Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

UNDUE

Re [1]. We ALREADY record "Russian and Assadist" claims at great length. There's no reason to do it in like fifty paragraph with dozens of quotes from Putin's folks and Assad. The sections on Russian and Syrian "denials" are way too long and undue. So yes, they need to be trimmed of excessive unnecessary material. This is an encyclopedia, not a megaphone for Russian/Assadist propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite right, this is an encyclopedia. This is not another megaphone for propagandists of interventionism from Voice of America. 2.132.234.204 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly, but just to note that the paragraphs and quotes trimmed and restored add up to 74KB, which is a large percentage of the article, and as far as I can see only anonymous IPs[2][3][4][5][6][7] have tried to restore the text, making it hard to argue there's any consensus from actual editors for restoration. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Could it be that editors with a name and a reputation might not have the time or inclination to get dragged into AE by VM and his friends? I for one have stopped editing articles concerning these alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria, ever since VM reverted my edit with the summary "rmv bad faithed POV attempts to poison the well" [[8]]. It was neither an attempt to poison a well, nor was it done in bad faithg (and VM's slur was totally in bad faith). An attempt to discuss the matter on his talk page failed (he blanked the entire page) [[9]]. That is kind of bad form, because proper WP:BRD practice when a dispute is not about content is to use the user talk page. VM doesn't know anything about me; he said so in an edit-summary when he deleted a more recent comment on his talk-page [[10]].

I certainly have no time for AE shenanigans. VM evidently does; in fact it's hard to see how he could hold down a full-time job while also engaging in editing the encyclopaedia as well as coming to AE to go to war with his opponents - he is an extremely prolific AE actor. Me - I'm retired. But I still don't have time to argue with aggressive wikilawyers on talk pages and in arbitration.

VM and a fairly small group of his friends seem to be all over anything that is politically sensitive, pushing a POV that appears to be essentially anti-russian (Eastern Europe esp. Poland, Trump, Syria).

So the fact that it is IPs that are trying to restore this text doesn't mean there is a consensus to delete it. Rather, I see a gang of POV editors with a mean attitude, suppressing sourced info that they disagree with. It's time some admin came along and sat on them. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm no Putin lover. Nor do I like the way that Russia conducts itself on the world stage. I just don't like Wikipedia proclaiming that sarin attacks have definitely occurred, when the only evidence is video testimony from dubious witnesses. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an important point that the article does not make clear. MrDemeanor says the only evidence is dubious; this should be fleshed out.Shakyvoice (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)shakyvoice

Bureaucracy

Just a note to say that the indef semi-protect was not an AE action but rather falls under community-authorised discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

info

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with reference to the data of the organization “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights”, [13] named the staged videos of the chemical attack in Syria, distributed by Western media. According to the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, “this whole undertaking is clearly provocative in nature” [14].

http://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2687802#6

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/557035

On October 14, Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Department of Non-Proliferation of Arms Control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, based on photographs of children affected by the Khan Sheikhun incident, concluded that they were “exposed to psychotropic substances”. Mikhail Ulyanov also doubted that an air bomb was used in Khan Sheikhun [11].

Subsequently, on the basis of a statement by the US State Department on the use of chemical weapons by the Khayyat Tahrir al-Sham group in Idlib province, Russian representatives concluded that the American side had actually admitted the guilt of the group in a chemical attack [12].

http://www.interfax.ru/world/583169/

https://ria.ru/radio_brief/20171020/1507235942.html

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, comrade. Would add, that Snopes.com has a good section on Russian claims of psychotropic substances. 2A00:23C7:E287:E001:F8EC:CFB4:92BA:D35E (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

File:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack victim sketch by Marc Nelson @marcnelsonart.jpg

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack victim sketch by Marc Nelson @marcnelsonart

Marcnelsonart (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to add this drawing based on an eyewitness photo. Marcnelsonart (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't support this request. I think our policies would not support getting as emotional as to add someone's drawings.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek