Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118

Should merge most content into Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons
There's a lot of duplication with Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons; since the "agreement" is basically synonymous with 2118 there's no current need for two separate long articles. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this could be a stand alone article on the resolution, and then refer readers to the 'overview' article, 'agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons'. The name of that article may be changed though, to '2013-2014 elimination of Syria's chemical weapons', to make it more clear that it is about the overall process that began with the negotiations between Russia and the U.S. that led to the 'Framework'.Haberstr (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Two problems with 'Issues' subsection
The first two long sentences appear not to have sources. If the source is the source at the end of sentence three, then just insert that reference at the end of each sentence. (I worry that if I do the inserting I might be reverted again.) The other problem is that this section doesn't appear to be about the Resolution itself, and appears to duplicate the already existing article on the CW elimination process, 'Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons'.Haberstr (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, its all in the source. Wwe don't need to overref it on EVERy srentence. its there.(Lihaas (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)).

Unacceptable reversion
User:Lihaas, your reversion of my edit is nonsense:.

1. No, these aren't notable criticisms, they are a conspiracy-theory blog posting (one of millions of blog postings) and an obscure Iranian op-ed (one of thousands of obscure op-eds). If the Iranian op-ed were attributed to someone famous or to the State of Iran, then maybe it would be notable.

2. Did you even notice that your two "notable criticisms" are the exact same article?

3. No, we don't cite unreliable or non-notable sources in an effort to "tell the other side", see WP:FRINGE.

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to censor, its not a weblog. And press tv is perfectly notable an dnot obscure just because you don't read it. Its not lying about its news (in that case we should remove the NYT and BBC from WP are flagrantly KNOWN for lying)(Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)).
 * I don't base my removals on whether I believe a source is "lying" or not. Since you have not provided any evidence towards notability, I shall revert your reversion. I do not expect you to re-revert without providing evidence of notability. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per BRD when you content was challenged yhou have to discuss it here. I have answered your question and you have resorted with threats and demands. Sorry. Please explain before ereverting.
 * And your "utternonsense" revert is "unnacceptable" because of its deceitful reasoning. The summary suggests an imp0lication "but theyre right"., which was never written(Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)).
 * Reverting, no evidence of notability provided. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lihaas, would it be helpful if we seek mediation? I don't think it's unreasonable to "demand" that evidence of notability be provided, especially for such dubious sources. Can you propose an alternate solution, rather than your current stance which seems to be "if I say it's notable, then it's notable, end of story." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard back from User:Lihaas, re-reverting for now. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it not because I say its notable.
 * But in accommodation, we could add the caveat "According to" so as to accommodate.
 * Alshotugh Press TV is not FRINGE by any stretch...the other one may be.
 * Also the revert took out more than in question. "Others" section.(Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)).
 * User:Lihaas, let me apologize that I failed to assume good faith. I'll open a new subsection below to focus on the issue at hand. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No Probs. glad to discuss with you
 * And thanks for reasanble discussing
 * (Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Should we keep comments from these two sources
Can we get other editors' opinions as well on this section, I believe content must be excluded while User:Lihaas believes content can and should be included.

"The resolution was condemned by proponents as saying a false flag operation represented a 'get away with mass killing.' Other criticism included the lack of evidence of Syrian government culpability and exoneration of those who purportedly perpetrated the attack." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the content should be excluded, as I believe it lacks any WP:WEIGHT from any WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources are notable to get the other side. We don't want propaganda ;) And if they were non notable sources then I would agree to remove. But Press TV is notable and is reliable just as BBC and NYT(Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

To add
(Lihaas (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)).