Talk:Eliot Higgins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Postol/Lloyd criticism

Green Cardamom, you keep deleting my 'Criticism' section. Why? It's a quote from an MIT professor published in a reputable journal. Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 23:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the quote. The problem it was originally added without context. Need to provide the full story with balanced opposing views. The purpose of the article isn't a "list of good and bad things people said about Higgins" (see WP:COATRACK). It's a biography. Content should be integrated, balanced and accurately represent his life and career, with appropriate weight ie. if 90% of the sources say positive things the article should be 90% positive and not give too much WP:WEIGHT to a minority of negative sources. -- GreenC 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, why did you put "list of good and bad things people said about Higgins" in quotes? This comment is the only occurrence of that phrase on Wikipedia. [1] And what are we supposed to see at Coatrack? The recent addition of criticisms of Higgins has nothing to do with Coatrack. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of quote marks is to signify that the title of the article isn't List of good and bad things people said about Higgins, instead the title of the article is Eliot Higgins. As such, it should be a biography of Eliot Higgins. Stickee (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is a criticism of Higgins' work by a respected authority not appropriate for this biography? Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 05:50 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Green had moved the Prof Postol quote to the 'Ghouta chemical attack' section. That seems fine to me. But then Stickee removed that section altogether! Why? Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 07:20 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we please agree where the Prof Postol quote is to go? At the moment, this article sounds like a puff piece with literally paragraphs of gushing praise and only one sentence of criticism (that has proved contentious). A quote from an MIT academic will make this entry more balanced. Do we all agree? Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 07:40 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As has been stated above, this article is not a "list of good and bad things people said about Higgins". Stickee (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Stating and re-stating something isn't an argument. The article obviously isn't an article just listing good and bad things people said. However, before the Postol/Lloyd criticism was added, there was an entire section listing good things people said about Higgins. Should that be removed instead of adding the Postol/Lloyd cricitism? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

COATRACK

GreenC and Stickee have asserted that the criticism of Higgins Ph1ll1phenry inserted violates WP:COATRACK. Yet that essay's lead says "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects." Postol/Lloyd criticism actually directly discusses the subject of the article, Eliot Higgins. COATRACK does not apply. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects" -- that's exactly what is happening. This is a dispute between Postol/Higgins that turned nasty and they threw mud at one another in OpEds and blog posts (extremely briefly). No one has covered it in third party sources, everything written about it has been by Postol or Higgins, neither of whom are reliable they are parties to the dispute. There are relevant policies under WP:BLP:

• WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Is a primary source Letter to the Editor involving an extremely minor dispute (2-sentence mention) relevant to a lifelong biography?
• WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Are there multiple reliable third-party sources? Only on Wikipedia is there discussion about it.

There is also relevant policy under WP:WEIGHT (discussed below). -- GreenC 14:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your valid points boil down to Primary, which I agree with. I don't think this particular criticism belongs in the article. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DUE / WEIGHT

The only possibly valid objection raised so far is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. We should discuss that here and come to consensus before editing the article on this topic more. Here is the text that Ph1ll1phenry and GreenC edited to provisional consensus before Stickee removed it.

In 2014, Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol of MIT published a report that reached the opposite conclusion as Higgins on Assad's use of sarin gas in the Ghouta chemical attack. Lloyd and Postol sent a letter to the editor of the London Review of Books that included a two-sentence critical opinion of Higgins, saying that "[he] has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack. In addition, the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges." The criticism was meant to discredit Higgin's findings that the rockets were within range to be fired from government positions. A response from Higgins and Kaszeta included an observation that the Russian-language ANNA News had posted videos showing a Syrian government military operation on a strip of land about 2 km away from the impact sites and thus close enough for government forces to fire from. Higgins also noted that Postol obtained some of his technical data from a well known conspiracy theorist and chemistry student in Australia, that Postol engaged in unethical behavior by publicizing another colleagues emails without permission, and Postol has been a guest on the state-backed Russia Today (RT).

References

Stickee, please elaborate on your WEIGHT edit summary assertion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ph1ll1phenry and GreenC did not "edit to consensus". He specifically advocated for its removal [2] and "until this is worked out as a keep or not" [3]. Stickee (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes there was no "consensus". It's out of proportion. It's a minor debate between two colleagues who had formerly worked together on something but then had a disagreement and parted ways. They then posted some nasty comments about one another on the Internet (two sentences in a letter to the editor about a different topic). Hardly material for a life-long career encyclopedia biography, unless your goal is to make them look bad. No independent third party sources has covered this dispute all the sources are primary written by the participants themselves. -- GreenC 14:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for making a good argument. I don't understand the former colleagues bit, when did Postol or Lloyd work with Higgins? But I agree with the primary source evaluation. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Postol said "the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges." -- GreenC 14:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any reference that Postol/Lloyd worked with Higgins (that's not to say that they didn't but please post a citation if that's the case). Their "exchanges" can be just emails. Exchanging emails does not make you somebody's colleague.

I concede the point that it is probably a primary source but I have two questions. The first is that Wikipedia policy does not forbid the use of primary sources, it just warns about misusing them by, for example, adding interpretation. This paragraph does not do that. For instance, if the London Review of Books had interviewed Lloyd and Postol and quoted the exact same words, why would that be acceptable?

My second question is that this article references Higgins' blog and website five times. Should these too be removed as primary sources? Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 16:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Colleague", whatever you want to call it, they were working collaboratively otherwise he wouldn't have been sharing his data in multiple email exchanges. That's a collegiate relationship that clearly soured. WP:PRIMARY allows for sources in some cases, an article about a person is going to link to sources by that person, for no other reason than to confirm they said something or links to their website. For the kind of strong negative quote it really should be backed up with secondary, for reasons noted above. It's the whole picture: the primary source, the mere 2 sentence mention, the context of an acrimonious dispute over conflicting study results, the lack of secondary sources dicussing it. You can pick any one of these out and try to argue on a rules basis but it misses the bigger picture of taking a very minor episode and blowing it out of proportion solely for the purpose of stacking the article with negative criticism. -- GreenC 16:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern with Higgins receiving negative criticism. Our duties as Wikipedia editors is solely whether the article is factual not how good (or bad) it portrays the subject. That an MIT professor and former UN weapons inspector has criticised the subject's analysis on inspecting weapons is surely salient.

But we are where we are. Can we reach some compromise or shall we go to arbitration? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"I don't understand your concern with the Higgins receiving negative criticism" - except I added the material myself. It was removed by a different editor. I already tried to reach a compromise but there was no consensus for including it. -- GreenC 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware a compromise was sought - I was sent no email. But OK, sounds good. Other than minor quibbles, I'm happy to have that paragraph reinstated. Are you happy with that? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 18:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If others were OK I would have let it go but there has been no consensus for inclusion, it was removed by two other editors and a third voiced concern. In balance and on reflection I am on that side of the fence also. -- GreenC 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So, arbitration then? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 19:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration is a last resort. One of the other means of dispute resolution such as RfC would be more appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible?

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.

While the question of this RFC is about one source, but that changed over the life of the discussion. There is no consensus for text based solely on the letter. But I do find there is consensus for a small addition based on additional sources added during the discussion, though at least one (Mintpress) has no consensus for use. There is also no consensus as to the form this small addition will take, but at least two examples were presented. AlbinoFerret 16:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Should we reference this letter (bottom of page) published in the London Review of Books by MIT Professor, Ted Postol, and former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, that criticises Higgins' analysis? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Questions - why do editors feel this is relevant to the subject of this biography? Why do editors feel it is reliable enough to meet the stringent standards of WP:BLP? As a letter to the editor published in a book review publication (outside of its field of expertise) this is an extremely marginal source at best. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism from an academic and a former UN weapons inspectors about a self-taught weapons expert's modus operandus cannot be anything but relevant. The London Review of Books is a highly reputable journal. Saying that it is just a "book review" is like saying The New Yorker magazine is just about New Yorkers so cannot be an admissible source for an article about a weapons analyst - a very odd argument. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 04:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What "article about a weapons analyist" are you proposing using for the article? VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose reasons stated earlier. Summarized here since there is now an RfC:

• WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Is a primary source Letter to the Editor involving an extremely minor dispute (2-sentence mention) relevant to a lifelong biography? I don't believe so.
• WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple* reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Are there multiple reliable third-party sources? No, only WP:PRIMARY.
• WP:WEIGHT: To integrate this quote into the article requires explaining how it came about and the opposing POVs. For example. This is a lengthy digression out of proportion to everything else in the article and Higgin's life and career. A 2 sentence criticism in a literary journal Letter to the Editor (itself a reply to another letter to the editor by an entirely different person) buried at the bottom of the page, doesn't carry that much weight.

At the end of the day, it's a minor squabble between two experts who had formerly worked together on something but then had a disagreement. They then posted some nasty comments about one another in primary sources. Hardly material for a life-long career encyclopedia biography. Also no one is advocating including this dispute in Postol's article, Higgins criticized Postol also. I don't think those criticism's belong in Postol's article either.

-- GreenC 00:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is not tabloid gossip. Prof Theodore Postol and former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd are lending their expert opinion on somebody who is presenting himself as an expert.
• This is not a primary source in the sense that somebody has self-published the criticism or posted it on their blog. The fact that the London Review of Books (an authoritative publication that has been around for decades) has chosen to print Prof Postol and Lloyd's criticism makes them a credible third-party.
• I don't understand the relevance of their criticism being two sentences. What they say is more important than how many sentences they use. And "buried at the bottom of the page" is also an odd comment. The LRB is a printed journal. You just happen to be looking at their website. Finally, you call the LRB a "literary journal" when it is much more than that. If you can't purchase a copy, take a look at the Wikipedia entry. The LRB publishes essays on politics and film/culture reviews.
• You keep saying that Postol/Lloyd worked together with Higgins and were colleagues. Postol and Lloyd are academics who work together at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Higgins is unqualified and works from home. To say they worked together on the basis of email exchanges is odd. If I entered into a discourse with an MIT professor about my perpetual motion machine, an exchange in which he is constantly correcting me and compels him to write to a journal criticising my approach, that hardly elevates me to the position of his colleague. You'd certainly smile if I referred to our exchange as me and the prof working together.

If you want to modify Postol's Wikipedia entry about this exchange, please go ahead. However, this RFC is about Higgins. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 04:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the whole picture: the primary source Letter to the Editor, the mere 2 sentence mention, the context of an ephemeral acrimonious dispute over conflicting study results, the lack of secondary sources. It takes the criticism out of context, holding it up as a general criticism, when in fact he was making it to discredit Higgins while making a point about study results. There is no way to fairly add that quote without the proper context, and that will require a long paragraph to explain it, along with opposing POVs, and then you have a serious problem with WP:WEIGHT - it takes up 1/4 of the article over something that is completely obscure in Higgin's career. The only reason you say to include it is because it's a criticism! That's not a good reason. It should be worked into the article and make sense for inclusion because this is a biography not a list of quotes out of context people said that are critical. -- GreenC 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Criticism of anybody's work is important and a sign of a balanced article, not a weakness. The importance of the Postol/Lloyd quote is that it's the only comment in the whole article by professional weapons inspectors.

If you think the there is a problem with WP:WEIGHT by adding that quote, how about we don't use it but in the reception section we simply say that Postol and Lloyd have criticised some of Higgins' work? Would you say that was a reasonable compromise? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 23:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support a short mention Comment. I don't agree with much of the specifics argued by GreenC. And I found a third-party source that discusses the dispute between Higgins and Postol/Lloyd [4] (I know some of you will roll their eyes at the source, but you should read it, it's a good article.) However, I don't think Ph1ll1phenry has made a good case for including the text and sources in the previous talk section. I wouldn't rule out all use of Postol/Lloyd's criticisms, but for now, I'm against inclusion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mnnlaxer. What is your objection to including the material? I'm concerned that this article has comments from journalists and human rights charities but no comments from experts in this field, namely professional weapons inspectors. Inclusion of comments from Postol/Lloyd make this article more balanced. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 16:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, I agree. If you look back at the history of the article and this talk page, you'll see I think NPOV was being violated by not including any criticism of Higgins. And maybe it still is. The issue is that Higgins is still in his honeymoon stage. His work is novel, techy, unique, supports Western governments' narratives and contrary to many opinions, unverifiable. So there isn't much (any?) criticism in mainstream English sources to use to balance the gushing praise in the Reception section. But, the LRB letter to the editor is too primary and too insignificant to include in the article. For sure at the length and prominence of the blockquote above. Perhaps a small mention using the source I linked to above (Russell-Sluchansky, Carmen (April 15, 2014). "The Failed Pretext For War: Seymour Hersh, Eliot Higgins, MIT Rocket Scientists On Sarin Gas Attack". MintPress News. Retrieved 22 July 2015.) I could support. It could be balanced with some support from Dan Kaszeta. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article suffers very badly from a lack of neutrality and after reading the talk page I must commend you for your WP:NPOV. My problem with your suggestion is that although the MintPress article to which you link seems well researched, MintPress is not exactly part of the mainstream media whereas the LRB is. Therefore, perhaps I can suggest that we have a single sentence (thus keeping GreenC happy) in the Reception section that references both sources?

Incidentally, I don't think you can call the journal that saw it fit to print the comment a primary source. The LRB is a widely respected journal with a moderately large circulation that has no allegiance to either Higgins or Postol/Lloyd. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 05:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is definitively a primary source. LRB is a literary journal. It is not a particularly good source for weapons analysis or analysts. MPN is not a reliable source for anything at all. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying that LRB is a literary journal. Why would weapon inspectors who have worked for the UN comment in it if this were the case? I keep pointing out to you that it covers politics as well. Please buy a copy or see Wikipedia's own entry for LRB if you need proof. Constantly repeating the same thing contrary to all evidence is not an argument.

For a letter to be published in a journal, the editor must consent. He is your third party in the debate.

Why is MPN any less reliable than say, Bellingcat? That sounds a lot like opinion. Should we remove all Wikipedia references outside of this article that use Bellingcat as a primary source? Both Bellingcat and MPN are websites that are written by a small group of enthusiasts and should therefore carry similar weight. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 08:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a recent WP:RSN about Bellingcat and the general consensus was that Bellingcat could be used so long as there was additional secondary sourcing that covered Bellingcat's coverage of it, and that it's framed as "Bellingcat said..". I doubt there is secondary coverage of MPN's coverage of this topic, and I suspect there are previous RSN discussions about MPN that found it to be unreliable as a source (though I have not looked to verify). -- GreenC 12:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany's most respected daily newspapers, reporting on Postol/Lloyd's criticism of Higgins' work? We now have two first-class sources covering the critique of an MIT professor and a former UN weapons inspector. If this is not enough to merit a mention, I really have serious doubts about the WP:NPOV in this forum. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 18:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That actually looks like a pretty good source about the subject (but does it name an author?) that we should be able to use to expand this article, but why are you cherry-picking three sentences out of that article? In particular, three sentences that do nothing more than quote the letter to the editor? As already noted, a letter to an editor is a primary source and not appropriate for the kind of usage you are proposing. Again, LRB is not a technical or weapons journal - assessment of reliability requires context. VQuakr (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So, are you saying that we should remove the links to The Guardian, the BBC, The Huffington Post etc that are positive about Higgins' work because they too are "not a technical or weapons journal"? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 07:55 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm attempting to see where you are coming from. Are you saying that an MIT professor and a former United Nations weapons inspector did not criticise Higgins work? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 09:20 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VQuakr, that it would be Wikipedia:Cherrypicking to just quote the above sz article regarding Lloyd & Postol, since the article is in general very positive regarding Higgins/Bellincat - the article's title is after all "Bloggers punish Moscow lies". Lklundin (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC) PS. Yes, the sz article names its three authors. Lklundin (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Edited translation 19:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a compromise short mention of Postol/Lloyd's criticism is warranted now that I see the German source. I would bet dollars to donuts that there are other non-English sources that have reported on the dispute. I don't think the cherrypicking is a big deal, as there are plenty of other sources that provide the same type of praise already in the article. And the German source citation could be added to current positive text or a new bit of something specific could be added. The biggest issue the article currently has is a lack of NPOV due to the overwhelmingly positive take on Higgins' work. Yes, it is mainly because of the lack of good sources reporting criticism, but that's not an excuse to prevent criticism from being mentioned when there are good sources reporting it. Let me again quote the lead of NPOV, which says NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added) Postol/Lloyd's criticism is significant and has been published by RS. So, it deserves to be included in the article. FYI: Mint Press News has not been evaluated as a RS on the noticeboard. And for the MPN article I cited above, Postol, Lloyd, and Higgins have all confirmed the relevant material, so the RS isn't as necessary in this instance as MPN being a secondary source. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (emphasis added) The couple criticism's of Higgins are extremely minor in proportion to everything else in his career, and they are specific to certain investigations. -- GreenC 04:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (emphasis added). How can you say that the only references on this wiki page by professional weapons inspectors printed in well respected publications about an amateur inspector is not significant? I agree with Mnnlaxer: Postol/Lloyd merit a mention.

However, I have come over to your point of view that it does not merit a whole section. Therefore, can you meet me half way? Can we just have one sentence in the Reception section? Would you say that was in proportion? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 08:15 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable. Not sure what others think about it. So long as the sentence was written by us not a bare quote and linked to the German source above which is a secondary source. -- GreenC 13:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the SZ article remains positive in relation to Higgins. Making a criticism out of that would be cherrypicking from within the source and ignoring the overall theme of it. Stickee (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But isn't that overall theme already reflected in the article? Most of the points in that article already exist.. his background, origin of his name, his praise by mainstream press, etc.. -- GreenC 13:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really, none of the in-depth profiles of him linked in the article (HuffPo, Guardian, New Yorker) had any' negative comments or criticism of him. So if anything, the criticism in the Bellingcat section makes this article unbalanced and should probably be removed. Stickee (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an extensively argued RfC above that disagrees with you. I urge you to use some common sense in this debate. It is impossible to actually balance text in an article in exact proportion to the coverage in secondary RS. And when in a situation where there is little material on one side, it is common for the balance to be favoring the smaller side for purely practical reasons. There is no point in writing unnecessary text to create a precise balance. The test is what an average reader would take away from the article. Even after adding a short mention of Postol/Lloyd's criticism, the overall take-away of Higgins would be extremely positive. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mnnlaxer about the previous RfC making it unequivocally clear how we should handle this criticism of Bellingcat. It's really quite informative and I urge you to read it, Stickee. We can then apply the principles of that RFC to this RFC. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 19:00 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Six opinions is a pretty small one. If I had added in my voice as well it probably would be have been closed with "no consensus". Stickee (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter and neither does simple !vote counting. What matters are good arguments that convince others outright or to compromise for consensus. So just adding your voice changes nothing in that, this, or any RfC. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad we could reach a sensible compromise, GreenC. Everybody OK with me adding one sentence to Reception with a link to the Süddeutsche Zeitung article that reads something like: "Higgins' work on who was responsible for the sarin gas attacks in the Syrian civil war was criticised by Professor Theodore Postol and former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)"? I think that's as both neutral and factual as it's possible to make it. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 19:00 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, wait for the RfC to run its course, then act upon what's given by the closer. Stickee (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not OK to quote that SZ article with the suggested single sentence, since this would be misrepresenting the source with Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Lklundin (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion, Lklundin. You are welcome to it but please don't state it as fact. The editors of the London Review of Books and the Süddeutsche Zeitung believed their combined readership of about half a million people would find it relevant so I still see no good reason to not include it. However, I will wait for the RfC to run its course as Stickee suggested. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 12:40 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I need to ask both Lklundin and Stickee what we must do to reach consensus. Is there any compromise that we can come to? Or are you both implacably opposed to the inclusion of this material? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 13:30 24 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV policy, all significant views published in RS should be included, trumps Cherrypicking essay. Plus, positive material in SZ can be added as new text. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mnnlaxer that by adding positive material from SZ would solve the cherrypicking issue. Lklundin (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And I agree with GreenC that this is already covered in the rest of the article.

I don't understand this fixation with column inches. That gives undue influence to people and organizations who know how to play the media. I reiterate: all the positive quotes in this article come from journalists and other non-experts. The criticism I am proposing to include comes from experts in the field. If you have not heard of MIT, you might want to look them up. They're quite a prestigious university. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 05:30 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that any coverage at all of the Postol criticism is due weight, given what a small bit of the article mentions the letter to the editor. VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And I think WP:NPOV is being violated. So, do you think it's time to post to the Administrators' Noticeboard? - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 18:30 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That would definitely be the wrong forum. There is already an open RfC, which is a dispute resolution method. Opening another discussion while the RfC is open could be interpreted as forum shopping. A neutrally worded post at the neutral point of view noticeboard that references the open RfC might be ok. It would be better for you to explain here why you think NPOV is being violated. VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Why Mnnlaxer and I think NPOV may be violated has been discussed at great length and I don't see the point of recapitulating. I've asked you what is needed to reach a compromise and no answer has been forthcoming. If we cannot reach consensus then the community's response has became obvious very quickly. My understanding is that the next step is to seek an outside opinion. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 05:20 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already done that with the RfC, and gotten several outside opinions. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

These are not outside opinions but opinions from other editors of this page.

Please can you suggest an alternative text? If it is clear that we cannot reach a consensus, then I will ask an editor completely unrelated to this forum to decide. This is much like Mnnlaxer correctly did with the previous RfC where there was no consensus. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 12:10 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The question is whether there should be a sentence about Postol and Lloyd criticising Higgins' work. It is my view this shouldn't be included, for several reasons, but mainly because of WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE. For this, defer to the sources who have made in-depth (>1000 words) profiles of Higgins. For example, The Guardian, who did not include any such sentence, nor did HuffPo or New Yorker, all used as sources in the article. This was an obscure quote in a letter to the editor (WP:PRIMARY), and simply appears to be cherrypicked, as noted by Lklundin. Stickee (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) (Updated 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC))

Are you saying two sentences with respect to paragraphs of praise (which can be expanded) is UNDUE? I don't think that's a winning argument. This discussion is now about using the German source. That article can be used as a citation for new praise text or simply inserted as a cite for current text to deal with cherrypicking, which really isn't a strong argument either. There isn't that much to say about the dispute between Postol/Lloyd and Higgins, so any mention of it will be short. Furthermore, the MintPress News article is worthy of consideration as well. While I understand that some people don't like it, it is secondary coverage of the dispute and deserves to be taken into consideration in the discussion of including the dispute in the article. Use the German source as the cite, but admit the MPN article is part of the argument for including it. Again, NPOV requires "all significant viewpoints" are included in the article. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - summoned by bot. A letter published in a book review journal is insufficient as a RS for a WP:BLP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the RfC after being summoned. The letter is certainly reliable, as it is the words of Lloyd and Postol themselves. The issue is primary, which it is. However, the German source is secondary and mentions the letter. More importantly, the MintPress News article really should be considered as the main source for Lloyd and Postol's criticism. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not be condescending to people because they don't agree with you. I read the RfC. I'm not aware of "Letters to the Editor" ever being allowed as a RS for a BLP (how do we know they are actually written by the person? etc). Additionally, I've come across Mint Press News in other articles that have nothing to do with Syria and IMO, this website has zero credibility as a journalistic source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. See my comments on MintPress News below. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"how do we know they are actually written by the person?" This is a very odd argument. Nobody is denying that Postol and Lloyd wrote the letter, least of all Postol and Lloyd themselves who can easily be googled saying the same thing as in the letter. There has been no retraction by the LRB and no threats of legal action from Postol and Lloyd for falsely attributing to them opinions they do not hold. The Süddeutsche Zeitung also reference the debate and similarly there is no suggestion they have retracted their story. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 08:00 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Moving forward - There has been no further comments for a week now. Therefore, I am proposing to add to the Reception area "Higgins' work on who was responsible for the sarin gas attacks in the Syrian civil war was criticised by Professor Theodore Postol and former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" with a link to the Süddeutsche Zeitung article. This appears to be acceptable to GreenC, Mnlaxer and myself. If other people disagree, can they please suggest a rewording or what must be done for us to reach a consensus. Otherwise, I think an appeal to the BLP noticeboard as Mnlaxer did in the previous RfC is reasonable. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, see my suggestion below about changing the section structure from Reception and Bellingcat to sections based on topic: Ghouta, MH17, Other. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard would be okay, but I would try request RfC closure first. I would have listed it there now, but over 20 discussions were recently added by one editor so I will wait until that back log clears out a bit. If any outside editor is reading this, please feel welcome to assess the status of this RfC and close it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, at this stage there is clearly no consensus for adding the material in question. You're aware an acceptable conclusion to an RfC is for the material not to be included? Stickee (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not clear to me. Once past !vote counting, an outside editor will see that two of the "oppose" entries are rebutted without reply and in some cases are erroneous (the discussion has moved on from just using the LRB). Those arguing WEIGHT to oppose any inclusion should read and answer the section on "DUE / WEIGHT test" below. And are you aware Ph1ll1phenry asked you to propose a suitable text? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am unconvinced that any coverage at all of the Postol criticism is due weight because the only mention is tiny mentions in almost no sources. Would not result in a balanced NPOV article. Tlsandy (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

For WEIGHT, what is your reference class of coverage of Eliot Higgins' work on the Syrian chemical weapons rockets? See the section "DUE / WEIGHT test" below for an explanation. WP:NPOV requires "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" are included in the article. Are you saying the Postol and Lloyd's views are not significant or you don't think the sources are reliable for the material that they include? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - summoned by bot - the question asked is whether the letter should be published as a source and the answer is an emphatic no and to do so would be to give it undue weight. If the criticism has a broader context that would give it due weight you will need to come up with more than the one letter as a source to gain consensus for inclusion.Flat Out (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the question being asked. The proposal is to quote the Süddeutsche Zeitung which references the dispute in the London Review of Books where the letter was first published. - Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I will address several points. First regarding WP:RS, I am slightly amused by some people saying that London Review of Books is "merely" a book review journal and this is outside its field of expertise. This is a slightly left-leaning, very highly respected journal where many renowned scholars write detailed articles, and this is the place where the Seymour Hersh article appeared. It certainly satisfies all the properties of a WP:RS. Now to weight: first, we have to consider the people being quoted. Postol and Lloyd are recognized experts in the field, cited, for example here, among many other places. They have a different technical analysis of the Sarin gas attack, which is surely in the minority, but they are surely notable for inclusion here. We are not agreeing with this or that analysis, but simply presenting a notable viewpoint, per WP:NPOV. A short statement of their contention is appropriate here. As to the point about "letter to the editor" not notable, this format is very often used in such journals, where many scholars add notes and sometimes the original author even responds in detail to the letters. See here for an example in NYRB. This is not simply "letter to the editor" by some random person printed pro forma. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reboot

Text

I will revise the text proposed above by Ph1ll1phenry:

Higgins' work on the trajectories and ranges of the chemical weapons rockets used in the sarin gas attacks in the Syrian civil war was criticised by Theodore Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Richard Lloyd, a former UN weapons inspector.

Sources

More sources have been found than the LRB letter since this discussion started. Several responses above do not seem to have considered these new sources. I even found another one just now. And there are some background info to consider as well. So, here are the sources that mention the criticism of Higgins' work on the chemical weapons rockets by Postol and Lloyd:

• Russell-Sluchansky, Carmen (April 15, 2014). "The Failed Pretext For War: Seymour Hersh, Eliot Higgins, MIT Rocket Scientists On Sarin Gas Attack". MintPress News. In my opinion the best source and the one that should be cited, but I'm willing to accept another for citation of the text to be added. But this source is reliable for reporting the dispute.
• "The Red Line and the Rat Line". London Review of Books. 17 April 2014. Letter to the editor by Postol and Lloyd is at the bottom of the page.
• "One-man news agency". Süddeutsche Zeitung. 1 June 2015. Machine translation of title. Here is relevant quote machine translated: "Criticism of Eliot Higgins' work came from Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In a letter to the London Review of Books, the two researchers accused him of changing his alleged knowledge about the sarin gas attacks depends on the actual facts repeatedly. They also claimed that many of Higgins' findings are derivatives of their own research."
• Wellen, Russ (April 17, 2014). "Scientists Support Seymour Hersh". Foreign Policy in Focus. New source mentioning the dispute. Derivative of Mint Press News article.

While not to be used for citing the material above, good background info:

• Chivers, C.J. (28 December 2013). "New Study Refines View of Sarin Attack in Syria". New York Times.
• Porter, Gareth (29 April 2013). "New Data Raise Further Doubt on Official View of August 21 Gas Attack in Syria". Truthout.

WEIGHT

WEIGHT is used to add context for the addition of the text (length, prominence, qualifiers), not to decide *whether* any text is added. The first sentence of "Due and undue weight" repeats the key sentence of NPOV, adding an "in proportion" clause, not a license to use WEIGHT to deny the addition of material: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If someone disputes this, please respond in the section below "DUE / WEIGHT test." - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC header is quite narrow covering only "biographies". I certainly never noticed this, and would not have come across it had I not been watching WP:ANRFC. This should also be included in the category [5] at the least. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the eighth section on the same topic. Is another really needed? Stickee (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

General Comment on BLP

There is a common misunderstanding of WP:BLP in this discussion, on this page, and in general from what I've seen. I will sign all the points below and encourage other editors to respond to any or all of them in separate threads. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

1. WP:BLP does not over-ride all other Wiki policies including using common sense. It is not valid to WP:VAGUEWAVE BLP and expect that's enough to prevent any criticism of someone from being added to an article. BLP states in the first paragraph: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research." Thus, when an editor claims WP:BLP is a reason that material should not be added to an article, they have to show what is the actual legal issue or specific policy violation. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

2. NPOV is a core part of BLP. Articles which do not include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" are in violation of NPOV. Due and undue weight only determines how the material is added. *Not whether* the material is added. It is not valid to claim DUE/WEIGHT when flatly opposing the inclusion of material. After accepting the material will be added, then use DUE/WEIGHT to argue how it should be treated. Long descriptions or context aren't necessarily required. An interested reader can read the cited source if they want to know more. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

3. The three main BLP-specific topics the policy discusses are: writing style, reliable sources, and presumption in favor of privacy. Obviously the first and third don't apply to this dispute. Reliable sources includes several sub-sections. Consider the sources discussed in this RfC: 1) the LRB letter including its coverage in a secondary RS and 2) the MintPress News article. Any editor arguing in opposition of inclusion of the material should be able to quote material from one of the BLP RS sub-sections to support their !vote. [Note: GreenC's citation above of BLPGOSSIP is invalid, Postol and Lloyd's criticism is not gossip by common sense. The PUBLICFIGURE argument is used incorrectly, as the material is not an allegation or incident that the subject is entitled to privacy about, and even if it was a privacy issue, the argument is now outdated with the addition of the German and MintPress News sources.] - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

4. There is no distinction made in BLP between positive and negative material. Just because an addition is a criticism of the subject of the article, doesn't mean there is any special or higher standard the material has to meet above and beyond positive material. The only distinction is made to libel. Nothing in this RfC or the previous one was close to libel. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

8 kB!? A simple "i disagree" would have been more concise and equally informative. You've made your opinion known; how about letting others chime in without you immediately jumping on them? VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The only point my heels are dug in on is that editors should make valid arguments in a RfC if they expect to affect consensus. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

People do make "valid arguments", they are just in conflict with other "valid arguments". The rules are not so black and white rather they are generic so as to fit all cases and are thus often contradictory. So we give our opinion on what is more important in a specific case. Secondly, all positions are "valid" - we can do whatever the hell we want if there is consensus for it. So stop beating people up about "valid arguments" Wikipedia isn't a court of law, everyone has a valid opinion and you need to respect that even if you disagree. -- GreenC 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, I do appreciate your willingness to compromise to achieve consensus in this RfC. And I agree the rules aren't always black and white, although "often contradictory" is going too far. Which rules are contradicting each other in this case? You are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. In your opposition !vote above using BLPGOSSIP, PUBLICFIGURE and WEIGHT, you are wrong. Postol/Lloyd's criticism is not gossip, being wrong is not a matter that a public figure can expect privacy about, and weight can't be used to exclude material, only how it is treated in the article. If you wish to argue against those points, please do so and I will respect your efforts. It's possible I will agree with you, but you have to participate in the argument over policy for that to have a chance of happening. Of course editors can't do whatever the hell they want if there is consensus for it, by which I take you to mean "majority for it", because the statement makes no sense using the Wikipedia meaning of consensus. This is not the first time you have shown your misunderstanding of consensus. If consensus and dispute resolution is not focused on "valid arguments", what are they focused on? Wikipedia is also not a democracy. I apologize for any incivil comments I have made in this discussion. I will try harder to avoid them in the future. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The rules are not contradictory but valid opinions on how to interpret the rules for a particular case can lead to contradictory results. Consensus is not a democracy but when a large number of experienced editors are saying the same thing it can't be easily ignored without a really good reason. And yes WP:IAR is sometimes used successfully so we really can do "whatever the hell we want" if there is consensus (not that anyone is using IAR here) - the point being, the rules are not more important than the people using them, this isn't a law court or fascist state. Finally "participation" means giving an opinion, which I have done multiple times here, it doesn't mean I'm required to argue until you are personally satisfied - you never stop. -- GreenC 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

MintPress News article

There has been zero discussion of the most significant coverage of Postol/Lloyd's criticism of Higgins, which is the MintPress News article. Here are the relevant quotes:

“It’s clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian government-controlled areas as the White House claimed,” Theodore Postol told MintPress News. Postol is a professor in the Science, Technology, and Global Security Working Group at MIT. He published “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21st, 2013” in January along with Richard Lloyd, an analyst at the military contractor Tesla Laboratories who previously served as a United Nations weapons inspector and also boasts two books, 40 patents and more than 75 academic papers on weapons technology. Higgins, Postol said, “has done a very nice job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it’s so lacking any analytical foundation it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

and

Shortly after the release of the MIT report this January, Higgins posted about it on his blog. The new findings, however, did not dissuade him from believing the attack still had to have been committed by Assad. Higgins is now pushing the theory that the Syrian army took over al-Qaboun, northwest of the target areas. Higgins also insists that the images showing the Syrian army with similar rockets mean it had to be them. That still doesn’t cut it, says Richard Lloyd, the other author of the MIT report, whose own calculations have led him to believe they came more directly from the north.

and

Both Postol and Lloyd are confounded by Higgins’ contention that these “volcano rockets” could have only come from the Syrian army. “They are well within the manufacturable range by a modest machine shop,” Postol said. “The design is clever for what it’s designed to do, but once you have the design, you can make it pretty easily. Are they identical? Did Eliot count every bolt? Is that possible?” Lloyd points out that he has designed a course on the arms used in the Syrian conflict. “I have a section all on the rebels,” he explained. “They have factories. A production line. They have just as much capability as anyone else in building these weapons.” The MIT team actually gives Higgins a lot of credit for his work, noting that much of their study was made infinitely easier — and maybe even possible — by all of the information he has aggregated and posted on Brown Moses. “I think he wants to do good and he’s done a great amount of service in getting the world up to speed on what’s going on in Syria,” Lloyd said. “He’s done a great job for what his ability is and I commend him. I know people like to see him as a weapons expert, but unless you crunch the numbers, you don’t know what you’re doing. Until you do the math, you’re not an expert.” As for the work of Lloyd and Postol, Higgins says he accepts their findings, though he adds on his blog “with the greatest respect to the work of Lloyd and Postol I do not believe their calculations have been peer reviewed.” “And he’s qualified to say that?” Postol asked incredulously. “In the end, the government lied.” Despite their disagreements, one belief unites them: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry presented faulty intelligence, at best. “I agree with Lloyd, Postol, Hersh, and anyone else who thinks that the maps provided by the White House don’t match the evidence gathered about the munitions,” Higgins wrote in an email to MintPress. However, Higgins still insists on the establishment perspective that, despite contradictory analysis, Assad was absolutely behind the attacks.

- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

MinPress News is not a reliable source for Syria. The NYT has a piece on MintPress News and their connection (funding) with one of the sides in the conflict. They are not a neutral news source. -- GreenC 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, MintPress News has never been mentioned at the Reliable sources noticeboard. There has been one NYT blog post on MPN, over the Dale Gavlak flap. Where does it say there is a funding connection to one of the sides in the Syrian conflict? The only way to get that is to think all Shias, including Alawis and Twelvers, are part of an international cabal. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

NYT says "Observers and participants in the Syrian conflict are often on the look-out for even the slightest hint of sectarian bias in reports on events there.. "the Facebook page linked to from Mr. Muhawesh’s personal Web site, which was recently deleted, included several updates warning against U.S. involvement in the Syrian war.. "the Facebook page was a virulently anti-Saudi polemic.. Another long update on Mr. Muhawesh’s Facebook page — posted on Aug. 26, two days before his daughter-in-law’s news site published the article claiming Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical attack — suggested that “There is absolutely no evidence or confirmation that the Assad government carried out the alleged chemical attack.” " -- all of this points to a seriously biased source on Syria and the chemical attacks in particular. -- GreenC 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping your claim that MintPress News has a "connection (funding) with one of the sides in the conflict." So the father of the MPN editor-in-chief opposes the U.S. getting directly involved in the Syrian civil war, is anti-Saudi, and five days after the attack (before the UN team or any third-party even reached the sites) said there is no evidence or confirmation that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. So what? The article offered as a source for the Lloyd/Postol vs. Higgins dispute included direct quotes from both parties. Did Mr. Muhawesh or his daughter edit the quotes or make the article unfair to Higgins' views? How and/or where? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the general allegation going around. Mr. Muhawesh is described as a "key adviser" which is even worse than funding he plays an active role in advising the organization. And there are allegations he also funds which would make a lot of sense since he is the father ("Am I out of line in assuming that her dad is a prime investor and that he has lined up like-minded businessmen to make this venture succeed?". Furthermore Higgins has had a role to play outing MintPress News so they are not fully independent about throwing criticism at Higgins. -- GreenC 18:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Meh. But the point is moot unless you can show the article in question misrepresented or unreliably quoted Higgins. I don't think you can. What say you to RS noticeboard? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, they have already noted that their coverage immediately after the attacks was so bad that it posed an existential risk to them. As such they have every reason to push any sort of "rebels did it" narrative. MPN has zero credibility on Syria. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, yes, the MPN article that said there was a chemical accident that caused the Ghouta deaths has been refuted. And the NYT's article on the crossing azimuths has been refuted as well. So what? Now can you discuss the actual article I cited and the quotes I provided? Note that who did what in Syria is only a backdrop to the specific dispute described - Postol and Lloyd don't claim to know who fired the rockets, just that both the US Government and Higgins have published faulty analyses. Also note the article uses direct quotes from Postol, Lloyd and Higgins. Are you saying MPN doctored the quotes? And if MPN has such a disreputable source on anything related to Syria, why was the article extremely fair to both sides (Postol/Lloyd and Higgins)? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You have mentioned direct quotes a couple of times. Why do you feel that is important? VQuakr (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It removes the issue of the reliability of the source. You have to claim the source was misquoting the participants to raise a RS objection. Since this RfC started with and is focused on the LRB letter and the German source referencing it, which in my opinion is not the best sourcing available, perhaps I should add MPN and this issue to the RS noticeboard? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If you make the claim that we should use the quotes from the source regardless of the reliability of said source, the coverage is no longer effectively secondary. We are back to the issue of weight since the criticism has not been published in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 3:07 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I am not making that claim. I am saying that you need to show evidence of quote tampering or misrepresenting Higgins to claim MPN is unreliable for the passages above. Since Higgins could easily dispute any inaccuracies in the reporting of his quotes or positions in the MPN article on his own website and he has not done so, the assumption is the material above accurately reflects his positions unless you can show otherwise. Thus, the article is reliable for his quotes and positions, regardless of any perceived reliability about MPN's Syria coverage in general. Can I assume you do not question the reliability of the MPN article with respect to Postol and Lloyd's quotes and positions? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no reason to think the quotes themselves were doctored. Using them, though, would be undue coverage. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

..because doing so requires context and opposing POV. Can't just dump a charged raw quote without context and opposing views otherwise it's a NPOV. But then as you say it gets out of WEIGHT. Might still be possible to simply state "MIT professor First Last was critical of Higgins during the X debate, to which Higgins responded." Doesn't need to be complicated or in depth, a single sentence. -- GreenC 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC will decide whether that's appropriate. Stickee (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against this but it should probably be moved out of the "Reception" section if you're giving Higgins' point of view ("Reception" is how his work was received by other people). If you do move it out, can I suggest it reads something like:

"Higgins' work on who was responsible for the sarin gas attacks in the Syrian civil war was criticised by Professor Theodore Postol and former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Link to Süddeutsche Zeitung article]. Higgins has rejected their analysis [Link to relevant Bellingcat article].".

I've tried to make that both as factual and neutral as I can. - Ph1ll1phenry ^{talk to me} 18:00 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DUE / WEIGHT test

I thought of an exercise that should allow us to get beyond simply citing DUE to oppose inclusion of this criticism or saying its use to exclude material is invalid. WP:DUE starts: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Assuming we can come to consensus that Postol and Lloyd's viewpoint is significant and has been published by reliable sources, the remaining reservation some editors have expressed is that it would violate DUE, which I take to mean including their viewpoint would be out of proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. My idea is to actually discuss the proportion that applies in this case. Again, granting for the sake of argument in this section that the LRB, SZ and MPN articles qualify as RS for the coverage of the dispute between Postol/Lloyd and Higgins, what are the significant viewpoints published in RS that makes up the other side of the proportion? That is, what is the full set of sources that allows us to determine how prominent Postol and Lloyd's viewpoint is?

Here is where it gets tricky, as defining the scope of the criticism is crucial to answering that question. I would propose that the full set of sources are those that discuss Higgins' work on the rockets that struck Ghouta on August 21, 2013. Now, I could argue that the scope is much narrower, being that Postol and Lloyd are rocket experts and specifically criticize Higgins on his conclusions on who fired the rockets based on the type, the trajectory, and the range of the rockets. But I think my proposal is fair and probably represents a decent compromise between narrow and wide scopes. Others can agree or disagree and provide reasons in response.

But once that scope is arrived at, then listing the full set of the significant viewpoints in RS that qualify should allow us to discuss how prominent Postol and Lloyd's criticism is and how DUE applies to its inclusion or exclusion in the article. I hope that makes sense and helps us come to consensus on this issue. [I have to include an aside that the Flat Earth example in the DUE section is extremely unhelpful. It represents a case of FRINGE, thus not a good example for DUE. "Tiny minority" applies best to fringe scholarship, not garden variety DUE discussions such as this one.] - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC implementation

• Actioned. Stickee (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Made the text more like the examples in the above discussion. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No way. That was a terrible edit. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain why? It follows the style that AlbinoFerret mentioned, it is accurate, true and avoids weasel words. Could you please explain why your version is superior? You might find the weasel words section [[6]] informative. It directs editors to avoid the language you are using. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write it. No specific wording was proposed in the RfC query so please stop pretending that it was. What do you think of this? I think it removes the puffery and verbosity that I found distasteful while addressing your WP:WEASEL concerns and staying truer to the source. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect to say "No specific wording was proposed in the RfC query". I wrote several versions and submitted them for approval (see my edits of 19:00 23 July 2015 (UTC) and 18:00 28 July 2015 (UTC)). I asked for everybody else to comment or submit their own. Therefore, I will thank you for remaining civil.

I find it odd that you complained of verbosity when there are only 21 words of text. Also, could you please explain what you mean by "puffery"? Postol is a professor and Lloyd is a former UN weapons inspector. That's not puffery, those are the facts. Therefore, I would like to add their titles. Thanks for adding the link to Postol's Wiki page but Lloyd doesn't appear to have one so I propose that we mention he is a former UN weapons inspector. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've returned the wording to something more like that proposed in the RfC. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfC close says "There is no consensus as to the form this small addition will take". It seems evident your edit is trying to inflict as much damage on Higgins within the confines of a single sentence by inflating the importance of the criticizers and inflating the degree of criticism, but leaving no room to fairly respond and provide proper balance. The toned down version proposed by VQuaker adequately addresses this by saying criticism exists, but keeps it in balance by saying "some aspects" and doesn't try to make the criticizers into authorities by labeling him "former UN inspectors" which has nothing to do with it. For example, why are they "former" where they fired from the job? Did they do a good job? Is the UN involved in the Ukraine incident, why aren't they now? Did they inspect weapons in Ukraine? None of that can be addressed with balance within the confines of a single sentence. -- GreenC 14:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to inflict damage on anybody so please retract that allegation. Please note that my suggestion of 18:00 28 July 2015 (UTC) says we could state Higgins has rebutted those claims.

Look, we cannot just say that Richard Lloyd has criticised Higgins without saying who Richard Lloyd is. That's not inflating his importance. That's just the facts. And yes, the fact that he has been a weapons inspector for the UN is very relevant for an entry about a weapons analyst with whom he disagrees.

"...criticised some aspects of Higgins's work" are weasel words (please see the Wikipedia guidelines). State what these aspects are or just leave it as it was.

I'm disappointed as I thought we had a broad consensus. Everybody was invited to submit a wording in the RfC. I submitted at least two for review which are of the style that I am proposing now. Do we have to go back to seek an admin's opinion? Should I post something on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was your "edit", the text, gives that appearance for reasons stated. The concern is the neutrality of the text. -- GreenC 14:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Giving the factually accurate titles and credentials of those making criticism in no way compromises neutrality. As Kingsindian has noted, without it the criticism lacks context and is 'useless'. It is unfortunate for Mr Higgins that he has been criticised by experts but it is not our job to 'sanitize' the facts.

Right. So, what do you think my suggestion "Former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, and Professor Theodore Postol of MIT have criticised this work" (see below)? Would you say that this is neutral? If you think it's not neutral, please suggest a rewording that is in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is factually accurate that Lloyd is a Technology Consultant at Tesla Laboratory. This is being discussed below. -- GreenC 16:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, it would be better if you just stop referring to the RfC - it only confuses matters. There was a consensus for including a short mention, but no consensus on what form it will take. Just open a new section (or reword the title of this section), and give your opinion on what the form should be. A few tries will probably result in a satisfactory sentence. If not, you can probably open a new RfC on the exact wording, but cross that bridge when you come to it. For my part, I agree that simply writing "Lloyd/Postol criticized Higgins" is a) useless b) the average reader does not know who they are and why they criticize Higgins. I suggest a short qualifier on the lines you propose, with a capsule mention of what they criticize Higgins for and Higgins's response (perhaps). It should not be too long, because of WP:UNDUE concerns. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Accepted. Ph1ll1phenry (talk)

@Ph1ll1phenry: the RfC asked, "Should we reference this letter (bottom of page) published in the London Review of Books by MIT Professor, Ted Postol, and former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, that criticises Higgins' analysis?" There was no specific wording proposed. Some sentences were suggested during the discussion; that does not make them the subject of the RfC and does not make them "untouchable." Here you say you re-reverted because it didn't match the RfC. Even if that were true, per WP:BUREAUCRACY not having the paperwork filed correctly is never an adequate reason for a revert. VQuakr (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said my submission was untouchable but I expect the wording to conform to Wikipedia's editorial standards - see Kingsindian's very valid points. Following his advice, I am proposing: "Former UN weapons inspector, Richard Lloyd, and Professor Theodore Postol of MIT have criticised this work" because:

- it is succinct

- it is accurate

- it conveys why we should care about what they say

- there are no weasel words

It does not say what that criticism is and I would like to include it but given that some editors say we shouldn't even give Postol/Lloyd's job titles/credentials that might be too much of an ask at the moment.

I would like to hear arguments of why this is not an acceptable phrasing. I don't want to hear the frankly bizarre arguments we've heard so far, for example that it's too verbose, that I am trying to damage Higgins' reputation etc. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd is a Technology Consultant at Tesla Laboratory and I would recommend he be called that. Re: his 2003 UN inspector job. Lloyd was also the subject of an FBI probe in 2010, when they seized Lloyd "while trying to board a flight with a Raytheon laptop computer that had information that he was not authorized to have" and then raided his home.[7]. Lloyd's LinkedIn profile shows he left Raytheon at about the same time.[8] Looks like a case of stealing confidential information. If we are going to neutrally label people we should do so according to their current positions, rather then choose positive or negative things from their past to highlight. No one seeking to discredit Lloyd here, even though there are sources that do, but we shouldn't try to inflate him either, even though some other sources have questioned his expertise. -- GreenC 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to decide how to describe someone is look at what reliable sources say. See for instance a McClatchy article and Deutsche Welle which calls him a "former UN weapons inspector", and NYT article, which calls him an "expert in warhead design" and another NYT article which calls him "an analyst at the military contractor Tesla Laboratories". This suggests that either title proposed by Green Cardamom, or Ph1ll1phenry can be used. I like the "former UN weapons inspector" myself, but there is no right and wrong here. The rest of the speculation about FBI stuff is irrelevant here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not beholden to follow the press on this, they copy one another and are operating under different constraints and purposes. Our goal here is NPOV text. As noted, Lloyd has some issues with credibility and it wouldn't be fair to give a pro-Lloyd description when a more neutral one is available. -- GreenC 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What credibility issues does Lloyd have? As noted by whom other than GreenC himself? I hope Kingsindian will forgive me if I refer to the RfC for one moment but its title was "Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible?". This motion has been accepted. As has been pointed out, the exact wording that we will use in the entry is still moot but you cannot cherry pick which parts of the ruling you want to accept.

If you had any objections to Lloyd's work you had plenty of opportunity to express them in the RfC. I agree with Kingsindian and would suggest we use "former UN weapons inspector". If you don't like it, raise an RfC and we can discuss these hitherto unknown allegations (although even if they are true, it does not change the fact he is a former UN weapons inspector). Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've restored Postol's title as nobody seems to have an issue with that. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the "motion has not been accepted". As the closing note clearly said, there was no consensus as to the form the text would take. It is the burden of those wanting change (ie the insertion of your proposed qualifier) to gather consensus (per WP:BURDEN).Stickee (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Stickee. This is why I said, please stop referring to the RfC. It only confuses matters. This is a new discussion, focused on exactly what wording to use. Any proposal Ph1ll1phenry made there is irrelevant. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not referring to any wording proposals I made in the RfC. I am referring to the facts and I am quite indifferent to their exact wording. As I understand it, the proposal that "Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible?" has been accepted. Therefore, to say we cannot mention that Postol is a professor, that Lloyd is a former UN weapons inspector nor what their analysis is seems to go against that motion. This is my interpretation (and I accept it may very well be wrong). Thoughts? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd is a Technology Consultant at Tesla Laboratory. He was a UN inspector in 2003 in Iraq. It's leading and POV to focus on his former part-time job 10 years ago in a different theater and capacity, and then neglecting to mention his current status for some reason. -- GreenC 12:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

People are known for certain things which may or may not correspond to their current job. One wouldn't describe Ben Bernanke as "scholar at Brookings institution" or "consultant with Pimco" normally, would one? One would describe him as "former chair of the Federal Reserve". This is why I suggested looking at how sources describe Lloyd. One could also simply write "expert in weapon warheads" or something like that, which is also a formulation. Anyway, I am really ok with anything: this is a rather minor point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with "expert in weapon warheads". Are we agreed? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Is a credential dump appropriate at all? I mean, there's a wikilink right there. Stickee (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My preference remains "Technology Consultant at Tesla Laboratory" because it's factually accurate, provides information to the reader on who he works for just like Postol's description "MIT Professor", and there isn't any credential POV. -- GreenC 20:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

MIT is a world renowned institution. Most people won't have heard of Tesla Labs.

The mainstream media like Deutsche Welle uses "former UN weapons inspector"; the New York Times uses "expert in warhead design". Are you seriously asserting this compromises their neutrality? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make logical sense to give the title (MIT professor) in one case, and the credential (weapons expert) in the other case. The question is why is that being done. It's not normal on Wikipedia. It's sometimes done in journalistic pieces to establish why the reader may want to give weight to what the person has to say. But we are not trying to give weight to his statement here, that would be POV. -- GreenC 15:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is "normal" on Wikipedia is entirely your opinion. In any communication, you want to explain to the reader why a fact is salient. That's just basic communication skills and not confined to journalism. We have reputable sources using "former UN weapons inspector"or "expert in warhead design". Why do you find this so objectionable? Would a compromise be: "Technology Consultant at Tesla Laboratory and former UN weapons inspector" or such like? Then we both have what we want. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no wiki page for Richard Lloyd, at least the one we are talking about. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If I start an article for Richard Lloyd (weapon specialist), would you support "Technology Consultant at Tesla Laboratory"? -- GreenC 15:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What kind of technology consultant? An IT consultant? You seem to be deliberately omitting the important detail that he is a weapons expert. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

His status as "expert" would need to be established by his peers and that has not been shown. He calls himself an expert and the press has copied that moniker but his peers don't call him an expert. His work of late has been self published and is not peer reviewed. His own Linkedin profile[9] yesterday said simply "Technology Consultant". Now today it says "Warhead Technology Consultant". Curious timing. Do you think he is reading our conversation? -- GreenC 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Tesla Laboratories say he died in November 2014, it's very curious indeed. Are you sure you have your facts straight? Look, everything you have just said about him could be applied to Higgins. Unless you are suggesting that there is a vast media conspiracy to inflate Lloyd's credentials for the sole purpose of frustrating your Wiki editing, let's stick with "former UN weapons inspector" or "expert in warhead design" as reputable sources maintain. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No seriously it changed. I didn't say it was a conspiracy just perplexed at the timing. There is no "frustration with wiki editing" as the new name doesn't change anything other then specify what kind of consultant he was. -- GreenC 20:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Lloyd's early demise removes your objection that the reference should say what they're doing now, can we please go for "... and the late Richard Lloyd, X, criticised ... " where X is "former UN weapons inspector" or "expert in warhead design", per reputable sources? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We'd still reference his title if it was Postol who had died, "former MIT professor Postol". If the word "Consultant" is a problem, change to "specialist" which is an accurate and neutral description e.g. "the late Richard Lloyd who was a warhead technology specialist" .. or "specialized in warhead technology". -- GreenC 12:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We have two reputable sources. Why are you ignoring them? Higgins has labelled himself as an expert (in the modestly entitled "How I Accidentally Became An Expert On The Syrian Conflict" - see bottom of the page) and he has received rather a lot of criticism. Why do you object to Lloyd being called an expert when he has a degree in a related subject and has been working in the weapons industry since the 1980s? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's his own page, how he refers to himself which has always carried the most weight on Wikipedia how a person calls himself. And there are plenty of secondary sources to support it. -- GreenC 21:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's why I crossed it out hours before you commented. But you have not answered my question of why you are ignoring two reputable sources. Why is your interpretation better than those of the New York Times and Deutsche Welle? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring multiple sources that call him by his proper title, including the most authoritative source LinkedIn? -- GreenC 13:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

LinkedIn in not an authoritative source. Anybody can set up an account and say what they like. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on. I don't want to argue more on such a minor matter. I think we have reached an impasse here. Opening an RfC with the various options is the best way to settle this. Nobody is going to change their mind with discussion alone. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It has to be two choices to ensure an unambiguous close. I'll provide 1 preferred choice. -- GreenC 13:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to it. In the meantime, I will change "some aspects of Higgins' work" to "Higgins' work on the trajectories and ranges of the rockets" following a wording suggested by Mnnlaxer. If anybody has any complaints about this, can they please state them only if they are within the Wikipedia rules? Thanks. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I could also make an equally arbitrary proposal to go back to VQuaker's version (as of 02:31, 10 September 2015). Stickee (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But weasel words are against Wikipedia policy. What I am suggesting is more precise. So, what objections do you have within the Wikipedia rules? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I got sick of this page coming up repeatedly on my watchlist, so I created the RfC myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How should Richard Llloyd be described in the article?

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.

The consensus is to refer to him as #3 "Former UN weapons inspector". The majority opinion cites the fact that this is how he is referred to in reliable sources and what the casual or general reader will most likely identify him as. This is a PAG based argument, as articles should be written for the general reader. Consensus may also form in the future to refer to him in other ways according to what is being written. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

---

How should Richard Lloyd be described in the article? Options:

1. No qualifier
2. "Analyst (or something similar) at military contractor Tesla Industries" (or some minor variant)
3. "Former UN weapons inspector"
4. "Expert in warhead design" (or some minor variant)

Indicate which option you prefer. Multiple options are fine. Ranked preferences are also ok. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 3, then Option 4, then Option 2: I think a good way to start is to look at how sources describe him, because that is what the casual reader would want to know. See McClatchy, Deutsche Welle for option 3. This is what he's known for mainly, it seems to me, like Ben Bernanke is known for being "former chair of the Fed" rather than "scholar at Brookings". There are sources for other usage as well: NYT describes him as option 2 at some point, and option 4 at some point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• I did a few search on Google News. From what I saw, they all get used in reliable sources. I might favor #3, as it gives people a good idea of who he is and why he's qualified to speak. It also implies #4 to some extent. Really, I guess any of them are acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• #3 seems to be the most frequently used in reputable sources (Professor Don Wallace of University of Central Missouri and Associate Professor Daniel Silander of Linnaeus University [10], The New American [11] etc etc) but #4 is OK by me, too. If we do go with #2, can we please clarify what Tesla Industries is? Most people may think it´s associated with the more famous Tesla Motors. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you seek to clarify what Tesla is, you should also seek to clarify which type of UN inspector he was as there were different agencies at different times in different capacities, as detailed in discussion below. He was a part-time employee who volunteered for the job (along with 100s of others) for a few months in 2003. -- GreenC 14:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Most reliable sources describe him as option 3, which I think is the most important factor. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually more sources call him an expert and have done so over a longer period of time. His part-time work as an inspector for a few months in 2003 is a minor part of his career. Sheer volume though is not always reason to choose (WP:GOOGLEHITS), see following proposal by SageRad. -- GreenC 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying we should ignore both the mainstream media and university professors? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying we should ignore the preponderance of mainstream sources that 'don't call him a UN expert? -- GreenC 17:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Another option could be to take the lead of The Washington Times which printed this: "Richard M. Lloyd, a warhead technology consultant at Tesla Laboratories Inc. who tracks weapons being used in Syria, said he has little confidence in the regime’s ability to transport the weapons safely." SageRad (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's reasonable. It says why he is important to mention in this context (tracks weapons being used in Syria) and gives an accurate assessment of who he was associated with at the time he made the criticism. -- GreenC 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This sound like option #4 which may well be a happy compromise. But can we then add context? Postol and Lloyd criticised Higgins' work on trajectories and launch sites. At the moment, the article says they criticised "some aspects of Higgins's work", which is weasel wording (WP:WEASEL). As I understand it, the reason Lloyd's expertise in warheads is relevant is that the missile's payload will effect its range, effectiveness etc. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not weasel wording in that context. Stickee (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it is not weasel wording? It lacks any details. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfC closed for a short and brief sentence. Weasel wording is when you imply something that can't be verified. -- GreenC 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Every time you "compromise" you add more text, expand and take more. The previous RfC was for a short sentence. This is getting fucking ridiculous. -- GreenC 14:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a reasonable epitaph, and it's well-sourced. The underlying story is what i'm more interested in. SageRad (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not writing an "epitaph". -- GreenC 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 seems best to me because it is a fact about this person and not an opinionated qualification. However, if other qualifiers are supported by strong and reliable sources, they can be added. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It is opinionated in the context of its use. It cherry picks a minor part of his career for which he worked part-time as a volunteer for a few months 12 years ago to puff up his qualifications to make a judgement on a completely different theater of war and type of work. It's unnecessary POV when other more recent options are available, such as his place of work when he did the research Tesla Labs. -- GreenC 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that Professors Wallace and Silander were wrong to refer to him as a "former UN weapons inspector" in their 2015 book (citation above)? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the dozens of other sources who don't call him a "former UN inspector"? -- GreenC 16:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. -- GreenC 16:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I acknowledge there are other sources that refer to him other than a UN weapons inspector (I've already said I find option #4 acceptable). But as other editors have pointed out, the most frequent reference to him in the mainstream media is "former UN weapons inspector". In addition, there are two professors who also use this wording.

Now, if you would be so kind, please return the favour and answer my question. Are you saying that Professors Wallace and Silander were wrong to refer to him as a "former UN weapons inspector" in their 2015 book? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence "the most frequent reference to him" is former UN inspector. In fact most sources are only since about 2010 after he quit Raytheon and started selling himself that way. His longer term description is either place of employment or "weapons expert", a term which goes back well into the 1990s. -- GreenC 17:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I see you have refused to answer my question about the two professors yet again. I don't see much point continuing this thread. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I see you have refused to answer my question about evidence of "the most frequent reference to him" yet again. I don't see much point continuing this thread. -- GreenC 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 Lloyd does not have his own WP article so this looks to me to be an attempt to give him more credibilty than he deserves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion here. Further comments can be added below.

• I did research on UN inspectors in Iraq and found a UN page that said they were hired 3 years in advance of the actual inspection mission and were paid employees. The UN also hired support staff, each inspector had many support staff. Another source said Lloyd was a "volunteer" and only for 2003 (inspectors were there 2002-03). It raises questions of what his position and responsibilities were in Iraq. Was he an inspector, or on the staff of an inspector; what does it mean that he was a volunteer and not a paid staff member; and only for part of the mission. -- GreenC 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This is at best original research and at worst speculation. Do you have any reputable sources for these claims? Are these sources denying Lloyd was a UN weapons inspector? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We are establishing the reliability of the sources to make this particular claim, it is not "original research" to examine reliability. I can't find any source that calls him a UN inspector until many years after 2003, and they are all news sources where Lloyd would have been interviewed, they are not fully independent objective sources. Newspapers where a person is interviewed are the least reliable sources for establishing biographical details, though lacking anything better it's all we have to go by. I'm just saying there is reason to be cautious of this claim as some things don't make sense. Lloyd also was investigated by the FBI for taking secret data on his laptop (this is not speculation). He also left Raytheon to go to work for a competitor, and subsequently released a report on the Iron Dome that criticized Raytheon technology in favor of his new employer. Furthermore I can't find any source that calls him an "expert" other then newspapers. None of his professional peers do that. Also his reports since leaving Raytheon are all self-published and not peer reviewed. -- GreenC 14:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Too much innuendo. And what on Earth is this: they are all news sources where Lloyd would have been interviewed, they are not fully independent objective sources. So if a newspaper interviews someone, they lose independence and objectivity? I am sorry, this comment is just silly. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok I found a source that is reliable from 2003, quoting the UN directly. [12] It doesn't say what he did, only that he was part of the inspector group which could mean anything since most positions were not as inspector which was a senior position. -- GreenC 17:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You are still speculating wildly. Please read my link above about Professor Don Wallace and Associate Professor Daniel Silander who refer to him as a former UN weapons inspector. Now can we please stop this silly attempt to tarnish Lloyd's reputation? 89.26.38.13 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to "tarnish" Lloyd's reputation (WP:AGF), seeking what his position and responsibility actually was. Simply saying "weapons inspector" is almost meaningless given the broad range of what that means. The UN agency UNMOVIC whom he worked for[13] said "Our intention is to try and create a pool of about 300 inspectors. That is a pool that is growing and training all the time."[14] It goes on to say "These are not full-time UNMOVIC employees," which is confirmed in another source that says Lloyd was a "volunteer".[15] They received five weeks of training.[16] This is different from the full-time salaried inspectors who worked throughout the 1990s. The 1990s weapons inspectors in Iraq were under the auspices of UNSCOM. Starting in 2001 they were under UNMOVIC,[17] and the UNSCOM inspectors appear to have had different levels of training requirements, they were full-time employees. To be precise it would have to say something like "volunteer UN weapons inspector in Iraq for UNMOVIC during 2003". -- GreenC 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is still original research - "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" (WP:NOR). Please produce a reference that says Lloyd should not be referred to as a "former UN weapons inspector" despite the mainstream media and academics doing so. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what Original Research is or why we have that rule. It has nothing to do with talk page discussions investigating the reliability of claims made by sources. -- GreenC 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask you again: why are you trying to say we should not refer to him as a "former UN weapons inspector" when two professors (citation above) are happy to do so? Do you understand why most Wikipedia editors would rather go with what university professors say rather than the Google searches and suppositions of an anonymous guy on the internet? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

He was a "volunteer UN weapons inspector in Iraq for UNMOVIC during 2003". Is there some reason you are trying to hide what he actually did? -- GreenC 14:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You've already said "I did research on UN inspectors ...". Please don't add your research here. Please get references from reputable sources, then we can discuss them. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't read sources do you?

He is a "Volunteer UN weapons inspector in Iraq for UNMOVIC during 2003"

*Vounteer source

*UN weapons inspector (many sources already cited)

*in Iraq source

*for UNMOVIC during 2003 source

- GreenC 16:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the same page three times does not make it three different references. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

More sources: [18]. I broke it down into words since you blatantly and willfully ignored the source previously linked. First you asked for a source, now you are complaining it's not "three sources". Instead of playing games why don't you address what the sources say and explain why we shouldn't detail his actual role in Iraq. You make a big deal about "qualifying" his position, but on this point you don't want to qualify. It's hypocritical and underscores your extreme anti-Higgins bias. -- GreenC 16:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you have links that are more verbose than simply "former UN weapons inspector". But what are you trying to prove? If he was a volunteer for the UN, this in no way diminishes his work. On the contrary, it means he is less easily influenced by a pay cheque. If he was investigated by the FBI, this is immaterial without a court ruling against him (a man is innocent until proven guilty). If the weapons inspectors received 5 weeks training, this might be because they are already experts and there is little to teach them. It's this (and other) suppositions you make that I regard as original research and I am not the only editor to have noticed such innuendo.

Now, regarding your accusation of bias - this is surprising coming from somebody who pointed me to (WP:AGF) only two days ago. However, I am more than happy to file a complaint with the Wikipedia admins and let them read this entire talk page and let them decide who is really biased. I note that I'm not the only editor who has added criticism of Higgins, no matter how reasonable, only to see it expunged from this page. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine so you have no problem adding this information should the RfC close with #3. And don't make idle threats if your going to open a case then do it. I am not the only editor who has removed badly sourced "criticism" from this article nor !voted in the previous RfC against what you were trying to do. The only thing you have contributed to this article is criticism of Higgins and endless argumentation on the talk page against multiple editors whom you state are biased. -- GreenC 19:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you both read the essay WP:BLUDGEON? You are not going to convince each other. Just give it a rest. People can read the discussion and decide for themselves. This is what the RfC is for. If you are going to just talk to each other, people will just WP:TLDR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Length of this page

This talk page is one of the longest on Wikipedia; it is currently 200,498 bytes (196Kb) long - far more than is sensible, and likely to make it difficult for some people to view, or edit. I therefore recently set up automated archiving so that any section not edited for more than 30 days will be moved to an archive page, linked to from this page, and where each discussion will still be available. Another editor has reset this, so that sections are not archived until over three months after discussion has ended.

There is absolutely no need to keep discussion here for so long after they have ended, at the cost of making the page less easy to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Under the 3-month rule, in just 10 days 75 percent of this page's text will be gone (up to but not including section 9). Is 75 percent gone not enough? It'll be one of the shortest talk pages at that rate. Stickee (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't; and no it won't. And it would still be left in its current poor state, for over a week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussions are interconnected and long term, it doesn't help to bury them in archives so quickly. It's perplexing why you are fighting over this when you have no prior history here. Please stop forcing your will on other editors who are the ones actively involved in these discussions. -- GreenC 16:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"no prior history here"? WP:OWN refers. We have hyperlinks specifically for things which are "interconnected". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't OWN; and no it there isn't consensus. -- GreenC 00:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to archiving. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Five months on, the page is now 203,903 bytes (as I type). Given User:Ph1ll1phenry's comment, and the lack of other objections, I will tweak the archiving again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

...and this has again been changed, from archiving 30 days after a discussion was last edited, to 60. there is absolutely no need for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ph1ll1phenry was party to a content dispute on this page, and it would be in his best interest to move the old stuff into the archives. He has not edited since December so good luck getting his continued support. Changing the expiration time is controversial. No consensus. Start an RfC, or whatever, if so determined. -- GreenC 19:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a quite inactive talk page. Shortening the archival period is fantastically unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

On "the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons."

One paragraph in the article stated "He [Higgins] has also investigated the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons, including the Ghouta chemical attack in detail." Two newspaper sources where included to confirm the fact that he has conducted such investigation.

As it stood, it would give the reader the impression that he had conclusively proved the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons in general and the Ghouta chemical attack in particular.

The problem is, when it comes to the Ghouta chemical attack, the experts he has extensively used to make his interpretation contradict his claim. While they don't make any claim as to who sent the rocket with the gas in question, they say they can rule out that it was sent from a government-controlled area. Sources for this shown in my version of the text.

This should somehow be reflected in the text for greater accuracy.

As far as I know, when an author's work is disputed, it is common to include this in Wikipedia articles. When the sources upon which an author has based his research protest his claims, it would be extraordinary to not include it.

Esperion (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss Syria and the chemical attack, the Ghouta chemical attack article and its talk page is waiting for you. This is a biographical article about someone's life. However, I think your addition of "alleged" may be useful. Stickee (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous reply. By that logic, you couldn't include criticism of Sabrina Erdely's reporting on her page, but had to limit it to A Rape on Campus. Higgins' work on the Ghouta chemical attack is the most notable thing in his short career. And criticism is allowed on BLP's. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record I would like to state that I still see the phrase "criticized some aspect of his work" as much too weak based on the current body of evidence. I understand that this has been brought up earlier and that this was one of the positions in the debate. This attack is no small footnote in the Syrian war. POTUS had declared a chemical attack as the red line, if crossed over, would lead to a US attack on the Syrian regime. The professors unequivocally rejected the claim that their work could be used to attribute the attack to the Syrian government. There is also the small detail that they believed that this information was met with "resistance" in the press, presumably because it did not fit their narrative. (See my version of the article for source. London Review of Books.)

However, I am glad that you accepted the inclusion of "alleged", Stickee, and I think the article is more accurate as a consequence. I'll look into the article you mentioned if time permits. Esperion (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The addition [19] of "Specifically, they dispute the claim that the Syrian regime must have been responsible for the Sarin attack on Ghouta based on their finding that the range of the rocket was too limited to be shot from the government-controlled area." is both innocuous and adds necessary information to the truncated "criticized some aspect of his work". I recommend including the sentence. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

However, much disccussion was developed surrounding the current wording. I still recommend the sentence mentioning them at all in the article should be removed. Stickee (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"if time permits": Oh, well that might be challenging. The mediation discussion page got to 70,000 words. Stickee (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Continuation of chain on my user talk. Sure, let's go through the edits. Random deletion of well sourced quote: [20]. Violation of consensus wording in the RfC in talk [21]. Reworded in later edit by me [22] - for some reason you keep edit warring the deletion however? Agree with change of source - already kept [23]. Agree with ref param change - already kept [24]. This was in print - it even says that in the New Yorker ref [25]. Kept, but somehow you reverted [26]? Reworded, but you kept deleting [27]. Stickee (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of these reverts and probably would have done the same I don't see an OWN issue here. If the IP editor has an issue then bring it forward on the talk page here - focus on content not the person. I'm also somewhat perplexed by some of the IP edits which seems almost random in removing things. -- GreenC 07:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New Interview by Recorded Future

Janofsky, Adam (October 15, 2020). "Bellingcat Founder Eliot Higgins on Finding Truth in a World of Disinformation". Recorded Future. Archived from the original on October 15, 2020.

Notes:

• Dis/misinformation in the American media ecosystem has gotten significantly worse since 2014.
• The right-wing media ecosystem (MailOne, OANN, Breitbart, Fox News) is probably more influential than anything Russia is doing.
• Russia is not really getting better at producing disinformation, though they are producing more of it.
• Disinformation is now being used by other actors, such as China, and smaller-scale political actors
• Bellingcat/Higgins does have some concerns about physical safety, though more from Internet conspiracy theorists than the Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации.
• Russia Today has an unhealthy obsession with Higgins.
• Resources constraints are the biggest limiting factor on Bellingcat's work - so much to investigate.
• QANon, anti-vaxxers, Syria denialists, et. al. are products of the Internet's tendency to build increasingly extreme communities ensconced in their own self-affirming media ecosystems.
• Deep fakes are not impossible to debunk, but it's hard to do so before something has gone viral and done all the damage it will do. One of the easiest ways to ID a deepfake is to investigate the account that posted it - often social media accounts with minimal histories.
• Upcoming book will hopefully inspire more people to do similar work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PvOberstein (talk • contribs)

Thanks interesting. A sub-section on disinformation would be good with additional sources. -- GreenC 18:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)