Talk:U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

Reception section and WP:UNDUE

I think a reception section is a great idea, but given that many active editors in this corner of Wikipedia are more enthusiastic in about the "rebels did it" conspiracy theory than the mainstream media is, please try harder to focus on mainstream media opinions rather than the opinions that you personally agree with. Also, if you cite American congressmen that are skeptical that Assad used weapons, please consider also citing more of the many American congressmen who believe that Assad used chemical weapons; I don't think it "passes the laugh test" to claim that a majority of the U.S. Congress believes the rebels did it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add specific Reception of the Assessment which splendours deliriously in the fabulousness of its quality (I didn't find any). Do NOT delete reception which disagrees. It is quite possible that the Syrian govt did it but the Assessment was a turd which didn't prove it. Do NOT delete the criticism in an effort to polish the turd. The mainstream opinion does not depend on the quality of the Assessment, and there is absolutely no need to rewrite history in an effort to defend your agreement with that opinion. Podiaebba (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, are you arguing that your contributions do not need to observe WP:UNDUE, that your contributions are not in fact WP:UNDUE, or are you pleading exemption from WP:UNDUE because only the denialist receptions you found splendour deliriously in the fabulousness of their quality enough to meet Wikipedia's exacting [[WP::SPLENDOUR]] standards? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that Podiaebba is saying that saying the Assessment did not convince all, in late August, that Assad bore responsibility for the attacks; and that it convinced fewer that a military response was the appropriate course of action. Podiaebba, am I close? VQuakr (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The Assessment was unconvincing, both to many who saw the public version, and to those willing to comment publicly about the classified version, within the severe limits of what's legally permissible. Being honest about the flaws of this document and exactly how it was received is precisely what an encyclopedia entry about it should do. And let's not forget after all that the failure to convince is not some trivial footnote in history - had it been really convincing, it's likely that Syria might have been bombed before the CW inspection compromise could materialise. Whether the case the Assessment (poorly) makes has been proven by subsequent data is entirely and rather obviously distinct from its quality and the consequences thereof within the early September 2013 time-frame where it was a live political issue. @Rolf: the invitation to add more Reception that was positive about the Assessment was serious. An expansion of the impact of the Assessment on US politicians in early September 2013 in particular would be helpful. There were after all quite a few willing to vote for war when the vote was being pressed for - surely some said something about the Assessment. Podiaebba (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "The Assessment was Unconvincing", looking at the Senate foreign policy committee that drafted the strike resolution, both the Democratic chair and the ranking Republican were convinced Assad did it. The most famous committee member, John McCain, was also convinced Assad did it. Why is the first reaction cited from Tom Harken, the junior senator from Iowa, who as far as I can tell isn't even a member of any relevant committee? This is the kind of thing I mean by WP:UNDUE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean leading US politicians support the US govt position? Excuse me for not being shocked. Anyway the solution is to add, and not remove. (Perhaps we should also add McCain's visit to Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian opposition, for "context".) Podiaebba (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify, do you agree that the section is currently WP:UNDUE? Why is the solution to add, rather than remove? Since you're not volunteering to add, and I'm volunteering to remove, wouldn't you agree that removal will fix the problem? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to add for you if you provide sources suggesting anything worth adding; I've not found any (which in a sane world ought to affect the application of WP:UNDUE). Podiaebba (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fringe tag

Poddebia removed the fringe tag with: "erroneous "fringe" tag: no theories are presented, only comments from elected officials, and from intelligence officials. If this is not permissible critical comment, what is?"

One of the paragraphs begins:

The US government position was criticized on 6 September by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of retired intelligence professionals including Ray McGovern and Thomas Andrews Drake which had in 2003 criticized US intelligence on the Iraq war. VIPS released a memorandum stating that "some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21", and described "a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters".[12] The memorandum also said that "CIA officers working on the Syria issue ... tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public..."[12][13]

I would characterize this as presenting a theory. And as usual, the sources are crap and the fringe theory is not put into context. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that paragraph includes one sentence on an alternative theory which clarifies the nature of their criticism of the report. What "context" do you think is missing? This isn't pantomime you know, where every "X is rubbish because" requires an opposing "oh no it isn't!" Podiaebba (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba (talk) Can you start by replacing the fringe theory tag that you removed, since you prematurely removed it in violation of Wikipedia policy? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rolf, when you repeatedly refer to political opinions you don't share as "conspiracy theories," you not only alienate other editors (making it harder for you to work with them), but also invite some skepticism as to the neutrality of your own views. I found it frankly remarkable that you considered mainstream criticism of the published "U.S. intelligence report," including by U.S. intelligence or elected officials, as "conspiracy theory" and unmentionable in this article.

I've also noticed that you repeatedly accuse other editors of believing/pushing a "rebels did it perspective," when those editors may believe nothing of the kind, and simply don't share your personal certainty regarding use of chemical weapons in Syria. -Darouet (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Are you asking me to elaborate on why I (and many others) consider "rebels did it" a conspiracy theory, or are you saying that even if it's a conspiracy theory, it's unproductive to label it as a conspiracy theory? If the latter, do you have alternative suggestions for a shorthand for the factual disagreement? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as the neutrality of my views, I believe, like the mainstream media, that the attack was launched by Assad. Where there's conflict between the mainstream media opinions and my own, I'm happy to insert the mainstream media opinions; for example, I think the mainstream media is too quick to believe that Assad might fully disarm, but I'm not inserting my opinions beyond one cite of The Economist, and am not further trying to push the viewpoint by citing from blogs or obscure op-eds, for example. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rolf, I don't think you need to do a better job explaining your positions (you've done that adequately). In my humble opinion, your interactions with editors who don't share your positions, for pages that describe ongoing and politically charged events, would improve if you didn't label other views as conspiracy theories. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet (talk) Reflecting on what you're saying, and putting myself in the shoes of the other editors, I'm going to change my mind and agree with you. In fact, in the future, I'll take responsibility to be more considerate overall. Thanks! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mattis admits no evidence of Syria using sarin

Please can I get a firm consensus that the U.S. Secretary of Defence's current opinion regarding the evidence of sarin use be included from this NewsWeek article? Wilkie, Ian., Now Mattis Admits There Was No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas on His People, Newsweek, 8th February 2018 The article currently does not reflect the position of the Department of Defence very well without it. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No - this Newsweek piece is an op-ed (it's clearly labeled "opinion"), and is not usable for reporting news or statements of fact. (It's also, by the way, a distortion, see Eliot Higgins referring to it as "Easily Debunkable Syria Chemical Weapon Trutherism"). I'm concerned that your editing pattern (in combination with your username, etc.) indicates a single-minded focus here. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So Elliot Higgins' opinion is more reliable than the U.S. Secretary of Defence? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not just made it into NewsWeek. Reuters has picked it up saying "Earlier this month, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the Syrian government had repeatedly used chlorine gas, but stressed that the U.S. did not have evidence of sarin gas use."[1] Is Reuters an opinion piece as well? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Misleading cherry-picking of source. The same Reuters piece reports the National Security Adviser, McMaster, saying: "Public reports 'clearly show' Assad's use of chemical weapons." Neutrality^talk 21:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)