Talk:Douma chemical attack

Bellingcat is State-sponsored Propaganda, Should be Treated the Same as Pentagon Press Releases

Elliot Higgins, aka Bellingcat, is funded directly by the National Endowment for Democracy and paid to manage the regime change narrative of the CIA and State Department of the United States. The NED is funded directly by US Congress. This is state propaganda that should be treated as such, not some "grass roots" search for truth. 173.230.187.144 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose this as consensus-compromise:

To rate the US government financed Bellingcat in the same sources "reliableness" category as Russia Today (RT).

These two outlets provide interesting fact and arguments, but are not blindly to be trusted, so not giving Bellingcat the highest trust source category of Wikipedia. This decision recently taken is obviously contentions and seemingly made by people without some classical history teaching. In war the first, what dies is truth. So war parties provide propaganda. This is true since classic Roman atiquity at least (as documented on Octavian .. later Augustus fighting his opponent).

This "!" caution state should be reintroduced, and kept as such, as long as the US is involved in the Syrian Civil war and Bellingcat reports on events in that war.

Greetings from the neutral center of Europe .. Middle Europe to be precise.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

At all times, Wikipedia uses reliable sources based on previously reached consensus. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#RT (controversial topics, international politics) indicates RT (and some other websites connected with the Russian government) are inadmissible sources for editors to use. The previously reached consensus is to accept Bellingcat (see the same Wikipedia article above) as a legitimate source regardless of the claims made against the organisation. There is no accepted equivalence between RT and Bellingcat. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I know this, what Wikipedia uses, it can be read in the policy documents you recommended to read, thank you. However, you do not answer my questions above.

I never implied an equivalence, you are distorting my words. My intention is to reclassify the trustworthyness. Bellincat is not trustworthy enough to have the utmost best mark of Wikipedia, the consensus was none, there were severy counter arguments.

There is new evidence out on the performance of Bellingcat and its financing. A news outlet financed by a war party is not an impartial source. Or do you think Bellingcat is impartial and utmost trustworthy in the case of the Syrian Civil War (Q 1)?

And statements of Wikipedia are not century statements like of a pope (on the trustworthyness of Bellingcat). And even popes change their opinion over times (think of Gallileo).

So you think the Wikipedia source status of Bellingcat will stay/should stay here for years, decades? (Q 2)

Please be so kind to reply to my Questions (Q) above. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

KR, 212.186.108.228 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You write in your first post: "I propose this as consensus-compromise: To rate the US government financed Bellingcat in the same sources 'reliableness' category as Russia Today (RT)." Then in your response to my explanation you write: "I never implied an equivalence, you are distorting my words."

If I were you, I would make a Request for Comment (RfC) over your suggested change in WP policies and see if you can do any better with whoever responds.

The "evidence" you claim exists appears in the same kind of sources which cannot be used on this site without consequences for continued editing privileges. You talk page suggests you are aware of all this by now. Philip Cross (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: Dear Dr. Cross, I want to answer your central question on the new evidence on Bellingcat. The source of the evidence is the website of Bellingcat itself. Two issues. It regards first the lack of transparcy: It is not enough to say who gives you money, you have to say how the proportions are and what your total budget is, that is the standards Transparency International sets (and does provide for by its own public reporting of course) and my old Alma Mater has done in the US already beginning of the 1990s. I can you provide you with all the evidence for this statements. Secondly it is the reaction of Bellingcat in questioning their evidence on their comment page. And the missing reaction of Bellingcate to the new (14th of December 2019) evidence provided by WikiLeaks on 20 experts of the OPCW challenging the misleading conclusions in the final reports of their own organisation. But I can wait patiently some days for reactions of Bellingcat on that lates Wikileak Release (Part 3).

Do you agree to wait a bit (1-2 weeks) for our discussion on judging the new performance evidence of Bellingcat? - This is my fourth specific question (Q 4) to you. I hope you reply to that one specifically. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)KR,

It is not the job of a specific article talk page to make a ruling about the reliability of a source. That is done on the RSN. Just a couple of months ago there was an extensive RfC about Bellingcat. This was closed with the conclusion that the site is "generally reliable and use it, preferably with attribution." BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

No doubt my reversal of the addition of links to this organisation's latest document dump will itself be reverted. No citation from third-party reliable sources have been included in edits so far giving the release of these allegedly authentic documents no confirmed veracity or any shred of real notability. So further reverts by other editors, given 1RR applies here, would appear to be entirely legitimate. The sources I removed were all from WikiLeaks, including the citation claiming to be from the Italian daily La Repubblica. See the urls here.

Since comments added to edit histories are sometimes ignored on talk pages, please see the policies outlined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WikiLeaks and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#WikiLeaks. Philip Cross (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it for you 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross I understand your argument "...no confirmed veracity or any shred of real notability.". By it you imply that the wikileaks website, linked by me as external, is a fake site (... no confirmed veracity). Am I correct? (for my using your academic title, please read shortly Philip Cross) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policy articles I cite above. Philip Cross (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross Thank you for the advice. After having done so, it is clear that one clause of the Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#WikiLeaks justifies my placement. However I will make it more specific even and relate to the Engineering report leaked and not denied of itś veracity even by the OPCW ever, just the contrary. OPCW claimed a break of confidentiality on that, according to The Indepentend also. So I am going to insert this specific link to a part of wikileaks important for the Wiki-Readers to consider the engineering reasoning presented. Any exact objections to that? Additionally after reading the Wiki policy articles it became clear however, that other external links may have to be removed from the article following this policies, not so much mine.

212.186.108.228 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Sorry - did forget to login before - here is my signature added: FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross, you seem not to have objections to my intentions for a more specific link to the engineering papers by WikiLeaks, thank you for that. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Al-Masdar News, according to reputable sources cited in the WP article, is an pro-Assad/"pro-government website". It is thus a dubious website which is not an admissible source for Wikipedia, but entirely the kind which will leap at the opportunity of denying the actions of the Syrian government and military. I hope it is removed soon. Philip Cross (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross, I agree in regard to Al-Masdar. It is of course, as a news outlet financed by one of the war parties, not impartial. We should together ask the Wiki community to provide a more trustworthy source for additional reference. What do you think (Q3)? KR, 212.186.108.228 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not exist. Try again. Philip Cross (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross, I ask you very politely now and again, could you be so kind to answer my questions (Q 1 - Q3, up to now)? 212.186.108.228 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC) sorry was logged out, here is my signature: FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@FrankBierFarmer: quit sealioning. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

To remove the whole paragraph was not warrented by the discussion above. Why do you do that? Only the citation of Al Masdar was to be removed. Please comment first on the results of the discussion between Philip Cross and me before. Waiting for your specific answer. Kind Regard (KR) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@FrankBierFarmer:, please see this section of your talk page: User talk:FrankBierFarmer#Topic ban which relates to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. While the topic ban has expired, I invite you to reconsider your editing practices before someone reports you once more. Philip Cross (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@FrankBierFarmer: I commend the action of User:VQuakr. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "commend" ? FrankBierFarmer (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@FrankBierFarmer: Thank and praise. Philip Cross (talk)

@Philip Cross: aha thank you for this answer: I agree and I accept his removel of the reference to Al-Masdar also, as mentioned above in our discussion. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross, as I just noticed you did remove now the whole sentence, in ingoring our discussion results. This violates the code of conduct of wikipedia editing and borders for me to edit warring. Before you denied to answer all my specifc questions (Q 1 to Q 3), and provided evasive statements. I will repeat my questions again tomorrow. I hope you will answer them then. In the meantime I urge you to revert your deletion of the whole sentence which I added again after User:VQuakr errornous deletion. Please follow the Wiki Policies mentioned in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol Thus you should not delete a complete new sentence on a new evidence (on that WikiLeaks just days ago has released important new content on the Douma issue) KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As the only editor who consistently adds the WikiLeaks passage is yourself and you have a record of disruptive editing on this article, you are perfectly free to complain. However, as the only third-party sources to report the development are such non-RS websites as Press TV, Veterans Today, The Unz Review and Global Research, it is doubtful you would gain a positive response from whoever responds to you. I am also certain you have broken 1RR and probably the more usual 3RR. A revert usually resolves the issue for first offenders, but as you have warnings about edit-warring on your talk page, that does not include your account. Philip Cross (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: Dear Dr. Cross, lets wait an see. The sentence was not created and not placed initially by me. Others may jump in again.

I have not at all any intention to start a edit warring with you, as I thought just 2 rounds before, we agree (see above). Just to clarify, what do you mean I have broken 1RR and 3RR? What is your kind of behaviour then, when deleting text of others (not mine) without discussion with them on this page? Is ignoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol not classifyable? KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You have nothing like consensus for this proposed addition. And read WP:THREAD, the indenting on this section is atrocious. VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Some sources:

• Bristol University briefing note questioning the OPCW's methods.
• Robert Fisk articles from The Independent, one from 17 April 2018 following a visit to Douma and one from 23 May 2019 following the emergence of the dissenting assessment.
• Peter Hitchen's comments from The Daily Mail (normally not a reliable source, but perhaps Peter Hitchens can be seen as a significant commentator).
• A long November 2019 piece by Aaron Maté in The Grayzone. In my opinion, The Grayzone is at least as reliable as Bellingcat.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We already mention the second-guessing of the report in general; do any of these sources discuss the Wikileaks from this week? VQuakr (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

These sources are not legit. (1) the briefing note is not a "Bristol University briefing note". You have linked to a Bristol University repository of articles by one of its staff, which links to a self-published briefing note on a Wordpress blog written by the Bristol academic (not a Syria or chemical warfare expert) and published by the Wordpess blog of their "working group", whose members include Vanessa Beeley and other dubious "independent researchers". (2) Fisk's articles are published in the "Voices" section of the Independent not in the foreign news section because it is an opinion piece (and the earlier one predates the leak and has nothing to do with it). (3) Hitchens' blog is hosted by the Mail on Sunday which is part of the Mail group which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia for good reasons. (4) Grayzone is by no means a reliable source, but a self-published site specialising in conspiracy theories and whose contributors are mainly also employed by Russian state media as commentators. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Why is the Mail on Sunday (or the Daily Mail for that matter) not a relaible source? What are these "good reasons" you refer to? It seems a little odd that a major middle-brow UK daily newspaper, and a major middle-brow Sunday newspaper (with a different editorial stance and different staff) are prohibited as reliable sources. Between them, they have won the the National Newspaper of the Year award from the British Press Awards eight times since 1994. All media outlets, including the Guardian, the NYT and the BBC get things wrong from time to time and/or push an agenda, but if we exclude sources that occasionally get things wrong or whose politics we disagree with, there will be no sources at all. Britain has very strong libel laws, so when UK newspapers make mistakes they are often liable to be sued for large amounts of money. Editors naturally try to avoid this, because they are accountable. They take legal advice before publishing copy and for this reason are generally reliable, more so than any US outlet I would suggest. How on earth did this happen? Of course the Mail on Sunday is a reliable source, and Peter Hitchens in particular is a meticulous researcher, grumpy old curmudgeon though he may be. This has to change. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved passage not directly relevant here to my talk page on 18 December. Now archived. Philip Cross (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sébastien Braha

Surely this chap deserves a mention in this article? After all, he put sooo much hard work and expense into it? Phantasmic Fox (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

He needs to mentioned in reliable sources to gain sufficient notability even for a mention let alone an article. So far only mentioned by fringe websites Wikipedians do not cite. Philip Cross (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the smearing any source that mentions his name will take but surely there's someone else honest working for a reliable sources out there, willing to put their job on the line to tell the truth about what happened to those poor children? Their angry ghosts are crying out for it. They can't all be THAT chicken can they? Phantasmic Fox (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)