Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:12, 27 December 2020

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Douma chemical attack, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douma chemical attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Douma chemical attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 April 2018.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

RfC about US government delegation visit to OPCW investigation team

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the sentence

be added to the "OPCW investigation" section?

Burrobert (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Maté, Aaron (24 July 2020). "Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds?". The Nation. Retrieved 26 July 2020.

Survey

• Yes. It is significant and has good sourcing. Burrobert (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning exclude. the OP doesn't provide any support for why they think this viewpoint is "significant", but only one source has been presented. As WP:BALASP notes, coverage such an isolated criticism would be disproportionate to said criticism's significance to the actual topic of this article: see WP:VNOTSUFF. This case is even more clear-cut though. The author of this isolated source is not known for their independence from the subject material as discussed at WP:PARTISAN, and in fact cites themselves in the article back to a source that has been deprecated due to their habit of falsifying information. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude this viewpoint fails WP:DUE/WP:BALASP. Furthermore, The Nation is primarily a commentary / opinion magazine (rather than mostly factual reporting) and I am not convinced it's reliable for facts on controversial topics. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude because of (a) the dubiousness of the author as outlined exhaustively in the previous section of this talk page, (b) for reasons of due weight, given this is a marginal side detail which The Nation piece acknowledges has not recieved coverage in RSs. Comment: I think it was a bit odd to open this RfC when another editor had already notifed this talk page that it had been raised at RSN - shouldn't we wait until the RSN has ruled first? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I lean towards yes with the caveat that I haven't read the whole article or the whole prior discussion on the grounds that Aaron Mate isn't a crackpot. I also think that the whole "OPCW investigation" is way too long and you need to collaborate to make it better. :) ImTheIP (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Reliable source and notable, definitely should be included in the article. This article has over a long time experienced censorship attempts to remove anything that goes against pro-US views. That is censorship.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. Dubious article. It isn't "censorship" to exclude an article which is readily available online and has negligible backup in reliable sources. Articles which have a pro-Russian or pro-Syrian viewpoint have a considerably greater tendency to be wrong than more mainstream western sources. The false Iraqi WMD claims, which are still being rehashed by Putin and Assad sympathizers, date from as long ago as 2002 and 2003. Philip Cross (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. It is certainly an attempt at censorship of wikipedia (whether it is still available online is very obviously totally irrelevant). Arguments made against inclusion rely on convoluted and illogical reasoning and have no basis in WP policy. There is also basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the words 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. The latter does not mean "writes exclusively lies, and must be disbelieved even when corroborated by others". Cambial Yellowing❧ 10:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Corroborated "by others" who are also in the same camp, such as academics, journalists and bloggers who reputable writers (practically all of whom we can normally cite without any problems) dismiss. Philip Cross (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Using the word "reputable" to mean "those I like" reinforces the notable absence of any basis in WP policy. Camps are not how we decide on sources. Cambial Yellowing❧ 11:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I assumed "reputable writers" would be taken as a variant of "reliable sources" as " the authors of articles which fulfill the usual criteria for reliable sources" is long-winded. "Reliable writers" would no doubt have been taken by some as meaning "western", "pro-US", etc. Philip Cross (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In the context of your admission that you base your position on the "camp" into which you deem an author to fall, rather than their and their publisher's scholarly scruples, that assumption appears sanguine, at best. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of using "same camp" phrase, I could have used denialists or Assad apologists, among other words and terms. I was trying to avoid a detour from the main issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You might have done so, though that would have raised the problem for you of its being a glaringly obvious error of fact, as it does here. Cambial Yellowing❧ 13:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: At the time of your comment, all the votes that cited specific Misplaced Pages policy were in favour of "exclude". It would be more productive for you to respond to the policy-based arguments for exclusion rather than deny that they exist and say it is "certainly an attempt at censorship of wikipedia". You should assume good faith. CowHouse (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Creating a wikilink to a policy page is not the same as basing arguments on the spirit and letter of the content of the policies, as the above amply demonstrate. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include It most definitely needs to be included since it is important and backed by reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include Published in a reliable source, not an exceptional claim given other irregularities covered by multiple RS. Until we get more RS reporting on it it deserves a brief mention with an attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude.(Summoned by bot) the sourcing seems thin, the claim itself very vague and the section over-long and unclear already.Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. This article as it is written greatly undersells the doubt on the veracity of the OPCW report. Reliable source, would much needed neutrality to the article.Zellfire999 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. The source is reliable, the point is not already sufficiently covered, and the article would be improved by its inclusion. Once that is admitted, a separate discussion can determine how to present any information found in the The Nation article vis-à-vis the information already present in the WP article. It makes no sense to avoid that discussion by excluding a reliable source. Additionally, with respect to most of the arguments currently presented in favor of exclusion, there is an extenuating circumstance: a clear effort (by users such as VQuakr, in their vote rationale above, and Philip Cross elsewhere) has been made to present the use of this article from The Nation as unworthy of coverage on the basis of inapplicable WP guidelines. For example, WP:PARTISAN is inapplicable here, for obvious reasons (otherwise we would apply it whenever an article covered conflicting reports and geopolitical pressures, which would defeat the point). Spurious justifications considerably weaken the case against inclusion. bawnk (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include but definitely WITH ATTRIBUTION as already shown in the proposed text. The Nation is a reliable source, but this is of course too controversial to be included as an undisputed factual statement. Talrolande (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include - I agree with the aforementioned reasoning given by Alaexis and Zellfire999. Andrew11374265 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The arguments that have been mentioned against adding this include:

• This point has appeared in sources which Misplaced Pages considers unreliable and therefore it cannot be added to Misplaced Pages even when it appears in a reliable source
• Aaron Mate contributes to a source which Misplaced Pages regards as unreliable. Therefore, his writings in reliable sources cannot appear in Misplaced Pages. This was the most popular argument, having been put by three separate editors in three different ways. The editor who invented the argument forgot he had invented it and recommended another editor’s version of it.
• Bellingcat said it didn’t happen.
• “Overcoverage”. Apparently this point is already in the article. I have not been able to find it.
• One editor claimed he could read Aaron Mate’s mind.
• “Rehashing”. I haven’t been able to work this one out.
• Noteworthiness. This argument states that secondary sources need to be commented on by other secondary sources to become notable. I have not seen this in policy.
• The visit by the US government delegation isn’t "scandalous". This argument implies the US government delegations commonly visit international organisations asking them to publish reports useful to US foreign policy. This may in fact be true but shouldn’t stop us including such a visit and reactions to it in Misplaced Pages articles when it occurs.

Burrobert (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence for the above RfC misrepresents the source: The investigation team regarded the meeting as "unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality". The article actually says this: According to veteran reporter Jonathan Steele, who interviewed one of the whistle-blowers, the Douma team saw the meeting as “unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality.” Attribution is necessary and it should be noted, as the article states, that this quote from Steele is based on an interview with one person. CowHouse (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of two sources that mention the meeting . Both articles say the meeting occurred based on a briefing from "Alex". Has this meeting been independently verified? As it stands, the views of "Alex" already have disproportionate weight in the "OPCW investigation" section. CowHouse (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Mate is quoting and citing the November Counterpunch piece so it seems bizarre for us to cite Mate. According to RSN/PS There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed. Is it that we are citing the Nation as a way of avoiding citing CounterPunch because of its dubious reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from an article in The National Interest republished by The Cato Institute: .

The Grayzone’s Aaron Mate expressed disappointment bordering on disgust about the performance of the journalistic community: “As the suppressed findings come out via brave whistleblowers and Wikileaks, they are still being kept from the public. That is because the Western media — including top progressive, adversarial outlets — have ignored or whitewashed the story. And that media self‐​censorship has become a scandal in itself.”

So apparently they consider Aaron Mate to be generally reliable. The Cato Institute is somewhere between 'generally reliable' and 'no consensus', but certainly it's on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Alaexis_¿question? 09:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: would be interesting to know which "top progressive, adversarial outlets" refused to publish Maté's article. Perhaps they have a higher reputation than the Cato Institute? Philip Cross (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment moved from here to the straw poll above Alaexis_¿question? 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the most recent discussion in 2015, there is no consensus on the reliability of the Cato Institute for topics outside of libertarianism in the United States. The author of this opinion piece described The Grayzone as a "non-mainstream outlet" and quoted Maté's personal views. That is not the same as the Cato Institute saying he is a reliable source. Besides, Maté's quote appears to support the view of editors who say this story is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This opinion piece also says OPCW officials had withheld the release of information about the dissenting views, with no explanation or apparent justification and sources to the blog of Caitlin Johnstone. According to a Bellingcat article, Johnstone promoted the theory that Seth Rich was responsible for leaking Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 US presidential election. A reliable source would not consider someone like Johnstone to be an authority on this topic. CowHouse (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That there is no consensus doesn't mean it can't be used. We are trying to assess notability of a claim here, not determine the ultimate truth. Alaexis_¿question? 14:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

My point was not only that there is no consensus on the Cato Institute's reliability, based on an admittedly stale discussion, but that this specific article is an opinion piece which demonstrates its unreliability by referencing the blog of Caitlin Johnstone for a statement of fact. We should only consider reliable sources when determining notability and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CowHouse (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't apply impossible standards to one sentence in a 100kb article. There is one generally reliable source where this was published and another source which can be used in this context. Inferences like "journalist X works at Y therefore all his articles are unreliable" is not a part of WP:RS. Alaexis_¿question? 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP says The Nation is considered generally reliable but what should not be overlooked is this: Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article. The issue is not only with reliability but also with weight. Since this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, citing an opinion piece from a source not considered high-quality does little to demonstrate that this is WP:DUE. The RfC is about adding two sentences in a section several editors say is already too long. Besides, if there is an exceptional claim, the number of sentences is hardly relevant. The Cato opinion piece also does not mention the proposed content in the above RfC, and was published before Maté's Nation article, so how can it be used in this context? On the topic of reliability, as VQuakr notes: the author...cites themselves in the article back to a source that has been deprecated due to their habit of falsifying information. It is a misrepresentation to describe this as "journalist X works at Y therefore all his articles are unreliable". The author of the Cato opinion piece (whose opinion should not be considered representative of the Cato Institute as a whole) quoted Maté's writing in The Grayzone for his opinion rather than any facts, and described The Grayzone as a "non-mainstream outlet". This does not support your view that "they consider Aaron Mate to be generally reliable." CowHouse (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is how Maté is described in a New York magazine article: Republicans began spreading the message in mid-January that impeachment was a plot by the party leadership to take Sanders off the campaign trail, a theory also echoed by some of Sanders’s nuttier fans, like Aaron Mate and Krystal Ball. Regarding Maté's reliability on the topic of Syria specifically, it is noteworthy that he was given the Serena Shim Award. According to a Bellingcat article, the award is from a pro-Assad group which gives thousands of dollars to recipients, including people such as Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. CowHouse (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat is actually a great example to contrast with the Nation. It's considered generally reliable, but since it's financed (among others) by National Endowment for Democracy some users consider it biased (I'm quoting WP:RSP). Nevertheless it's used many times in the article, sometimes without attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that's comparable. Some editors consider it unreliable because a small fraction of its income is from the NED rather than because it's actually shown to be unreliable, whereas those objecting to this piece see it as unreliable because its author has been shown to be unreliable. I think there is too much use of Bellingcat in the article too, not on the basis of reliability so much as noteworthiness: the whole OPCW section is very bloated and we should be trimming not expanding. I'd also question whether the Cato opinion peice and the Nation opinion peice represent "opposite side of the political spectrum" as per Alaexis: sure, on domestic politics, one is on the left and one on the right, but on geopolitical issues Cato is anti-interventionist and isolationist and tends to take similar positions to the Grayzone writers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC) (I also notice that the Cato article is actually reprinted from The National Interest, another anti-interventionist/realist outlet regarded by the RSN as at best "opinionated". Also that, as well as quoting Caitlin Johnstone, the Cato writer says that the OPCW is an unrelaible source because it relies on the White Helmets which he describes as "a virulently anti‐​Assad medical aid organization backed by Saudi Arabia", which is a good indication of why we shouldn't even touch this opinion piece. (The White Helmets are not backed by Saudi Arabia.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to be trimmed to only include the findings, allegations of bias, the official reaction and other prominent positions. Alaexis_¿question? 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that the discussion has matured a little I'll provide a summary of some points that have been raised so far to help editors who are having trouble wading through the discussions. This is an addition to the summary I made at the top of the discussion section.

• Mate’s article has now been discussed in an article by Tyler Durden of the Ron Paul Institute.
• I missed one argument from the discussion prior to the RfC: an editor noted that Mate is not skilled in the practice of Veterinary acupuncture and doesn’t know one end of a screwdriver from another.
• There is some concern that the event in dispute is marginal, not significant or not worth including. Presumably their reasoning is that, since the US does this sort of thing all the time, we can’t be expected to include every instance. These editors may not have made it to the second sentence where it becomes clear that the OPCW inspectors themselves considered it noteworthy.
• At the other end of the scale an editor has described it as an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources.
• There have been countless more renditions, in various forms, of the argument that Mate is unreliable because he contributes to a source that we have classed as unreliable. Have editors considered setting it to music and taking it on the road? What about turning it into a Gregorian chant and intoning it in Latin to give it some gravitas?
• There has been a lot of quoting of Bellingcat. One editor, who presumably has access to Belligcat’s accounts, said they only receive a little bit of money from the National Endowment for Democracy.
• Mate received an award that Bellingcat doesn’t like.
• Mate was called nutty by someone at NYMag. I wouldn’t recommend following the labyrinth of links to see why this person said that. One chain of links leads to a twitter thread where Mate says that he doesn’t know what goes on behind closed doors. It’s a statement that is above reproach.
• One editor has broken away from the consensus on The Nation and was not convinced of its reliability in this instance.
• One editor used the term "misrepresent" a few times. On one of these occasions he was discussing the statement about Mate being unreliable because he writes for … etc etc. The other time actually makes some sense. The editor says the statement at issue here should mention that Mate is quoting Jonathan Steele who received his information from a whistleblower (said to be Alex in the Counterpunch article). The current statement is already attributed to Mate’s article but I don’t see a problem amending the statement to add that he is quoting Steele. Since no one else has mentioned this point I presume it would not affect any of the votes that have already been cast.
• There was some discussion about due weight. Due weight applies to “viewpoints”. We have a number of references quoting sources that say the meeting happened and the OPCW inspectors were not happy about it. The editors who have mentioned this as an issue haven't said what the other significant viewpoint is that we need to take into account? We can’t exclude a view because no conflicting view exists in any sources.
• One of our editors has completed a research project comparing the accuracy of articles which have a pro-Russian or pro-Syrian viewpoint with mainstream western sources. His supervisor should have advised him to remove the assumption in the statement of the project that mainstream western sources can’t have a pro-Russian or pro-Syrian viewpoint. The editor hasn’t posted a link to the journal in which his research has appeared but has provided an abstract of his results which, unfortunately, we are not allowed to use.
• One editor said the claim is vague. He believes Mate should write a follow up article to provide details of the time of the meeting, what the participants were wearing, whether drinks were served etc.
• One editor thought that Alex is too prominent in the article.
• Some of our editors were feeling bloated and were trying to slim down. They thought a good start would be to stop new putting things into the section.
• We should forget about what happened in 2002 and 2003 because everything is better now.
• An editor was suspicious of the people Mate went camping with.
• Someone mentioned the Cato Institute which led to Bellingcat being quoted again.

Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The article reprinted by the Ron Paul Institute is by the blogger Tyler Burden and first appeared on the ZeroHedge website. ZeroHedge is a deprecated source. Philip Cross (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Ron Paul Institute article clearly states: Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge. It is certainly noteworthy that Maté's article references, and is referenced by, deprecated sources. Being referenced by a deprecated source would be less concerning if reliable sources referenced the story as well but that does not appear to be the case. It is also misleading to call your comment a summary to help other editors. You are either responding to or dismissing points in the discussion that you disagree with. Besides, such a lengthy "summary" is hardly a helpful timesaver. Editors would be better served reading the actual discussion and forming their own conclusions. CowHouse (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't the culprit listed as unknown when we know for a fact that the Syrian government did the attack.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found evidence that Assad did. In addition, Human Rights Watch agrees that Assad is the culprit. Sarsath3 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/11/570192-both-isil-and-syrian-government-responsible-use-chemical-weapons-un-security
2. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/06/mounting-evidence-syrian-forces-were-behind-khan-sheikhoun-attack

Just as we cannot describe someone as a murderer here unless they are convicted of murder, we cannot attribute this act to the Syrian government unless and until there is a formal finding of responsibility. The existence of "evidence" to that effect is not sufficient to state it as fact in an encyclopedia. The assertions are already discussed in the article. General Ization 22:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

People also use the term 'murder' to describe immoral killings, but okay. Sarsath3 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Sarsath3, both of your sources are about a different attack, the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in 2017. In fact, both of your sources are from 2017, before the Douma attack even happened. CowHouse (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Syrian government did the Douma attacks. Sarsath3 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. @Sarsath3: Nate Hooper (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Link to Wikileaks in External links

Philip Cross, what is the problem with having a link to wikileaks in the external links section? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

See here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WikiLeaks. Philip Cross (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use wikileaks as a source. I used it as an external link.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not deprecated, it's classified as generally unreliable, so the stated reason is not true. Alaexis_¿question? 17:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my argument, WP:RSP says "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source" about wikileaks. This is clearly the case here as multiple reliable secondary sources discuss wikileaks cables. Alaexis_¿question? 06:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This means that TheTimesAreAChanging argument for his revert is invalid.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The link is highly relevant to the article. The authenticity of none of the content on the Wikileaks site is disputed. Burrobert (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, the consensus reached at RSN (and cited by Philip Cross above) states:

WikiLeaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK.

You are free to believe that the editors responsible for that consensus statement are incorrect in their analysis, but this is not the appropriate forum to relitigate the matter. Moreover, repeating that "It's not deprecated!" as Alaexis has done is simply not responsive to the concerns outlined at WP:ELNO and certainly fails to make a persuasive affirmative case for why this particular external link needs to be included. Admittedly, coverage in secondary reliable sources might render the link permissible, but that would still beg the question of why we need to cite the primary source at all. In particular, I am wondering how this link passes the first criteria for inclusion outlined at ELNO, which recommends against linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." Burrobert's argument reads like he is advocating for the use of WikiLeaks as a source, in which case a mere external link would be grossly insufficient; however, it seems that certain editors are attempting to "settle" for including WikiLeaks as an external link despite that having no basis in Misplaced Pages's established content guidelines regarding external links because they disagree with the RSN holding that WikiLeaks is a generally unreliable source (which, in turn, seems rather WP:POINTy).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

We are not discussing Wikileaks reliability here and in any case I don't have a strong opinion about it.

My argument is based on the current consensus re this source: "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source." The cables certainly contain much more information than this article would contain if it were a FA. They are discussed by the secondary sources and as such are useful for the reader. Alaexis_¿question? 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs