy. This is regularly raised on the RSN (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Enquiry_concerning_the_RT_Network ), and if you want to change WP policy please raise it there not here. In the meantime, if you have RS for facts you think should be in the article, please provide them.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: You started with the removal of parts of the article you did not like (although they're properly referenced), then followed with posting link to the RT newscast (whose relation to your initial claims you've completely failed to explain) and then continued with assorted excursions and diversions, e.g. objecting to my use of the word régime (I don't even speak Russian and certainly I had had no idea that in Russian the term has, presumably, some more sinister implications than in English - and anyway, I presumed that this discussion is held in English), claiming that I've 'used the term propaganda 'ad nauseam'" (which can be surely a matter of personal opinion, but the fact is that up to that point I used it just twice) and repeatedly asking rather pointless question about my personal opinions on what constitutes a reliable neutral source. And yet there allegedly were no rantings...

If your intention was to challenge the OPCW findings, the you've should have explained somewhat more clearer what your position was - I'd just would linked to the relevant policy concerning the use of sources and which are considered reliable. -ז62 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, from the top. Forget this "regime" thing, it's not important particularly as I use it too as you'll see. The business of calling Russia's media outlets of propaganda is ad nauseam. No opinion about it. It is only as slanted towards Moscow as western mainstream media plays the apologist for the western regimes. First with regards Syria changing its position. It would be better if you added the briefest of notes to that passage to support the claim. You say it is later in article and I have not read it fully. I'll let this go so as to move on. With regards the OPCW finding, I think this is better addressed in the following thread. There, no personal attacks. And I'm happy to carry on with civilised discussion and I am sorry that my tone may have appeared aggressive. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, your persistent attempts to dispute objectively existing facts (such as that well known thing about the Russian media) can be also considered ad nauseam. No offence.

As far as the Assadist government changing its position, it's expanded upon later in the section, starting just after the sentence you've removed, with several Syrian official statements referenced. As I was just restoring the last undamaged version, I felt no need to add any additional references. Perhaps you should read the article more carefully, given your troubles with English you've admitted earlier.

You should perhaps also read this and this - the talk page is not intended for general discussion on the topic, but for discussion about the edits, with the intention being some improvement of the article. Regards.-ז62 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun authors

The OPCW in their report were unable to determine who did the chemical attack. How is it possible that this page attributes it to the Syrian Government? I'll leave a link to the report for you to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloxd43 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, Page 4 of 78 in section 2.5 declares that the FFM is not even tasked with the role of attributing the alleged use of Sarin to any government/rebel group. We're left with the banal interpretations of every news outlet and whomever they serve. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, the OPCW-FFM is not tasked with attributing responsibility, but it verified it was a CW attack. The subsequent OPCW-JIM investigation did attribute responsibility. This is clear from the article isn't it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid it was not clear. Now fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

prescribed alterations in tone and scope Famousday2222 (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Was an M4000 used?

Endless rabbit hole of WP:SYN violations. Let's move on.

This article titled "Did Russia Accidentally Provide the Best Evidence of the Syrian Government’s Involvement in Sarin Attacks?" https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/11/13/russia-accidentally-provide-best-evidence-syrian-governments-involvement-sarin-attacks/ has a very convincing article, if true it means that the Syrian regime either did not destroy all its M4000 bombs in 2013 as claimed, or has reacquired them. BernardZ (talk) There is evidence from a reliable source that al-Nusrah (the now re-named al-Qaeda affiliate who control Khan Shaykhun) captured government stocks of Sarin in December 2012. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/17/how-the-islamic-state-seized-a-chemical-weapons-stockpile/ Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (a) The article makes it clear that their source believes ISIS gained possession of the CWs in this stockpile from al-Nusra ("in mid-August 2013, Abu Ahmed received news that made him think that ISIS had emerged from the split with the Nusra Front in possession of the chemical weapons seized at Regiment 111 — and that it was now using them against its enemies."); (b) It is tendentious to even mention this in an article about an attack four years after that; and (c) what has it got to do with M4000s, which Nusra certainly don't have? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC) It is not at all tendentious, as CWs, if stored correctly can last 20-30 years https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/production.html so it would certainly be possible to use them four years after their capture. It is the credible confirmation that al-Nusra/ISIS took possession of government CW stocks that matters here. The article makes it clear that their source says he actually saw the Nusra Front take possession of the sarin ("Abu Ahmad watched as the al Qaeda affiliate called in 10 large cargo trucks, loaded 15 containers with chlorine and sarin gas, and drove them away to an unknown destination."), whereas the news he received merely "made him think that ISIS had emerged from the split with the Nusra Front in possession of the chemical weapons seized at Regiment 111 ..." He was speculating, not observing. In other words, the earlier claim is eye-witness evidence, the latter is not. Furthermore, his speculation is not particularly important because "It was a confused time in the Syrian jihadi world: Many factions within the Nusra Front were breaking off to join ISIS, while the al Qaeda affiliate worked feverishly to maintain loyalty within its ranks. Territory, bases, and weapons were up for grabs like never before." This indicates that more government munitions and equipment were being captured and were passing from one group to another as loyalties shifted. It also has to be born in mind that, for much of the time, the ever-fluid factions united against their common enemy, that it is possible that the ISIS/al-Nusra split was a strategy rather than a reality, and that later on, as ISIS lost ground, al-Nusra flourished and now essentially controls the Idlib Governate, including Khan Shaykhun. The central point is that the article presents compelling evidence that the rebels, regardless of faction, had access to and used government stocks of Sarin. It also makes it clear that many bases were taken and a great deal of government weaponry fell into their hands. This means that even if the Bellingcat team is correct in its analysis of the bomb remnants, it does not prove responsibility for any chemical attack, one way or the other, unless you can prove that Nusra "certainly don't have" M4000s, which I doubt. This article suggests that it is quite possible, perhaps probable that they do, since they would have been stored at military bases, a good number of which were captured by rebels, particularly by al-Nusra. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the rebels possess huge amounts of Syrian government munitions, including chemical weapons, so proof of provenance is not proof of ownership. What is also potentially significant is that the BBC reported the capture of the Regiment III base on 10th Dec 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20666047 According to the Arms Control Association, the first allegation of chemical weapons use was December 23rd 2012. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I'm missing it. Which is the source that says rebels might have used an M4000 in Khan Shaykhun? VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I was replying to Bobfrombrockly's assertion that al-Nusra "certainly don't have M4000s." Bob didn't cite a source for his certainty, so I assumed that I wouldn't need a direct source for doubting his unsourced assertion. However, I did produce a source that provides strong evidence that the rebels acquired huge stocks of Syrian government munitions, and specifically chemical weapons. Since M4000s are Syrian government chemical bombs, https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/11/13/russia-accidentally-provide-best-evidence-syrian-governments-involvement-sarin-attacks/ it seemed reasonable to speculate that the rebels might have acquired them. I'm unclear why Bob is so certain that al-Nusra do not, and a little surprised that you didn't ask Bob for a source for his very definite claim. Do you have a source that shows that al-Nusra "certainly don't have M4000s?" As for your revert, you may be right that there is too much detail for the intro, but it is important to make it clear that the Russian claim that the incident might have been caused by a strike on a rebel weapons cache was little more than a speculative early reaction, based on the fact that they did launch an attack on Khan Shaykhun later in the day, and had bombed nearby towns at around the time of the alleged chemical attack. Within days (perhaps sooner) Putin was suggesting it was a staged 'provocation', and that was and still is the official Russian view. The weapons stash hypothesis is a red herring. To be honest, the article is hopelessly inaccurate and out of date (perhaps because of the difficulty in reaching a consensus). It needs serious revision and it would be good to reach some consensus on how. What do you think could be kept from my original edit, bearing in mind the misleading nature of the present version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwicherryblossom (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC) The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, so it is reasonable to assume that claims made on the talk page are claims that are being proposed as additions to the article. Per WP:BURDEN, the person making a positive claim needs to provide the support. See begging the question re your last query. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I assumed the burden referred to the articles themselves rather than ‘talk’, and, as far as I can tell, you have not provided a source to prove otherwise. I am trying to improve the article, but it is also important to prevent unsubstantiated claims from finding there way into it. Surely that is one of the reasons for the existence of the 'Talk' page? Initially, I was replying to BernardZ who said that, if true, Bellingcat’s article ( https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/11/13/russia-accidentally-provide-best-evidence-syrian-governments-involvement-sarin-attacks/) “means that the Syrian regime either did not destroy all its M4000 bombs in 2013 as claimed, or has reacquired them". Clearly, if the rebels have taken possession of Syrian chemical weapons, as the evidence I provided a source for suggests, ::, it is possible that those stocks might have included M4000s, in which case it is not necessarily true that the regime either did not destroy all its M4000 bombs in 2013 as claimed (because their claim referred to chemical weapons in their possession) or reacquired them. The logic is supported by the source. I was refuting Bernard’s ‘either/or’ certainty. Bellingcat assumes that only the regime has M4000 bombs. It is an unproven assumption. Bob made further criticisms which I answered quite reasonably, referring to the source in detail. He also made an unsupported claim that “Nusra certainly don't have” M4000s. As I said previously, the burden of proof for this assertion rests with Bob and yourself. As for the article, I’m not sure what question is being begged because there is a problem with the article. My very best wishes’ edit is not fully accurate. It misinterprets the Sputnik source and uses a Forbes opinion piece, whose author appears not to know the meaning of ‘false flag’, (“a political or military act orchestrated in such a way that it appears to have been carried out by a party that is not in fact responsible.”) The accidental discharge of chemicals from attacking a warehouse is not a false flag. The Sputnik article is also opinionated but does at least understand the Russian government’s view - that the rebels probably carried out a false flag operation (or perhaps a fake attack) in order to put regime change back on the US agenda, and that an impartial investigation was needed. “The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. However, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident.” ”. This is much closer to my revision than it is to the original version and what is written should follow from the source. After talking about MH17 at length, the Forbes article, confused about the meaning of a "false flag" said, “Fast forward to the Syrian gas attack: Within hours, Putin’s press secretary floated the false-flag theory (backed by the Russian defense ministry) that the Syrian air force unwittingly exploded a local chemical weapons depot as it dropped conventional bombs. The chemical weapons, per the Russian spokesman, had been brought into Idlibe from Iraq.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/04/13/putin-applies-mh17-false-flag-template-to-syrias-gas-attack-to-convince-russian-public/#302458283101The Russian Defense Ministry stated that Syrian aircraft had bombed a warehouse belonging to rebels which "may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile”.[27][28] Wikipedia should be as accurate and up to date as possible and should use credible sources. This means checking that the author has not made errors, or was not writing before the facts were fully available. It is also important to refer more extensively to the most authoritative source, the JIM, which is only referred to in passing. Might I suggest a section on the JIM report? As the sources make clear, the article contains some inaccuracies and is in need of revision. I believe my edit should stand for now, because at least it is accurate, and fills in some gaps. However, I accept it should be more succinct. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I do not think more than a single sentence of the Russion POV in the lead is WP:DUE. If we wanted to change that sentence to something like "Russian foreign and defense ministries have made varied and conflicting claims regarding the attack" I suppose that would be ok; the detail is in the article body. I am still not sure what this has to do with the subject of this thread, though. VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC) How about, "The Russian government claimed that Syria had attacked a chemical weapons arsenal on the outskirts of Khan Shaykhun and have consistently argued that the incident was probably a “provocation” “staged” by the al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists who controlled Khan Shaykhun in order to provoke a western intervention."? It would be misleading to suggest that Russia made varied and conflicting claims. Other than saying (less than 24 hours after the attack) that Syrian planes had struck an ammunition storage facility, Russia has consistently maintained that the attack was probably a staged provocation intended to provoke Western intervention. It is still their view. I take your point about the thread. Not being quite up to speed with talk page etiquette, I thought I’d mention your revert of my edit as it was relevant to the talk page and you had joined this thread to ask me a question. If you prefer, we could open a new thread about the lead? Incidentally do you have a source for the claim that al-Nusra "certainly don't have M4000s"? Bobfrombrockley hasn't provided one yet. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC) What source has described the Russian POV as "consistent"? No source is necessary on the weapon - unless RS's have discussed rebel M4000 use it doesn't get mentioned. The burden of sourcing is on the party making a claim. VQuakr (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not aware of any single source, but a number of sources spread over the past year repeating the Russian view that the alleged chemical attack was probably a provocation/fake/staged attack carried out by al-Nusra testifies to the consistency of their position. Would 4 or 5 of those sources be ok? They may include Russian sources which ordinarily might not be considered reliable, but for stating the Russian point of view, they probably are! Shall I dig them out? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Hi @VQuakr, here is a further response to your question "what source has described the Russian POV as "consistent?" I've included some sources spread over time together with quotes to demonstrate the consistency of the Russian POV. Even though the author of the Forbes article (wiki source (25), April 13 2017) fails to understand the meaning of ‘false flag’, it does at least say that Russia claims that the alleged chemical attack was a “false flag”. Wiki source (24),from April 9 2017 19:40 09.04.2017(updated 10:51 12.04.2017) also suggests that Russia was moving towards a false flag scenario. “Other theories soon emerged, featuring actual timelines and important background information. The Russian Defense Ministry reported that Syrian aircraft did indeed conduct an airstrike on a warehouse containing ammunition and equipment belonging to terrorists near Khan Shaykhun, and suggested that the warehouse may have contained a rebel chemical arms stockpile. HOWEVER, on Thursday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem explained that the first reports of the chemical attack appeared several hours before the government airstrike, indicating that the chemical attack may have been a cruel and cynical 'false flag' operation used by the jihadists in a bid for US support. Russia has since submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to further investigate the incident.” The widely held view that the Russian government claimed the poisoning was the result of a rebel chemical arsenal being struck was never really true. According to the earliest TASS report, less than 24 hours after the attack, (April 05, 2017, 3:41 UTC+3), Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov of the Russian defence ministry), said "between 11.30 and 12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents.” He did not specify that this attack was the direct cause of the poisoning, but instead said, ”From this major arsenal, chemical-laden weapons were delivered by militants to Iraq. Their use by terrorists was confirmed on numerous occasions by international organizations and official authorities of the country.” The Russian Defence Ministry “immediately rejected” information from the SOHR that Russia or Syria had carried out the chemical attack as “fake," adding that Syria’s Defence Ministry “blamed the attack on terrorists and their supporters and rejected any use of toxic agents in Khan Sheikhun.” So even within 24 hours of the event, the official Russian news agency was strongly hinting at a ‘false flag’ scenario. On 11 Apr 2017 The Guardian reported that Putin had “insisted” that “Assad was not behind the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, saying Moscow had information “from different sources” that it was carried out by rebel groups intent on dragging the US into the conflict. “We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared." Tue 11 Apr 2017 18.43 BST On the same day, RT also reported that Putin claimed the chemical attack was a “false flag” intended to discredit the government of Syrian President Assad. Putin was quoted as saying “We have reports from multiple sources that false flags* like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria". … "A separate report of a potential false flag** operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident. *During the press conference Putin used the Russian word ‘провокации’, which literally translates as ‘provocations’. In this story the term ‘false flag’ is used for clarification and due to the specific context given by the president later in the quote.**’False flag’ – A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party." Published time:11 Apr, 2017 12:51 Edited time: 14 Apr, 2017 10:21 In early May 2017 Sputnik reported that “Russia has irrefutable evidence indicating that the events in Khan Shaykhun were a provocation, and Moscow will continue convincing the West to change the position in this matter, Russian delegation head at Astana talks and Special Presidential Representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev said. 10:01 05.05.2017(updated 14:32 05.05.2017) Then on July 7 2017, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Mikhail Ulyanov criticised the report of the OPCW fact-finding mission on Syria for ignoring the probability that the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident could be staged, saying that "from the very beginning, the Russian side considered it necessary to pay serious attention to the probability that the incident was staged, while conducting the investigation." MOSCOW, July 7. /TASS/. The same view was repeated on 14th of October 2017, as RT reported “Syrian Idlib chemical incident ‘likely staged,’ requires real investigation – Moscow” “On Friday, the head of the Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry Mikhail Ulyanov told UN briefing that Moscow cannot rule out that the Khan Sheykhoun chemical attack, which took place on April 4, was staged. Published time: 14 Oct, 2017 03:48 Edited time: 14 Oct, 2017 04:52 Then in November, Russia "slammed" the JIM report, reiterating its view that the April 4 incident was staged. “The OPCW-UN investigation into the chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province is littered with “systemic deficiencies,” Russia’s deputy UN envoy has told the UN Security Council, reiterating that Moscow maintains the April 4 incident was staged.” Published time: 8 Nov, 2017 02:18 Edited time: 8 Nov, 2017 05:00 It seems to me that these reports from April, May, July, October and November make it clear that the consistent Russian POV has been that the incident was probably a "provocation" (False Flag) or was "staged". I hope you agree an edit is needed. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC) We can't synthesize multiple sources to come up with a position not taken by those sources. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the link to the section that says, “If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.” I think I've just used the word 'consistent' according to its usual meaning, but it's not a deal breaker. We could simplify things by getting rid of the reference to the airstrike. It happened later in the day, so it’s utterly irrelevant and misleading, and it also offends against the Wikipedia principle that “time matters”, because the sources are far too soon after the event. As a compromise, I would suggest something like, “The Russian government repeatedly voiced their view that the incident was probably staged by the al-Qaeda-linked terrorists who control Khan Shaykhun and the Idlib province in order to dupe the West into attacking the Syrian regime” or … “Russia and Syria claimed the incident was a provocation (false flag) carried out by the al-Qaeda linked terrorists who control Khan Shaykhun and the province of Idlib in order to dupe the West into entering the war against the Assad government” or... “Russia’s view was that the incident was likely staged and required a real investigation” or ... “Reiterating his country’s view that the April 4 incident was staged, Russia’s deputy UN envoy told the UN Security Council that the OPCW-UN investigation into the chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province was littered with “systemic deficiencies,” or ... "from the very beginning, the Russian side considered it necessary to pay serious attention to the probability that the incident was staged” or .. “According to Russian delegation head at Astana talks and Special Presidential Representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev, Russia had ‘irrefutable evidence indicating that the events in Khan Shaykhun were a provocation’, and that Moscow would ‘continue convincing the West to change the position in this matter’”.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC) I agree with you that the burden of sourcing is on the party making the claim - and that there is no point in further mentioning M4000sKiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC) @Kiwicherryblossom Incidentally do you have a source for the claim that al-Nusra "certainly don't have M4000s"? Please see wp:BURDEN - clearly you should provide an evidence for your claims, not make rather ridiculos demands of negative evidence from other editors.-ז62 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC) I did provide evidence for my claim and I did not demand "negative evidence"; I politely asked for evidence of a negative, and the idea that it is possible to prove a negative is not ridiculous. It is possible to prove that a customer does not have any money in their bank account, and an alibi is evidence that a person could not have committed the crime. Having provided evidence indicating that it was not certain that al-Nusra did not possess M4000s, I asked for evidence to support the claim that it was certain. BernardZ’s argument that Bellingcat’s article, if true, “means that hinges absolutely upon the assumption that the rebels (specifically al-Nusra) do not possess M4000s. If this assertion were to make it into the article, it would obviously be essential to provide evidence to support BobFromBrockley's claim that al-Nusra “certainly don’t have M4000s”. I'll probably leave the issue alone for now though. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC) That's perhaps an interesting way of thinking, but if you claim something, you should be able to support your position with a RS, not just referencing that "it's not impossible", and then ask for a negative evidence. See also wp:Synthesis for further details, please.--ז62 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC) There was no onus on me to provide an RS, because I did not take a position, other than to question unsupported claims of great significance from BernardZ and BobFromBrockley. VQuakr seemed to support Bob's view, so I thought it reasonable to ask if he could provide an RS as Bob had not done so.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry but I don't understand what we are even discussing here. I certainly can't provide evidence for al-Nusra not having M4000s, but has anyone ever suggested they do? My point was that your reply to BernardZ was a non sequitur, as he was asking about the M4000 and you were replying about something else entirely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Hi Bob, thanks for thanking me for the Qmenas edit! I certainly don’t want to dwell on the M4000s, but I’ll try to clarify without repeating myself too much. I understand that you thought my reply to BernardZ was a non-sequitur, but I disagree. Sarin obviously needs a means of delivery and, on a military base that stores sarin, it seems reasonable to assume that the means of delivery is also stored. Since M4000s typically carry sarin and the Syrian regime was known to possess them, it seems not unlikely that they would be found at a Syrian military base that stored sarin, and Regiment 111 was such a base. There is evidence that the rebels captured stocks of sarin and other munitions from Regiment 111 in 2012, which means it is possible that their haul included M4000s, and if that were the case, BernardZ’s claim that, if true, Bellingcat’s article means “that the Syrian regime either did not destroy all its M4000 bombs in 2013 as claimed, or has reacquired them” would be false. I hope that makes sense. Not everyone is aware of FP’s evidence that al-Nusra had taken possession of regime sarin stocks at Regiment, so I thought it worth pointing out before too much significance is read into the Bellingcat article. You say “I certainly can't provide evidence for al-Nusra not having M4000s,” but previously you said that they “certainly don’t have” them, which does need to be backed up by evidence, because it is far from obvious that that is the case. You ask “has anyone ever suggested they do?” Well, I hope the above argument concerning the capture of Regiment 111 suggests that it is reasonable to conclude that they might. The only way to be sure would be to look at the inventory of the chemical weapons arsenal at Regiment 111 and any other bases captured by the rebels. In a way, this goes to the heart of the matter, because one of the main arguments for blaming the regime for chemical attacks at Khan Shaykhun and elsewhere is the chemical analysis linking the sarin traces to regime stocks. If the rebels have acquired stocks of regime sarin, (and it appears that they have) then that argument is essentially redundant. Given that the regime was originally thought to have surrendered its CWs, other than those captured by the rebels, it seems rational to suppose that the rebels are more likely to have used them since then than the regime, yet this rational position is, by and large, dismissed. Ah well. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC) References

Possibly useful NYT article

I just came across this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

It presents a fascinating and detailed story on how the NewYorkTimes used satellite forensic mapping and other techniques to authenticate the video, exact targets hit, etc. It specifically discredits the 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m timeline claimed by Assad and Russia. It also contains this noteworthy statement:

The time difference is important because Russia and Syria have frequently distorted the location and timing of events throughout the conflict, a technique meant to discredit evidence posted on YouTube and other social platforms.

Alsee (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This old NYT report has been shown to be full of holes. A conventional attack did take place between 10.30 and 11.30. The rebels didn't dispute that. Video footage from inside a rebel bunker being used as a makeshift hospital shows the moment a bomb hits the bunker. According to the OPCW/UN JIM report none of the 4 plumes of smoke shown in the NYT video correspond with the crater that was claimed to be the source of the sarin and no plane is seen. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Al-Nusra

Can we discuss this edit and this edit? This level of detail - At the time of the attack, the town was under the control of "a listed terrorist organisation (Nusrah Front)", also known as al-Qaeda in Syria and Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) - seems to me overkill, especially in the lede, and I am curious why the editor is so insistent that al-Qaeda is mentioned. There is a WP article on HTS, the group most sources say was in control of the town, and readers who want to understand HTS can go there. HTS is an alliance, and at the time of the strikes included (according to the HTS article) Ansar al-Din Front, Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, Liwa al-Haqq and Jaysh al-Sunna. It is clear from the Al-Nusra Front article and the HTS article that it is simplistic and controversial to call it al-Qaeda, so I think it is safer and more accurate to simply say the town was controlled by HTS. There are, incidentally, four sources cited here: (1) the JIM report which is now quoted in our article, with the al-Nusrah spelling, which says Khan Shaykhun, which is currently [i.e. at the time of writing not at the time of the strike] in a situation of armed conflict and under the control of a listed terrorist organization (Nusrah Front) but also later A review of open-source information indicates that, in mid-2014, the Nusrah Front launched an offensive in southern Idlib Governorate and seized the town of Khan Shaykhun. According to witness statements as well as open sources, on the date of the incident on 4 April 2017, the Levant Liberation Organization [HTS], which includes the Nusrah Front as its major component, had a prominent presence in the area of Khan Shaykhun, with Ahrar al-Sham also being present in the general area, along with several other non-State armed groups (emphasis added}; (2) a Feb 2017 article in Arabic from the borderline RS SOHR which says HTS took control then of Khan Shaykhun from Liwa al-Aqsa; a SyriaDirect article from Feb 2017 saying HTS had taken a town south of Khan Shaykhun; and (4) DW which says Idlib province, where Khan Sheikhun is located, is mostly controlled by the Tahrir al-Sham alliance, which is dominated by the Fateh al-Sham Front, formerly known as the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front (emphasis added). It seems to me like WP:SYN to make strong statements of al-Nusra control, let alone mention al-Qaeda, based on these 4 sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I think I had a few more sources before, but I didn't just revert, so they might have disappeared. The ones I'll use in this reply don't synthesise. They confirm each other very directly, so perhaps they should be redeployed. It is a little complicated, but I think the simplification is fair, accurate and necessary and that it would be far more controversial to leave out the known al-Qaeda link.

The HTS rebranding is generally regarded as mostly cosmetic and strategic. Before morphing into the dominant partner in the HTS alliance Nusra were briefly Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and this CNN article,(https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/01/middleeast/al-nusra-rebranding-what-you-need-to-know/index.html) based on an interview with Charles Lister explains how this brand was used to signal a separation from al-Qaeda in order to encourage greater unity among the various rebel groups. "Al Qaeda as an international organization has been changing," says Lister. "It is becoming more of an idea than an organization. It is looking to decentralize jihad, to give more autonomy to individual affiliates with the aim of making jihadi rule more likely … since the name change to JFS, "of the six other jihadist groups in Syria tacitly supporting al Qaeda, all of them have come out in favour of JFS [and are] considering some kind of unity proposal,”

Lister also argues that “the split from al Qaeda could make it harder for the international community to argue against foreign countries such as Turkey and Qatar doing more to arm and fund the rebels.” Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called it a "PR move ... to create the image of being more moderate." We should not fall into the trap.

The JIM report essentially recognises the truth that al-Nusra is the dominant group and made it clear that KS was controlled by a listed terrorist organisation in order to justify their refusal to examine the site.

I think it is important to understand that HTS is Nusra dominated and that the groups that joined al-Nusra were also mostly al-Qaeda linked and are no more moderate either in their aims or behaviour. Nour al-Zinki, for example, notoriously filmed themselves happily decapitating a child.

This report from November 2013 shows that al-Nusra were at one time named al-Qaeda in Syria. “Al-Qaeda’s leadership is set to declare Jabhat Al-Nusra, its affiliate in Syria, to be "Qa'edat Al-Jihad fi Bilad Al-Sham" – "Al-Qaeda in Syria." This name change will be signify the completion of Jabhat Al-Nusra's integration into Al-Qaeda's global network.” (https://www.memri.org/reports/al-qaeda-upgrades-its-presence-syria) and this article from Brookings confirms their allegiance to al-Qaeda. (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/al-nusra-al-qaedas-syria-offensive/)

The problem is that HTS means nothing to non-experts, who could easily believe that they are dashing rebels fighting for human rights and a secular democracy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Al-Nusra has absorbed the other groups and mentioning the fact that they were previously called ‘al-Qaeda in Syria’ immediately helps the reader to understand what kind of rebel group they are. Wikipedia would be failing in its duty to inform in an honest and impartial manner if it did not make this absolutely clear to the reader in the lede. I think it would be grossly misleading not to mention al-Qaeda and the fact that Khan Shaykhun was controlled by a 'listed terrorist group'. Not everyone checks the sources or links.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Kiwi, this entire justification is precisely the sort of analysis that isn't acceptable per WP:SYN. None of the three sources you cite mention Khan Shaykhun at all, and your explicitly stated reason for pushing this is your personal ideology. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

VQakr, it would at least have been nice to see what Bob had to say first. The 7th OPCW/UN JIM report certainly does mention Khan Shaykhun, but you removed it. On the talk page I referred to articles which make it clear that WP:RS regard HTS, al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda in Syria as the same group rebranded for cosmetic and strategic reasons, so to argue otherwise is WP:FRINGE. There is no WP:SYN because all I am doing is giving former names of the same group, with which non-expert readers might be more familiar. A comparable WP example would be "Myanmar (Burmese: [mjəmà]),[nb 1][8] officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and also known as Burma". Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bob had already contested a similar edit; your restoring it was a violation of the editing restrictions for this article. You are lucky you are not topic banned at this point.

Pushing the viewpoint that it is "the same group rebranded for cosmetic and strategic reasons" into every tangentially-related article is not a good reason to be editing at all, let alone editing in contentious topic areas. That isn't an example - you faked the quote by adding Wikilinks. Burma redirects to Myanmar, so neither one is linked in the article on Myanmar. In your proposed edit you didn't link Al-Qaeda in Syria (which redirects to Al-Nusra Front), you linked Al-Qaeda. I have gone ahead and restored the 7th JIM report citing the first sentence, and removed the Arabic SOHR source per WP:NONENG since it didn't indicate anything unique. I think just linking HTS is reasonable for the 2nd sentence of the lead.

We don't revisit the control of the city later on, though, which is a problem since the lead is supposed to summarize the body. I suggest adding a 3rd "main" link in the background section, to Khan Shaykhun, and adding a sentence to that section that says something like, "In April 2017, having been controlled by the Syrian opposition since May 2014, Khan Shaykhun was under the control of Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which had been formed from groups including al-Nusra Front in January 2017." (with additional cites from the lead). VQuakr (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I introduced a new edit, albeit in a similar vein and was careful not to revert. Bob raised some valid points which I respectfully addressed and was waiting for his reply, to see if we could achieve a consensus. I don't understand why you could not have held off to see if a consensus emerged.

The articles are not tangentially related, they are directly relevant to the rebranding and make it clear that to dispute that a rebranding has taken place is WP:FRINGE and possibly WP:POVPUSH. In any case, the Talk page is for talking, and I certainly did not use the phrase you claim to be WP:POVPUSH in an edit.

As for "That isn't an example - you faked the quote by adding Wikilinks", what quote do you think I faked? I did no such thing so I suggest you withdraw and apologise.

You seem not to have understood the Myanmar/Burma analogy. I was simply pointing out that Myanmar was formerly known as Burma, just as HTS/Al Nusrah was formerly known as al-Qaeda in Syria. Burma is the name most people know the country by, so it is referred to in the lede. Similarly the name al-Qaeda in Syria is better known than HTS, so I think it should appear in the lede. I intended to link to al-Qaeda in Syria, but I found that there was not a specific article to link to. There was no sinister agenda at work. If it links to Al-Nusra Front, so much the better.

I'm glad you restored the 7th JIM but I can't see the key sentence. I don't think the Arabic SOHR reference was originally mine; I could be wrong, but I suspect I was just reluctant to revert another editor's source. I certainly didn't rely on it and won't miss it.

I take your point about the control of KS not being revisited in the article and that needs attention.

Obviously I strongly believe that to aid understanding it is important to refer to al-Qaeda, but due to exhaustion I'm not going to push it for now!

For simplicity's sake (and taking into account the need to refer to it in the background) I suggest we have the following in the lede, with the source referring to III. 15 of the OPCW/UN JIM report. At the moment you would have to read the whole report to find the more obscure reference to HTS. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, where did you get the quote from then? Adding the JIM report to the lead seemed uncontroversial, and we didn't seem to need a 4th, non-English, source for that sentence. To be clear, I do not think we need any expansion of the 2nd sentence of the article from what is currently shown. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which quote you mean, but if you are referring to "the town was under the control of a listed terrorist organization (Nusrah Front)", that is from Section III Para 15 of the JIM report. Sorry if that was unclear. I agree, we don't need a non-English 2nd source, (It was never my source and only left it alone because I didn't feel entitled to remove it.) It seems sensible to put the JIM quote in the lede and make it clear (in the source) where it can be found (ie III/15). As you rightly say, it is uncontroversial. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things. One, we are talking about the lede, which is meant to summarise the body. If it is important to say who controled the town in the lede, it should be done as concisely and straightforwardly as possible (e.g. At the time of the attack, the town was under the control of Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)., and if there is a need for more detail later on it can go later on. Two, the "non-expert reader" point is not very compelling. The non-expert reader doesn't know where the Idlib Governorate is, what sarin is made up of, or what the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism is. Luckily, this is Wikipedia, and those terms all of blue links to articles where they can learn about that, so that we don't need to spell all these terms out every time they are used. The Burma analogy doesn't work at all for me. First, because that's the actual Myanmar article you're quoting, so it is correct it goes into detail; if Myanmar is mentioned in other articles, does it always say "also known as Burma"? But also because Myanmar and Burma refer to the exact same thing, which is why Burma redirects to Myanmar whereas HTS, JFS and a-Q are not exactly the same thing, which is why they have their own articles. The material you presented above, Kiwicherryblossom, quoting Lister etc, may all be correct, but this is for the HTS page not this page. The HTS page properly presents some commentary that argues that HTS is simply a rebranding of al-Qaeda and commentary that contests that. It can't just be summed up in a way that says they are all identical. There is nothing in the more concise version that implies "that they are dashing rebels fighting for human rights and a secular democracy"; if readers want to know what kind of rebels they are, they simply click on the blue links. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I can't argue with that. You have convinced me. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: any objection to the addition I proposed to the background section here? VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No objection! I think that's sensible. Thanks guys. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No objection! Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

References