Talk:Douma chemical attack

Ian Henderson / OPCW report

In case Ian Hendersons opinion is presented as an OPCW finding, leaked document revives controversy 'The experts’ analysis — indicating that the cylinders could have been dropped from the air — was eventually presented in the FFM’s final report, published on 1 March. On 27 February — just two days before the final FFM report was published — Henderson handed in his own report offering contrary conclusions. Exactly how the FFM reacted on receiving it at such a late stage is still to be revealed, but they clearly didn’t see fit to hold back the report in order to incorporate Henderson’s findings. (Brian Whitaker)

'On 16 May, in response to media enquiries the OPCW issued the following statement:

'The OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which was set up in 2014. The OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its findings. The FFM takes into account all available, relevant, and reliable information and analysis within the scope of its mandate to determine its findings. Per standard practice, the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.

On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.

Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question. At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.

And...here we go russia presents un measure rein chemical weapons watchdog92.3.3.67 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the assessment of the sub-team's report, which was leaked by a whistleblower to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media. Niemandsbucht (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And, again, here is the response from the OPCW,

'the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.

On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.

Unless RS , sources other than the 'propaganda group for absolving Russia and Syria of all responsibility for CW attacks on Syria and in Salisbury' report this , and unless and until the OPCW decide to overturn the conclusions of their final report, this seems not to have been regarded as a significant development in RS 92.3.3.67 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is too soon. Main coverage so far is from SANA and RT/Sputnik. Then there is an extensive account of the story so far by Brian Whitaker. Regarding reliable sources, there was a release by the EFE agency, which has been echoed on a few Spanish newspapers: La Vanguardia, El Confidencial and El Diario Vasco. This discussed the leak and OPCW's investigation into it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Also EAWorldViews Scott Lucas has written on reasons why Hendersons opinion was disregarded , from explanations provided in one of the annexes to the OPCW final report [1] . Did Henderson even actually go to Douma? Also, not clear at all that 'members', plural, contacted the pro Assad regime group of propagandists ; 'The Group claims that it obtained the document from "OPCW staff members" who "communicated" with it. It does not name the members, but a clue comes from a tweet by David Miller that one person (not "members") contacted him last week.

"Can the person who sent me an anonymous letter please get in touch?" Miller asks, adding his protonmail address.'92.3.3.67 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Whitaker update [2] "Misinformation in the Working Group’s commentary also suggests they had no direct contact with Henderson but had been talking to someone else who had scanty knowledge of his work at the OPCW.

The commentary asserted that Henderson was a member of the FFM (despite the OPCW’s denial) and had gone to Syria as part of that work. It also asserted that an “engineering sub-group” which helped with Henderson’s assessment had been in Douma as part of the FFM.

There’s no evidence that any of that is true and the Working Group has not responded to repeated requests via Twitter for an explanation."

92.3.3.67 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the scarce coverage in reliable sources, I would opt for either excluding this at the moment, or including the controversy around the release of the material itself, but making it clear that its validity is widely disputed. --MarioGom (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Daiky Mail came out with an opinion piece. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Mail is not an RS, and that is a blogpost on their site by someone with no expertise on any dimension of the issue. Let's wait for reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

When adding the information about the leak I've tried to make sure it's clear that it's an alleged report and included OPCW's response. The two sources I used was The Independent and Peter Hitchens's blog. This sounds like enough to merit a mention. Alaexis_¿question? 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, Daily Mail is not a good source, and a Daily Mail blog is an even worse one. The Independent piece is published under opinions, not news. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is one more RS (Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie) describing the alleged leak. Again, if there are refutations, let's add them for the context. Alaexis_¿question? 19:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a decent source. But all it says is that the new "leak" is not worth much. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you're stretching WP:RS here. It nowhere says that opinions published in major newspapers are not an acceptable source. Also, where exactly did you see in the VRT article the claim that the leak is not worth much? According to the expert they interviewed the document is genuine. Again, we are discussing *mentioning* this leak and not removing everything else in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The head of the OPCW has spoken about this now [3]

Fernando Arias D-G of OPCW ' In March 2019, I received the first indication that an internal document pertaining to the Douma incident, produced by a staff member could have been disclosed outside of the Secretariat. It should be noted that, the time of the FFM deployment in Douma in 2018, this staff member was a liaison officer at our Command Post Office in Damascus. As such, and as is customary with all deployments in Syria, he was tasked with temporarily assisting the FFM with information collection at some sites in Douma. The document produced by this staff member pointed at possible attribution, which is outside of the mandate of the FFM with regard to the formulation of its findings. Therefore, I instructed that, beyond the copy that would exclusively be kept by the FFM, the staff member be advised to submit his assessment to the IIT, which he did, so that this document could later be used by the IIT. As is the case with all FFM investigations, the Secretariat encourages serious and professional debates within, so all views, analysis, information and opinions are considered. This is what the FFM did with the information included in the publicly disclosed document; all available information was examined, weighed and deliberated. Diverse views were expressed, discussed and considered against the overall facts and evidence collected and analysed.

With regard to the ballistics data collected by the FFM, they were analysed by three external experts commissioned by the FFM, and working independently from one another. In the end, while using different methods and instruments, they all reached the same conclusions that can be found in the FFM final report.

When further evidence appeared that the document drafted by the staff member had been shared outside this framework, I considered I had sufficient information to authorise the initiation of an investigation to clarify the situation. At this moment, and consistent with my responsibilities as Director-General towards States Parties, actions had to be taken. Taking into account that the issue is under investigation, I will not make any further commentaries or evaluations that could be incompatible with the requirements of the investigation. I intend to keep you informed about the outcome of the investigation, as appropriate, in due time. I have provided all the information I have so far. For now, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the impartial and professional conclusions of the FFM that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place in Douma on 7 April 2018. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine. I remain available to all States Parties for further clarifications through bilateral discussions and written correspondence, as I have endeavoured to do since taking office.78.144.91.170 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've added the reformulated passage adding the official OPCW position ([4]) and taking out the Daily Mail link. Alaexis_¿question? 08:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the ballistics data collected by the FFM, they were analysed by three external experts commissioned by the FFM, and working independently from one another. In the end, while using different methods and instruments, they all reached the same conclusions that can be found in the FFM final report.

'In the meantime, those who put great stock into the Henderson report should lean on Damascus to cooperate with the IIT.' (Tobias Schneider). 78.144.91.170 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The published conclusions feature prominently in the article, including in the lead. They say nothing about the attribution, so they do not contradict (or confirm, for that matter) the leaked report. Alaexis_¿question? 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a minority view described by multiple reliable sources (including OPCW itself) so there are no reasons not to mention it. Note that we adhere to WP:DUE and dedicate much less square footage to this view compared to the opposing claim that the attack was done from helicopters by the SAA. Alaexis_¿question? 18:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Any attempt to remove this information from the article is in my opinion a censorship attempt. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:YESPOV I have made some careful amendments to the language used in this section, so that it aligns with the language used in both the document itself, and MSM/RS descriptions of it. There was immediately an attempt to vandalise that change away from WP:NEUTRAL so will be reviewing. Cambial Yellowing (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Henderson, should he be mentioned?

The fact is that OPCW said there was no other evidence....when there was. They suppressed it.

• Strange News from the OPCW in the Hague, Peter Hitchens 16 May 2019

• The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack, Robert Fisk, y 23 May 2019

• Bias, Lies & Videotape: Doubts Dog ‘Confirmed’ Syria Chemical Attacks, Scott Ritter, June 20th, 2019

It looks as if the story has started to unravel, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Noted chemical weapons expert Peter Hitchens.

the logic of chemical weapons use in syria - yeh, its really unravelling, this idea that the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons 78.144.85.113 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A well-written if contentious report but, funded as it was by the German foreign office, hardly WP:NEUTRAL Cambial Yellowing (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Head of the OPCW , 'OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias, speaking on a panel in Slovakia, said, “We are attacked with misinformation [and] with proxies that produced reports to undermine an official report of the fact-finding mission about investigations in Syria.” Arias indicated the Henderson memo was not considered fit for the conclusion. solving a mystery Diverse views were expressed, discussed and considered against the overall facts and evidence collected and analysed. With regard to the ballistics data collected by the FFM, they were analysed by three external experts commissioned by the FFM, and working independently from one another. In the end, while using different methods and instruments, they all reached the same conclusions that can be found in the FFM final report.

I don't think its a matter of any suppressed evidence is it, anyway? A different opinion was expressed , based on the evidence. No new evidence. An opinion is not evidence. An opinion Henderson expressed in a reporthendrsons memo,that the head of the OPCW has indicated was discussed internally, ( and rejected) , and has asked him to further on to the IIT. The IIT that is being hindered at every point by the regime.syria refuses visa for chemical weapons investigation chief. Maybe the story only unravels in the minds of those who believe the regime has never used chemical weapons , and will maintain that opinion even in the face of mountains and mountains of evidence. [5]. 78.144.85.113 (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

'the IIT replaces the earlier Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) which was set up by the UN Security Council and later closed down by Russia. The JIM had power to apportion blame but shortly after it issued a report blaming Syrian government forces for a sarin attack Russia vetoed a renewal of its mandate.' 78.144.85.113 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

( btw Sam Dagher has a new book 'ASSAD OR WE BURN THE COUNTRY', which apparently has many insights on the regime and its fighters mindset. For example :

"The only solution is chemical: we must exterminate them all, they and their families and children, all - these people do not deserve to live" - Mohamed Jaber (2013), days before the Khan Alassal attack.) 78.144.85.113 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

'There have been something like 300 chemical attacks in Syria since 2012, and there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of them have been carried out by the same forces that have been dropping barrel-bombs, cluster bombs, napalm, and plain old HE, on Syrian civilians for 8 years. I think this whole campaign to get them off the hook for one of those chemical attacks, while discrediting the agency charged with policing chemical weapons, is part of a move to normalize CW use in our world again, and you are one of its anonymous agents.' 78.144.85.113 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, it makes for sharp if glib reading, but coming from a document funded by the White Helmets and the German foreign office, pretty remote from a neutral point of view. Cambial Yellowing (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@CambialYellowing an article putting in context the Russian and Syrian regimes war on the chemical weapons police, and why they would do so russians war on opcw putting the henderson 'leak'in context 78.144.95.235 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, those who put great stock into the Henderson report should lean on Damascus to cooperate with the IIT. 78.144.95.235 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And , as everyone, like you, who operates from a 'neutral point of view' 'Cambial Yellowing', one understands the White Helmets, who are AQ, are the real men behind all the chemical weapons attacks. Sure. working group can you find henderson . whats the evidence it was a false flag

You can argue the merits of "operating" from a neutral POV all you like. But wikipedia always does. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Article about trolls and conspiracy theorists trolls conspiracy theorists assad syria

Louis Proyect:'The notion that jihadi devils would have killed 43 people in a city that was a stronghold of poverty-stricken Sunni resistance to Assad for 7 years in the hope that the Muslim and poor-people hating President Trump would have come to their rescue is patently absurd, but no more so than the propaganda that has been cranked out by the Sputnik left up to this point in the sorry project of burnishing Bashar al-Assad’s reputation during a savage war that has left his country a burning rubble.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.95.235 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Arias : - 'we are attacked with misinformation ...'78.144.95.235 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sascha Ruppert twitter - has interesting things to say about this subject also. 78.144.92.87 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Background

There have been several reversions by the same IP user. There are a huge number of adequate citations on this section, but the prose does not always reflect the content of the citations. For example, in background, after Human Rights Watch documented 85 instances, there was previously no mention that HRW says majority CW attacks were by the government (which seems a vital fact). Similarly as background that UN NGO has reported CW attacks from both sides. Instead of reverting and removing perfectly good citations (and inserting information which belongs in the OPCW investigation section) please comment below if you wish to discuss how this section should be worded. Please refrain from personal attacks on me or any other editor. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 18:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let the section follow the Reuters source which is the most pertinent to the article subject. Perhaps you can set out which part of the sources you are using for your 'background' edit about how rebels and regime alike use cw. It seems you want to make a point about a kind of equivalence of cw use, or something , but that is a tendentious pov , and not supported by RS. your 'background' edit is just an obvious ploy. By following the Reuters source, which perpends exactly on OPCW concern about cw attacks , and chlorine , it better suits the article imo. You obviously got some kind of weird animus against Bellingcat also, but wp is not Sputnik, Bellingcat is not regarded like Sputnik. 78.144.95.235 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing two citations. Whatever your reasons for doing so, they have been in the article for some time, are from mainstream reliable news sources, and are available via the archive link. Citations from more than one news agency are preferable.

To answer your question which you have now deleted "U.N.-OPCW...concludes that Syrian government forces used chlorine...militants used sulphur mustard." (Reuters, your preferred source). There is also ample documentation in the main CW in Syria article.

Kindly refrain from positing your imagined motives to my editing. If I were seeking to make a point about equivalence I would not have inserted a sentence about HRW's sources saying majority of CW attacks are by government. I am editing to restore the prose to be faithful to the citations given; it is currently missing context and obviously biased in several vital areas.

As an introductory sentence the fact that both sides are alleged to have used chemical weapons is important background to the subsequent sections on OPCW investigations etc. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I have no "weird animus" — whatever that means — regarding Bellingcat. In fact I know very little about it other than that it is not a mainstream organisation. Impetus for removal is the previous discussion — to which I was not a party — in RS, where there was a very clear majority indicating it was not regarded as a reliable source. If you read WP:BURDEN you will note that if someone wishes to include a source previously disregarded it is their responsibility to raise a request thereto. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

How is sulphur mustard relevant to the background to this attack? You know Bellingcat is not 'mainstream organisation'? Wtf are you on about. Ive just added sentence or two to the Skripal poisoning page about a joint BBC/Bellingcat investigation into a GRU agent involved in that attack. It is 'mainstream' enough I think. You just keep revealing how far off in your biases you are. Go edit articles about sulphur mustard attacks, stop making dumb edits here that are meant to deflect. You don't know what an 'animus' means? Fucking hell. 78.144.95.235 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: can you link that discussion? I don't see it. Remember that a source isn't generally "unreliable"; context matters. VQuakr (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Sure, I linked one (of several) RS discussions when removing the link initially here. While context certainly matters, self-published sources are not considered reliable, and per WP:BURDEN, the use of a source with a previous understanding as not reliable requires those advocating its use to establish it as RS. It also fails several of the tests of WP:ELNO. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 16:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see that RSN discussion is from 2015, so it is pretty dated since IIRC Bellingcat was basically just Higgins's blog at that point. It also doesn't show any consensus, so please ease up on the attempts at burden-shifting. This isn't a SPS. Which specific points of WP:ELNO do you think it fails? VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The burden is not being shifted; it lies on the editor advocating the source's inclusion by default, because of the previous 14-5 RfC discussion toward it not being a reliable source — this is unrelated to its status as an SPS. "use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." While no doubt a highly interested party, the individual operating the site has no special scholarly qualification or recognition in the field. If you are keen to include the link by all means have the discussion, but it is not a foregone conclusion when the source has already had a strong consensus against, your denial notwithstanding. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you're trying to say. Are you claiming that Bellingcat is a SPS? VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat just won a Peabody Award. how open source reinvented investigative journalism. The idea that this is some kind or 'fanzine' or some such , if that is CambialYellowings delusion, is beyond ridiculous. 78.144.83.73 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And a European Press Prize. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL IP, but yes citing an old RSN discussion (that even then contained mixed results) that this source can never be used in any context seems a bit of a stretch to say the least. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)