Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ghouta chemical attack: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:46, 4 December 2015 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,171 edits →same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop← Previous edit Revision as of 15:46, 4 December 2015 edit undoVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,171 edits →same ol' POV pushing which just won't stopNext edit →
Line 58: Line 58:
:And here come the brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war. Anyway, motivations *already are* mentioned in the article.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC) :And here come the brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war. Anyway, motivations *already are* mentioned in the article.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
::Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. ] (]) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC) ::Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. ] (]) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::See ].<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

::Yeah, this smells rotten as hell. -] (]) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC) ::Yeah, this smells rotten as hell. -] (]) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... ] (]) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC) :::If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... ] (]) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:46, 4 December 2015

Skip to table of contents

Template:Mediation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghouta chemical attack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghouta chemical attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghouta chemical attack at the Reference desk.
In the newsA news item involving Ghouta chemical attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 August 2013.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 21, 2015.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghouta chemical attack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Stop to article editing without consensus

We've been involved in mediation, let's please just wait a little bit before all deciding to dive back in. The fact that recent edits have been accompanied by reverts means that we haven't reached consensus yet. Sorry @Volunteer Marek and Erlbaeko: I haven't actually had time to look through Erlbaeko's edits and see if they're what we agree upon in the mediation, but let's go back there and address that before coming here? If Marek does understand the edits and disagrees, obviously there's more work to do. -Darouet (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. You reverted an edit by MVBW because there's mediation going on. Erlbaeko then came in and made much more substantial changes and I reverted them for the same reason. Volunteer Marek  23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me. Also just agreeing with you. Volunteer Marek  00:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreeing with me?! We've achieved more in a few hours here than mediation has in weeks :p -Darouet (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Re . Those changes were discussed in the mediation. See Item 3 - Work through the bullet points in "Other evidence" and Motivation in the lead. Since no one objected I assumed consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought maybe that's what you were doing. I think that you, VQuakr and I were agreed at least, and even if Marek agrees too, the edits come at an inopportune time, since there's been edit-warring over undiscussed changes. That's why I reverted you without really looking to see if you were implementing some of the mediation discussion changes. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually you didn't. Volunteer Marek did. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Uh, I don't see how the discussion in mediation relates to these changes. For example, where in the mediation was it agreed that we should change the phrasing "has characterised attempts to say the rebels were responsible as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."" to "stated that the Syrian government provided no explanation for how rebel forces would have acquired chemical weapons"? That's just you and Darouet agreeing. Since the two of you - and this isn't meant in a negative way - are "on the same side" in the mediation, a proper agreement would obviously involve getting someone on the other side to agree. No one has. So this looks like an obvious attempt to jump the gun and WP:GAME mediation. Volunteer Marek  18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I was not trying to game anyting. Since no one objected I assumed the rephasing was ok. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In that thread you have couple people saying that the phrasing is fine as is. Volunteer Marek  18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
True, but that was before I pointed out that he was misrepresented. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Marek when you get a moment why don't you look at the Sellstrom interview where he uses the phrase - it seems to me like he's saying that the Government hasn't been able to explain where the rebels would have gotten access to the CW, and continues that the've only provided poor theories to explain this. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The current text does not accurately represent what Sellstrom said. "Several times I asked the government: can you explain – if this was the opposition – how did they get hold of the chemical weapons? They have quite poor theories". He is criticising specifically the Syrian government's explanation of from where the opposition might have obtained CWs. The current sentence can read as any "attempts to say the rebels were responsible" are unconvincing. A very different interpretation indeed. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop

Just to note on the talk page here (I've brought it up at the mediation page as well) that there's clearly no consensus for including this text, which was discussed here and at them mediation and opposed by several editors. This is just the latest round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attempts to over represent a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, give WP:UNDUE weight to the same and to POV the article. Please remove it. Volunteer Marek  14:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The key elements of a crime are means, motive and opportunity, so I can't see why a paragraph about possible motives should be out of place here. Especially considering that most of the article is not about the fact per se, but about international reactions (by interested parties, by the way) and about what random people from around the world think about it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way you said that there's no consensus for including it, but I can only find this discussion where there's no consensus on its removal. So, for now, it's safe to keep it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And here come the brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war. Anyway, motivations *already are* mentioned in the article. Volunteer Marek  14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
See WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek  15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this smells rotten as hell. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... Erlbaeko (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
No, the behavior of some editors - yourself foremost among them - on this article. Volunteer Marek  15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Ghouta chemical attack: Difference between revisions Add topic