Talk:Douma chemical attack - Wikipedia


20 people in discussion

Article Images

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

After various edit warring back and forth and much disorganized discussion, I have decided that an RfC is the best way to establish consensus on this controversial material. This text currently stands in the article:

“ On 18 April, Russian state TV broadcast aired an interview with Hassan Diab, a boy who the TV program said was featured before in a hospital video taken by the White Helmets. Diab said that "they were filmed being doused in water and given other simulated medical treatment at the hospital."[1] According to The Intercept, the video was fabricated and "filmed not in the boy’s hometown, where a suspected chemical attack took place, but at a Syrian army facility where Russian military advisers were present."[2] ”

References

Please vote either Keep or Delete. --Calthinus (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging various users whose names show up repeatedly in this page's history: Volunteer Marek My very best wishes Mhhossein Supreme Deliciousness Bobfrombrockley Neil S Walker InedibleHulk ז62 Drmies selfworm Philip Cross LylaSand GnarlyLikeWhoa Icewhiz MrX Huldra Piotrus . --Calthinus (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Delete as proposer. As can be seen, I earlier favored keeping the discussion of the material in the spirit of collegiality; however given (a) the multiplication of bewildering (to most people) "substories" about Douma and (b) the report by The Intercept that the Russian state media video was fabricated and "filmed not in the boy’s hometown, where a suspected chemical attack took place, but at a Syrian army facility where Russian military advisers were present" (at the very least I believe this casts a pretty dark shadow), I don't think it is worth taking up space and leaving our readers confused with the details of WP:UNDUE tangents. Furthermore, it was placed in the international reactions section, where it was technically off-topic. --Calthinus (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Reply

  • Delete - If this has only been published in unreliable media (Russian state TV) and mainly commented on as unreliable in other outlets as questionable - it is UNDUE. We also have some BLP issues (a minor in a newly conquered area - the conquerors generally not having a good record on human rights / freedom of speech / etc.). I do think that "media warfare" article of some sort (covering various claims from all sides - and my reading of the sources here is that no one is innocent - staging is rampant from all sides and has been throughout the conflict) is probably notable (as a standalone article or in the article on the war as a whole) - but it should be built up not by individual incidents, but by sources covering the issue as a whole. It seems to me that the "staging" claim (of the attack as a whole) by the Russian/Syrian/Iranian side is viewed as minority or perhaps even fringe view. It does seem DUE to mention that they are claiming the attack as a whole has been staged - but it seems UNDUE to cover each and every tangent they go off on (of which there have been several different claims of why/how/whom that attack was staged - with varying evidence and coverage for each one).Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep - Unlike what's said above, other reliable sources have talked about the interview. The coverage degree by the reliable sources are the best criteria to assess whether or not it should be included. In this case, be it faked or other wise, the story merits inclusion since it's covered by The Guardian, The Times, where it's got a nearly full coverage and by The Sun. So, UNDUE claims are simply rejected, specially because just 2 lines are dedicated to the Interview itself.--Mhhossein talk 05:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
But the subject of this article isn't the interview; it is the attack. If the interview has been exposed as a hoax by multiple reliable sources, then it clearly cannot be used as a source for information about the attack. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ditto on VQuakr's comment. Mhhossein has pretty clear WP:POV issues on this topic. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. This is 'fake news', but we do seem to make it clear - perhaps not clear enough. I'd overall support keeping this if this can be rewritten/clarified properly to show this is for what it is, i.e. Russian-created fake news. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete - As keeping it sets a dangerous precedent... we'd then have to include all Russian/Iranian/North Korean/Syrian propaganda pieces and conspiracy theories along with a rebuttal, which would result in "false balance". ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete - As per the several good reasons already mentioned, and not least because there is an ethical BLP issue about directing any attention at all to a named minor living in a warzone who is not himself notable except as a political football in the back and forth about this attack, who was very possibly interviewed under duress while captive at a military facility and certainly was interviewed in the presence of military from the forces who had defeated his family's side in battle. In general, this sort of detail may emerge in due course as notable, but in the meantime this event is still in or barely out of the WP:BREAKING category, so we should err on the side of caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment & Delete - There is an effort among some editors here and on other articles related to the Syrian Civil War to introduce a narrative that the West is engaged in some sinister plot to stage the conditions for war the in region, such as the ridiculous idea that those involved in this terrible attack are actually being portrayed by actors or that the West is literally planting evidence. We're not doing that. We're not introducing that narrative. That's not a thing that's happening. And we are certainly not going to do it casually accepting the illusion of balance in the reliability of propaganda outlets like RT and SANA, and the objectively false stories they push out. So sorry, the chemical attack happened, and it was perpetrated by the Syrian government (and perhaps others). The paragraph at issue is ridiculous. It begins with a lie and and the rest of the paragraph carries on describing some futile attempt at the rebuttal of the lie. The real story that should be described is, for example, that there are conspiracy theories peddled by propaganda outlets and Syrian coalition governments, and among them are xyz. We shouldn't let readers for a second believe there is any credibility to these conspiracy theories, and that should be the rule throughout the entire article. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete. I think this is legitimate content, but it belongs to another page, something along the lines of Information war during the Russo-Georgian War, just replace "Russo-Georgian War" by "Syrian war". My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
BTW, that thing also does not belong to this page for the same reason. Undue. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh, so just like that. It's UNDUE because Mvbw says it is. Nevermind giving policy based reasons as to why. A simple "no" in an edit-summary or just saying "undue" on the TP should do the trick, of course. I never knew Wikipedia was that easy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Intercept is an unreliable source? That's news to me. Do you guys even bother checking the WP:RSN? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@EtienneDolet: - The Intercept is refuting the story. Not supporting it. Basically, Russian state TV reported the bombing was faked, then the Intercept refuted that. Why report the propaganda then refute it? Why not just not report it at all? NickCT (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Whether the Intercept has fully "refuted" the story is not for us to decide, but our readership. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but to present various accusations pertaining this matter. This means to include all notable accusations/refutations and not censor the ones we disagree with. With that said, if the Intercept finds the accusation notable enough to refute, then we should also find it notable enough to include both the accusation and the refutation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
However criticism of coverage by a source in question does have strong relevance to discussion about the reliability of that source. Pages that are encompassing and incorporate minority views are preferable, but taken to an extreme this leads to WP:UNDUE tangents of he-said-she-said. --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@EtienneDolet: - Not the point. The point is that the only source that supports the inclusion of the factoid is Russian state TV. Russian state TV is not a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Um, no. As far as I can see, not "Russian state TV" sources are being used the RFC proposal. I see two sources: Guardian and Intercept. Both reliable. The refutation is as important as the claim. So if the Intercept and Guardian are to take these accusations seriously, even if they are merely considered to be refuted, then we are to take it seriously too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@EtienneDolet: - Hmmmm.... I don't think you're getting it. Russian state TV is saying the story is true. The Guardian and the Intercept are saying the story is false. There are no reliable sources supporting the story. So why include it? It's sort of double-think to say that b/c there are reliable sources saying a story is false, we should include the story. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Because numerous reliable sources have reported the accusation making it notable. So essentially, we're not discussing whether or not the accusation is true, we're discussing whether it's WP:DUE. Many things on this project deal with the refutation of such accusations, conspiracy theories, fringe theories, and etc. For example, we don't delete stuff like Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Pizzagate, and etc. We keep them but as long as they're balanced by reliable sources. There should be no exception to that rule here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Do we talk about Holocaust denial on the page The Holocaust? No. Do we talk about Pizzagate on Hillary Clinton? I haven't checked but I would bet no. --Calthinus (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dude, I was rebutting your examples. They don't hold water. We do not give WP:UNDUE coverage to things like this. That is not how our policies work. --Calthinus (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
You brought up the articles, not me. I was talking about the project at large. I too can shop around articles that can refute your statement regarding such articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you weren't referring to how the spinoff alt-narratives were covered on the main event article, then you were comparing apples and oranges.--Calthinus (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, I can easily shop around articles that talk about conspiracy theories, denial of war crimes, and fringe theories as part of the main article. In fact, I know quite a few off the top of my head. But that's a moot discussion. Rules that apply to those articles may or may not apply here, hence WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@EtienneDolet: - So.... Your argument is that this is a notable conspiracy theory? Hmmm... Interesting rationale. I guess that could be the case, but we'd seriously need to reword the current text to make it clear it's a fringe conspiracy theory. NickCT (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Um, no. That's not what I said. It doesn't have to be a "conspiracy theory". Indeed, the Intercept article doesn't even frame it that way. But it can be just a simple accusation or a claim. And to clarify: in Wikipedia we go so far as to include conspiracy theories, denial of war crimes, fringe theories, and etc. Such claims and theories may not stem from reliable sources, but are still notable enough to be WP:DUE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • We can at least try providing both sides of the story, you know? Like the Russian "side" of the story that claimed Ukrainian air force pilot Vladyslav Voloshyn shot down MH17 in his SU-25? Or the Russian "side" of the story that the Ukrainian army also shot down MH17 with a 9K37 Buk missile launcher? Or the Russian "side" of the story that the "pro-Russian" troops active in Crimea were not Russian special forces but were merely enthusiastic amateurs who had been to a surplus uniform store? There aren't really "two sides to the story": there's what really happened and then there's multiple propaganda noise generation from Russia. Neil S. Walker (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
...WP:NOTAFORUM. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

*Delete - it is a far-fetched claim made by an unreliable source that is debunked by a reliable source. LylaSand (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Delete - There's a reason the story is pretty much confined to Russian state news and every other news outlet is pretty much poking it with a long stick. Stikkyy t/c 04:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Having read through the comments, I really see no guideline-based argument supporting the removal. Almost every one failed to respond why we should avoid the materials covered by reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Times, The sun and etc (links are found in my last comment). Most of those said "delete" say that the interview is fake. OK, let's assume it's fake. So, what? Don't we talk about fake things in Wiki? Which guideline allows censoring it? When we have an article Flat Earth, does it mean the the earth is flat? --Mhhossein talk 05:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good example. Yes, "Flat Earth" is noted in page "Earth" because it is a notable historically concept (unlike that one), because the page about Earth is very big, and because Flat Earh is clearly described as a disproved theory. My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete - Encyclopaedia not newspaper. As others point out above, this is most likely Russian propaganda/fake news being introduced to create noise. Yes, some news outlets, eg The Guardian, have responded and mentioned it. This is not a news site, however. We don't have to. Also, the Russian state-controlled media really should not be being used - or considered - as a reliable source in this matter. Finally, in the extremely unlikely event that this story is somehow proven to be true in the future, this encyclopaedia is not printed on paper and the article may be updated. Not a newspaper, people. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Additional. I also agree with My very best wishes' suggestion above. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - @Calthinus: I'm having trouble understanding why you pinged all these editors. Pretty sure it was done in good faith, but it is usually discouraged in such controversial disputes. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing_an_RfC, Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. Many editors, including myself, already had this page on their watchlists, so that was unnecessary. I have no solid opinion (yet) on this particular dispute, but Mhhossein's concerns would seem reasonable under normal circumstances, i.e. if they weren't eclipsed by the several non-policy-based "Delete" !votes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Fitzcarmalan: That I'm a little shit is quite true, though I'm not sure I can be considered a reliable and non-biased source on this matter :). That said, it is extremely doubtful that this "canvassing" (I have seen mass-pings by the poster very regularly done in fact on other RfCs and move discussions) has had an adverse on the outcome -- in fact there are now as many Delete !votes that I did not ping than there are Keep !votes at all (more, if you count VQuakr's comment which argued against a Keep vote). Regarding "non-policy base arguments", I think you would be well advised not to say this when people did state policy in their arguments (regardless of differences in your interpretation from theirs)-- "non-policy based arguments" as a phrase on wiki is often understood to mean "personal bias" and is generally not a thing you should ever use on people who did cite policy in their arguments.--Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment: Re Mhhossein "no guideline-based argument" and Fitzcarmalan "non-policy-based "Delete" !votes": several voters have mentioned reliability of sources (WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RS); Neil S. Walker cited WP:NOTNEWS and I cited WP:BREAKING (I think WP:EVENT is relevant too, which urges slowness rather than speed in determining notability of news events); I cited WP:BLP in relation to the named minor. People have mentioned excess detail that might lead to a lead to the need to balance every detail with a retraction; this is WP:TMI. And false balance has been mentioned, which is WP:GEVAL. I think that's quite a few policy-based arguments to exclude this for now! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm breaking this down point by point:
WP:RS - Reliable sources don't say that it's a fake story (op-eds do that). Reliable sources are quoting Western officials (primary source) who accuse Russian officials (primary source) of fabricating a fake story. See the difference here? Controversies that are themselves notable enough to receive full coverage by (secondary) RS merit inclusion. Real discussion should be about whether it's due or undue weight.
WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BREAKING - Those are mainly concerned with the GNG criteria of standalone articles during AfD discussions, not with the content of said articles. What you were probably referring to is WP:RSBREAKING, but even so it says you should "replace with better-researched claims", not remove it altogether.
WP:BLP - Exercising caution is understandable. But I don't see any BLP violation in the disputed text. Do you?
WP:TMI and WP:GEVAL - All I'm seeing is two sentences, so calling this "false balance" is an exaggeration. GEVAL is meant to limit fringe views that are exclusive to GlobalResearch.ca and other conspiracy websites, which clearly isn't the case here, where the controversy itself is notable so far and covered by RS.
So I would normally !vote wait under such circumstances, pending further investigation or analyses by reputable scholarship, which won't happen anytime soon. When it does, I would support keeping the material. But "this is propaganda/fake news" is a bad reason to have this excluded from the article, per my above explanation. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Breaking it down as you did:
WP:RS -- you said Reliable sources don't say that it's a fake story (op-eds do that). You're being misleading. This ([[1]]) is not an op-ed and while it doesn't explicitly say "fake news", it casts so much doubt that we definitely could not consider the original report reliable.
WP:RSBREAKING -- "replace with better researched claims" well there are none afaik.
WP:BLP -- Just imagine what poor Hasan Diab is going to have to go through for the rest of his life. No we absolutely do not need his name in the article and it must be removed. Thankfully Bobfrombrockley has now done so.
False balance -- yes there is absolutely a false balance as anyone who has read the mountains of text on this talk page has seen explanations for.
You forgot WP:UNDUE.
But the point is not collecting a policy arsenal like bottle caps. As I said before Fitzcarmalan originally I favored keeping it in, but we simply cannot establish a precedent where we allow every single controversy arising from the claims emanating from Russian media with all of its RS issues and mutually conflicting stories to become a acne outbreak on the article of tangential paragraphs scattered all over this page (and others). I agree with My very best wishes, Icewhiz and others -- this material should be covered on its own page, as we have done for both Georgia and Ukraine. It just makes pages like this about the actual main news event less readable to readers who really do not have any reason to care about the details of all the debunked and partially debunked alternative narratives and "substories".--Calthinus (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, The Intercept report is probably a primary source in and of itself (not that I have a problem with it), considering we have reliable secondary sources mentioning it as a separate opinion, like this ABC News article. I never said there were better researched sources out there, or that we should mention Diab's name in the article (he might end up having a page of his own anyway). I even said that it would be wiser to wait for further details to surface. This "precedent" being supposedly set up (the controversy surrounding Diab's story) had been so far covered by reliable sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is not a separate opinion it is a separate set of (claimed) facts. Diab is essentially a moot point, but I was explaining what was meant by BLP since you seemed to have missed it. As for "better researched sources", as we have waited we have not seen better "researched" stuff showing how this one variant of the Russian narrative could actually be relevant; instead we've seen the emergence instead of mutually conflicting "alternative narratives". As I said, in the situation where the controversies were limited and continuous I would be for having this-- but what we have here (as well as seen earlier in Syria and in Georgia and Ukraine at various points) is the emergence of "alternative" substories and narratives, then they get rebuked, and then they disappear. What then is their significance to coverage of this topic? They are distracting and can be purged without harming coverage. --Calthinus (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment - for the closing admin. There's lots of non-policy based delete votes! going on here. "Fake news!", "propaganda!", and etc. are not Wikipedia policies. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Delete - including it would give undue weight to the Russian propaganda piece. On the other hand I have to concede that including it would not exactly create false balance if the broadcast would be described as "Russian state media claims"/"fake news" etc., per refs.-ז62 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: Everyone please add The Reuters to the list of the reliable sources dealing with the case. Now, we've got The Reuters, The Guardian, The Times, The Sun. --Mhhossein talk 17:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Except that that Reuters piece also doesn't actually support the current wording. All you're doing is providing sources that say the original Russian report was wrong. The current wording does not make that inference. If you want really want to include this content, you should be proposing new wording that makes it clear that the initial Russian report was bogus. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
By the way, what was wrong about the original Russian report? The Intercept "rebuttal" just says that the video was not filmed in Douma. Yet, the video never even claimed that the interview took place in Douma, and even if it did, that certainly doesn't negate Diab's testimony. Even an Aleppo blogger quoted in the very same Intercept article said: “There is no realistic way to find out if the boy was coerced or not, and it doesn’t even matter.” Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
re "just says that the video was not filmed in Douma" ?! Really?? What do you call "Syrian officials have claimed since the first weeks ... that all evidence of violent repression by the state must be fake". It seems to me as the though Intercept piece is very critical of the claim that the video is fake. I don't think you're reading critically. Either that or you don't want to get the point. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's just a general statement and doesn't really negate Diab's testimony. Again, how does the Intercept debunk the video or the testimony? If anything, it leaves more questions than answers. Indeed, even the article says: "There is no realistic way to find out if the boy was coerced or not." Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really here to debate the veracity of the video. All that matters is whether there's RS that supports the video content. There isn't. All the RS available for this video covers it solely from the perspective that it's illegitimate. If we're to include mention of the video at all, we'll reflect what's in the sources. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think there is a nearly consensus this should not be included. So I removed a couple of most obvious and recent things of that kind, but not the segment about the boy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Intercept" proved that the interview with the boy was not held in Guta, but in Damascus? Well. So what? The only thing that "Intercept" proved is that the interview was not held in Guta, but in Damascus. So what did Mr. R. Mackey refute? He proved that this boy is not the one who was on the video recorded by "Jaysh al-Islam"? No. Did he refute his words? No. But maybe, he believes that the boy is not able to leave the Eastern Guta? 2.132.84.191 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Some of the discussion participants (multiple IPs included) seem to be kind of missing the point - we have abundant evidence that the video exists, all right, but we have no reliable evidence that "the testimony" is genuine and uncoerced, and we have at least some evidence that it was staged by the Russian propaganda machinery - e.g. being filmed in some Russian armed forces base or other facility under Russian and/or Assadist control, under unknown circumstances. It would be incredibly irresponsible to treat it as a reliable source, as some more naïve users here still seem to be suggesting in this discussion. Existing reliable sources evidence the existence of the video, but do not support its reliability/veracity - to the contrary, they treat it with rather unrestrained suspicion. It seems to me a bit superfluous to repeat this, but some rather basic facts seem to be still eluding for quite a few of users who are attempting to discuss here. At least to some of them. If we were to retain the mention (which would still be quite controversial, as it would perhaps give undue weight to Assadist/Russian propaganda claims) of the video, it should surely be described as how it's referenced by the reliable sources, and certainly not taken at face value. -ז62 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I see, some other participants in the discussion lose sight of the fact that all reports of the so-called gas attack and the original video of "rescuing civilians in the hospital" are organized by the al-Qaeda propaganda machine (or as they call themselves now) and, of course, it would be very irresponsible to treat them as reliable sources. Given that the "White Helmets" were repeatedly convicted of complicity in Islamist crimes and lies, it would be extremely naive to accept their statements at face value. In fact, even if some video footage presented by the "White Helmets" shows real victims of poisoning, one should take into account the possibility that the murderers might be accomplices of the "White Helmets" among the Islamists and their victims were hostages from local residents. As is known, in the liberated areas in the Eastern Guta chemical laboratories have been found. Further, it is known that Islamic fighters controlled the supply of food and allowed the civilians to die of hunger. Some participants of the discussion naively believe that if the oppositionists put forward slogans about the justice and welfare of the people at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, they should believe in them. They are mistaken. 2.132.84.191 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Can you please explain in some detail why you are disputing the evidence for a chemical attack (I'd just mention that so far no attempts have been successful in refuting that - and these are not just based upon a "White Helmets video" as you seem to believe, together with some other factually incorrect and unevidenced allegations) and/or perhaps give some reliable reference supporting your claims? This probably pertains also to your other unsubstantiated attempts at disputing facts you are not comfortable with. You should also perhaps consider what your claim exactly is - it's clearly impossible to claim both that a) there was no chemical attack (which is the official Assadist/Russian position) and b) there was one, but committed by some other party than Assadists government/Russian armed forces. Please also read this.--ז62 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
In this case, there was no chemical attack and the video of "White Helmets" is a fake. The previous so-called videos of the "victims of the chemical attacks of the Assad regime" could show real victims of poisoning, but no one has proven that the murderers were not supporters of the "moderate opposition." 145.255.172.125 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@/145.255.172.125: We should perhaps not diverge into such purely hypothetical speculation, not supported by even remotely reliable sources and rather clearly driven by a poorly hidden desire to somewhat harmonize the conflicting accounts of pro-Assadist/pro-Russian media and/or propaganda and so on.-ז62 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Someone please close this already, we have long passed the point of useful discussion. Thank you.--Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In fact, we got a useful result: it became obvious that some participants in the discussion are reasoning according to the logical schemes "If this information is disseminated by Russia and/or the Syrian government, then it must be a lie" and "If the recognition of this fact is beneficial to Russia and/or the Syrian government, then it must be a lie." Anyway, they do not make any other arguments as to why the White Helmets and An-Nusra messages should be taken into account, and the testimony of the Syrian boy should not be. 145.255.172.125 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@145.255.172.125: Please refrain from further such uncalled for remarks of personal nature, which do not represent what anyone wrote above.--ז62 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

'The first casualty of war is truth'. Logically therefore one must assume that every report might be true or false. But one cannot be sure which is which. In such circumstances one has no choice but to report both sides without judgment or distinction until or unless the full facts emerge. Any other position is illogical and inevitably introduces bias. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.49.165 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@79.74.49.16: It would certainly not be quite wise to accept just any claims, without assessing their relative reliability - please read wp:False balance.-ז62 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In summary, we agree that admins need to close this thread already.--Calthinus (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Seriously - can someone please close this discussion already? The discussion here has long passed any useful or reasonable point, except for some newly appearing IPs still apparently unable to drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse, which I think is rather indecent, even though some of the said horses are quite obvious effigies stuffed with straw.--ז62 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I requested closure on the board yesterday. ז62 we are probably authorized to remove any soapy advocacy that doesn't seem remotely related to improving the main space in the mean time. --Calthinus (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Calthinus, but personally I would rather not attempt to do that, as I was involved in the discussion, so I'm afraid that my removal - even of clearly inane statements and misleading claims attempting to disseminate doubts and/or accept the propaganda unrelated to the Douma attack rather than improving the article - could be possibly misinterpreted.-ז62 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
ז62 you misunderstood me-- if they continue to post such stuff, we remove it. Because the longer the thread gets from such nonsense, the more the closer has to read. A good metric is how it pertains to the question -- if it involves ranting about "the West" and "mainstream media".... not relevant. Or White Helmets. Boy do they love to talk about them.--Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the clarification - yes, I've missed that you meant possible future posts of such nature. (I've actually only kind of skimmed your previous post, without actually realizing to what "in the mean time" relates to.) It makes sense, but even then I'd rather would not attempt to do it myself (except for the really blatant or crude attempts). I also somewhat hope that it will not be necessary, though this may be over-optimistic on my part.-ז62 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

User:Stikkyy: an explanation please, for this? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are spirit radio and OANN reliable sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Please don't waste my time by playing games. Robert Fisk of The Independent and One America News Network are as WP:RS as they get. Any other objection? Huldra (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Uh... nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, if you're going to put Fisk in, it would be worth including this too, no? There were other journalists along with Fisk, such as the ones from CBS, and they found evidence of a chlorine gas attack. Stikkyy t/c 04:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
OMNN is about as unreliable as they come. Fisk's claim has also been debunked, https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/20/critics-slam-viral-stories-claiming-douma-chemical-attack-victims-died-dust/ LylaSand (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Sopher99. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
About the author of this "exposure": "Bethania Palma is a huge fan of the X-Files, because while she’s not saying it was aliens, it was aliens." It has one small problem with his "debunking" she was not in Syria and she did not communicate with the people of Douma, unlike Mr Fisk. She is a classic creator of post-truth.
She's not "debunking," she's disagreeing, and isn't nearly as notable as Fisk. Nevertheless it may be reasonable to include her critique, and I have added a sentence attempting to summarize some of her main factual points. -Darouet (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Robert Fisk is a famous and well-respected journalist and expert in the region, so it's certainly important to maintain a reference to his article. Criticism of his work by lesser-known journalists, e.g. here [2], could also easily be included. Assuming that Fisk's article remains here (it may not), I'll draft a sentence referring to the Snopes piece. -Darouet (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's an opinion that many would disagree with. "Fisking" is a thing you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
The Fisk material should be left out. It's a fringe view based on a primary source and podcast(!). It fails WP:DUEWEIGHT. Contrary to Huldra's edit summary, yes, this has been discussed before. - MrX 🖋 21:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is absolutely incredible how far some people will go to censor opinions they dont like. So Fisk, a journalist with a zillion awards, who were at the place, is UNDUE, while an armchair investigator like Bellincat is DUE? Who do you think you are fooling? Seriously, this is getting silly. Ok, my 2 cents: we bring whatever RS on the table (that is, into the article), and let the reader makes up their own mind. There is zero reason to keep Fisk out, and I am willing to start a RfC about this....to get input from others than the usual zealots who seems to dominate these articles (about the Syrian war). Huldra (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is absolutely incredible how far some people will go to dig up and cherry pick sketchy sources to support a ridiculous opinion. So... nevermind, whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Also calling other editors "zealots" when insisting on inclusion of fringe and debunked views, aside from being ironic, is not exactly a way to convince others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Can you give me one good reason for not including Fisk, while including, say, Bellincat? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Start an RfC then, because you don't seem to be hearing that several of us think this material is fringe and not appropriate for serious encyclopedic coverage of the subject.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
 An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Robert Fisk of The Independent visit in Douma (See The search for truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack) be included in this article? Huldra (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment I would be very interested in hearing editors argument for keeping Seth Doane visit in Douma in the article....while keeping Fisk out? Not to mention, why do we keep an armchair "journalist" like Eliot Higgins in the article, again, while keeping Fisk out? And, unlike some other editors here, I don't think anything about the Douma situation is "obvious." Huldra (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I believe that wp:Fringe, wp:Undue and wp:Extraordinary were invoked (and supported by references) several times in relation to Fisk and his account (and even Fisk himself described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as "extraordinary"), while not once in connection with the ones (Doane, Higgins) you mentioned. The whole difference basically boils down to the fact that Doane and Higgins are supported by other accounts and backed by other known evidence of various forms (it should be also noted that Higgins' analysis is mentioned because it's used by reliable third party sources for the identification of possible base from which the attack was perpetrated, not as a reference for the chemical attack itself, which is supported by sources independent of Higgins), while Fisk's report was a) based only upon interview with a person or persons who are not believed to have complete freedom of speech, under the circumstances; and b) was not supported by other accounts, not even by other journalistic teams who visited Douma at the same time as Fisk. There's also some possibility that Fisk just ignored locals who claimed that the chemical attacks took place, as these other journalists spoke with them. So it would be undue giving weight to Fisk's account. Attempting to "keep others out or include Fisk too" would be a case of wp:FALSEBALANCE.-ז62 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
According to the article, Fisk spoke with around 20 other people (who said much the same as the doctor) in Douma. According to himself, he could walk around without "minders". It would be totally out of character for an experienced (and highly awarded) journalist like him to ignore dissenting voices. Also: your argument agains Fisk, could just as easily be brought agains Seth Doane: what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, etc, I say keep them both in: if we exclude one, but not the other, we are basically saying we "believe" one, but not the other. That is plain WP:POV, and nothing else. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
According to the article/According to himself - these were clearly not the parts of Fisk's account which had been disputed by anyone, were they? (Also Dr. Rahaibani is the only Fisk's interviewee who posess a medical degree, i.e. can be expected to be able to have a qualified opinion whether these were symptoms of a chemical attack or not.) What would be out of Fisk's character as a journalist would be perhaps better left for some different discussion, what remains relevant here is the fact that even other journalistic teams visiting Douma at the same time were able to find witnesses contradicting Fisk's account - whom Fisk somewhat failed to meet/find/acknowledge.
your argument agains Fisk, could just as easily be brought agains Seth Doane: what is good for the goose, is good for the gander
Actually I just mentioned what reliable neutral sources have to say against Fisk's reliability, and I think attempts to claim that these are just mine would not be quite polite. Please also read more carefully what was written above about false balance etc., prior some possible further meaningless mentions of geese and ganders, reckless accusations about WP:POV etc. Regards-ז62 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Re your "Also Dr. Rahaibani is the only Fisk's interviewee who posess a medical degree, i.e. can be expected to be able to have a qualified opinion whether these were symptoms of a chemical attack or not." Now that is interesting, as AFAIK Seth Doane spoke with exactly zero people with medical degrees...and still the article have no problem with quoting his assertion about "a choking gas"? And I went through WP:RSN, in spite of all the huffing and puffing on this talk page about "fisking" and such, I could find no discussion saying that Fisk was not WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be somehow disturbed now, so please calm yourself down a bit - the difference you've somehow still failed to notice is that Doane's account a) does not represent a fringe theory based upon a single witness (whose freedom of speech/expression is quite open to suspicion), b) even people without a medical degree are still quite able to depict what they'd seen, though perhaps not with ability to distinguish between "gas" and "dust" (it should be noted that Fisk openly admits that Dr. Rahaibaini was not an eyewitness, it's more like he was attempting to give a medical examiner's statement) and c) is by no means an only account based upon established evidence.
So Doane's inclusion is more of an illustration of established reliable news sources report, not representation of a fringe theory. The differences between Doane's and Fisk's accoutns are clearly recognizable for anyone who can see them.
As far as I know, no one here claimed that Mr. Fisk was listed among the WP:RSN - actually all objections I'm aware of were based upon Fisk's undue representation of a fringe thesis? -ז62 (talk)
First, your silly attempt to intimidate me woun't work (I've been here since 2005 and have seen it all before.) Secondly, the difference between Doane and Fisk is that Fisk talked with a lot more people in Douma than Doane...and that he reached another conclusion. And someone, you included, have decided that Doane's opinion is "mainstream", and to be included, while Fisk's opinion is "fringe thesis", and therefor to be censored out. My opinion is that both are WP:RS, and both should be included. To exclude one is nothing less than censorship. Huldra (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I haven't attempted to intimidate you at all, and I do not quite understand why you seem to be thinking so. Please also reconsider your use of an adverb "silly".
the difference between Doane and Fisk is that Fisk talked with a lot more people in Douma than Doane
That's certainly a subjective opinion you're completely entitled to, but it fails to take into account the more substantive differences pointed to you earlier.
have decided that Doane's opinion is "mainstream", and to be included
Nope. Please calm yourself down and read very, very carefully comments above. Doane's account is not contradicting other existing evidence and other sources, and certainly not promoting any unsubstantied fringe theories, so it would not be quite reasonable attempting to create wp:FALSEBALANCE and giving the same weight to both undisputed accounts and an account whose reliability/marginality has been contested on so many levels. regards.-ז62 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sigh, I do wish you would stop these childish personal comments. May I remind you that the OPCW investigation is still ongoing....but you are 100% sure "who did it"? This reminds me a bit too much about 15 years ago, when I was called a gullible fool, a Saddam lover (and worse things)...just because I wasn't convinced that Iraq had WMD. (While all US sources, (like the Nytimes) were 100% sure that he did...) I say that until we have some solid evidence, then all theories are just that: theories. It is simply not up to us to remove a well known journalist, who has visited the spot, with, lets face it: no other argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Please - do really refrain from further remarks of such unwarrantendly rude nature. And read carefully what I actually wrote, please, instead of such futile personal comments you've made, if you'd like to attempt to improve the quality of the article. Sadly, your attept at allegations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are no more substantiated than the ones you've attempted to make earlier in this discussion. --ז62 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have read everything you have written, and I cannot see that you have made any substantial argument for keeping Fisk out. You link to wp:FALSEBALANCE, as if Fisk had reported the earth was flat. The wp:FALSEBALANCE is not very relevant, to say the least. So we are, sadly, left with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps it's because I just mentioned/pointed to/commented on arguments given by others in this discussion? Perhaps you are still somehow quite stuck with your subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it would be certainly quite selfish to somehow assume that your personal opinion (and precferences) carries any more weight that opinions of other editors.--ז62 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but you essentially reject any arguments in favor of the Syrian government. Well, let's say that people in the territory of the Syrian government are "afraid to speak out the truth." But why then are you sure that people under the rule of a dozen Islamist groups are free to express their opinion? Little hint: people there are not free even in the choice of religion. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I certainly do not (as I believe that Wikipedia should be neutral, not just favouring one side, neither claiming that all claims are equal, regardless of their reliability) - I'm just pointing how weakly supported some of the claims in favour the Syrian government/Assadists side are, while also noticing that there're actually rather noticeable differences in quality/verifiability/connection to facts between Fisk's and Doane's reports, so an attempt at equating them would be a false balance. Also I'd not like to stray into unrelated territory of religious problems existing in Syria, as these would be diffciult to disentagle their cause and origins from the effects of longtime dictatorship of al-Assad family, who are Alawite Muslims. I can perhaps also point out/repeat that differences between Fisk's and Doane's accounts do not hinge upon recorded statements of respective witnesses they met.--ז62 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
al-Assad family, who are Alawite Muslims. His wife is a Sunni. His prime minister is a Sunni. Even his religious endowments minister is a Sunni. And his minister of the Interior is a Sunni, too. So what's the problem with the fact that Assad is Alawit? If his "religious oppression" is a ban on the forcible conversion of religious minorities into Sunnism, perhaps it is worth putting up with it. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I certainly have no problem if the Assad's family has support of other Islamic groups. It's actually quite nice from you to point out the exact composition of the wider Muslim support behind Assad and his régime, though I do not really got why exactly you think it somehow supports your point. "Ban on forcing into Sunnism" is hardly the same thing as religious freedom, not to mention that you've completely failed to address what I wrote above (I presume you have no more arguments/objections) about the article discussed, instead for some reasons focussing on sectarian differences of rather minor importance here. -ז62 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you bother to read the mr. Fisk's report, you would have known that of the dozens of Douma residents interviewed, no one noticed dozens of people who would have died in a cloud of poisonous gases. And for such an observation, medical education is not required, is it? Further, as follows from the article, all civil defense volunteers who accused the government of attack, left the city along with Jaysh al-Islam fighters (as they did earlier in other places), and it can give an idea of their impartiality or lack of it. Why do members of civil defense who allegedly want to help civilians ignore 80% of Syrians? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea why you think I haven't read it. Please read somewhat more carefully I wrote above. Also try to reconsider that medical education is required for distinguishing symptoms of gas poisoning from someone being a victims of otherwise unobserved duststorm (which is the current official Assadist/Russian line, and what the Fisk's account seem to be - very tentatively - promoting). So we have Dr. Rahaibani (to quote Fisk: "by his own admission not an eyewitness himself") and about twenty (according to Fisk) or so unnamed "witnesses" who Fisk says were not aware of anything.
As for your mention of White Helmets, which does not seem to be related to the present topic at all, you should perhaps try to impartially consider the possibility that they left before Assadist forces occupied Douma because they feared that under Assadist occupation they would not be able help civilians any more? --ז62 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, the OPCW investigation continues. I wonder when the OPCW announced that no traces of a chemical attack have been found, will opponents of Assad here recognize it or they will say that the Syrian government and the Russians "covered their tracks"? So far, they still demonstrate the presumption of guilt of the "Syrian regime". 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you tried to claim that OPCW made such announcement, you should perhaps back your claims by a reliable source, otherwise you perhaps should not stray into such idle speculation so wildly unrelated to the current discussion. Some of us here attempt to back Wikipedia's content with reliable sources, as per policy, that's why inclusion of the Fisk account is disputed.-ז62 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Should "one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack" be included? No, one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack should not be included. He just visited the place and talked with a couple of locals about it. He did not do any investigation. He found nothing. He has nothing to tell. It is exactly the kind of nothing that should not be included on any WP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No. We've been around this multiple times. It's not due, just because some people love Fisk doesn't mean it is (he's actually quite controversial and has been accused of just being flat out wrong on countless points in his published works... and then there is "fisking"). In this specific case a shadow has been cast on his report by conflictual reports. Do we need to make a he-said-she-said COATRACK? No. If we did this in every case the page would be unreadable. --Calthinus (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No per my previous contents. The material is WP:UNDUE and including it would give too much prominence to a fringe viewpoint.- MrX 🖋 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No Our job isn't to include every single view, whether dissenting or supporting. If it was by the OPCW or some other ethics committee, then sure, I could see a point. As it stands, it's a single article by a single independent journalist, who drew his own conclusions. Stikkyy t/c 04:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
This is a journalist who visited the site of the alleged attack. The BBC does not have its own journalists there and refers in its report to the messages of the "White Helmets" and their questionable video recording. There are no independent sources confirming the fact of the chemical attack: only the BBC, which refers to the "White Helmets", The Syrian American Medical Society, which makes a joint statement with the "White Helmets", and... no one else. And all these organizations support the Syrian opposition. Reuters reports here in one line: "medical aid groups reported the suspected chemical attack, saying it had killed dozens of people in Douma." I think that the unnamed medical aid groups are the same "white helmets". So, the words of the alleged medical opposition group against the words of a single independent journalist... and the television channel, which is not worthy of trust because it focuses on conservative rural Americans... and the government of that country, which is guilty, because it is guilty of everything. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No. Summoned by bot. Policy section WP:REDFLAG requires exceptional claims be supported by multiple high quality sources. The reporter describes the claims as an "extraordinary conclusion", and explicitly questions the account. The claims are very fringe given the overwhelming RS reports to the contrary. I also find it beyond extraordinary to suggest the event and symptoms were instead due to.... wind and dust! The Syria topic has been subject to incessant efforts to push unreliable, fringe, or just plain bizarre sources. The next one may claim everybody just had a cold. Alsee (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Wind, dust and smoke. Dust storm is a serious thing and it can be life threatening. 145.255.171.160 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Indeed. However I believe no one can have the opinion that's what happened here, not unless they are sufficiently uninformed as to render their opinion worthless. Life threatening dust exposure normally takes years to progress. We are looking at a highly localized event, with exposure of such an acute degree to cause immediate mass casualties. The individuals who received a near-fatal exposure would not have recovered - they would have faced permanent effects with a number of non-immediate fatalities. It is implausible that anyone treating the affected individuals could confuse the two conditions. It would be trivial to confirm the dust-theory at any time (including today) with a basic X-ray of the lungs of the dead or of survivors. As a additional minor note on just how absurd the story is, I am unaware of any report of a dust storm in the region at the time. It requires blatant propaganda or a blind conspiracy-theory mindset to suggest that there was a dust storm severe enough to cause instant fatalities, and nobody noticed it happening. These observations are WP:OR, and I certainly do not suggest they be added to the article page. My "no" !vote is based on policy section WP:REDFLAG, the fact that the claims are poorly supported and contrary to overwhelming other sources, the reporter's description of the claims as "extraordinary", and supplemented by my informal evaluation that the claims fall under the common-English interpretation of "extraordinary". Alsee (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
You repeat the general mistake of most commentators here. There is no "overwhelming other sources". There are only "White Helmets" and media from Western countries who uncritically rebroadcast any of their statements. Those countries, whose leaders have been saying for seven years: "Assad must leave." As medical workers, they do not have professionalism, but they like to make movies. They work only in areas under the control of Islamists, their headquarters are usually located in the same buildings as the headquarters of Islamist groups, after the capitulation of surrounded Islamist groups they leave together with the Islamists.
And, when some participants in this discussion state that it is impossible to believe the polls of the inhabitants of that part of Syria, which is under the control of the government, I wonder if they really believe that the fighters of "al-Nusra", "Ahrar al-Sham" and other Islamist groups respect the First Amendment? That is, in the areas under their control, where no any correspondent of independent media, residents are free to express their opinions? Really?
P. S. By the way, for the panic message about "dozens of corpses" it is absolutely not necessary the presence of these corpses. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes I made a search though the net and checked if the doctor's doubts and Robert Fisk's report were discussed elsewhere. The results showed me that we should mention the "hypoxia" claim in the article since it was covered by the following:
  • Snopes.com
  • Sky News
  • ABC News
  • Global Research
  • AOL
  • ...and probably some others.

If we include this report, it does not mean we've verified it and our job, as editors, are not to assess the whether or not things are true. Why should this material be kept out? --Mhhossein talk 11:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes I've not been around this page for some time. But now checking after a while I am kinda disappointed with the move to remove these two POVs here. My usual concerns with such moves is WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Obviously if the Douma attack was a false flag by the British MI6 or the so-called rebels it would be very unlikely that a Western corporate source would cover these or give them weight given the fact that the West in general has been hell bent on toppling Assad for all these years. So including POVs by some few independent/alternative sources in the West helps towards neutrality. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No Robert Fisk is a partisan source in the conflict. LylaSand (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Sopher99. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No - a fringe viewpoint. Attack Ramon (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes Fisk is one of the few clearly WP:RS journalists commenting on this issue who has actually been there. His report was subject to editorial control by a newspaper of record that is a WP:RS. It is indeed possible that his interviewee was under coercion; but nobody has questioned the reliability of his report, on its own terms. The report is a reliable account; it doesn't say there was no chemical attack, it just reports the opinion of a doctor who examined the victims. People should be allowed to weigh such evidence themselves; it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what the truth is, and suppress anything to the contrary. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No Fringe viewpoint. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No: Do not support giving undue weight to a fringe account. However - perhaps it could be included if clearly and unambiguously described how it's mentioned/referenced by reliable sources - i.e. otherwise completely unsupported claims (suspiciously similar to the Assadist and Russian propaganda) and based upon an interview with a single person (whose reliability was not established, and there're many doubts whether he was really able to express his opinion freely), and even Fisk himself in his account described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as "extraordinary". (Which some of supporters of the inclusion of Fisk's account here seem to be missing entirely.)--ז62 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, "some opponents of the inclusion" are either having a hard time understanding what our core NPOV policy says, or are intentionally dodging the perfectly valid argument which says that no matter how controversial a person's account of an event is, it merits inclusion when sufficiently covered by reliable secondary sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Read please more carefully what I wrote above. I basically just pointed that such a fringe account, when covered by reliable secondary sources, should be described as how it's described by such reliable secondary sources - there's no reason for creating WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving false impression that Fisk's account has the same reliability as the reliable neutral sources, as some supporter of Assadist islamist/Russian propaganda in this discussion seem to be convinced. Even Fisk himself described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as extraordinary. Regards-ז62 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes - Fisk's account is covered by various secondary sources, including Sky News, The Times (no access), Le Monde, ABC News.au and The Intercept among others. It doesn't matter if they discredit or even mock his story (which they don't really do). What counts for us Wikipedians is that they actually do cover the account. Quoting the NPOV policy as a reminder:

    Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

So if this is the material in question, then I'm seeing no problem with it except for the fact that it only cites primary sources. But this is grounds for replacement, not outright exclusion. And there's also the part saying that Fisk "found no proof", which should be reworded as "said that he had found no proof". But other than that I see nothing too controversial. A story that was covered by multiple RS is anything but "fringe viewpoint" or undue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter if they discredit or even mock his story
It actually does...
which they don't really do
They describe it as a fringe account based upon a claim of a single physician, while also mentioning that other journalistic teams visiting Douma at the same time as Mr. Fisk had no difficulty to find found witnesses stating otherwise. I mean, titles like "Russia Sows Doubts Over Chemical Attack in Syria, Aided by Pro-Trump Cable Channel" or "Critics Leap on Reporter Robert Fisk's failure to Find Signs of Gas Attack" should perhaps really trigger at least some suspicions. Regards.-ז62 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
No, it doesn't. WP:GEVAL is concerned with conspiracy theories, and there are no RS explicitly denouncing Fisk's report as a "fringe account" or anything of the same order. The ones that seem to be doing so are merely quoting other journalists/officials who are doubting the story, but (again) not necessarily discrediting it themselves. And there are no scholarly works treating the Douma chemical attack yet. Only journalists and news networks. So, until that happens, we don't get to omit stories by well-established journalists that are covered/mentioned by well-established sources by simply quoting "WP:FALSEBALANCE". From the same Intercept article:

"There was no way of knowing if any of the medical personnel who spoke to the reporters in the presence of government minders had been coerced into making those statements by threats from Assad’s secret police, the mukhabarat, to harm their families — as the head of the largest medical relief agency in Syria told The Guardian they were."

Whether we like it or not, there is no concrete evidence as of today suggesting that a CW attack took place, let alone blame the "Assadist side" for it. Only "evidence" we have is foreign/local officials, and the media that is quoting them. Plus the OPCW is only allowed to state whether CWs were used or not. It doesn't get to hold any side responsible. So, in order to cite "WP:FALSEBALANCE", you need to be able to fully discredit the Russian/Syrian line first. Only then you are allowed to refer to Fisk's account as a fringe theory that goes against the mainstream scholarly line. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
You should perhaps read more carefully, as this policy deals with the fringe accounts in general ("Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.") with conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and alternative history given just for example. Perhaps you should also read Fisk's account more carefully, as even Fisk himself described Dr. Rahaibani's claims as "extraordinary". Also, the report you quoted just states that there's no final report yet, not that there were no chemical attack.
"So, in order to cite "WP:FALSEBALANCE", you need to be able to fully discredit the Russian/Syrian line first."
Are you sure you have you fully understood what the wp:FALSEBALANCE exactly means? --ז62 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Pretty sure I did. Unless we've established what the mainstream scholarship's take on the event is, we are in no position to determine which theory is commonly acceptable and which one deviates from the acceptable ("fringe"), i.e. we are in no position to determine what constitutes FALSEBALANCE yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Include Fisk: his report is integral to the WP:SCOPE of this article, which should accord his work the required WP:DUE weight according to coverage in international reliable sources. As Fitzcarmalan notes above, editors should be reporting disputes, not editorially deciding them according to their political preferences. Given Fisk’s stature in this arena and the coverage of his report, its omission would present a non-neutral review of the Douma attack and would harm readers and the encyclopedia.
As with his other work, in this case many international newspapers have covered Fisks’ report on Douma, even if some of that coverage is negative:
  • The Independent - "...There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had “never believed in” gas stories – which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups...." - [3]
  • Le Monde - "Robert Fisk, reporter for the British daily The Independent and veteran of the battlefields of the Middle East, whose work is decried by supporters of the Syrian opposition, reported that he did not meet, in his visit to the place, a single person aware of a chemical attack on April 7th…" - [4]
  • The Intercept - "...Still, Russian state television channels and critics of Western military intervention seized on credulous reports from the British writer Robert Fisk, the French news agency Agence France-Presse, Dirk Emmerich of Germany’s RTL, and Pearson Sharp of One America News..." - [5]
  • Counterpunch - "Robert Fisk’s Douma Report Rips Away Excuses for Air Strike on Syria..." - [6]
  • La Repubblica - "...But at the same time the representatives of the Syrian Ministry of Information escorted Douma to Robert Fisk, a British journalist who in this war has repeatedly taken a position for Damascus..." - [7]
  • The Times - "Robert Fisk, a reporter for The Independent, interviewed a doctor who said there had been a fierce regime bombardment that had sent scores of people to hospital but that chemicals were not to blame." - [8]
  • Sky News - "...The narrative appears similar to that given to the Independent's long-standing and award-winning Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk who made it to Douma with help from the Syrian government and spoke to a man who was not a direct eyewitness to the Douma attack..." - [9]
There’s a reason why newspapers report on Fisk’s work: he’s received countless awards and honors for his work in journalism over decades (e.g. Robert Fisk#Awards and honours), and has authored multiple books on the Middle East, including Pity the Nation and The Great War for Civilisation. In other words, he’s the kind of expert source you should be looking for when writing an encyclopedia article.
By contrast, five of the seven "no" !votes above state that Fisk is a "WP:FRINGE" source, with only one of those editors — ז62 — attempting to make any argument about what they mean in that regard (note that I do find their argument sincere, and they note that if Fisk is mentioned, criticism should be included, a position I agree with). The argument they cite, WP:FALSEBALANCE, is a perfect example of why Fisk needs to be covered in this article:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones.

and furthermore,

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Given his history and coverage of his Douma report, Fisk is certainly a significant view on this topic. Mention of his report does need to be tempered by mainstream criticism (e.g. [10]), but his report is not not remotely similar to the flat earth theory, or moon landing conspiracy. Instead Fisk did his job: he traveled to Douma, interviewed dozens of people there, published his article in a high-quality newspaper, and his report received international coverage.
As editors we should do our job as well: actually cite policy, review the quality of our sources, and present information to readers free of our personal biases. -Darouet (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it can be that others who mentioned Fisk felt no compulsion to restate the obvious, as it was pointed earlier in the discussion above (e.g. by Bobfrombrockley or Volunteer Marek). It would be also perhaps a bit more honest to quote somewhat more fully what the RS say about Fisk and his account, e.g. mentions of "Fisk's credulous account" etc. --ז62 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
When you write that I should be "more honest," do you mean quote from the source, e.g. "credulous reports from the British writer Robert Fisk," exactly as I've already done? Or are you thinking of something else? -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Struck per comments below. -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't certainly commenting on your personal honesty, and I'd be quite offended if you'd insist on such interpretation, just on the general standards of Fisk's supporters in general, who somehow fail to understand what the RS are actually usually saying about his report.-ז62 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
My apologies ז62. I do believe we need to cite criticism of the report, and attempted to add this earlier [11]. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure now if we're talking about exactly the same thing, but I've basically started with that it could be possible to include Fisk's report, if it'd be described as sourced by the RS (and as described in Fisk's own words) - e.g. possibly include if described as per neutral reliable sources, not giving it the same weight as to the RS. Even Mr. Fisk admits his account is based upon a single witness (who was actually not an eyewitness), whose statement Fisk himself describes as "extraordinary". --ז62 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Wrong. Fisk talked to more than 20 persons, one of whom was a doctor. (In comparison, Seth Doane, whose report you have no problem including, reported talking to 3 people,) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Support per nominen. When you try to delete such a high profile feature of this article, you make yourselves look ridiculous. Flashy Gordon (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply