Talk:Eliot Higgins/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ghouta edit war

There seems to be an ongoing edit war over this diff. Folks, as a reminder contested content needs to be discussed on the talk page, not forced through with editing. @ElCommandanteVzl: you have used this source as a justification for the change, but that source says, "But the intercepts tended to add weight to the claims of the Obama administration and Britain and France that elements of the Assad regime, and not renegade rebel groups, were responsible for the attack in the suburb of Ghouta, Bild said." That Assad regime bit is key, because it does not infer personal responsibility by Assad himself - just government forces under his command. It seems to me that the proposed change unnecessarily weakens the sentence. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Other sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin --ElCommandanteVzl (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Each one of those articles is widely discredited; you are digging pretty deep into fringe territory. The Del Ponte source also predates Ghouta so it obviously is not a response to that attack. VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

From our article regime: "While the word regime originates as a synonym for any form of government, modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship." (emphasis added) This is usually what is meant by regime .. thus it's not possible to speak of an "American regime" since the US is not a dictatorship or (arguably) authoritarian government. Regime is the polite way of saying authoritarian government. Putin's Russia is another, as is North Korea. There's little question Syria is an authoritarian state. Of course we don't need to say regime in every sentence, but it's useful at times depending on the context. We should be aware of the terms "negative connotation" and thus POV if overused, but it shouldn't always be a red line automatic removal. -- GreenC 00:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Higgins - f*ing SOB

It has been discussed many times, and the conclusion was that regime is POV. See Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_20#Government_or_regime for example.--ElCommandanteVzl (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that discussion but there are good arguments either way in that discussion and no conclusion. There's no consensus to eliminate regime from articles no questions asked. It's still very much open for discussion within specific articles, if someone wants to use it and can explain why within a certain article - depending on context and sources. -- GreenC 12:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another article where Higgins is mentioned that may yield some addition relevant material: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/20/the-guardian-lying-about-ukraine-again/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.163.212 (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a serious source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Digital Forensics experts have critized Eliot Higgins russia satellite image analysis. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-satellitenbilder-bellingcat-betreibt-kaffeesatzleserei-a-1036874.html Jens Kriese and Neal Krawetz (founder of fotoforensics.com) are both qualified to make these claims. "He reportedly 'embarrassed Putin's" <<- This is pure propaganda and sinds both Jens Kriese and Neal Krawetz claimed Bellingcats analysis is unreliable there is no way he can 'embarrassed Putin". This whole "embarras" thing sounds very childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.95.20 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Higgins

Ah, Volunteer Marek, your standard issue WP:DISCUSSED and WP:VAGUEWAVE. You can't be referring to this [1] as supporting consensus that the material in that source violates BLP, so could you please explain to me using quotes from WP:BLP why the material I added is not allowed under that policy? Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything by or about German expert Jens Kriese prior to the Der Spiegel piece. Is he for real? His criticism is that Bellingcat uses Error Level Analysis, but a search of this term shows many people using it, including academics. Kriese says "The method is subjective and not based entirely on science. This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it," but Google Scholar shows otherwise. Now, it's not my place to say Kriese is wrong, but the strength of this source is not great, it's a primary source (interview) with no journalism. And it's a single source, no one else has made these criticisms. It amounts to WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Do we have multiple high-quality sources saying that Bellingcat 1) uses Error Level Analysis and 2) that this is not a reliable method? -- GreenC 04:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I too agree this edit was problematic. If I understand correctly, Eliot Higgins was not the only person who conducted this investigation. He appears mostly as "an editor-in-chief", is not it? You can not blame a person on his BLP page for every publication in the media he created, even if it was criticized for something, which always happens. If we had a separate page about Bellingcat, it might be placed there, but not here. Now, speaking about this criticism, the critic only said the conclusion was unreliable, rather than wrong. In fact, the analysis by the Bellingcat was not even needed, because everyone already knows the answer (who shot down the plane) from a lot of other published factual information.My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Green C, will all due respect, you are WP:OWNing this article too much. You yourself said "There is one legitimate critical article in Der Spiegel that presumably could be used to provide a counter-POV to the Bellingcat report on MH17" [2]. But to address your comments, Speigel calling him an expert and interviewing him is enough, that's for real. I'll have to dig into the Google Scholar cites, but my recent experience with that type of search makes me dubious. Kriese's Error Level Analysis criticism is how Bellingcat used it, not the complete uselessness of it. There are other critics of Bellingcat's methods, as I'm sure you are aware. I'll dig those up too. It is not a WP:primary source. Only if Kriese published his own comments would it be primary. The interview could have been written up into a story with a bit more work, but even the interview was very likely edited. And Kriese's criticism is certainly not exceptional. A newly minted self-taught photo analyzer made mistakes? That's to be expected. And the report, which I used as a reference, mentions ELA in the table of contents for all three photos. Come on, Green C. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and VM's follower, My very best wishes. GreenC has moved the material to the Bellingcat section, which is fine. Bellingcat is a redirect to this page, so this is the place for any criticism of Higgins. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

For this edit [3] you are calling Newsweek "sensationalist" and saying "self-taught" is comparable to "Putin's Nemesis"? You're going downhill, GreenC. The Guardian article confirms he had no training. Probably half the articles about Higgins say it. It's part of the mystique and is not meant as a put down by the sources. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going "down hill"? Please stick to the topic. There is no question he is self-trained but we've already said that and repeating it at every opportunity looks like taking digs and making a point. Putting that there is no different than adding in Higgins is "Putin's Nemesis" just because the source said so. -- GreenC 04:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. The self-taught in that section refers to all of Bellingcat, so it is not repetitive. "Self-taught" applies to all open-source journalists. There is no training for it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's true so we need to move that entire section to an article about Bellingcat because it is running afoul of BLP it doesn't belong here. -- GreenC 05:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No one has shown it is afoul of BLP, first of all. It's merely been asserted. Bellingcat is not notable beyond Eliot Higgins, a separate article is not needed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a BLP so standards for sources are higher. A single source which mentions one person that not much is known about who says things which appear to be contradicted by simple google search is enough to raise red flags. If there were lots of sources and many experts saying this that'd be a different thing. But AFAIK, there's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:BLP that requires removing this content. None of your reasons are valid. As I asked before, please explain the specific reason from the policy that this material should be removed. Otherwise, continue to discuss on this page until an agreeable text can be crafted. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WEIGHT, EXCEPTIONAL, and PRIMARY. Already mentioned above. You're pushing your 3RR also. -- GreenC 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to file a RfC tomorrow. But it is the only criticism in an otherwise glowing with praise article (you've seen to that), so it can't be Weight. You mentioned Exceptional and Primary, but didn't refute my points. However, you make a good point, the criticism is of Bellingcat, so it can't be BLP. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Filed. Note that I am very amenable to discussion about what the criticism text is, but the fact that criticism is allowed based on this source is a very clear-cut yes in my opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"the only criticism in an otherwise glowing with praise article (you've seen to that)" - well I've removed conspiracy theories in blogs by wing nuts, but so have lots of other editors. A check of the article history and this talk page history shows no OWN, by anyone. Your argument makes no sense, this is a BLP article and everything in it is BLP related. -- GreenC 15:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:BLP? "this is a BLP article and everything in it is BLP related" That's not true. Where did you get that from? Which part of BLP does the addition of criticizing Bellingcat's use of ELA violate? Your choices are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the German language version of the interview contains an expandable section with the question "Wie viele Bildforensiker gibt es?" The Google translate of the section is: "How many forensic image [analysers are] there? Kriese: Worldwide maybe a few dozen. In Germany, I can think of two competitors. I think the number of unreported cases is higher: If the intelligence services, there should be some experts." Bildforensiker is better translated "forensic image analysers" [4] so I added the brackets above. This shows that there are few experts to turn to, so the expectation that there should be more RS coverage of the criticism is misguided. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point and it underscores why this is such a poor source. The photo forensics is just one element of what Bellingcat does, they look at all the evidence. The forensics is specific to a single case (MH17) and a single photo (the satellite photo) and a single claim (Russia manipulated it). Your criticism, and Kriese's, turns it into something much larger based on a single incident. -- GreenC 15:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the criticism is directed specifically at the ELA and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to make a larger case. You, on the other hand, are using excuses to disallow any criticism of Higgins into this article. WP:NPOV applies to the article as a whole. An article that contains only praise of its subject and no criticism, whether a BLP or not, is not written from a NPOV. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be much more helpful if you proposed the text that could be cited to the interview, rather than try to argue that any criticism is unwarranted. It doesn't need to be a quote, it could be one sentence. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"rather than try to argue that any criticism is unwarranted" - I never said that and welcome valid criticism that complies with BLP guidelines. -- GreenC 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you don't understand BLP, and try to use it with a WP:VAGUEWAVE to disallow criticism, then the practical, if not intentional, effect is to say all criticism is unwarranted. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the German language version of the interview contains a link to the FotoForensic.com software's creator, Neal Krawetz, criticizing Bellingcat's use of his tool. [5]. Other critics of Bellingcat's use of ELA are: Charles Wood [6] and Alexander Gehret, two posts [7] and [8], who was interviewed by German TV Deutsche Welle [9]. And here is another source discussing the situation [10] Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat Reliable Source discussion

There is a discussion of whether Bellingcat is a WP:Reliable Source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bellingcat. - Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The debate at RSN produced a surprisingly strong consensus against the reliability of Bellingcat. My read of the thread is that Bellingcat can not be used as the sole source for any material in an article. I would still be fine with citing both the RS that mentioned Bellingcat and Bellingcat's post, but I would recommend attribution in the article text (i.e. Bellingcat said X), so that readers don't think the RS is the one making the claim. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but you are not a neutral party to determine that outcome of that discussion "surprisingly strong consensus". -- GreenC 17:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, but the discussions on RSN aren't usually closed by admins with a !verdict. I was genuinely surprised by the responses. Working on Ghouta chemical attack and checking out a few debates involving Bellingcat, I saw something close to parity between supporters and detractors. So yes, I was surprised at the ratio of not RS the discussion produced. Question, what is your reading of the outcome of that discussion? Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of Higgins detractors who showed up for that discussion. I'm a bit sore because I created this article years ago and its been under constant harassment by SPAs and IPs seeking to discredit Higgins - there are contingents (outside of Wikipedia) who say he is a mole for the CIA etc, from other forums and they'll rush this article when he comes up in the news. There's also an element of jealously since we are all "citizen journalists" but Higgins gets the limelight and so it's a sport to bring him down a notch, even if it gets reverted. Now there's an attempt to control of all articles by way of RSN and it just looks like more of the same Higgins bashing. Nevertheless even with the current direction it doesn't really change anything as any of his conclusions need to be framed as a POV anyway. -- GreenC 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering there is currently no criticism of him in the article, you've been successful. Btw, you haven't responded to my comment to you on RSN. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"I would recommend attribution in the article text (i.e. Bellingcat said X)". @Mnnlaxer: I think that may be where the discussion is going. And as far as I can remember, whenever I've used them I've always attributed the statement (ie "An analysis by X said Y happened" rather than "Y happened"). Stickee (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The issue then becomes whether there has to be a RS referencing or supporting the Bellingcat post or report. I would say yes, absolutely, the Bellingcat material must be first referenced in a RS. I think that is a fair reading of the consensus at RSN as well. But then the issue becomes whether it is fine for the RS to just attribute the statement to Bellingcat. That's a tough one and very complicated in its application. I would prefer not a simple repeating of claims, but I wouldn't require it or try to insist that is the consensus position. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP, WEIGHT, PRIMARY, and EXCEPTIONAL

@Green Cardamom:, the RfC above is for other editors to increase the number of participants in the debate and help achieve consensus. You are a party to the dispute, so it is not for you to comment start your own thread there. At the present time, Bellingcat redirects to Eliot Higgins, so this is where the material goes right now. Please feel free to propose starting a separate article on Bellingcat itself. Also, we could get started productively working together if you would propose some text to include the criticism in the article. At this point, it seems your position is to exclude any criticism. So let's discuss your four objections to the inclusion of criticism of Bellingcat's report on the Russian Ministry of Defense photos based on the Der Speigel interview. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is for all editors. You are seriously misinformed if you believe otherwise. -- GreenC 18:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Here are my information sources: the RfC template header "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion" and WP:RfC "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." Where is your information coming from? I also eagerly await your responses to the four points below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is a consensus discussion period. There is nothing that prevents editors from participating in consensus. The "outside" is poorly worded it was never meant to exclude editors from taking part in a consensus discussion(!) If you believe otherwise take it up on the RfC talk page this is not the place. -- GreenC 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL. The RfC sentences are worded very carefully. My comment was not. I meant you are not supposed to enter your own comment and revised the text to show that. Respond to others, of course. Still waiting for any engagement in actual arguments or proposals for a consensus text to put into the article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am "supposed" to participate in consensus discussions which is what I did with a !vote. You don't know what you're talking about, at best, and worse you're trying to control the RfC outcome and other editors by telling people they can't participate. -- GreenC 20:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the only person I am talking to, but fine, have your own !vote. Now please respond below to my policy arguments. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BLP: Which part of BLP does the addition of criticizing Bellingcat's use of ELA violate? Your choices are Writing style, Reliable sources, or Presumption in favor of privacy. -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:WEIGHT: "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." Kriese's viewpoint is significant and has been published by a reliable source. Now, I'm sure you will object with "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." But Kriese is the only expert forensic photo analyst to have his views published in a RS. He is not a "tiny minority" as envisioned by the policy. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Kriese is not directly involved in the production of the Bellingcat report. Der Speigel brought him in to balance the original article, which they thought was too credulous of Bellingcat's claims. That is an editorial decision. The fact that Kriese's view were published in the form of an interview does not disqualify its use as a RS. But even granting the interview as a primary source, the policy is "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The text I offered used in-text attribution and a direct quote. That is as far away as interpreting the source as possible. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL: As I said above, the claim that a self-taught person using free internet software made a mistake is about as trivial as a claim can be. The exceptional thing is how credulous the rest of the press has been about Bellingcat's analysis. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: I understand why WP:BLP is important and why the burden is on the person adding material to a BLP to justify it. However, it is not the all-powerful talisman that you thinks it is. WP:VAGUEWAVE of BLP is not persuasive. At least an explanation of why BLP applies to the material added is required when it is contested. My question about BLP above has been here 48 hours, and you have edited this section several times without even attempting a response to the content of my policy-based arguments. Adding only the word "controversial," as suggested by User:Darouet above, and citing that one word to the Der Speigel interview is so far away from violating BLP that I cannot think of any pithy comparison. There is not one sentence in BLP that even remotely suggests that addition is not allowed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

'The exceptional thing is how credulous the rest of the press has been' - where ? links? - has this particular report been widely reported on in RS ? and in credulous terms? that would make it less UNDUE of you to keep insisting on the extreme importance of this one particular report, of the very very many, Eliot Higgins has written. 92.3.4.212 (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Green Cardamom, thank you for linking to WP:3RR in your comment in reply to the edit warring warning on your talk page. First, it alerted me to NeilN's statement: "There is no blanket [3RR] exemption for removing controversial but properly sourced information from a BLP." This is in response to your edit summary "As a possible BLP under an active RfC there is no 3RR revert limit." I'll chalk that up to you making up policy out of whole cloth and the material I added is properly sourced.

But more important was your citation of 3RR exemption #7, which is one of the reasons a revert would not count for 3RR: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." So, do you think adding the word "controversial" and citing the Der Speigel interview [11] is libelous, biased, unsourced or poorly sourced? I will grant that it is contentious, but the other four descriptions do not apply. I have been and will remain willing to give this talk page discussion a shot at resolving our dispute. But that requires you to actually discuss the specific violations of BLP you assert. The exact same requirement will impose if we go to the BLP Noticeboard or other forum. So let's just get it done here.

Another interesting tidbit is your characterization of #7, saying it "does allow for removal of material even if properly sourced, though it says it can be 'controversial'." It actually used the word "contentious", but no matter. I'll take this comment as an admission that the material I added, one word and a citation, is properly sourced. So, we are down to libelous or biased. Which is it and why?

Or, if you just want to go back to square one and reply to my question from above that's fine with me. Which part of WP:BLP does the addition of criticizing Bellingcat's use of ELA violate? Your choices are Writing style, Reliable sources, or Presumption in favor of privacy. Note that libel is only referred to in the section "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" so that one is going to be hard to claim. And you can't possibly assert writing style for a one word edit. So, looks like biased or privacy are your only viable options.

Finally, the RfC above is not explicitly related to a BLP violation. I'm happy to hear you explain why WEIGHT, PRIMARY, or EXCEPTIONAL are reasons against including the material and source in the article. Hope to hear from you soon. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: It is now one week since I posted my opening comments responding to your assertions of policy to prevent material being added to the article. I can't take your objections seriously if you don't at least explain your position. Better would be responding to my arguments above. Best would be suggesting a compromise text to use the well sourced citation to express non-libelous, non-defamatory criticism of Bellingcat's use of Error Level Analysis. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The majority of people who have !voted in this RfC agree that a source that criticizes Bellingcat doesn't belong in a biography of Higgins. Other editors who have voiced that same opinion but who have not participated in the RfC include User:Volunteer Marek, User:92.3.4.212 and User:VQuakr. So far we have 7 against and 2 for. At best that is no consensus for inclusion. But time will tell. Until then please respect mine and others opinion ("I can't take your objections seriously") even if you disagree. -- GreenC 16:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are seriously misunderstanding RfC in general, this RfC's content, and !voting. Especially see WP:VOTE, WP:UNRESPONSIVE, and WP:VAGUEWAVE. I've stated many times, please start a Bellingcat article if that's what you think should be done. Until then, we are here. I would respect, but probably disagree, with your opinion if you could state it clearly and provide some explanation as to why you hold it. Until then, what am I supposed to do? Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: [12] You do not understand Wikipedia:Consensus. The bottom line is stated in the lead: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." User:Darouet, User:Hrothulf, and I have legitimate concerns, backed up by in-depth arguments. You - or anyone else - haven't even attempted to explain why you think any addition of criticism of Higgins or Bellingcat violates any policy or guideline. You are now simply saying "7 out of 9 have expressed reservation about this material." Besides being completely factually wrong, it is invalid to say nothing will go into the article because some people don't think it should. And that is true regardless of the !vote count, which is itself invalid.

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.

Please try to make a case for not including criticism of Higgins or Bellingcat, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. But failing that, which you have, you should suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article. "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." The article will just get blocked if you try to create an edit war situation during an open RfC. -- GreenC 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Again with the simple assertion and WP:VAGUEWAVE. At least you've quoted some material, although it is not cogent to this debate. I'm the only one offering any evidence or argument, so my burden is met. Please respond to Hrothulf's latest comment at the RfC above. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is Spiegel interview sufficient to include criticism of Bellingcat report?

The following discussion 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.

---

.... The entire RfC discussion follows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this interview in Der Spiegel sufficient to include criticism of Bellingcat's report on Russian Ministry of Defense photoshopping? See discussion in above section. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes for an article about Bellingcat. No for Elliot Higgins. BLP has a higher level of scrutiny and the source has multiple problems for a BLP article. It makes WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. It is a WP:PRIMARY source interview. It is undo WP:WEIGHT since it is the only person who has made this criticism. This article is about Eliot Higgins not Bellingcat. I recommend to Mnnlaxer we start an article on Bellingcat and move the content there, but he choose to start an RfC because his goal is not to do the right thing for Wikipedia, but to attack Eliot Higgins by proxy of Bellingcat, because he says "it is the only criticism in an otherwise glowing with praise article". -- GreenC 15:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose an article for Bellingcat. For now, it redirects here. But until Bellingcat becomes more established, such as hiring any staff besides Higgins, I don't see any need for a separate article. Please respond to my arguments against your incorrect assertions of policy in the section below this one. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• The text about Bellingcat is small - this kind of thing should really appear in in the MH17 article, if anywhere. I would suggest simply adding one word, "On 31 May 2015, it released a controversial<'ref'> report on possible…" and no more. -Darouet (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This would be the minimum I would support. I'm hoping a consensus for a short sentence. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to use this suggestion [14] I took out an invisible paragraph mark so the citation flowed together, the only actual change was adding: "controversial " But Green Cardamom objected because ... well, I'm not sure. "Possible BLP" is all they could come up with. Hoping to learn more soon. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I re-inserted "controversial" with the citation. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Oppose to inclusion. This is a secondary material, a "criticism or criticism". The publication is entitled "Bellingcat Report Doesn't Prove Anything". A critic tells that the report by Bellingcat does not prove anything, meaning simply there is no conclusive evidence of the forgery by the Russian Ministry of Defense, even though the report could in fact be fake, which this critic does not dispute (everyone knows from other publications that Russian Ministry of Defense promotes disinformation, and especially about this incident). Why this low-importance claim by a non-notable critic should be placed as a negative material in a BLP of Higgins who probably did not even personally conduct the analysis? In addition, who said that Jens Kriese is a better expert than people who conducted this Belligcat investigation? My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How is criticism of the Bellingcat report a BLP problem? Kriese is not making statements about Higgins, but criticizing the ELA of the report. Furthermore, is anyone here proposing to slander Higgin's with Kriese's comments?

A more important question becomes, why is this Bellingcat report mentioned at all? It doesn't seem especially notable and, since editors are arguing that discussion of the report raises BLP concerns, why not just remove the report? -Darouet (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That is what we all want to do, move it to another article. But rather than doing that (takes 30 seconds), Mnnlaxer took it upon himself to start this RfC to prove his little point that we "OWN" this article and won't allow criticism etc... He is so deeply invested in his bad faith conviction that this article is being controlled by biased editors, he just told me (below) that "the RfC is for other editors. You are a party to the dispute, so it is not for you to comment [in the RfC]". -- GreenC 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I said "Please feel free to propose starting a separate article on Bellingcat itself." Go for it. I think an RfC is appropriate, so I did that. "Bad faith"?!? I am the only one of us to have made arguments rather than assertions. See below for my reply to your complaint. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Darouet, agree with the first part of your comment. Second part: the criticism of the report is notable, so I added the report itself so that readers could see it for themselves. Not sure how else to handle it. I'm going to have to dig back in history to find sources saying Bellingcat's report and a following one are being shared with the multi-national investigative team. That's pretty significant. Editors are claiming BLP issues, but have not been able to explain them, much less argue for them. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As for "who said that Jens Kriese is a better expert than people who conducted this Belligcat investigation?", Der Spiegel called Kriese an expert, right there in the title of the story. It also states he "developed the stock photo archive IRISPIX and is a professional image analyst. He owns an office for digital imaging forensics in Hamburg." Bellingcat, on the other hand, is called "self-taught" by Newsweek. The developer of the software Bellingcat used to do ELA said this was an example of "how not to do image analysis." [15]. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Should every criticism of something published in "New York Times" be described in a BLP page of a founder or an editor-in-chief of the journal? I do not think so. Same is here. This is not his personal website. Simply looking at their website [16], one can see publications by a lot of people. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Pro inclusion - a letter to the editor of the London Review of Books works differently and is something else than a letter to a run of the mill newspaper. -- Zz (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, however this RfC is for the interview of Jens Kriese in Der Spiegel. Do you have a !vote for that? Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, pro inclusion of that, too. I just wanted to remind of the criticism section that has been removed. But an article about bellingcat is the main goal. -- Zz (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that letter is posted after both the December 2013 piece, Whose Sarin, and the April 2014 article, The Red Line and the Rat Line. I agree that this letter should be allowed to be used to criticize Higgins, but disagree about the separate article for Bellingcat at this time. Since Bellingcat's only paid employee is Higgins, I don't think you can separate the person from the company right now. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Der Spiegel[17] is such a major newspaper that it would be inappropriate to omit it. I think it is confusing to readers and unfair to Higgins to use it to cite the word 'controversial'. Instead, its specific allegations, and the source of them, should be briefly described. That way, we are reporting fairly on Higgins' career, and not vaguely tarring him with the word 'controversial'. Perhaps Spiegel's interviewees got it right this time, and perhaps they didn't: it is neither for the journalist nor Wikipedia to say which is right, merely to decide whether the comments are noteworthy and due weight. Since the MH17 analysis in question was published under the Bellingcat by-line, (and not the by-line of one of the volunteer contributors, nor of Higgins) we should merely assume Higgins editorial authority rather than (joint) authorship, and for that reason, make the mention quite brief, say one or two sentences.

• I am not persuaded that a single negative article about Bellingcat does makes a controversy. Otherwise, every bio on Wikipedia would be 'controversial'.
• Also, including Der Spiegel adds to the notability of Higgins' career.
• --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, and only compromised with controversial. Please add a description to work towards consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In recent edit summaries, Green Cardamom expresses continuing BLP concerns. Let's revisit those concerns to see if we have addressed them. As regards exceptional claims, we need a reliable source for exceptional claims, and we have one. (Though I personally don't think that a claim that Bellingcat, or any other publisher, made a mistake, is in any way exceptional.) As regards due weight, in the lengthy description of Higgins short journalism career, 1 or 2 sentences mentioning a mistake in 1 of the subject's 2 most well known investigations seems to be more balanced than omitting it entirely. What other concerns should we discuss? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We only have a single person in a single source making the claim, and it's a pretty obviously slanted accusing Bellingcat of being self-serving and willfully doing things they know are wrong. Bellingcat is quite famous and well known, yet only this one source has made this criticism. Why? It is an exceptional claim by its rarity, and exceptional by its accusations - if there were multiple sources it wouldn't be exceptional. And the criticism is not of Higgins rather of Bellingcat -- this is a BLP not an article about Bellingcat. Furthermore the source is a straight interview, that is considered a primary source according to every debate I've been in for the last 8 years. There is no journalism interpreting his response, it is a verbatim transcript, there is no critical apparatus. The argument that we should include it because there is nothing better and the article needs balance etc.. only makes sense if your intention is to criticize someone no matter what and that is clearly biased. Some BLPs just don't have (reliable) criticism. -- GreenC 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't think anyone proposes to quote the sections that hint at the motivations of Bellingcat. If they did, I would revert it on sight.
2. Since Higgins is the principal of Bellingcat, others argued above that the actions of Bellingcat are relevant for Elliot's bio. I think they have made their case. A separate Bellingcat article will also be covered by the BLP policy.
3. Though strictly speaking it is not a primary source, since a journalist selected the interviewee, the questions and edited the answers, nevertheless the proposal follows WP:BLPPRIMARY in full. If you don't think other editors used sufficient caution, as we are required to do, please tell us in what way.
4. Green Cardamom is right that we shouldn't use Der Spiegel as a source for what Neal Krawetz said on Twitter.
5. Apart from the above suggestion about motivations, the claims aren't exceptional. I incorrectly summarized the policy on exceptional claims above: I am sorry, and I am striking that sentence. Dealing with the REDFLAGS one by one, Wikipedia will only claim that person X said Y, and won't claim anything surprising or important. Der Spiegel doesn't have a conflict of interest, the interviewees' comments are not out of character, (as far as we know) MH17 is an unsolved case without a mainstream apolitical consensus, and the interview is only a primary source for Kriese's claims, not for reportage of what he said. If a Der Spiegel interview ever said unexpected things about Higgins love life or Bellingcat's funding sources, we shouldn't repeat them. What we do propose to say is a fair application of WP:BLP.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't a straight transcript you could say the reliability lays with Der Speigel, but an interview is in the realm of an OpEd or primary source and the reliability is transferred to the person being interviewed not the source its published. It is true as you say that "the interview is only a primary source for Kriese's claims" (however it's not being used that way). Looking at the whole text, it is clearly a biased person making opinionated claims. The interviewee is not a reliable source. The claims are exceptional because no one else has said them (!) and yet Bellingcat is famous and the MH17 incident is famous and only a single relatively unknown privately employed consultant in Germany has said anything about it, in what amounts to an OpEd. -- GreenC 15:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean it is an expert saying how an expert works. And you know it has been supported by Krawetz, another expert. -- Zz (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, the original Der Spiegel article was judged too credulous of Bellingcat's claims, so the editors added a note to the story and sought out an opposing viewpoint. That is editorial control. Newspapers quote people all the time, it is only a superficial difference (and entirely appropriate given the history of the situation) to publish his comments in an interview form as an online sidebar. Biased people are allowed to make opinionated claims - although in this case it is an expert bias and opinion - and we can use that material in a BLP. Der Spiegel, the interviewer, and the interviewee are all allowed to be biased and the material can go into a BLP. NPOV does not apply to a source, however you define that word, but to the article as a whole. In fact, NPOV requires including "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Not allowing criticism violates NPOV. I've cited so many WP, including the meaning of exceptional, to no avail, so I won't bother again. All you come back with is the same tired assertions. What would be helpful is if you actually worked towards consensus by proposing a sentence, I would suggest using in-text attribution, that includes this criticism of Bellingcat's use of Error Level Analysis in its Russian MoD photo analysis. Since this doesn't violate BLP, you cannot just say no. You are obligated to find a solution to your problems with the material that others can live with. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

OMG, User:Green Cardamom, can there be a better indicator of what your focus is than this [18]? Edit summary: "under a single bullet otherwise looks like multiple !votes". This is not a !vote, as you must understand. Take Hrothulf's example. He hasn't actually !voted at all. Rather, he marshaled several good arguments for including the criticism. I am going to put in a sentence that expresses the criticism. Please make substantive arguments for any changes you would like to see. The burden of including the criticism has been overwhelmingly met here. It is now on you to work towards consensus constructively, not destructively. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

!vote means "not vote" (! = in the negative) and is a standard community shorthand of indicting a registered position in RfCs and other consensus discussions. How new to Wikipedia are you? "The burden of including the criticism has been overwhelmingly met here." The burden is on you to get consensus for inclusion per our policy at WP:BLP. If you continue to try and add it before the RfC has concluded you will find the article blocked again. -- GreenC 18:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I know what it means. Geesh. I am talking about your application (and understanding) of !vote. You haven't even asserted a specific valid reason that BLP applies! That's because there isn't one. I'll take this to BLP noticeboard, as there is no end to your BLP WP:VAGUEWAVE as well as your refusal to constructively engage with arguments. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think this RfC was going to get consensus after Hrothulf added good arguments and GreenC continued to refuse to suggest compromise text or any justification for the policy violations he was asserting. So I went to BLP noticeboard. I don't think that's shopping. I welcome any attempt by any outside editor to close this RfC. Here is the BLP discussion, which I'm hoping will bring a few more voices to the table to iron out a compromise. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive225#Eliot Higgins. -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:59, 8 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.

Bellingcat stand-alone article

As I've said many times on this page, other editors can start a new page for Bellingcat if they wish. I don't think it is called for at this point because Eliot Higgins is the only paid contributor at Bellingcat and its brand is synonymous with Higgins [19]. Bellingcat is likely to remain a self-published blog unless some new partnership plan is announced. Until a few of those things change, Bellingcat is only a part of Eliot Higgins' work as a citizen investigative journalist, the same way the Brown Moses Blog is. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected again: Controversial topic area

I've protected the page again, this time for a full month, because the edit warring won't stop. For the record, the admin who closes the RfC can remove or reduce the protection as appropriate—no need to consult me first. —Darkwind (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Thank you for closing this RfC. In light of Darkwind's comment above, I would ask that you change the protection of the article to semi-protected as part of your closure [20]. As for quote vs. paraphrase, I don't care. Notice Green Cardamom reverted all three of my attempts to add this criticism: a direct quote [21]; adding the word "controversial," based on Darouet's suggestion [22]; and paraphrase: [23]. In these reverts, Green C was helped by Volunteer Marek. I would ask Green Cardamom and Volunteer Marek to pick either the direct quote, paraphrase, or suggest a text of their own. It would be lovely to have them constructively participate in achieving consensus. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: As Anythingyouwant (t c) isn't an admin, I've done the change to the protection level. Since the page was not protected at all prior to the edit warring/dispute, I've set it to unprotected. If anon vandalism becomes a problem, feel free to ask me or post at WP:RFPP to get it semi-protected as needed. —Darkwind (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible sanctions

Furthermore, I do feel that it's necessary to point out that this article falls under several different areas of community general sanctions and ArbCom discretionary sanctions, including Eastern Europe, Syrian Civil War/ISIL, and of course BLP discretionary sanctions, because this person is connected to analyses of these conflicts and this article is a BLP.

Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
5. refrain from gaming the system.

Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of sanctions.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Please read and adhere to the above in your discussions on this page, related noticeboard discussions, and when editing this article. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has now been unprotected following the closure of the RfC above. Please note that any further edit warring on this page is likely to lead to an immediate block and subsequent page ban. —Darkwind (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Kriese criticism addition

Here is my edit [24]:

Bellingcat's use of Error Level Analysis in its report was criticized by Jens Kriese, a professional image analyst.

References

Please read the above discussions and then comment here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Trying simple math, experts criticizing Higgins (sometimes even calling him a "counterfeit expert" as Postol did): all of them. Experts supporting Higgins: none that I have seen yet. The article in its current state is one nice example of why Wikipedia has exactly zero credibility left on this subject, if the Su-25 debacle didn't make sure of that enough already.B01010100 (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made the above edit again based on the closed RfC above. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

The article structure could use some work. There should be a general "life" or something similar at the start. Include the bare facts about the Brown Moses Blog and Bellingcat in it. Then it makes sense to use the topics Higgins has worked on for section headers. 1) Syria - weapons analysis and chemical attack subsections. 2) Ukraine - MH17 subsection. 3) Other. The "Reception" section is weird. The current first paragraph can go in the new Syria section and the second in the general "life" section. This structure will also make it easier to insert praise and criticism on particular points in context. Thoughts? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This article started before Bellingcat was founded when Higgins was "Brown Moses" and ran a personal blog. Most of the sources are from that time. It was all personal focused stuff that belongs in a biography article. However with the founding of Bellingcat all those research projects are now by Bellingact, not Higgins. He is a co-author or whatever but it's no longer a personal website, its an organization with many people working on the projects not just Higgins. I agree Bellingcat's work on Syria, Ukraine etc.. needs to be better detailed on Wikipedia. I wouldn't agree Higgin's biography is the place though. The logical next step is to create Bellingcat with sub-sections for each of the Belingcat research projects that have suitable third party coverage. Obviously this article can mention his work at Bellingcat in summary. If a criticism is wanted here, then we can decide if it best belongs in the personal biography or at Bellingcat. That was already done in the last RfC which said it should be moved to the Bellingcat article when it was created. --- GreenC 04:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat is not an organization in the traditional sense, and certainly not a news organization. Higgins is the only one paid for the work, none of the contributors have any journalism experience, and there is no evidence of any skilled editing. It is closer to a blog with one proprietor, but multiple authors. And since it is Higgins' livelihood, I would bet that he approves all posted material. But in any case, it is easy to limit coverage in this article of only Bellingcat posts or "reports" authored or co-authored by Higgins. Any post written or co-written by Higgins at Bellingcat can be included as material in this article, which means any criticism of any post written or co-written by Higgins can be included as well. This isn't a difficult issue to figure out. And you are stretching the previous RfC which only applied to the photo analysis criticism of a Bellingcat report. It doesn't apply to all Bellingcat criticism for all time. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The contributors to Bellingcat are (mostly) professionals in various fields. Some are journalists, some are analysts, etc.. Remember this is a biography article, not an article about work done by other writers at Bellingcat, or criticisms of Bellingcat. I think you might run into trouble with material that is inappropriate for a bio of Higgins. Such as in the previous RfC because the source referred mainly to Belingcat not Higgins, and the cited paper was authored by multiple people as a Bellingcat report. -- GreenC 04:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, reports written or co-written by Higgins are fair game. And since all other contributors are volunteers and Higgins certainly has final say on all reports, it is tendentious to use Bellingcat to shield Higgins from criticism. Bellingcat is one step removed from a personal blog and the branding is really the only reason Higgins started it in order distance his current work from the Brown Moses Blog. Can we get back to discussing my proposal for restructuring the article, which includes removing Bellingcat as a section header? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"tendentious to use Bellingcat to shield Higgins from criticism". That's paranoia, bad faith and wrong. Criticism of work done by Bellingcat can be included in the Bellingcat article. That criticism might include names of people who worked on a certain report or topic area, all the names including Higggins. Your comment about it being "just a blog" etc.. is a negative personal bias. Reliable secondary sources show this is an organization whose work is notable. What is a "blog" anyway but material published on the Internet, it's not a pejorative term but you are using it pejoratively to denigrate the organization. "in order distance his current work from the Brown Moses Blog" Source? He started Bellingcat for the many reasons which he has stated, nowhere did he say he was distancing himself from Brown Moses, he continued the same investigations and has always been upfront about his history. -- GreenC 16:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting old and I hope to discuss the restructure, but just to clarify, by blog I mean self-published material. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)