Talk:José Bustani

Keep
The man's the ambassador of one of the world's biggest countries to one of the most powerful. Therefore I'm removing the notice. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * good point. My main reason for deletion was that he was mainly known for a single event, but indeed also for his present role he's notable... Would you agree that that his opcw-part could use some trimming down per WP:Undue weight? L.tak (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced information
There is a lot of it, and it is not about entirely uncontroversial matters. I have reviewed it for NPOV violations, but other people should feel free to tweak the language or remove unnecessary information as well. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on José Bustani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilo.org/public/english/tribunal/fulltext/2232.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529181417/http://www.opcw.org/docs/csp9/brazil.pdf to http://www.opcw.org/docs/csp9/brazil.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118173320/http://www.bresil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=49&cataff=187&cataffb=187&PHPSESSID=3d8c804b606ba8e56819b6c55c1efebc to http://www.bresil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=49&cataff=187&cataffb=187&PHPSESSID=63cbfe7efe2cf149e5d44c9e20cb77ea

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources for Douma
I oppose the removal of Brian Whitaker. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Clearly, the Guardian (where Whitaker was previously Middle East editor) is a reliable, independent publication, and Whitaker has published a number of books relevant to this topic.

I also want to question the inclusion of The Nation as a source here, despite its general reliability. The RS/P page entry is as follows: There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. I will remind users that there was an RfC about the use of this piece in the Douma chemical attack article, and no consensus was reached.

Given these are the only two secondary sources, it is hard to justify that this incident is noteworthy, let alone that the weight accorded to it in the current version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I realise a third secondary source was cited, Democracy Now!, whose RS/P entry is: There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. I have therefore added attribution. So we potentially have three weak sources (one removed as SPS, although I might see it as the most reliable). I still don't think this shows much noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)