Talk:Douma chemical attack/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

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)
@Kiwicherryblossom: there is broad consensus that the Daily Mail is not an acceptable source in basically any context. See WP:DAILYMAIL. VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Thank you for the link. I notice that the editor who proposed prohibiting the use of the Daily Mail as a source is User:Hillbillyholiday. His user page says "This account has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts." Does this matter?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kiwicherryblossom: no. He didn't start the discussion in violation of any sanction, and even if he had that probably wouldn't be interpreted as sufficient reason to nullify the entire well-attended discussion and closure. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@VQuakr: What do you mean by 'well-attended'? What percentage of Wikipedia editors attended the discussion and closure? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Well attended, as in several dozen people discussed. Your question about "percentage of Wikipedia editors" comes across as pedantic; not sure if you meant it that way. VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@VQuakr: No, I didn't mean it that way. It was a serious point. There are almost 38 million edtors of whom over 125,000 contribute regularly. Furthermore, this was an extremely significant decision that affects all WP:Wikipedians and those who use Wikipedia. In that context, it is unclear why you regard a 'discussion and closure' involving 'several dozen people' as 'well-attended'. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There is strong consensus that the DM not be used as a source. It is not completely clear if this extends to the MoS - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Does_WP%3ADailymail_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday which makes it seem there would need to be a new RFC to determine that. The RSN is the place to discuss these sources, and not this page. Hitchens' pieces, if I understand correctly, are not news articles but opinion pieces on his personal blog, which is hosted by the Mail's websites, with some of the blogposts appearing as his column in the print edition (the former are archived here https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ; the latter are archived here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnist-224/Peter-Hitchens-The-Mail-Sunday.html ). The blogposts have the status of SPS, I think, while the columns have the status of op eds or opinion pieces, i.e. good sources for his opinion but not for facts. At best, would need attribution and clear flagging as opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: Both the decision and the discussion on the RSN make it quite clear that the ban on the DM does not apply to The Mail on Sunday, which, although its articles appear on the shared mailonline website, is a different newspaper. It has different journalists, different editors and different editorial views (for example, it supported remain during the EU referendum, while the Daily Mail supported Leave). The MoS, therefore, is a reliable source. Peter Hitchens has never written for the Daily Mail, so he is clearly not covered by the prohibition. You say, “Hitchens’ pieces, if I understand correctly, are not news articles but opinion pieces on his personal blog, which is hosted by the Mail's websites, with some of the blogposts appearing as his column in the print edition”. Your understanding is not entirely correct. Of course, like most senior journalists, he has a blog, (and a column) and he writes opinion pieces. However, the article relevant to this discussion, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793253/PETER-HITCHENS-reveals-evidence-watchdog-suppressed-report-casting-doubt-Assad-gas-attack.html, emphatically does not fit into those categories. It is factual report “By PETER HITCHENS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY. It does not “have the status of op eds or opinion pieces”, as the impersonal language makes clear. “The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a senior official at the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) demanded the ‘removal of all traces’ of a document which undermined claims that gas cylinders had been dropped from the air – a key element of the ‘evidence’ that the Syrian regime was responsible.” “Last month, The Mail on Sunday revealed details of a leaked email – whose authenticity has since been verified by the OPCW – which protested that the scientists’ original interim report had been censored to change its meaning.” “But this newspaper has now obtained the team’s original, uncensored interim report which differs sharply from all later versions, including the March document. That final report claimed there were ‘reasonable grounds’ that chlorine gas was used in Douma, but an OPCW whistleblower says only tiny quantities of chlorine were detected in forms possible to find in any household.” An internal memo seen by The Mail on Sunday suggests that as many 20 OPCW staff have expressed private doubts about the suppression of information or the manipulation of evidence. The OPCW media office now declines to respond to questions from The Mail on Sunday.” This is self-evidently not an opinion piece, as no opinions are expressed, just facts for which the MoS takes responsibility. It is a factual report from a reliable source.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
And I would add to Kiwicherryblossom's comment of 03 January above, that, as the Independent's Middle East correspondent and despite being labelled as a "Voice" (see BobFromBrockley's comment of 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)), not all Robert Fisk's articles are opinion pieces. The following are mainly reportage.
    ←   ZScarpia   22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)



Besides writing a column for the Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens has contributed toThe Spectator, The American Conservative, The Guardian, Prospect and the New Statesman. In 2010, he won the Orwell Prize in political journalism. He is the author of eight books. Before the OPCW material was published on Wikileaks, it was shown to him. He is probably the most prominent critic of the OPCW report in the mainstream media. The Mail itself isn't considered a reliable source. Here, the question is about the presentation of viewpoints other than the "official" one and whether Hitchens' writing is of sufficient import in its own right.     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The Mail is not a publication with a reputation for accuracy or fact checking. So if this particular opinion by Hitchens is being published in the Mail (and there is no question that he actually wrote it), it is no different than if he wrote it in his personal blog, a self-published source. We can use those for straightforward statements of fact within the subject's area of expertise, but this is not a straightforward statement of fact. VQuakr (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@VQuakr: It is the Daily Mail that is not currently WP:RS, not the Mail on Sunday (see above). Peter Hitchens writes for the MoS. He does not and never has written for the DM. The confusion is understandable because they share the same website and are owned by the same company, but they are very different newspapers with different journalists, different editors and different views. They were on opposite sides in the EU referendum debate, which is as profound a difference as exists in UK politics. Also, the article from 14/15 December is not an opinion piece, it is straightforward factual reporting. Phrases such as "The Mail on Sunday can reveal ... the Mail on Sunday revealed ... this newspaper has now obtained ...a senior official whose name is known to the Mail on Sunday ..." are typical of factual reporting and are not usually to be found in opinion pieces. Peter Hitchens is writing as a factual reporter for the MoS, not as a columnist, op-ed, editorial writer or blogger. This article is a straightforward statement of fact from start to finish. It is, beyond doubt, a reliable source.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Peter Hitchens' account of his meeting with a member of the OPCW: [1]. (also see: [2])     ←   ZScarpia   12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note the original RfC includes the mailonline website on which Hitchens' Mail on Sunday articles appear. Philip Cross (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The above statement is at best inaccurate. Neither the text of the request itself, nor the closing, makes any mention of the "Mailonline website", and the closing specifically refers to the "online version" (dailymail.co.uk) of the Daily Mail. Furthermore, the fact that the decision to deprecate The Daily Mail does not extend to the Mail on Sunday has already been discussed in the second RfC and during multiple discussions thereafter. The articles to which KiwiCB refers are Mail on Sunday articles and a product of the Mail on Sunday editorial team, which is entirely separate to that of The Daily Mail. They are not covered or affected by the decision outcome of the two Daily Mail RfCs. Cambial Yellowing❧ 23:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
As Cambial Yellowing has pointed out, there was a further discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard in Novemeber 2019 about whether the decision about using The Daily Mail applied to the Mail on Sunday: WP:RSN#Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday.     ←   ZScarpia   00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Philip Cross: Cambial Yellowing and ZScarpia are correct. VQuakr has linked to the relevant RfC. The proposal (which, incidentally, was put forward by User:Hillbillyholiday whose account "has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts") asks: “Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)". It unambiguously refers to The Daily Mail, not the Mail on Sunday, which, as has been said, is a different newspaper. The initial confusion of those who are unfamiliar with these titles is, perhaps, understandable because they do share the same website. However it is important to note that the consensus closure also very clearly specifies the Daily Mail not just as a newspaper but also in its online version. “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk ) is generally unreliable …” As I have said before, on the most important and divisive issue in UK politics, the EU referendum, the Daily Mail supported Leave (Brexit), while the Mail on Sunday supported Remain. The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday have different journalists, different editors and different politics. They are different newspapers. If you want to prohibit the Mail on Sunday then you need to put forward a proposal to do so, just as you would if you wished to prohibit the Guardian or the New York Times.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2020 (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)
Diff.     ←   ZScarpia   11:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Something to reflect on: how would you feel if, despite clearly stating that you felt that a discussion you'd started was relevant here, an editor ignored you and went ahead and moved it anyway? Perhaps you were correct to move it, but also perhaps you could have gone about moving it in a less high-handed manner.     ←   ZScarpia   14:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellingact on Wikileaks Files

So as I follow, Bellingcat is to be a reliable source, enough so its disagreement with another RS is enough to have the competing RS reference deleted? And nothing mainstream and acceptable verifies the WL documents as authentic as opposed to made-up? Well here's a stumper then: "In either case, the documents presented by WikiLeaks do appear to be genuine." https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-1-we-need-to-talk-about-alex/comment-page-1/#comment-252859 --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This Reuters article confirms the OPCW/WikiLeaks email of June 22 2018 as genuine https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-idUSKBN1XZ1Q1

"An OPCW source told Reuters the June 22, 2018 email was genuine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.189.202 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, Bellingcat accepts that Wikileaks in an RS. Yet here at Wikipedia, we are expected to accept that Bellingcat is an RS, but Wikileaks is not. This is in spite of the fact that, unlike Bellingcat, Wikileaks has never been found to have published false information. How unbelievably stupid is that? Piedmont (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
We base articles on secondary sources. So yes, we can use evaluation in RSs that incorporates Wikileaks but not Wikileaks itself. VQuakr (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:WINARS "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years." Like the garbage in this article. 2600:1700:1111:5940:30EC:EE36:690E:4D74 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

External Links - page blocked

Our article here was blocked from editing by a user named User:Berean Hunter around 3 days ago.

I could not help, but to congratulate him to his unbiased couragous action. Today I was able to send him one of the possible wiki presents for that. See below and his user page also.


Dear User:Berean Hunter, great that you blocked the page, just after a double external link to Bellingcat was added, and the absolutly disrespectful source based in N.Y., the United Nations own Web TV was removed. One of the activists, who achieved this exchange, had thanked you already. So I will line up, to congratulate you also.

Thus I agree, Bellingcat is at least double as trustful as source as this crappy multinational body´s TV outlet, if not infinitely so. For the archives: This happened around 24th, 25th of Jan 2020 for the article on the Douma_chemical_attack.

I am so happy that the readers of the English version of Wikipedia getting more and more into the realm of eternal truth and simplicity (of mushroom feeding).

Kind Regards, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Now, are you normally given to such theatrical antics as you have posted above and on my talk page?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Berean Hunter. Yes, thank you for this clarification. And I agree. Of course I have read the history of the page before I produced my statement above. So to make it clear again, what I gleaned from the history: The one who was still allowed to change the page contents (= he/she was not blocked) did it, and thanked you. Do we agree on that?

Why I am blocked then? And the believers in the superiority of Bellingcat over den United Nations WebTV not? This is your bias. Can I be unblocked also? FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"Of course I have read the history of the page before I produced my statement above." And yet you got it wrong, right? "This happened around 24th, 25th of Jan 2020" ...does not sound like you had seen the history at the time that you wrote your mistaken order of events. Can we agree that you were wrong in your analysis?
"This is your bias." You are still making unfounded accusations. I am an uninvolved administrator that is here at this article because there have been several different sockmasters active here. One has only to look at the article history and the protection log to see that the sockmasters' continued activity has forced increased protection levels. My protection precedes anything to do with Bellingcat link additions here but there was an RfC that was held concerning the suitability of Bellingcat as well as the consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That is two different discussions that reached the similar consensus that Bellingcat may be used. You would need to convince the editors here on this talk page otherwise. From what I have seen of your analytical skills, you should be restricted to the talk page to try to make coherent arguments rather than let these reversions continue. You should work with other editors here to reach a consensus.
Do you think that it is respectful to the families and friends of the deceased that you are posting images of goats on this talk page and making a scene? I hope they don't think that your outburst is acceptable behavior by members of the editing community. You should remove that and act like you have some sense and know how to behave.
"...and thanked you" Please provide a link to that. I don't remember that and I don't see it in my notifications log. I see where I was thanked for an entirely different edit on a different day. And what difference would it make if I were thanked for it? I last protected at 02:37, January 25, 2020‎ (diff) and the next edit to the article reverting your links was at 11:18, January 25, 2020 (diff), approximately eight and a half hours later. What conclusions are you trying to reach? What have I to do with what happens here hours later?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Berean Hunter. I appreciate principally your long work as editor, especially in the difficult fields of military history, etc. Thank you for your lengthy response. I do not agree with many of your statements, but with some I do. I will answer to your principal accusation.

However, most important are deeds and not words, thus is the outcome on the page. Our common aim should be, that there is an balanced presentation of sources for the evidence. Do you agree? (Q1)

Yesterday the link to the UN Web TV was in again, I was very happy about that. But note! I did NOT revert it. You accuse me of this and in general reversions, and therefore I should continue to be blocked from the page. Do you still accuse me? (Q2) The link was reestablished by User:Cambial_Yellowing. His argument for his action was as following 

"The video in external links is of a United Nations meeting on the subject of this article, with representations made from multiple sides of the Syrian conflict, including UK, Russia and others. Describing it as "tendentious" is absurd and not worthy of serious discussion."

However, some other users do constantly removals and reversions in the page itself, in the "absurd" biased direction Cambial_Yellowing mentioned above.

To my surprise and sorrow, the link to the UN WebTV was removed again after being just 1 day in the page. Why is this user, who performed that, not blocked? And I am. I do NOT remove the content of other authors!

You see his name and records, (10 reverting edits after Cambial_Yellowings intervention within 24 hours), I do not want to blame and shame him here. Just look at the history, 29th to 30th of January. Why is he not blocked, and I am? (Q3)

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


As there is no reaction to my statment above. To CLARIFY it now again in the most simple language.

There are 4 external links. 2 of them to Bellingcat, leading to the same website, just different outlet points (please look it up).

>> NONE is there to the United Nations Web-TV. - its was removed twice by the same people -while/then the page was blocked (for many).

This is BIAS, a simple to understand Bias. The 4 links should be evenly distributed among important and diverse reference institutions, as already User:Cambial_Yellowing, among ohters has found.

Hope that some supervisory Wiki editors take note, what is happening here, challenging the trustworthyness of en.wikipedia.org.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You'd be more likely to get a response if you dropped the rude theatrics and focused on terse accuracy. UN TV, in this context, is a WP:PRIMARY source. For contentious material, we should look to third party analysis of it (secondary sources), not the TV feed itself. If it isn't usable as a source, it shouldn't be in the EL section either. The removal of this link included an edit summary explaining this and citing WP:ELNO #1 and #2. VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear VQuakr, I am happy to inform you, that my requested balancing of external links has taken place. So I achieved what I intended above. You erred in your assessment. I thanked User:Philip Cross already for that action. So my requests were read, some improvement has happened to the page.
However, still the one questions remains. Why are you, dear Users Vquakr and Philip Cross allowed to change the page and I am not? Is anybody of the higher supervisory levels of en.WikiPedia.org interested to answer that? And of course this should not be by the two users just mentioned. They are party in this issue as everybody can see from the page History. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLUELOCK. VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear VQuakr, thank you. This was helpful. KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
User:VQuakr, please note that WP:ELMAYBE #4 explicitly accepts "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources" as acceptable external links. The belief that "if it isn't usable as a source, it shouldn't be in the EL section either" seems to be a more common misconception these days than it was when you and I were new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: while I don't think this link should be included in the article either as a source or an EL for quality reasons, I agree that decision is subject to consensus here. VQuakr (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree: No consensus means no link, for the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing, thus the Bellingcat-defence-team here will veto anything which goes only slightly against the positions, aired by this source of eternal truth. Although B´s base in Britain, and a recent award from NATO military linked foundations for Higgins, it´s front-man it´s considered trustworthy, whereas the UN Web TV is not (as external link).
And we should remember, Britain is party in this Syrian war game. KR, from a more neutral point of view and location, yours FrankBierFarmer (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think the link should be included, and people with other views don't, then you can start an RFC on the subject. (I'd recommend that any such RFC include an explanation of what "Bellingcat" is and why it's allegedly relevant to a question about whether a video of speeches at the UN should be provided.)
I grant that it's possible that the RFC will end with the wrong decision. The general rule about the non-inclusion of disputed links is, in my experience, a net improvement (compared to having no specific rule, and then having both sides declare that their preference is the mythical "status quo ante version"), but it is not perfect. Someone will be disappointed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN

A section was opened on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard requesting that this article be looked at here (not by me, though).     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douma_chemical_attack/Archive_8&oldid=944181901"