Talk:Piers Robinson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

War Crimes and Targeting the White Helmets

The point that is in dispute is whether the White Helmets are a legitimate humanitarian organisation. If so, then they are indeed entitled to protection under the law. The point that Beeley and others have made is that they are not entitled to this protection as they are demonstrably not a humanitarian organisation. This needs to be made clear somehow otherwise the article appears to make a grievous smear against Robinson. --Tibloc (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Vanessa Beeley is not considered a reputable source on this website or by any publication or broadcaster with a serious reputation. Try again with another excuse. Philip Cross (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that, by definition, you cast as 'unreliable' and 'serious' any source in terms of whether there is an agreement with a particular view of the White Helmets. This is 'not about excuses, it's about using Wikipedia in a fair way and not using it to smear people with whom you disagree. --Tibloc (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Padraig Reidy Article

Just removed the quote of this article because, on a close reading of Reidy's article together with a reading of Robinson's Guardian article, the quote is not borne out in Robinson's text and is very misleading. I suggest this quote was added to this Wikipedia article in order to cast its subject in a poor light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibloc (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We use reliable sources on Wikipedia. In these unusual circumstances, with continual and suspicious activity from multiple troll accounts, I shall not bother linking to the WP:IRS page. "Close reading": you cannot even spell Padraig Reidy's name. Please try again. Philip Cross (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about "troll accounts", it's about attempting to make Wikipedia a fair and reliable source of information. I object to your attempts to cast individuals with whom you disagree in a poor light. Again, the quote from Reidy is misplaced and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibloc (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have taken note of your point and have not reverted. Would be a nice concession from you to correct the earlier typos concerning Padraig's name. Philip Cross (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. --Tibloc (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett's Bracelet and Weasel Words

"Eva Bartlett (who reputedly wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet)". Unsourced and "weasel words". Whether true or not, tt's also irrelevant in an article discussing Robinson. --Tibloc (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That issue again. I can wait for a third opinion. Philip Cross (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well you had your opportunity to remove it; I have done so instead. See Wikipedia:Attribution_needed. --Tibloc (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I can wait for you to be blocked again without feeling the need to report you. Page is probably heading for another 30/500 block anyway. Philip Cross (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Where's Professor Darkside 2.0? Philip Cross (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Again"? I've never been blocked and this is my only Wikipedia account. It seems that you are the one playing fast and loose with both the spirit of Wikipedia and its editing conventions. I would be very pleased to have an unbiased party look at both this matter and your other, quite frankly, egregious edits elsewhere. --Tibloc (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you will have to try harder than that. You may have heard of the word "disinformation", but I don't know how to render it in Cyrillic script. Perhaps you can help me? Philip Cross (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a very bizarre response. --Tibloc (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A fortnight ago, I might have agreed with you. How is the weather in St Petersburg at this time of year? Philip Cross (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See St Petersburg - Climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibloc (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew you would have it on your watch list. Philip Cross (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM)

A Wikipedia article on the SPM was begun and speedily deleted about a month ago. As it is, citations about the group may be equally relevant to Piers Robinson's article as those concerning Tim Hayward and Tara McCormack, but risks excessive duplication. I am concentrating the most detailed version of events to this article because it would seem to be the least likely of the three to be subject to an Afd nomination. In my opinion, the situation is not satisfactory in the long term, and should be raised for the community's consideration. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a bio stub and any debate on SPC feels absolutely off-topic and irrelevant to the bio. I have removed it altogether. Feel free to include in an article dedicated to SPC once it gets created. Cheers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again.........

I note that the response of the article subject to critical opinion pieces included in this "bio" has been removed. If the critical comments & opinions of others are deemed notable enough to be included, the response of the article subject themselves, wherever that is published, should be included too. Both or neither. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, & as pointed out in the article of Tim Hayward: "Unless the intention is to employ association fallacy, it is utterly irrelevant to this BLP what some newspaper thinks about the academic group the subject belongs to. Put it in an article about the group". I believe that applies here too.

Additionally I'd question whether HuffPost could be considered a reliable, high quality source. So that leaves a single opinion piece, behind a paywall, to justify the inclusion. I propose removing that part of the bio & that's what I will do, if nobody objects. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections I've gone ahead and edited as per my explanation above.  :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that mentioning Pilger and Chomsky in this article also serves no other purpose than association fallacy, this time of the pro hominem variety. I'd rather have both names removed. Cheers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I'm learning, so bear with me - but thank you for the feedback. I'll remove the names. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The Integrity Initiative

I recently added the following text to the article:

"On 21 December 2018 the group released a briefing paper on The Integrity Initiative."

It has since been removed by @Kashmiri: who wrote “WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTNEWS”. I have read the pages to which Kashmiri referred but don’t understand the reasoning. Does anyone know what it means and how it applies here?Burrobert (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Burrobert, the fact that the article subject co-authored a briefing paper is too trivial to form a part of their official biography. Yes, if it turns out that the document receives significant coverage, then this info might be considered for inclusion. Otherwise it is just a one-day news in yesterday's Times. Best, — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References

What is this person known for?

Looks to me he gains much of his notoriety for supporting a left-ish foreign policy line that is a bit further down the rabbit hole than The Intercept. He is a 9-11 Truther and a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist and has garnered media attention for that. It looks like he probably left his academic position over his conspiracy theories.

He is probably known for a lot of things, but I think it is undeniable that one of them is supporting conspiracy theories.

Can we reinstate this? [1]

Seems we have the sources in the article to support it.

jps (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Things like that are not really appropriate for the infobox. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What people are known for are absolutely appropriate for infoboxes otherwise we wouldn't have a field for it. jps (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for quick reference on uncontroversial things. If it is at all contentious or WP:LABEL applies it should not be in there since it will lack the context required. PackMecEng (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How is this contentious? I don't see any independent source that disputes this fellow promotes conspiracy theories. jps (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Labeling someone as best known for being a conspiracy theorist is by definition contentious. PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is indeed crystal clear on this point, and there's no way that description can be added based on the sources that have been presented so far. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This section isn't about a label. This is what the person is known for. If you show me one source that indicates that there is any doubt that this person promotes conspiracy theories, I think that would suffice as being "contentious". So far, I've seen none. jps (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BLPSTYLE which states "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking." If you want to say that someone is "known for being a conspiracy theorist" then you need reliable sources that explicitly support that. Whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist is not actually relevant here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We have so many sources which identify this person support conspiracy theories. I get that his group thinks that this is a coordinated attack, but that doesn't erase this plain fact. I don't want to say someone is "known for being a conspiracy theorist". I want to say that they are known for promoting conspiracy theories. We have fourfive sources that indicate this: HuffPo, The Times, The Forge, and The Jewish Chronicle and snopes. How many sources do we need before we let the reader know about this? jps (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle

[2] It seems to me that we have a lot of sources at the very least accusing this person of being a conspiracy theorist. jps (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think something in the lead like "he has been criticised for promoting the 9/11 Truth movement" is definitely warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think at least acknowledging that media outlets (hell, we could even name them) have been accusing him of conspiracy theory promotion/support is a pretty good WP:SUMMARY. I leave it to the crowd to workshop this. jps (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to tie the criticism of him to just 9/11, since a lot of the coverage is about his friends in Moscow and Damascus and now about Covid so it's abundantly clear he's a jack-of-all conspiracies, in for a penny ... It would be better to say unambiguously that he is a professional conspiracy theorist who used to do some academic work (of whatever quality) on the side until recently. I haven't seen anything mention his actual academic work (if any) as notable. GPinkerton (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In his case no not "professional", I am not yet sure its his main source of income.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also (as has been said) 11/9 is not the only conspiracy her is noted for. He is a kind of go to conspiracy academic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All good points. The real question is how we summarize and write about this. I think we should worry about the article content first. Then we can think about the lede. Hopefully by then it will be obvious how to handle the infobox. jps (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Should this article even exist? The individual concerned does not achieve academic levels of notability, and they are primarily known via a Times article about a JISC mailing list. Given the slim sourcing I can't see it will do much more than reiterate that, and as this is essentially the sole reason for their notability what is the point of keeping it? Wikipedia doesn't have to document every fringey academic. 86.6.59.8 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well a quick google news search threw up [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]. Its enough to convince me he is notable and has been for some time.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought it was worth checking as he seems a marginal figure. 86.6.59.8 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton has restored the edit, I have changed it to a less contentious version as a placeholder edit, it should arguably be removed entirely per BRD and ONUS Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas on what this might mean?

I recently corrected some information taken from a Times article. The article claimed Robinson has spread "conspiracy theories" regarding COVID-19. An editor had changed this to "misinformation" when adding it to the page. I corrected it and also added Robinson's response to the claim taken from the same source. My edit was reverted with reason: "This does not make the source any more reliable. Please do not reinsert". This means nothing to me and doesn't seem to relate to the correction and addition I made. Is anyone able to interpret it? Burrobert (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I mistakenly thought it was your edit that re-added the Times information whereas it was only a correction of an earlier edit. Anyhow, controversial information in BLPs require more reliable sourcing than a smear piece. 10:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. It does come across as a smear piece. I am happy for it to stay out of the page until we have a more balanced source. Burrobert (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

List of hostile press

Tim Hayward has helpfully compiled an excellent resource: a list of balanced media reports of his "working group for Assad" which includes Robinson. :[8] GPinkerton (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why link to someones personal blog? PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the talkpage. It helps us see what these people are saying. We're not saying that we should include it in the article, I don't think. jps (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Because, as I say, it has a lot of useful links to articles in various reliable media that have coverage of the case and could be used as references here or on the articles of related RT talking heads. I don't suggest we treat the contents of the blog uncritically, quite the opposite! GPinkerton (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to carry out original research into the subject's views. We are only required to summarise what reliable sources say. Let me remind everybody that blatantly obvious smear pieces like the HuffPost and Times articles are not reliable sources for a biography - much like we don't rely on Fox News when summarising Barack Obama's views. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I knew Robinson was not a politician whose political stance those news paper owners objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know smear campaigns are not limited to high-level politicians. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest asking for advice at RSN about The Times, if you have concerns. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Saying (even mistakenly) that one disease is similar to another is not a conspiracy theory. The Times branding it as such in the title indicates poor reliability of that news piece (not of the Times in general). — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well this quote "They included suggestions from other social media users that Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) that meets in Davos may be involved in plots to exploit the illness and speculation that it was a biological weapon." is what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory about COVID-19 being "no worse than the flu" is clearly documented as such on the relevant page. This isn't even close. jps (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter of discussion among clinicians and is not to be resolved by Times journalists or by Robinson. Irrespective of that, the fact that someone shared a post or two on Facebook or Twitter is utterly irrelevant in a biography. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP, while WP:BLP expressly prohibits the reliance on WP:GOSSIPy sources.

Moreover, your incessant campaign against academics who profess other views than yours, which you've been carrying out through all your WP accounts over years and which has earned you numerous community warnings, is really tiring. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there really is nothing to debate here. You can try to shoot the messenger all you want, but that doesn't change this. jps (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content no users and BLP also applies to accusing newspapers of a seam campaign, does any one have an RS for that accusation?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing a contentious claim

In strict adherence to WP:BLP, I am removing the recently inserted claim that the article subject promoted conspiracy theories, sourced to a single article in The Times. To all editors: please carefully read the applicable Wikipedia policy: Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I have no doubt that the Times article is certainly not an example of solid, reliable journalism.

If in doubt, please take the case to WP:BLPN. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Already there: [[9]]. GPinkerton (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The times is a poor source?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not sufficient for controversial and potentially damaging information in a BLP. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to get a ruling from WP:RSN that such is the case if you're so convinced. jps (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

re Times article

@Cullen328: The Times article does not clearly indicate who -if anyone- "criticised [Robinson] for spreading" or that the investigation found he 'promoted'. What it does say is "Dr. Robinson denied spreading conspiracies and said his interview 'concerned the danger of events such as 9/11 and the coronavirus being exploited by political actors for political, military and economic purposes.'" Humanengr (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Pls see above. I had missed that yours was the original edit on this. Humanengr (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: That wasn't my wording my wording was "An investigation by The Times found that Robinson had promoted the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 was a biological weapon". The fact that he speculated that SARS CoV 2 was a biological weapon is backed up by The Times article, promoted was perhaps an awkward word that should be replaced, but the substance was correct. While the wording may be questionable, The Times is considered a reliable source, so I am baffled that you would remove it entirely, instead of trying to reword it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect all that he said was that some people have suggested bioweapons. I think The Times is misleading as it suggests that he directly speculated it, which he did not. I have added other claims relation to footage about downplaying the relative fatality rate of the virus instead, which is more well sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems The Times 'Investigation editor' mis-transcribed Robinson's YouTube interview. At 8:11, Piers says "low lethality virus" (Google mis-transcribed it in a different way). It's unclear what figure(s) he is referring to. Also, the ellipsis omits: "at the moment" among other text. Juxtaposing that with a paraphrase of WHO material (which includes a number of caveats on its metrics) seems a bit SYNTH. Further on in the interview, Robinson says "as has been pointed out by other people — there's been a lot of fear-mongering, a lot of the coverage of this issue, and certainly some of the mainstream coverage I've taken time to look at, now you'd be forgiven for thinking that we were dealing with something that was similar to the bubonic plague from the sixteenth seventeenth century". On that, WHO says: "Plague can be a very severe disease in people, with a case-fatality ratio of 30% to 60% for the bubonic type …." Focusing on numerical claims seems difficult to do with clarity. Humanengr (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately we cannot interpret youtube videos, it is up to reliable sources to do so, as youtube is a self published source and personal transcriptions are WP:OR. My point is that that views that are widely considered erroneous by WP:RS should be noted under WP:NPOV as presenting such views without noting the mainstream consensus could be undue weight. I think the source for the claim about the fatality rate being higher could be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR "does not apply to talk pages". (I was not proposing including my transcription in the article.) The difficulty in characterizing the views as 'erroneous' is that it's difficult to tell what Robinson meant by 'fatality' or 'lethality' and what figures should be cited for comparison. In time perhaps, we'll see another source for Robinson's views. What The Times highlights Robinson clearly saying about COVID is that 1) “propagandistic information” had created “so much hype around it, there is so much fear” and 2) "his [YouTube] interview 'concerned the danger of events such as 9/11 and the coronavirus being exploited by political actors for political, military and economic purposes. It is essential in a democratic system that people are alert to these matters.'" Humanengr (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: can you verify the claim he said ""no indication that it's significantly different from what we see with major flu outbreaks every year" and if possible provide a time stanp? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Before addressing that, re your "personal transcriptions are WP:OR": That is not correct. Per WP:OR: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." Humanengr (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry I did not see this discussion when I removed the Corvid thing here. I noted that the second sentence supported by a primary source constituted WP:OR since the source does not talk about Robinson. Looks like it was re-added by Hemiauchenia This isn't WP:OR, this is WP:NPOV, this is being discussed on the talk page.[10] Again if the source used does not mention the subject it is effectively synth and OR and should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hemiauchenia Did you mean for your comment above to be in this section?[11] PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The two statements are separate, so there is no synth or OR. It is important to not give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe views per WP:FRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, on mobile reply mode (which I am currently stuck with) it keeps moving my comments to the top section despite explicitly making them here, which I then can't move. Apologies Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • So the issue I have there is you have sentence A sourced to a secondary RS talking about the subject, all good. Then you have sentence B refuting sentence A but has a primary source that does not mention the subject at all. As such it is OR since the source for B does not talk about the subject and we are making the connection not the sources. It is also synth because you are making a connection neither source makes, source B does not specifically refute Robinson's argument or even mention him at all. If there was a secondary source that refutes what Robinson said specifically that would be no problem. But as it stands right now there is a OR and SYNTH problem. PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The 1st sentence is also problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, later in the interview (at 17:39), Robinson says "… it might be the case that this virus is as serious as some have suggested …". That directly contradicts the apparent meaning of the quotes presented. The quotes for the 1st sentence also improperly omit prefacing context (starting at 8:00) that make it unclear whether Robinson was referring to lethality/fatality rate in all people or only in categories of people it is 'most dangerous for'? or only in infected people? or ?

What the article does clearly state re Robinson and coronavirus is that his [YouTube] interview “concerned the danger of events such as 9/11 and the coronavirus being exploited by political actors for political, military and economic purposes. It is essential in a democratic system that people are alert to these matters.” The article also cites Robinson saying "propagandistic information" had created “so much hype around [the virus], there is so much fear”. This material is fully supported in the interview. Humanengr (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"In April 2020, an investigation by The Times found that Robinson had suggested that SARS-CoV-2 was a "low fatality virus" with "no indication that it's significantly different from what we see with major flu outbreaks every year".[15]"

This is WP:FRINGE. If we cannot find a reliable source that explicitly contradicts it, it should be deleted.

We cannot say it in the article, because it is a simple logical conclusion from reliable sources instead of a quote from a reliable source, but this is definitely true, since he is not epidemiologist but contradicts the experts as well as the facts:

Robinson is an ignorant layman making untrue claims.

Wikipedia should not let itself be misused as his propaganda outlet. The right answer to his legal threats is not to completely submit to his will and spread his disinformation for him. Delete the section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Agree the material should be removed. But did you read what I wrote above? The quoted material misrepresents what Robinson said. Humanengr (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. Did he say there is "no indication that it's significantly different from what we see with major flu outbreaks every year" or not? If yes, then it is fringe and should be removed. If no, the source is not reliable and it should be removed.

Is it important why the material is removed? --Hob Gadling (talk)

Yes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Times article, in spite of the nitpicking going on above, clearly identifies his promotion as conspiracy theories. That he denies this (also reported) is something of a WP:MANDY situation. The source seems solid enough to me. jps (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Starting at 8:00, Robinson said: "But I think those threats [from 6:20 of exploitation "by countries in order to pursue particular objectives"] are very very real and and they certainly, in my community, they transcend the immediate threats of a virus which is a low lethality virus — it is — when we know the categories of people that it's most dangerous for but it … but at the moment there's there's no indication that it's significantly different from what we see with major flu outbreaks every year across the West." The boldface text is what makes it unclear whether Robinson was referring to lethality/fatality rate in all people or only in categories of people it's not the 'most dangerous for' or only in infected people or ??

At 17:39, Robinson says "as I said in the article — you know, it might be the case that this this virus is as serious as some have suggested and in that linked article, Robinson speaks of "the next time a sufficiently dangerous virus".

The above makes it inappropriate to attribute to Robinson that improperly clipped quote. Humanengr (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the quote in context looks like itt was improperly clipped. It's also worth noting that the statement was made on April 4th, which is a long time ago in pandemic time, and using the quote out of the temporal context it was made in is also misleading. It is also worth noting that this whole incident is being directly discussed and scrutinised on twitter, including by Piers himself so it is necessary to stick to BLP guidelines very closely. Since all that I added was said by The Times, I think what was said was fine, but I think it's necessary to be more cautious going forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck out what I said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wherever the untrue claim "not significantly different from flu outbreaks" came from, it is WP:PROFRINGE, so I deleted the section. BTW, it was clearly untrue in the beginning of April. It was already clearly untrue when Trump said the same thing a few days earlier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hob, are you suggesting I am trying to promote fringe theories? This was not my intention. I agree that while his statements are fringe, they are no less fringe than his views on 9/11. Should we remove that all of Alex Jones conspiracy theories from his article like crisis actors etc? Where's the line between profringe and accurately reflecting someone's stated views? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know who you are. Did you add that stuff? I don't care because it does not matter. The situation is pretty simple:

• if we have reliable secondary sources that "person X says crazy stuff, and this is why it is crazy", we can quote that.
• if we have reliable secondary sources that "person X says stuff" without mentioning that there is anything unusual about that stuff, such being crazy or being wrong - which begs the question what exactly is reliable about those sources, if they just repeat fringe positions and omit such crucial information - we have three choices, two of which are forbidden:
  1. We also repeat the fringe position, omitting the fact that it is fringe. This is not allowed because of WP:FRINGE.
  2. We repeat the fringe position, adding the fact that it is fringe from other sources. This is not allowed because of WP:SYNTH.
  3. We do not mention it. No problem with that solution.

Any other options? I cannot think of any.

And yes, if no reliable source has bothered to refute the things he said about 9/11, we shouldn't bother talking about it either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

re 'sharing coronavirus conspiracy theories'

In this edit, ජපස inserted: "According to The Times, Robinson began promoting conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic online in April 2020.. The only statement from that article relevant to Robinson vis-à-vis coronavirus is: Dr Robinson denied spreading conspiracies and said his interview “concerned the danger of events such as 9/11 and the coronavirus being exploited by political actors for political, military and economic purposes. It is essential in a democratic system that people are alert to these matters.”" That does not support the summary statement that Robinson is "promoting 'misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic'." Humanengr (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we should say "According to The Times, Robinson denied promoting conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic online in April 2020.".Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quote from The Times:

Prominent British academics have been sharing conspiracy theories about the coronavirus online, The Times can disclose.

They included suggestions from other social media users that Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) that meets in Davos may be involved in plots to exploit the illness and speculation that it was a biological weapon.

The academics include Tim Hayward, a professor of environmental political theory at the University of Edinburgh, and Piers Robinson, co-founder of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies (OPS), which uses the University of Bristol as an address.

This is identifies that (1) British academics are sharing conspiracy theories online and (2) Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson are academics who are included in this collective noun. This is unequivocal. It's just what the article says.

jps (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's equivocal. Including Hayward and Robinson in the collective noun doesn't change the fact that the reporter offered NO support for that statement regarding Robinson. (The only material regarding Robinson vis-à-vis coronavirus is what I noted.) That makes this, at best, guilt-by-association — which is to be avoided per WP:BLPBALANCE. Humanengr (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I watched the YouTube video in question and there definitely seems to be a lot of accommodation of conspiracy theories at the very least. We don't generally throw away sources just because we wish the source provided more evidence... especially when we can simply attribute to them. jps (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lets not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying my best to extend good faith to Humanengr above, but look at the quote! jps (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I was about to undo me edit when you did it, it does not alter the fact we should not be edit warring. But I do prefer the new wording.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

My only concern with the new wording is that it is much closer to needless plagiarism. Oh well. jps (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The why not just quote them?Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In principle, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a quotemine. But sometimes you can't get away from it, I guess. Feel free to quote them, I suppose. jps (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Its behind a paywall, hence why I had to rely on what others said it said.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you trust me, you can include the quote above. I copied it verbatim. You can also ask at WP:RX. jps (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If that is the quote I am not seeing the plagiarism.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Borderline. We're doing a very close paraphrase as the article stands now. jps (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Right of reply

[12]

What do you all think of WP:MANDY and the Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment? Seems like this is an unnecessary add-on, but perhaps there is decent justification for it?

jps (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is a personal essay. BLP is a policy. That said, as discussed above, The Times is on a bit of a limb here. When you listen to the original soruce, he is specifically asked about a conspiracy theory, and does state that it is possible, but he neither raised it nor stated that it was true. I think there's enough of a gray area here that we should at least include his denial. - Bilby (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I actually waded through the source and it does seem like Robinson is "accommodating" rather than "sharing" conspiracy theories about this subject, but, alas, I am not an editor at The Times. jps (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Does that suggest that The Times is not a reliable source about this. Burrobert (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No. It suggests that there may be better words than the ones The Times chose. I'm not too bothered by that; such editorial differences of opinion happen. The source material makes it seem pretty clear to me that the guy is comfortable entertaining conspiracy theories at least. jps (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The source describes Robinson as a "British academic" (it actually uses the adjective "prominent"). Should we add this description of him to his bio? Currently it says "former academic" and includes no profession field. Burrobert (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I think that the term "academic" usually means "employed in academia". It's not clear to me that he is currently employed in academia, but he very well may be. jps (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

snopes.com article

[13]

"A panel of conspiracy theorists plan to gather to discuss whether war reporters should be considered terrorists."

Piers Robinson was on that panel. Whether that means snopes.com called him a "conpsiracy theorist", I'll leave to others to decide.

jps (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if its a cheese and onion sandwich its logical to conclude it must contain cheese.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it works that way with people though. What was his position at the meeting and what was the outcome? PackMecEng (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well he was on the panel, the panel of conspiracy theorists.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Reading over the article it looks to make a distinction between people like Vanessa Beeley and Patrick Henningsen verses people like Peter Ford, Tim Hayward, and Piers Robinson. I don't think it is as cut and dry as first made out. PackMecEng (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It says he was to be on the panel, it does not say anything else that might indicate he was not there as a conspiracy theorist. If a source does not want to indicate someone is part of something they might say "Arsenal football supports and Eric Morecambe" They would not say "arsenal football supporters including Eric Morecambe".Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

By the logic Peter Ford and Tim Hayward would be conspiracy theorist and I do not think that is the case. I think you have a quote from the headline and are applying that to everything in the article. I wouldn't treat a headline as something that could be used like that, especially when not mentioned in the article itself. Going though the article the only ones they actually call conspiracy people are Beeley and Henningsen. Piers isn't even talked about in any depth. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why would we use the source to call him a conspiracy theorist if it is not about them and the label in the article was not applied to him? PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What? I was answering your point why we dont call anyone else it. The source is about a meeting he was going to sit on the panel of, so yes it is about what he does. I think its time for others to chime inSlatersteven (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by the original research implied above by PackMecEng where, apparently, Hennigsen and Beeley are on one side while Hayward and Ford are on the other. If we're going to allow that, why not permit me some original research of my own? Let's start with Hayward. He writes on his blog about how 9/11 Truthers ask questions that are "quite reasonably posed in the light of evidence assembled". Here is the list of people who "reasonably pose" these questions, just in case you don't think it's all about 9/11 Trutherism. I am trying to think of a way that this is not conspiracy theory support. Apparently, PackMecEng knows. jps (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, mostly I just read the source past the headline and a ctrl-f of a persons name. The Snopes article does not in my opinion support the assertion you have assigned to it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't think that the snopes article identifies a panel of conspiracy theorists? Or you think that the snopes article identifies people on the panel who aren't conspiracy theorists? I cannot find a reading of this article that supports this. It seems like original research to me. Perhaps you can provide a quote that shows snopes is separating the groups in the way you describe above? jps (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I did above, it was because they describe them differently in different parts of the article. They also only describe the two as conspiracy theorist while giving positive titles to the other three. Again it is all in the article, it does not support your POV on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's my POV here? Anyway, it wouldn't have been hard for snopes to write, "A panel including conspiracy theorists...." instead of "A panel of conspiracy theorists...." if they intended the meaning you are proposing, no? jps (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we don't use headlines of articles as sources though. Which is what you are attempting to do. So as far as I can tell the actual article does not describe his as a conspiracy theories, just those other two. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a headline. It is a subheadline. Is there a rule for this WP:SUBHEADLINE? No? I think you just made that up. Why did you do that? jps (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think the distinction matters? Very odd. Well just so you know, headlines and subheadings are basically the same for how useful they are. Keep that in mind for the future. PackMecEng (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It matters because both Slatersteven and myself have caught you in a number of what I would describe as either deceptions or blunders in this thread. Anyway, there isn't a WP:HEADLINE policy/guideline either. So I will extend good faith once more and ask you to indicate exactly what policy/guideline you're going by here when you say we don't use headlines of articles as sources though. jps (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Here I thought it was common knowlage. But okay, here are some discussions and mentions at RSN about the use of headlines as a source.[14][15][16][17] The list goes on, but yeah headlines are not RS and the rest of the article does not back up your claim. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, gee, your list of discussions on the noticeboard really only are discussing the reliability of the sources and not the headlines. If this were an actual principle, you should be able to document it somewhere in the WP:PAGs. As it is, I'm unimpressed with your Daily Mail discussions, a discussion that is really just about an obituary, and one on the reliability of Morning Star. And anyway, to my reading the rest of the snopes article seems to back up the headline perfectly well. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, I suppose. jps (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah several discussions all reaching the same conclusion that headlines are not RS, I can see why you would want to ignore them. Again as I explain above the rest of the article does not in fact support your position. The article only calls those two conspiracy theorist and lists Piers and the other two in a separate category while not calling them conspiracy theorists. Unfortunate I suppose, oh well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what these several discussions resolved. They, in fact, ruled that the sources themselves were unreliable. They did not come to any agreements as to whether we just throw all headlines away -- which is an asinine position to take. Are we saying that we can't quote headlines of articles? Obviously not. jps (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying and have been saying and what the links I gave said. You do not use headlines as a RS, you use the content of the article or the source itself. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A perfectly verifiable sentence is

Piers Robinson was part of what snopes.com called, "a panel of conspiracy theorists".

This is an incontrovertible fact. jps (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There you go again, repeating the headline as if it were a RS or supported by the body of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We'll see what others say: WP:RSN#Sentence check. jps (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: re your "Well, gee, your list of discussions on the noticeboard really only are discussing the reliability of the sources and not the headlines.": From PackMecEng's first cited discussion: "HEADLINES are never considered reliable sources (no matter which outlet we are talking about)"; from #2: "headlines are never reliable sources. … [E]ven mainstream publications publish headlines such as Americans Are Dying Younger, Saving Corporations Billions"; from #3: " I don't rely on the headline for any news article (from any source) as they are too often intentionally provocative or, given their brevity, incomplete"; and the entire discussion linked in #4. Humanengr (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• What credentials does this woman have in the subject matter and why should Wikipedia be based on her assertion? — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm asking about the credentials of a woman who spends life writing stuff like this, this or this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because that is the same picture corroborated by multiple sources. Like here, for example: [18] and in the Times (RS) references you appear to have removed. GPinkerton (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Journalists are supposed to be good at reporting facts. It doesn't take a credentialed expert to determine when an idea falls into the category of "conspiracy theory". I think your attempt at impeaching her is pretty absurd. What you've demonstrated is that she is pretty good at fact checking which is exactly the kind of thing we would want. jps (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you are arguing that she in California had access to better information about the subject's views than us here? That she carried out an independent analysis that an encyclopedia can rely on? Really? Get real. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Errr given this is a published academic whose public statements are being analysed, there is no reason to assume she is not able to analyse those.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Snopes is considered generally reliable, per WP:SNOPES Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

But, according to the hoi poloi, apparently only when it prints its statements in a typeface smaller than 14 pt. If larger, it's a headline and is rejected as unreliable. jps (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Can I please be allowed to add comment on the talk page? I have been asked a question by an editor and would like to provide an answer, sincerely, Dr Piers Robinson Piersgregoryrobinson (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You just did, you are not blocked from editing the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And if you posted this [[19]] whilst blocked that would be a violation of your block (as far as I can tell you are not blocked, and so do not understand this request).Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Piersgregoryrobinson, What may have confused you is that your biography is temporarily protected from editing. However, the Talk page is not protected, anyone (including you) is free to edit it. Please ignore the confusing comment about blocking right above, it's utterly irrelevant. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Errr, you do know that he had already posted today? So why did he need to ask if he can do...what he has already done? That was my "confusing" point.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Likely because he wanted to edit what is a protected article and the MediaWiki software showed a message that he needs to make an edit request. Which he did. Remember he is a very new user to Wikipedia and not every new user is so good at telling between article and Talk at first sight. Do you ever assume good faith? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

He made a legal threat under an IP address in his initial BLP noticeboard complaint, "Unless action is taken to resolve these defamatory claims, I will be forced to consult legal advice." for which the IP address was blocked under WP:LEGAL. Dr. Robinson, given that both defamatory issues you addressed in the initial complaint are resolved, and in order for interaction to proceed in good faith, is it possible for you to redact the legal threat you made on the noticeboard? If you don't redact the threat it is likely your account will be blocked until you do so. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Their not currently blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

IP address where he made the threat certainly is Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(admin comment) To prevent any confusion from our byzantine policies, as they've retracted the comments I hereby officially declare them unblocked. I think it may be better for them to continue using their account at this time so I might not actually adjust the IP block, but that's the only reason. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE Legal threat has been retracted. Thanks Dr. Robinson, much appreciated. You are all clear to answer questions now. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

It's pretty clear that this guy was not upset about his appearance on this interview until the attention that was paid to it from The Times. I don't understand those that are arguing that this source is "smearing" him. They quoted his denial, after all. I think we need to include this in the article. It is published, it is reliable (if you don't think this is reliable, please ask at WP:RSN) and it is dramatically relevant to the variety of accusations that he is a conspiracy theorist.

I would also point out that the UK has incredibly intense libel laws. I doubt The Times would publish an unverifiable smear since it would expose them to liability. Just a thought.

jps (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"UK has incredibly intense libel laws." Yes, but libel lawsuits cost tens of thousands of pounds to go through, not to mention an enormous time investment. I doubt Piers has anywhere near the financial resources of News UK, and probably couldn't afford to take them on. I can't access The Times article, can you quote the denial in full? My reason for removing is that not that I disagree with the inclusion of The Times ref in any capacity (hell, I was the one to add it in the first place) but that contentious material (especially in a BLP) should not be in the article when there is no concensus on its inclusion, as the ONUS is on the person adding the contentious material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

“Dr Robinson denied spreading conspiracies and said his interview “concerned the danger of events such as 9/11 and the coronavirus being exploited by political actors for political, military and economic purposes. It is essential in a democratic system that people are alert to these matters.”” Burrobert (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

Regarding COVID-19 and my alleged 'conspiricism' about bioweapons and lethality, are you aware that PBS broadcast this briefing with a US military commander who also noted the possibility of bioweapons (although he thought unlikely) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1155&v=n4LvzK1wTRY&feature=emb_logo and that The Australian economics editor (sister paper to the Times) stated the virus threat was overstated etc just three days after the article about me in the London Times https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/we-may-be-overreacting-to-an-unremarkable-coronavirus/news-story/3d78be873fac364af49f5fc949e3eaeb.

Can anyone see a problem here, that I discuss (briefly) issue of lethality and virus origins and am attacked in the Times for doing so, and yet I assume the PBS broadcast and Australian article are not being labelled as conspiracy theorists or attacked?

In addition, are you all aware that the same Times journalist, Dominic Kennedy, led an attack piece on me and my colleagues in 2018, accusing us of circulating conspiracy theories regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria? Subsequently, Times leader writer Oliver Kamm has publicly stated that he initiated the Times 'investigation' and he has also stated that, subsequently, former UK military officer (involved with the war in Syria) had asked the Times to keep going after us https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1194741907559108609?s=20??

Finally, although back in 2018 the Times accused us of spreading conspiracies regarding chemical weapon attacks in Syria, it is now the case that multiple documents plus whistleblower testimony are in the public domain corroborating the questions we originally raised. Indeed, OPCW inspector Ian Henderson has addressed the UN security council on this issue. Should there not be mention of these facts when discussing Syria?

This information might be useful for your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Dr Piers Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersgregoryrobinson (talk • contribs) 09:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So what did you say? When did you say it, When did you accept it was not in fact true?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's skip the interrogation. It is not our role. - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Then how can we judge the claim he has been misrepresented? RS have said X, he has denied it. So we need a link to what he actually said, and his then retracting it is it was shown to be false.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the role of a biographer with that of a police investigator. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I am asking them to show that RS (according to wP:v) have demonstrated the claim they have pushed Covid 19 conspiracy theories is false (per wP:blp). That is the claim they are making, we need RS to demonstrating that saying they have is a violation of Wp:undue, and of course BLP. The Times is a top line source, thus we need a top line source to dispute its claims. A wp:primary source is not that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that wasn't your intention but you came out as pretty aggressive. By the way, daily press is not and never was a "top line" source for summarising academic views. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why, for asking them to back up their claims? As to not being top line RS, I disagree and this may need to be taken to RSN. And, by the way, it was a medical claim, for which he is not qaulified..Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to you to tell people what they allowed to say. You are only here to build an encyclopaedia, based on quality sources, and not to interrogate or censor the subjects described therein. Frankly, my jaw drops at your attempts to carry out WP:OR here, additionally in a pretty bad style. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not told anyone what they can and cannot say, nor have I attempted to censor anyone. I have asked them to provide policy compliant refutations of what an RS has said. As to OR, you are the one who rasied the issue of what they said being academic, I just pointed it it was a medical claim, this is what the times if talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I understand where you are coming from, but ultimately we dont' need to show that Robinson didn't push a consipracy theory. What we are stuck with is evaluation og the surce, what would be due weight in regard to the claim, and whether or not the source is reliable in this case. I do find a weight issue - as far as I know, this is the only source making this claim in relation to COVID-19, but I could be wrong there. As to the reliablity, we have the original video which The Times based their piece on it. In the video Robinson is directly asked whether it was possible that COVID-19 was a bioweapon, (he didn't, as far as I can tell, raise it himself), and his response was that it was possible. I'm not sure that the response is enough to label him as pushing a consipracy theory per se, butI guess that's what we need to evaluate, and whether or not The Times took that out of context. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have seen one non RS also make the claim. Also a few I am unsure about such as [[20]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That one seems to be a direct copy of the Daily Mail article, so my guess is that we can't regard it as an RS. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a few like that, it does however imply this is rather more than just the Times, and that other stuff was said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. If we can't use them, they don't offer us much. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Except we have an RS saying it, and no RS contesting it, and other non RS supporting it. So its hard to see why this cannot be mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We have one reliable source mentioning it, and no coverage in any other reliable sources. That means we have to ask to what extent a single usable source warrants coverage of what is a contentious and disputed claim in a BLP. - Bilby (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

One or two lines with attribution and a denial seems to fit the bill.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The interview it came from is here. My feeling is that one or two lines is a bit too much weight, given how it comes across that The Times was very selective in how they presented it, but others may well feel differently. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The task for us is to summarise someone's views they professed throughout their lifetime based on, whenever possible, secondary sources; and not to analyse their every interview or press mention. WP is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of factoids. The subject's views on, and their understanding of, COVID-19 may evolve in time, as will ours. A biographical article has to provide absolutely reliable, confirmed information about the person – and not things like, "On 1th January, the subject tweeted that X, then on 15th February he shared a Facebook post on Y, then on 20th he told a journalist that Z." We build an encyclopaedia here, not a tabloid.

My position: leave this COVID-19 element out completely. It's way too WP:RECENT and way too WP:CHERRYPICKED from a WP:PRIMARY source. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dear Professor,

The discussion here is not whether SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon or not. Such a topic is outside of the scope of this biographical article. If you'd like to discuss this topic, you are welcome to raise it at Talk:SARS-CoV-2, although let me advise you that this will likely be branded as a fringe theory by the majority of editors (including me).

To-date, you have been described in this biographical article as someone who stresses the need for a critical analysis of media narratives surrounding the various global events and argues that the narratives are often shaped to suit certain political or economic interests. Which is a fair point (ex.: Syria – agreed). But reading your comments on COVID-19 above I wonder whether this is a right description. Should your biography indeed say that you are a proponent of a conspiracy theory on COVID-19? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---'Dear Kashmiri, My comments in the OffGuardian article and follow up Geopolitics interview were primarily about the dangers of COVID-19 being exploited, as you describe. I do not promote any particular theory, conspiracy or otherwise, regarding the origins of COVID-19. If I did support/promote a particular theory I would have written and said very clearly that 'x is the most likely explanation for y etc', sincerely Piers Piersgregoryrobinson (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank Dr. Robinson for joining us in this discussion. I think his perspective and nuance is extremely important in the context of our attempts to simply document what's happening in the wider world. It would be very useful if we could get some reliable, independent sources to discuss this nuance rather than continuing with a clunky game of putting single sentences into the article that are sourced to journalist outfits and then pulling them out. That kind of tug-o-war, now on hold for a week, is liable to start right back up if we don't get down to brass tacks right now.

As it stands, we've got a variety of independent sources (which I would under normal circumstance typically consider to be reliable even as others may disagree) which evaluate some of your claims, rightly or wrongly, as conspiracy theories. Even if they are all agenda-driven, that's not really something we're equipped to handle substantively at Wikipedia since there are strict rules against that kind of meta-research. What we don't really have are rejoinders beyond primary sources. It would be nice to see, for example, some kind of analysis of this published by a reliable third-party that could help us frame the discussion.

To omit entirely any discussion of these accusations I think would be doing a disservice to the reader. After all, it's not as though these accusations are being published anonymously or are difficult to find online. I think we need to address this. The question is how to do this in a way that adheres to Wikipedia's standards. We are not yet at consensus, but I would like to try to see if we can get everyone to agree that, at least, there needs to be some discussion of these accusations in the article. We can worry later exactly how to couch them stylistically.

jps (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

An interesting take, that (in effect) it would be both academically dishonest as well as lacking in intellectual balance to not put in a full account of what Mr Robinson has said as long as RS have seen it as worthy of comment. I myself have made the same claim on other articles. Our job is to inform the reader as to the facts behind what they read in the press (or what the press deem notable). Otherwise they get a one sided view (the source they read about it in (in this case the Times, for example).Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear JPS, It is not clear you have 'a variety of independent sources' who are employing the conspiracy theorist term as a smear. Many/most of the sources are either a) Dominic Kennedy/Times or b) Chris York Huffington Post. Also, as a matter of interest, what is the definition of 'conspiracy theory' that is employed by Wikipedia? best, Piers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersgregoryrobinson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think the question is whether The Jewish Chronicle, Snopes, and The Forge count as independent sources as well. Is there a particular reason for us to question the integrity of Kennedy or York? Do they share particular animosity against you that is documented? The best we can do in terms of "conspiracy theory" is link to conspiracy theory, but in terms of article content we don't make any judgments except to decide whether sources are reliable enough. Precisely what wording is chosen is an editorial decision in principle guided by WP:NPOV and WP:V, but these principles are complicated enough that there isn't an easy way to summarize them. In principle and somewhat in practice, Wikipedia works through a model of consensus. However, the process of how the sausage gets made is rather ugly. I'm sorry I don't have a stronger editorial philosophy to point you towards, but this is what Wikipedia is, for better or worse. jps (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear JPS and wikipedia editors,

Regarding sources (A) and definition of 'conspiracy theory' (B):-

A) Regarding the sources that are being relied upon by Wikipedia:-

1) The Jewish Chronicle article primarily appears to be attempting to smear me as anti Semitic: 'the first paragraph of the article states Labour politicians, including an MP, have condemned their local Labour Party for inviting a speaker who promoted the work of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who claims “Israelis blew up the twin towers with the help of Zionists" in the US Government.' This is an attempt to smear through guilt by association: see https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-mp-ellie-reeves-condemns-clp-s-decision-to-host-conspiracy-theorist-piers-robinson-1.489590?fbclid=IwAR2YzTN2CUsfBxZjh7tkbd89YWzKSXyf9t8f995rX6KwnWgUx2hr52kSC38.

The JC was criticised by IPSO regarding an attack on a labour activist (https://pressgazette.co.uk/jewish-chronicle-rapped-ipso-lack-of-evidence-claims-labour-activist/) and recently lost a libel case concerning false allegations see https://www.thejc.com/audrey-white-an-apology-1.497010. So, a reasonable question would be whether the source is reliable or whether it was simply an attempt to smear me as anti-semitic.

2) The Snopes article provides a headline identifying me as being part of a panel of conspiracy theorists, but presents no evidence in the body of the article to substantiate the allegation against me: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/05/02/assad-supporters-plan-put-media-trial-journalism-syria/. I would add that I have no recollection of having been approached by Snopes for comment before they published the article. I was therefore provided with no right of reply by Snopes.

3) The Forge article was not produced independently of the Huffington Post article. The student journalist, Ewan Sommerville, collaborated with Chris York of the Huffington Post. His article, and the Huffington Post article carrying both his name and that of York, were both published on 17 April 2019. See https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/piers-robinson_uk_5cb5d5b5e4b082aab08c953f and http://forgetoday.com/2019/04/17/sheffield-university-professor-piers-robinson-syria-war-assad-conspiracy-chris-williamson-anti-semitism/.

4) Regarding the Huffington Post, Chris York has now published at least seven articles attacking me and my colleagues who have been researching Syria:

1) York, Chris. (2018a) ‘Whitewashing War Crimes’: How UK Academics Promote Pro-Assad Conspiracy Theories About Syria’, Huffington Post, 18 April 2018. 2) York, Chris. (2018b) ‘Pro-Assad Academics Blame Criticism on Conspiracy’ Huffington Post, 24 April 2018. 3) York, Chris. (2018c) ‘UK Academics to Debate if Reporters are Breaking Terrorism Laws’, Huffington Post, 29 April 2018. 4) York, Chris. (2018d) ‘Professor Piers Robinson Teaches Journalism at a Top UK University. He’s Also a 9/11 Truther’ Huffington Post, 3 December 2018. 5) York, Chris. (2019a) ‘Professor Piers Robinson Leaves Sheffield Uni Post After Accusations of Promoting Conspiracy’, Huffington Post, 17 April 2019. 6) York, Chris. Huffington Post (2019b) ‘This is Why James le Mesurier’s White Helmets are Targets of a Russian Disinformation Campaign’ Huffington Post, 14 November 2019. 7) https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-useful-idiots_uk_5e2b107ac5b67d8874b0dd9d?fks

6) The Huffington Post attack pieces started just four days after the first Times News Paper attacked me and my fellow academics researching Syria:

1) Times of London (2018a) ‘Apologists for Assad working in universities; top academics claim chemical attacks were fake Universities host regime apologists’ by Georgie Keate, Dominic Kennedy, Kristivina Shveda and Deborah Haynes’, 14 April 2018. 2) Times of London (2018b) ‘Professors ‘shut down debate’ over Assad’s chemical attacks by Georgie Keate, 14 April 2018. 3) Times of London (2018c) ‘To Edinburgh with Love: Moscow’s Scottish Links’ by Dominic Kennedy, 14 April 2018. 4) Times of London (2018d) ‘Assad’s Useful Idiots; Academics at British universities are spreading malevolent conspiracy theories in defence of the Syrian regime. They are propping up an egregious despot’, 14 April 2018.

These attack pieces were published the same day US, UK and France bombed Syria following the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma.

Since then, Times Leader Writer Oliver Kamm has stated that to was he who initiated the Times investigation and also that he had been asked by a former UK military officer involved with the war in Syria, James le Mesurier, to keep on our case. Kamm is a leader writer/political commentator at the Times, not a journalist. A shareable link to screenshots of the two tweets by Oliver Kamm is here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jRISW-KdkWHbi9_IJFDXvto_avqqd-Jf).

In short, the Times and the Huffington Post have waged a campaign against me and other academics researching Syria. A combination of smears are routinely used in this campaign: 'conspiracy theorists', 'Assad apologists', 'war crime deniers', 'useful idiots' etc. We are currently considering now launching a complaint to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation).

So, in response to the claim that there are 'a variety of independent' and 'reliable' sources being used, there are in fact a couple of sources being used that have repeatedly attacked me and other academics (from just two newspapers and two journalists and where, with the Times, a columnist has claimed responsibility for initiating and carrying on a campaign, as requested by a former UK military officer involved in the war) plus two further sources (Snopes and JC) which do not appear reliable and a third (Forge) which is not independent of the Huffington Post/Chris York. This does not seem to me to be a strong and wide evidential base.

B) Regarding the Definition of 'Conspiracy Theory', you refer me to the wikipedia entry which states at the outset:

'A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[7][8]'

Based upon this definition, it is not clear that I have ever 'promoted a conspiracy theory' in relation to COVID 19 or indeed 9/11. Furthermore, it is obvious from the Talk pages that wikipedia editors are fully aware that the label 'conspiracy theorist' is widely interpreted in a pejorative way and that its use is likely to damage an individual's reputation. As such, it strikes me as manifest that any drive to apply this label is likely to be motivated by an attempt to discredit, rather than a desire to accurately relay things I have said or written about.

Sincerely,

Piers

These attacks started — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersgregoryrobinson (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmm I am not sure this is the right venue to discuss sources reliability (that would be over at wp:rsn. But bias is not in fact a reason to reject, only to attribute.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. However, we have a duty to keep balance in articles, I think a mere acknowledgement of bias in a source is not enough. Here, we have little in terms of unbiased sources, unfortunately, as is often the case when things end up in the media only because someone has a political interest in making them public. Unfortunately it's been veeery long time since press could be trusted in most of their reporting. For academic biographies, I'd really prefer to rely on respectable biographers, especially given the WP:BLP policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This strikes me a bit as a right great wrongs fallacy. On the other hand, I can see this as potentially being an argument for deleting this article. If all the sources we have can be shown to be hopelessly biased, we are under no obligation to have an article on a person. jps (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if we removed all of Robinsons own stuff (wP:primary and all the "biased" stuff how much notability is left? Someone is not notable until they are noticed, and it seems Robinson is notable for his controversial statements.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think notability here derives from WP:NACADEMIC. WP:GNG is likely to be invoked in any AfD. Maybe a better question can be asked: what is our best source for this article? jps (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

But does he, of the 14 sources half seem to be primary (thus do not establish notability), with only one other not being about some controversy or other (and seems to be only a brief mention. Take those away you have "Conspiracy Theories" (2 sources) !9/11 truther" (1 source).Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems weird to me that the subject of an article only has to say "it's a campaign against me" and poof! all the criticism in the article disappears, although previously it was regarded as reliably sourced. It that what you want to happen? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that we're headed towards an RfC in regard to this material. I'm not sure we need to wait any longer, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but I can now see an issue of actual notability. Take out the negative sources and the primary sources and what do we have left? What is he notable for?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven's concerns and think that perhaps an AfD might make more sense to start. If there is an agreement to keep the article, then I definitely agree that we need an RfC regarding these topics. I'll leave it to someone else to compose the AfD language. jps (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It cannot be AFD'd its protected.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's always worth taking a look at sourcing and asking ourselves again whether the subject fulfils our requirements of notability and good sourcing – especially when there is little in terms of objective reporting (a biography, etc.,) and the article is primarily based on media articles of the kind, "Lo behold, another conspiracy theorist!". So, an AfD might actually be a good idea, if only to encourage determined editors to look for better sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In the 2nd para here I noted what was credible and noteworthy from The Times article. So that would be an additional 2ary source. Humanengr (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I really am not sure RS work like that. Ohh that parts not RS but this part is, either its RS or its not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In principle a source can be reliable for documenting an opinion of the author while being unreliable in its adjudication of facts. However, i agree with you, this seems weird. If we can't trust The Times to explain the ideas properly, why should we trust them to fairly quote the subject of the article? jps (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As doubts have been raised about notability it seems to me an admin should AFD this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is consensus that an AfD is warranted, you might try to propose it as an edit request below. I think there is enough consensus here to at least start the discussion. An admin may not want to wade through to figure out a good way to word the nomination, so perhaps you can provide it for them. The only edit you would technically need an admin to do would be to slap the template on the page. jps (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible Addition

Under the "9/11" subheader of the "Political research" section, perhaps something along these lines could be added: *"Ellie Reeves, MP for Lewisham West and Penge, criticised Robinson's views on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, signing an open letter to the Labour Party in which Robinson was described as a "high-profile 9/11 truther" as a response to the Lewisham Council inviting Robinson to speak at an event." Nanophosis (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The letter was specifically to the Secretary of the Lewisham W&P Labour Party, so the wording would have to be changed slightly. I doubt this is going to fly anyway because of the heated debate around this article, thought I'd pitch my two cents in regardless. Thanks! Nanophosis (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer that we document Robinson’s views first before including criticism. Ellie Reeves describing him as a "high-profile 9/11 truther" doesn’t help the reader discover his views. Burrobert (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia is not a tabloid to report on such WP:TRIVIA. MP offices send tens if not hundreds of letters every day – the WP:ONUS is on you to show that Ms Reeves is a reliable secondary source on the subject's views and that this particular letter is of such an importance as to be made part of the subject's biography and included in an encyclopaedia. Par analogiam, will you likewise include every news piece critical of Boris Johnson in his WP biography (even if sourced to a letter between two MPs)? — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

An MP criticising the subject of the article is obviously notable (JC is the source here). It would need to be integrated better, and include the subject's explicit denial (the connection with Kees van der Pijl being tenuous). However the source and article seem fine to me. 86.6.59.8 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A letter is NOTABLE? Are you joking? Read what WP:NOTABILITY is about please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just using saying it was an event of some note. Sorry, you thought I was saying the letter deserved an article? That would be a bit over the top, I agree. 86.6.59.8 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For the perspective, my MP wrote a letter similarly expressing concern about a specific company in my local area. Hope you are not arguing that that fact needs to be included in that company's article? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I am not sure one MP does not violate wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Striking my addition, since Kashmiri brought up some good points and is more familiar with this article and its subject, and I doubt I can provide the reliable secondary sources needed to show notability. It seems there is some concern over lack of criticism of the subject in the article which is what I was looking to rectify, but my original approach isn't going to work out. I hope more editors see this article and give their opinions on it to come to a consensus, ideally without edit warring or stress. Cheers. Nanophosis (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure the issue is "lack of criticism of the subject" so much as trying to remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

2020-05 opinion about Wikipedia

« There is no doubt wikipedia is a profoundly flawed platform and should be widely discredited and possibly subjected to legal action. It corrupts the public sphere and damages democracy. » (Piers Robinson, 2020-01-13, https://twitter.com/PiersRobinson1/status/1216603354853494784 ). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

some people need to read wp:legal, this sort of thing does not impress. It may not technically violate policy (as it was not made ON Wikipedia, but if anything that make it even less impressive).Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please notice that, according to User:Hemiauchenia in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Piers Robinson, « Legal threat has been removed. » Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think I covered that with "It may not technically violate policy (as it was not made ON Wikipedia...". I am not sure what the point of this "alert" is. So why did you post this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Because I had the feeling that it could be usefull. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In what way? What does this tell us about the subject or the article?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Also I just noticed the date, this is old. Can we close this irrelevance?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's utterly irrelevant. People are free to say whatever they want about Wikipedia or any other website in the world. We are here to follow the policies of this project, and someone's social media posts should be of precisely zero concern to us. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

AFD

I shall start a new section. At this time the article has (as far as I can tell) a single source that is not either primary sources of one of the sources being disused in multiple, threads above as not reliable. One independent third part RS is not sufficient to pass notability, so should we ask an admin to AFD this article ?Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Deletion discussion has now started, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piers_Robinson Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

no

• No — As I indicate below, other RS cover Piers Robinson and he easily passes notability tests. The creation of a Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media page (created by Slatersteven and mentioned by Hemiauchenia below fails to circumvent WP:BLPGROUP. Humanengr (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Further Discussion.

I can see redirecting both the Piers Robinson and Tim Hayward into a newly created Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media article, discussing their coverage of the Syrian civil war, as neither are really independently notable outside their involvement with the institute per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that might be a workable option.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Amazingly, I was thinking of just this solution. I would heartily endorse merge. jps (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Then lets close this and go for a merge.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather have the opinion of Kashmiri first before we make the decision Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, can we have your vote? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hemiauchenia for pinging. Agree, this might actually be a good way of avoiding the perennial problem with identifying reliable biographical information about the subject, unfortunately a perennial problem with articles on non-mainstream views/theories (since WP has to be primarily sourced to mainstream media). The question remains whether the Working Group itself is notable - we don't seem to have a ton of articles on working groups. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

On a second thought, the Working Group will fail WP:NBUSINESS. It might be better to create an article for the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, which is a UK registered charity and may have a slightly higher chance of surviving an AfD. Still, sourcing problems remain with regard to both entities. A side note - the current draft on the WG is far from acceptable as it reads more like a charge sheet. 04:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, see my comments below [21][22] re Piers's notability and my cmt above, in line with your observation, re the Working Group failing WP:BLPGROUP. The same applies to OPS. Humanengr (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I also endorse merging into Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At the moment I would oppose merging to a unfinished draft. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's implied, i.e., there would be no redirect entered here on the Piers Robinson article until the draft was finished and ready to enter mainspace. Do you have an opinion on whether or not you think the merge itself is a good idea? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say honestly, I would need to see the finished target. At the moment just poking around there does seem to be sufficient sources for this to remain a stand alone article. More could also be added.[23][24][25][26] PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There are at least 4 other 2ary sources that cover Piers Robinson that have not yet been cited: — Al Jazeera, Atlantic, another Al Jazeera, Sky News. That would seem to negate the argument for this AFD. Humanengr (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Those aren't very good sources on which to build a WP:BLP. Except for SkyNews, none of them do much more than treat Robinson as a talking head. Hell, I can point to articles like that where I'm quoted as an expert, and I'm fairly sure I'm not wikinotable. As for the SkyNews article, it does not seem to me to rise to the level of a WP:BIO notable source. I can see why those sources are not in the article and they certainly do not make the case that Wikipedia needs a standalone biography of Dr. Robinson. jps (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair you are an astronomer. No one likes them and I say that as a woman with a rather large telescope in her foyer waiting for a pier to be poured! PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The question here is notability of the person (not article content), which Piers easily passes on at least Criteria 1 and 7 of WP:PROF. Re 'impact' (Criteria 1), see (per this) citation counts here and library coverage here. The interviews on global media are sufficient for Criterion 7. [Adding:] From WP:INTERVIEW: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability" Humanengr (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you have been around WP:PROF debates much, but I have definitely seen AfDs for biographies with similar levels of citation counts and library coverage come out in favor of delete. Dr. Robinson is probably closer to notability for the media attention according to the sources I am seeing. WP:CELEBRITY, however, does not quite seem to be met. The subject of these interviews, incidentally, is not Dr. Robinson. jps (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is why we need the AFD, to hash this out. If he is demonstrably notable there is nothing to lose.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, in a few hours you can post it yourself. jps (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers's "Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at Sheffield University" satisfies criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (scholars). Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. The position was first created in 2016 and it is not a named chair but rather is closer to the equivalent of an interdisciplinary posting. The notability level is closer to that of an Associate Professor rather than Full Professor. jps (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, please refer to the active guideline and not proposals when discussing notability conventions on this website. WP:PROF. jps (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Re your "The subject of these interviews, incidentally, is not Dr. Robinson.", above, please refer to Criterion 7 — which I cited — in the active guideline. That does not refer to the person being the subject of interviews but rather being quoted "as an academic expert in a particular area". Humanengr (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Re your "The notability level is closer to that of an Associate Professor rather than Full Professor.", PR was 'Professor', not 'Associate Professor'. 'Chair' (endowed or not) is an additional rank. Your cmt is obviously intended to denigrate his achievements. I suggest you remove it. Humanengr (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: "Your cmt is obviously intended to denigrate his achievements" is uncalled for, this is not the way to have a productive discussion. I think the PROF guidelines are too US focused, and could do with some revision to better cover other systems, see Academic ranks in the United Kingdom. jps is actually an academic himself and so therefore probably has a better understanding of the nuances of UK academic ranks than most people, though how convincing these arguments would be to wikipedians unfamiliar with them I do not know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස and Hemiauchenia: Per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[FN to Jimmy Wales: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."] … This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[FN] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Indicating that Piers Robinson's academic standing is less than what it actually is is unsourced, negative, and controversial. Humanengr (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It would help more if respondents would not tell others ("please refer to the active guideline and not proposals") when they don't bother reading the active guidelines (Criterion 7 in WP:PROF) that they are pointed to. I read the Academic ranks in the United Kingdom article you cited. It says "In general in the UK the title of 'professor' is reserved for full professors." Thx for the cite. Humanengr (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

My take is that while Piers Robinson's comments on COVID 19 were poorly phrased and were exaggerated by The Times reporting, the HuffPost's quotes of Piers on 9/11 are damning, and they shouldn't be whitewashed out of the article unless Piers would like to clarify here what his actual views about 9/11 are. His comments about the Skripals and Douma should be expanded, for additional context. His statements that he is being "persecuted" don't fundamentally address the nature of his remarks, and are an ad hominem attack, which is ultimately unconvincing. However as Piers is a private individual, we should follow the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy guidelines. I don't think it's fair to describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" in the same way David Icke, Mark Dice or Alex Jones are, as he isn't a professional conspiracy theorist making money off it. I am neutral in regards to the opening of an AfD discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth reading Newslinger's response to Piers at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sentence_check_(Snopes), ultimately the Douma chemical weapons attack false flag theory is pushed by only a handful of sources, the most prominent of which is RT, which never bodes well for veracity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Piers has written an article claiming that the White Helmets, an organistation that helps people affected in conflict zones in Syria is "part of a US/UK information operation designed to underpin regime change in Syria". Piers has also retweeted, without comment or condemnation an article by Sputnik News, accusing the White Helmets of staging chemical weapons attacks in Syria, an incendiary allegation. Here is how Sputnik News is described at the WP:RS/P: "There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation". Bellingcat (a RS at the Perennial sources list) describes the allegations as "disinformation" and "absurd". The Guardian wrote an article in late 2017 on how the White Helmets have been targeted by Russian disinformation, which is required background reading to understand this and the pro-Assad/Russia "alt-news" ecosystem in which Piers operates. Piers quite frankly has a lot to answer for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat has done a whole series of articles on the Douma chemical weapons attack and the subsequent OPCW leaks, which is Piers has commented "It is indeed very likely the victims at Douma were murdered captives. As such a potential warcrime and one that is being covered up by @opcw management, western governments and most of the mainstream media. But the truth is coming out." draw your own conclusions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The webcache link above brings up a 404 error. The full quote from Robinson's article is "The White Helmets do not appear to be the independent agency that some have claimed them to be. Rather, their funding background, and the strategic objectives of those funders, provide strong prima facie grounds for considering the White Helmets as part of a US/UK information operation designed to underpin regime change in Syria". He says there is a "prima facie" case based on certain evidence (which he had described earlier), not certainty. Presumably more research is required to establish certainty. This is the sort of thing that would be worthy of including in his bio. Any criticism that mentions his views could then be included. I wouldn't get too concerned regarding his retweets. Generally you can assume that retweeting does not mean endorsement. Either he or his colleague Tim Hayward said that they generally share things on social media and leave it up to their followers what to make of the information. I think they said something like in a democratic society it was important to share information. I am still unclear what Robinson's views on 9/11 or COVID-19 are and I don't think HuffPost would be a reliable source for his views. Burrobert (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, : My take on the issues you mentioned:

• The subject has full rights to believe in what they believe, and our role here is only to accurately report on this, based on high quality sources. We are not there to tell the world whether his beliefs are right or wrong.
• We need to stop referencing the subject's tweets, blogs, or Wikipedia comments, as this amounts to original research.
• HuffPost is a source with doubtful reliability per WP:HUFFPO, and additionally the piece in question was written by an editor who admits to be a "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking". Unclear why we should at all consider that piece of writing an impartial report.
• The Syria story – so it happens that RT also promotes similar views, but why should it bear on the subject? Guilt by association? Hope nobody argues that the US crimes in Vietnam didn't happen because, e.g., the New York Times branded them all as Soviet propaganda, right? See, none of us here is an expert on propaganda – you (or me) can only read the Times, Bellingcat, etc., and take it as holy truth "because it is on Wikipedia's perennial sources list".

So, let's try to describe the subject's views in a dispassionate tone, without a trace of preaching on whether he is right or wrong.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"We are not there to tell the world whether his beliefs are right or wrong." Eh... we aren't here to judiciously avoid the issue either. WP:FALSEBALANCE is not WP:NPOV either. If someone says something that is demonstrably incorrect, Wikipedia is under no obligation to pretend that there is no way to tell. On the other hand, if sourcing is poor, we are also under no obligation to have mention of any given point in the first place. jps (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

To address Kashmiri's points.

1. "We need to stop referencing the subject's tweets, blogs, or Wikipedia comments, as this amounts to original research"

• NOR Does not apply to talk space, I did not suggest that the things that I cited should be added to article space, only as additional context

2. "HuffPost is a source with doubtful reliability per WP:HUFFPO, and additionally the piece in question was written by an editor who admits to be a "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking". Unclear why we should at all consider that piece of writing an impartial report."

• In the section on 9/11 I have only quoted Piers's words that he has stated, not any original analysis on the behalf of the HuffPost, I think the HuffPost is reliable for these specific quotations unless Piers would like to specifically deny that he said them.

3. "The Syria story – so it happens that RT also promotes similar views, but why should it bear on the subject? Guilt by association? Hope nobody argues that the US crimes in Vietnam didn't happen because, e.g., the New York Times branded them all as Soviet propaganda, right?

• Piers Robinson is a regular on RT, see [27] [28] (11 apperances in 3 years). RT is likely to be deprectiated like the Daily Mail very soon because of an ongoing but largely resolved RfC at the WP:RS/N, where depreciation is the overwhelming concensus due to publishing false information. RT has been fined in the UK for breaching impartiality rules Guardian article full Ofcom report.

See, none of us here is an expert on propaganda – you (or me) can only read the Times, Bellingcat, etc., and take it as holy truth "because it is on Wikipedia's perennial sources list".

• The reliable sources list exists for a reason. Why should we take a claim from an unreliable outlet like RT, well known for publishing disinformation beneficial to the Russian Goverment like the Skripal denialism [29] and treat it as equal to a claim by a reputable outlet without a reputation for publishing disinformation? The Russian Government is deeply involved in the Syrian conflict and the narratives on RT, like those around Assad's use of chemical weapons, reflect their strategic interests. I have to agree with JPS here that this would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media" to which Piers belongs and is strongly associated has plenty of coverage in reliable sources, like [30] [31] [32] and can be used to augment the existing coverage.

"So, let's try to describe the subject's views in a dispassionate tone, without a trace of preaching on whether he is right or wrong."

• I agree that we should try to balanced and not create an attack page, but that's not any reason to whitewash what Piers has actually said.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Hemiauchenia and Editors

Firstly, the comment:-'Piers, quite frankly has a lot to answer for', might suggest to some observers that some kind of inquisition or interrogation is underway.

Regarding 9/11, I think the current page containing my response to the newspaper accurately reflects my views and I'm not sure I would have anything to add.

Regarding Syria/Douma, the above text presents my position as being part of a Russian-media backed conspiracy theory. This is very misleading. Controversy about the alleged chemical attack cannot be reduced to an alleged Russian propaganda campaign. Specifically:-

1) It was my working group (Working Group on Syria, Media and Propaganda) which was leaked the engineering report written by OPCW inspector Ian Henderson and which indicated the alleged incident had been staged. This is public knowledge and indeed contained in OPCW documents.

2) This leak was followed in Autumn 2019 by an event hosted by the Courage Foundation, at which an OPCW official spoke (https://www.couragefound.org/2019/10/opcw-panel-statement/) and which included the first Director General of the OPCW Jose Bustani.

3) After this multiple OPCW documents were leaked to Wikileaks (https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/#OPCW-DOUMA%20-%20Release%20Part%204) and also media outlets.

4) There was coverage of these issues in several newspapers over the course of several months:- https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/11/new-sexed-up-dossier-furore-explosive-leaked-email-claims-that-un-watchdogs-report-into-alleged-poison-gas-attack-by-assad-w.html, https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/10/23/news/whistleblower_denuncia_che_l_opac_l_organizzazione_per_la_proibizione_delle_armi_chimiche_ha_manipolato_le_indagini_sull_a-239269553/, https://stundin.is/grein/10074/, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-war-chemical-weapons-watchdog-opcw-assad-damascus-russia-a9262336.html

5) Ian Henderson was invited to present his criticisms of the OPCW FFM investigation to the UN Security Council: video here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZknLgDXuaBg

6) Myself and Professor Paul McKeigue and Professor David Miller presented our research at an event held at the House of Commons in January 2020 (https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2020/02/01/house-of-commons-presentation-opcw-leaks-reveal-international-community-misled-about-alleged-douma-chemical-incident-in-2018/) whilst Paul also presented our analysis to the Harvard-Sussex Biological and Chemical Weapons Prog. at Susses University in March: http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers-3.

As we describe in our presentations, and as corroborated by all of the leaks and testimony, it is indeed the case that the Douma event was most likely staged. It is also notable that BBC producer Riam Dalati has stated in public (on twitter), that the hospital scenes at Douma were staged. https://twitter.com/Dalatrm/status/1095677403198906369?s=20. Regarding Bellingcat being considered a reliable source, it receives funding via the Ned (National Endowment for Democracy) and its not therefore independent of the US government (a country that is a belligerent in the war in Syria and which bombed, along with France and UK in response to the alleged event in Douma).

So, to reduce all of this to a Russian propaganda campaign is inaccurate. There is clearly significant controversy with respect to what happened at Douma and certainly not contained within the bounds of Russian media or government claims.

Regarding Skripal, I think this Sky News interview captures clearly my concern that events in Salisbury might be exploited as part of a broader geo-political stand off against Russia:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHiAZfpXr5Q

I hope this helps,

regards,

Piers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersgregoryrobinson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that "Piers, quite frankly has a lot to answer for" is an unacceptable response, and would remind user to content in content not users. I would also remind users we are here to discus how to improve the article, this is wp:not a forum for discussing the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a forum, but my comments were the opening remark in a conversation on how we incorporate his views into the article, rather than just being an attack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of these references are not really going to be helpful for us in writing an article. None of them really can be included without clear attribution to the source and they generally seem to be from the same biased POV. For better or worse, Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia so even if Dr. Robinson has excellent evidence that the Douma attack is staged, if it is not acknowledged as convincing by third-party independent sources, this remains an opinion that is essentially WP:FRINGE and also subject to concerns over WP:GEVAL. We could perhaps report this as the opinion of Dr. Robinson or the working group with which he is involved, but Wikipedia's hands are tied to paying the most attention to the "standard story" rather than any minority report. That means attributing such opinions if they deserve notice at all. Essentially every reliable source I have seen so far that even acknowledges this proposal is out there argues that this claim is incorrect, so it is hard for me to see how we can even treat this as a two-sided argument. It's certainly not going to be covered in Wikipedia as a reliable debunking of the standard story. jps (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My main argument about Douma is that the Russian government (which editorially control RT), as supporters of Assad, cannot be considered a impartial source on information regarding syrian chemical weapons attacks allegedly committed by the Assad Regime. I agree that Douma is murky, but there are other chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime that are better corroborated and are under considerably less dispute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

____Dear Hemiauchenia, Regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents, Douma was in fact there first one where the OPCW FFM actually managed to get in on the ground. The previous investigations relied on material provided by belligerent associated groups. In other words, Douma is the case where they had the best chance of obtaining accurate information. And yet, as you say, it turned out murky. It should also be kept in mind that it is OPCW scientists who have been dissenting. I do not think there is any reasonable grounds to question that; it is widely known. At the very least wikipedia pages should acknowledge this fact., p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersgregoryrobinson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, this is not a general forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Information about the dissent within OPCW does appear in some Syria related articles. However, the problem editors have is that, for some reason, mainstream media, with the exception of Peter Hitchens who we can’t use for other reasons, have refused to report on it. This leaves editors who want to inform readers with a lack of acceptable sources. This was made worse with the recent proscribing of ‘The Canary’ and ‘Grayzone’. We have a similar situation here in trying to fill out Robinson’s bio. Mainstream media don’t appear interested in detailing Robinson’s views. When articles relating to him are published, they seem to be trying to warn readers off. These are generally not much use in a proper bio. There are also his articles published mainly in The Guardian which provide a good source for his views but may be considered Primary Sources so require careful handling. If we look outside mainstream media there are more sources such as RT, Grayzone etc. but, alas, these won’t be able to find their way into the article. Burrobert (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert:, what's your take on Bellingcat's four part series [33] [34] [35] [36] on the leaks? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry haven’t read them. I am suspicious of Bellingcat because of its background and funding. Besides there are enough editors quoting Bellingcat that my help isn’t needed. I assume they have extracted the best parts. I only read Bellingcat to verify what other editors have written. Actually, it isn’t a matter of determining which side is correct. We should provide readers with the range of views and let them decide. The same applies to this page. Burrobert (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Its irrelevant, wp:not is clear we are not a general forum, and it does not matter how much the media ignore a subject (other than if a subject is ignored we also ignore it, notability is our watchword).Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

[EC] In my opinion, the Reliable Source Noticeboard has been gamed, repeatedly bringing sources to the noticeboard until sources supporting particular viewpoints are promoted and others demoted, using double standards and partisan reasoning, including using favoured sources to attack unfavoured ones, to obtain the desired results. Having fixed the deck, editors can then argue that their favoured viewpoint is fact and anything else fringe. Why should The Canary, which has a formal editorial system, adheres to editorial standards, prints corrections etc. not be reliable when, for example, Bellingcat, which has no obvious editorial processes, is written by a few 'citizen journalists' and receives at least some of its funding through a branch of the CIA, is? If, as I suspect, it comes down to editors eliminating sources which don't agree with their point of view because they don't agree with their point of view, that is, opinionated editors being governed by and not being able to see past their own opinions, there is obviously a major problem. One consolation is that everything is recorded so that there is a chance that, some years down the line, there may be a reckoning over who the heroes and villains with regard to skewing content are.     ←   ZScarpia   15:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This accusation can be aimed at both sides, so adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is your argument? It's interesting that you agree that there are 'sides'. Are you arguing that both are trying to game the RSN? If so, what do you think the result has been? Has one side gained the upper hand?     ←   ZScarpia   16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My argument is this is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's say we have a set of highly divisive issues with individuals on one side complaining about propaganda and the other making derogatory conspiracy theorist, trutherism and useful idiot accusations. Then we have a discussion about whether the accusations made by the latter are 'facts' or not. In order to present the accusations as facts, the process may have been fixed so that only one side's viewpoint is seen as reliable. You can say that the process has not been fixed or that it is has not been fixed in a way which represents a major problem, but I doubt you can say that whether or not the process has been fixed is irrelevant to the current discussion.     ←   ZScarpia   16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, that is not a topic for this talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It impinges on what is reliable and neutral in the current context. You are entitled to your opinion and to present arguments establishing a consensus position. So am I. And clearly we disagree about what is relevant or irrelevant here.     ←   ZScarpia   17:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE, this is for discussing how to improve the article, not question other users conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

From my point of view I am discussing how to improve the article, or, at least, stop it from becoming a hatchet job in the style of various similarly-oriented articles from sources such as the Huff Post and Times. In my opinion you've mischaracterised what I wrote. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote in its proper context, as a reply to another editor's commment?     ←   ZScarpia   18:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter who started it (and I asked for this not to be turned into a general forum the subject at 17:02, 20 May 2020, this is my last request (to all users) comment on content and comment only on how to improve the article, not users, not their motives and not the motives of people of wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to close your brackets. It's quite vexing. Burrobert (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making (inaccurate) comments about other editors and get back to discussing the article yourself.     ←   ZScarpia   08:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: If you feel that this article has a problem which is caused by another problem somewhere else, then you should not try to solve the somewhere-else problem here. Instead, you should try to solve the somewhere-else problem somewhere else.

More concrete: If you think RSN has a problem, go to RSN and "game it", as you choose to call the process of discussion about the best solution. We will not override RSN stuff here because you think RSN is wrong. Go to RSN, and if you succeed, come back here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to 'solve' the problem here, only raise it.

As far as overriding the RSN goes, did you notice the bit at the top of the page where it says: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Have you noticed any discussion of any of the sources here 'in the context' of this page?

    ←   ZScarpia   08:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I almost did not notice that you were responding to me; from the placing it looked like you were responding to Hemiauchenia. Fixed that for you.

After "raising" the problem and being told this is not the right place for that, you should have said "ok" and gone raise it somewhere else. It is still what you should do now.

did you notice Please do not give me riddles to solve. If what you wanted to tell me with that riddle is that you actually wrote something on RSN: So what? The main thing we are all telling you is not "write general RS stuff on RSN". It is "do not write general RS stuff here". Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the indentation.
If you want the discussion to end, the best way would be to stop commenting. That way you wouldn't put me in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to comment further to address your misapprehnsions.
I'm sorry that you found my last comment too cryptic. Let me try to clarify:

• I highlighted the 'in context' part of the description given of the purpose of the Reliable Source Noticeboard, the intention being to try to get you to consider the context-related aspect of source reliablility.
• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
• That means that established consensuses on the general reliability of sources are not the be all and end all of whether or not those sources may be used to establish fact; the local context should also be considered.
• You made a comment about overriding the RSN, implying that consesus positions on general reliablity must not be ignored. That is incorrect and so I left a comment indicating that.
• At the top of the RSN, there is an explanation of the purpose of the noticeboard: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." No questions have been posted at the RSN regarding any of the sources which are relevant here in the context of the current topic. Since no consensus has already been established, we are free to do so ourselves.
• I posted my original comment after comments were made about about decisions made at the RSN.
• My main purpose in commenting was to raise a local discussion about source reliability in the context of the current article.
• I have watched a series of inconsistent decisions being made at the RSN which, in my opinion, are totally skewing articles, including the current one, in favour of presenting one particular viewpoint as fact. A secondary purpose was to raise the issue here preparatory to bringing it up at the RSN.
• I had no intention of, as you asserted, trying to cure the problem with a discussion here.
• Slatersteven wrote that my comment was irrelevant. I wrote an explanation of why I thought it was.
• You state that I should instead have just cleared off.
• If you or Slatersteven hold some kind of policing rights on the current article, please explain them to me.

Now, I would have preferred not to have spent my time writing all that, but I felt it to be necessary.
    ←   ZScarpia   22:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I give up. If you call this "clarifying", I don't want to know what happens if you try to confuse issues. So, since no connection between the abstract stuff you wrote above and improving the article is visible, what exactly would need to happen to make you say "my efforts to improve the article have succeeded"? No, please ignore that question. No good will come of trying to answer it.

BTW, the you indented now makes it look as if Hemiauchenia's contribution below responded to your last contribution, and people need to look at the dates to find out it isn't so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel it is worth noting here that I have opened up a discussion on the use of the Huffington Post in this article at the RS/N at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#HuffPost_for_quotations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OR

Where is the OR?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to analyse and interpret the subject's views/opinions based on selected interviews (or actually quotes therefrom). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Such As?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, Piers has stated on this talk page that the HuffPost's quotes on 9/11 (at least) are accurate and accurately reflect his views. @Kashmiri:, can you explain what sections you think contain original research? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

British politics and Russia

There seems to be a push (three removals so far) to remove sections related to British politics and Russia from the article. The reason given was that Robinson hasn’t published in those areas. My opinion is contained in my revert? Any other thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This goes back to the notability above, he has gained huge amounts of notability, for the stuff people want to remover from here. This is an attempt (frankly) to just turn this into a hagiography. He is far more notable for... pontificating on all manner of subjects than as an academic. And our SNG's are there for when a subject does not meet GNG, not as an excuse to exclude highly noted materiel.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would settle for a biography. However, I didn’t catch what you were saying. Does it relate to my question? Burrobert (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this quickly, it looks like there's a awful lot of summarizing of primary sources. The CNN effect is well-documented. Some of the stuff that has gotten pushback also has secondary sources (like 9/11, corona). But e.g. the 2003 iraq war subsection is entirely primarily sourced. I think the best you can correctly say is something like "Robinson has contributed opinion pieces on British politics to the Guardian and other papers". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost all of the "Political research" section is based on primary sources. If his views on Russia or British politics are not relevnace why his views on "Media and propaganda" the "Syrian civil war"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the political research section should be cut down a fair bit, and for example the "Syrian civil war" section seems WP:UNDUE to me. "Media and propaganda" should likely be merged with "the CNN effect" (I think these are essentially saying the same thing, except that the latter is better-sourced). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, so if a third party RS deems his research noticeable we can deem it note worthy. We should not be a repository of his opinions, only what people think of them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally are we only allowed his opinion of his work?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say the new version looks better. At the end of the day it is mostly media coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur. It looks much better now. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment was made before your latest rush of edits.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and now it looks even better :D — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and felt I should point out what you said you agreed with is not the version as it now stands.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article further, please do not hesitate to. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So lets have all the media coverage of his opinions, and not just a selective few.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is not my preferred version as other editors have already pointed to problems with the wording you just restored. — kashmīrī ^TALK

A major issue with your version is that the sources you have used don't verify your claims. I pointed this out in my edit summary. "The conspiracy theory accusation only relates to HuPo and comes from his 9/11 views. Murdoch's Times doesn't really say much about Robinson. COVID obviously isn't mentioned in either source as they are over a year old. Robinson's views on the Douma attack aren't discussed in either article". For the moment, I have placed tags against the points that don't appear in your sources. Burrobert (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Your bracket usage is getting worse. Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the times says he was part of a panel of them, so the vague wording is best. I will add that the claims about Syria are made in a source in the lede (as well as a claim he is spreading conspiracy theories, but I suppose that does not mean he is one).Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I encouraged you to go and improve the article, meaning you are free to undo my edits that you didn't seem to like (which basically consisted in adding wikilinks). I didn't mean for you to go and flout the consensus that has been forming here on Talk page for weeks, and ignore all these lengthy discussions. I am on the verge of undoing all your edits from the last hour or so pending further discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda and Wikipedia

I would like to question why this entry is apparently being considered for deletion? if Dr Robinson is such a minor figure why is this talk page so long and why does it contain so much heated discussion?

Dr Robinson is arguably a controversial figure in that his subject is propaganda. And there are, I think it is reasonable to suppose, interested parties who might wish for someone who exposes propaganda to be silenced, smeared and deleted.

I quote the article as an example of this:

"Robinson gave a positive review to 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin, which promotes conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 attacks on the United States."

The reader is clearly being directed here to infer that Dr Robinson is a supporter of "conspiracy theories". This is unfair.

Dr Robinson has reviewed a book and given his opinion on it. The editor of this page has stated that Mr Griffin "promotes conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks". This is an allegation which is not properly referenced. The allegation was made by Chris York in the Huffington Post. Wikipedia repeats York's allegation as though it is fact. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The AfD was Slatersteven's idea, not anybody else's. I'm not opposed to removing "which promotes conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 attacks on the United States", but I think the HuffPost is fine as a source of the direct quotes, which Piers has stated on this talk page are accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is he has such a big talk page because people are arguing that all the media coverage he has got is not RS (and attempt to remove RS's opinion of him), and thus we rely only on him and one book.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thank you. I see the paragraph has been rewritten and I think it is a great improvement. The label "conspiracy theorist" represents one person's subjective opinion. In this case, the opinion of journalist Chris York. It may be fine for journalists to use this expression if they are pushing a particular viewpoint, and in some cases useful to point out that this has been said, but to repeat it in the way that had been done originally is I think potentially misleading and unfair. I don't think that this should be encouraged on wikipedia. I repeat, the label is a reflection of subjective opinion not and fact. John2o2o2o (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

White helmets

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/syria-on-academic-freedom-and-responsibility/ "Piers Robinson, has repeatedly promoted a radio interview with Vanessa Beeley in which she calls the Syrian White Helmets legitimate targets for killing (a war crime in international law)."

So why is this not relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Where does it mention Robinson's views on the White Helmets? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not just that he promoted a call to kill them, would you rather we said that?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also its in other sources we already have.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To make it more clear: if a university professor tells his/her students to read a particular book (or listen to a particular interview), does it mean he/she agrees with every word of it? You are falling for insinuations contained in the media. Here, we can't base a BLP on insinuations as the policy is clear in this regard. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I might agree, if this was an isolated recommendation., and not part of a context that see's him claiming they have killed Syrian civilians and are agents of the west.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers retweeded an article from Sputnik claiming that "White Helmets Admit Staging Syria Chemical Attacks" Piers has also stated on twitter that "It is indeed very likely the victims at Douma were murdered captives. As such a potential warcrime and one that is being covered up by @opcw management, western governments and most of the mainstream media. But the truth is coming out." In an article from the SPM of which Piers is one of the authors, it claims that "The clearest evidence that the White Helmets were actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians is from the Khan Sheikhoun incident on 4 April 2017, where a Syrian jet was alleged to have dropped a sarin-containing munition on the town causing the deaths of at least 70 people." These of course are all primary sources, but they are all referenced in this HuffPost piece. This discussion still seems to not have reached any sort of concensus, so it might be necessary to go to the NPOV and FRINGE noticeboards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Something tells me this is what brought me here in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

11/9

If his review of the book should not be here why is it here?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused, can you add context? I added it as a supplementary link complimenting the HuffPost article, as while I would consider off guardian a unreliable source, I thought it pertinent to link to the review directly for reader convenience. The quote it is being used to justify is also directly quoted in the HuffPost article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is do not remove reviews, as they are part of his notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage

That section has taken a turn to the worse. "have led to The Times newspaper and the Huffington Post website linking Robinson to conspiracy theories." - what does that even mean? Do the papers spread conspiracy theories involving Robinson, or do they say that Robinson spreads conspiracy theories? If the first, say it clearly and give sources saying that they do. If the second, say it clearly.

The next sentence is also crap. Instead of saying that Robinson considers the coverage a sear campaign, we give Robinson's silly justification for calling it that without mentioning he does. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for such propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it's not always clear what the sources are saying and they often seem to say it in an indirect way by, for example, quoting someone who describes the group as conspiracy theorists. What can you make of the following taken from Murdoch's Times?:

• "Professor Hayward rejected claims that members of SPM had spread “pro-Assad disinformation and conspiracy theories promoted by Russia”."

• "After reading Professor Hayward’s article, Dr Ahmad used Twitter to call it “illiterate Islamophobic drivel”, describing the professor as “an eccentric best known for his disgraceful conspiracy theories" - (about Tim Hayward)

• "Their output is no more reputable than the conspiracy theories of the Kremlin"

• "they echo the hoariest claims of conspiracy theorists"

Regarding the second point, Robinson's response is not adequately captured by saying the coverage is a smear campaign. Burrobert (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If a source does not make clear what it is saying, we should not use it, instead of adapting the article away from clarity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

We are all guilty but I think I should point out wp:3rr. I am going to reset the article back to the last stable version (if there is one).Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Good move. I was getting quite dizzy. Your choice of version seems fine. The SPM/apologist accusation has since resurfaced in the lead. Since it doesn’t appear in the body at all, it needs to be placed and expanded on in a suitable location - possibly under Syria. Burrobert (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think its an awful version, but it seems to be the last stable one. I suggest no changes are made without agreement as we will just edit war again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

An editing truce is an excellent idea. Burrobert (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I have done as you requested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, if anyone one else makes one more revert in breach of 3RR I will report it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is quite frustrating. I appreciate that this was getting confusing but I also think we were very nearly there with it. Having sections on Russia, British politics, and Media and Propaganda is a big step backwards. There surely neds to be a section on the CNN Effect given that it's his most cited research topic. The version at 14:58, 29 May 2020‎ only needed a few tweaks. I am not sure of the exact rules here but I am going to make one final, big lot of changes and then I'll leave it alone until you guys fix it. I hope that's acceptable and if not please feel free to revert and I will butt out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesMcAteer (talk • contribs)

In a similar contentious situation in the past, I thought it was useful to create a copy of the article in a "work" page, for example at Talk:Pier Robinson/draft2020, and use that for staging changes to the main article until consensus emerges. It makes things seem a little less pressing and urgent, anyway. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to interrupt the positive feel that we have "peace in our time", but I think it is my duty to indicate that I have concerns that this article includes defamatory material about the subject. As everybody would be aware, W:BLP and W:LBL are strongly worded policies, which stipulate that libelous material should be removed immediately. Why am I not removing material immediately? Well, perhaps I should, but I don't want to start another edit war, where my edits would be immediately reversed. There are a number of things which concern me. One is that assumption that because an assertion is made in a RS, then this absolves us of our responsibility to check for defamation. I cannot find that anywhere in Wikipedia policies. The other concern is that what is happening here is a form of binary logic, whereby anybody who says that we need to give due space to such-and-such is automatically assumed to be in support of such-and-such. For instance, I support the right of followers of Islam to promulgate their faith. But this does not necessarily mean that I am a follower of Islam. Incidentally, it is important that W:LBL merely refers to 'libelous material'. In other words, there does not mean to be a court decision. Further, Wikipedia is a publisher in its own right. If Wikipedia re-publishes a previously published libel, then this becomes a separate libel in its own right. W:LBL indicates succinctly: "It is the responsibility of all contributors [i.e. editors] to ensure the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". Part of the defamation check is to check that the allegations against a person are true, and in this case I think it involves going to what the subject actually said, rather than relying upon what his accusers have alleged that he said. Research17 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you specify the text that you think may be libellous? I'll have a look. Also your link should be to WP:LBL. Following W:LBL leads to Latvian Basketball League among other things. Burrobert (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add, all material is sourced, so if it is libellous it might be best to contract those sources first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Having no legal background, I duckduckgo'd libel law. Of course, you can't always believe what you see on the internet, however, one website that provides instructions for writers said: "Quoting others: If you publish defamatory remarks about people or organisations made by other people you will be just as liable to be sued as they are". It also said: "Be very careful about the adjectives you use", which seems good advice under any circumstance. Interesting stuff. So does attributing libellous statements save us? I don't know. How can we find out? I guess we can cross that bridge when we know what the libellous statements are. Burrobert (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am also no lawyer but I suspect "well why did you not sue the Times?" might be a good defence as to why its not libellous.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: It's important to note that UK libel laws are among the most strict in the world, which is why the UK used to be subject to libel tourism. I don't think that any thing on this article could currently be considered defamatory, as all contentious claims like that he as an "apologist for assad" are attributed opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Research17: BLP states that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" As far as I can see, all material in this article satisfies this criterion. Would you like to explain your objections more specifically? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Colleagues. Thanks for raising those issues, and hope to respond in detail in a few days. BTW, pleasant surprise to engaging in a Talk Page where civility seems to the norm. Research17 (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the truce over?

Looks like editing has recommenced. Burrobert (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I take that back. A minute later the edit has been reverted. Good work. Burrobert (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content (9/11 Truther, COVID misinfo)

The Times explicitly says that Robinson is a 9/11 Truther, thus we should as well: "The founders of the OPS include Piers Robinson, a former journalism professor at Sheffield, and Mark Crispin Miller, a media professor at New York University. Both are 9/11 “Truthers” who challenge the official explanation of the World Trade Center attacks."[37] That he's a 9/11 Truther has also been covered by the Huffington Post.[38]

The Times also points to Robinson's COVID-19 conspiracy theorizing, thus we should as well.[39][40] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I will explain to you as you seem unable to grasp basic facts. The fact that some journalist calls a person an idiot doesn't give an encyclopaedia an automatic right to brand them so. We Wikipedia editors must be very careful in what we say in WP:Wikivoice, especially with regard to living people. You seem to have a long history of controversial editing, including warnings and ANI reports, so I will advise you to exercise caution when editing biographies of living people, especially when it goes against established consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Please read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines, we can't accuse people of being conspiracy theorists willy-nilly. The Times did not describe him as a conspiracy theorist but as having "promoted conspiracy theories", which I think is a fair description. Piers is a somewhat well known academic with over 3000 citations according to google scholar. The COVID 19 claims have been discussed extensively, see the Talk:Piers_Robinson#COVID-19 and Talk:Piers_Robinson#re_Times_article discussions above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Related page requires attention: Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Since many editors are involved in discussion here, it may be productive to expand Tim Hayward (political scientist) a collaborator with Robinson. Many of the sources on this page mention Hayward, and editors could save time by adding relevant information while research and discussion here is ongoing. GPinkerton (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the page is mostly sourced to Hayward's blog alone. GPinkerton (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: David Miller (sociologist) is also a related article that needs improvement. I note that the articles for Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have received considerably less pushback regarding the false claims that the SPM has made. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Promoter of conspiracy theories in the lead?

Should the lead include text that identifies Robinson as a promoter of conspiracy theories (e.g. "conspiracy theorist", someone who "promotes conspiracy theories")? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The text could be sourced to the following references:

References

Survey

• Yes. The conspiracy theorizing is one of his main claims to notability. It's amply supported in RS coverage, the conspiracy theorizing is covered at great length in the body, and it led to his resignation from the University of Sheffield (demonstrating that it's a notable part of his life and career).[41] Here are some RS that say he promotes conspiracy theories:

• The Times, April 2018: "Senior British academics are spreading pro-Assad disinformation and conspiracy theories promoted by Russia... [Vanessa Beeley] claims that the White Helmets are al-Qaeda-affiliated and, as “terrorists”, are a “legit target” for Assad’s forces... Piers Robinson, professor of politics, society and political journalism at the University of Sheffield, posted a clip in which Ms Beeley repeated the argument that the group should be a target with the note “interesting interview”.[42]
• The Times, April 2020: "Prominent British academics have been sharing conspiracy theories about the coronavirus online... The academics include... Piers Robinson."[43]
• The Times, June 2020: "Piers Robinson and David Miller have both promoted conspiracy theories"[44]
• Snopes, May 2018: "A panel of conspiracy theorists plan to gather to discuss whether war reporters should be considered terrorists... The panel was also to include... Piers Robinson."[45]
• Huffington Post, April 2018: "[Robinson] has publicly supported long-discredited conspiracy theories about the 9/11 terror attack... Robinson’s work has been described as “conspiracy-theory driven”, “completely insulting” and of having “no interest in truth or justice” by academics speaking to HuffPost UK... [Robinson] promotes the work of [conspiracy theorists]."[46]
• Huffington Post, April 2019: "[Robinson] who promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and wrote papers that critics claimed “whitewashed” the war crimes of the Syrian government has left his post."[47]

• Specific conspiracy theories that he has promoted include 9/11 Trutherism ("Robinson said it was now obvious the official story of the World Trade Centre attacks was incorrect")[48][49], COVID-19 (see above)[50], promoting conspiracy theorists by renowned Syria civil war conspiracy theorist Vanessa Beeley[51], promoting the conspiracy that the OPCW had framed the Syrian government for using chemical weapons[52]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to "Conspiracy theorist" indifferent to "promoter of conspiracy theories" Describing someone as a "Conspiracy theorist" in wikivoice should be limited to those who do it for a living, like Alex Jones, David Icke and Mark Dice. Piers is more similar to Max Blumenthal where both actively promote pro-assad/Russia disinformation, but Max Blumenthal also isn't described as a conspiracy theorist in his article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• NoYes As we have do not have enough sources to say it IN OUR VOICE. But as the issue has now widened I have to say that yes, we can mention some aspect of this in the lead. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• No also I believe he left University of Sheffield for personal reasons and to pursue other interests. Burrobert (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, per WP:NOTNEWS. Although there has been a lot of recent coverage, this is not his main reason for notability. Discussing the coverage of him as promoting conspiracy theories definitely belongs in the article, but not in the lede. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - Not near primary notability or particularly signifigant. Also the Snopes artile is misleading take a look at the discussion above and the RSN chat. The article is talking about other people when it says that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, not in Wikivoice No, not in the lede, but Yes definitely in the article, and not in Wikivoice: in the way of "has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories by". At the moment, the fact that others see him like that is carefully avoided, obviously because some users tremble before his litigiousness, because the BLP crowd is overconfident at the moment, and maybe because others are on first-name basis with him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes definitely How can someone whose notability on Wikipedia is promoting conspiracies and losing his job for it not be described as a conspiracy theorist? Would "propagandist for Bashar al-Assad" or "apologist for Russian foreign policy" work better? Does this person have any notable position except as an online conspiracy guru? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs)

He was determined to be notable at the recent AfD mostly per WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, less because of the recent news coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hell no, the reasons for not including such stuff have been discussed ad nauseam. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that aims to offer neutral, objective and encyclopaedic information about notable subjects based on reliable sources. It is not a repository of every mud-slinging piece of writing that may be come across on the internet. Here, the subject is notable in an encyclopaedic sense, primarily, for his academic work on propaganda, esp. on the CNN effect. At the same time, he is thrown mud at, by a handful of journalists, for questioning (rightly of wrongly) official narratives of events that receive significant media coverage. However, to analyse and question them is precisely the crux of his research. It takes a lot of naivety or bad faith to argue that to question and challenge accepted narratives equals supporting conspiracies. Even if some journalists go for such a naive simplification, hell, we are an encyclopaedia here! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  "Questioning official narratives" is conspiracist-speak. That is exactly the way they put it. So he quacks like a duck, and the Times notices that, but Wikipedia shouldn't, because he is... an expert on propaganda, which somehow seems to beat the findings of the UNHRC commission who found sarin - whether chemicals are found is obviously not determined by chemical analysis in situ, but by sitting in an armchair at a university. Well, he doesn't seem to be the only propaganda expert. Framing objections as "mud-slinging" is pretty standard technique, isn't it?

  It looks like this to me: In the eyes of his defenders, Robinson is allowed to say whatever he wants, accusing the UN and others of nefarious plots, but as soon as someone contradicts him, his lawyers start marching. This is not the way academics usually think, it is actually exactly the opposite of the way they should think, and the article should definitely be allowed to "question his narrative". --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling, Well, that's precisely what science is all about: looking beyond the surface, beyond "truths" repeated by people who bother to read neither the original OPCW report, which steers clear from attributing the blame for the attack, nor Robinson's analysis which dealt with entirely different event - the supposed chlorine attack on Douma; and instead are ready to believe whatever narrative is fed to them; and worse: stick it in an encylopaedia. See, propaganda studies are a fascinating area, and you would serve as a good study object.

  Yes, Robinson is allowed to say whatever he wants, as all academics in their fields, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to argue with him. We can only report, if we decide so, on his claims, possibly along with any criticism of his theories. But it's not our role to take sides nor, in particular, to publish or republish personal attacks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not "possibly along with any criticism". "Along with any criticism". His ideas are fringe, and because of WP:FRINGE, we need to either balance them by mainstream responses, or delete them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hell No, he is questioning the "official narrative", and, sorry to say, the "official narrative" needs to be questioned. (I am old enough to remember when 70% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 -attack, precisely because they had been fed that falsehood from the Mainstream Media -and the Bush-administration), I am living in "the West", but I am sorry to say: our leaders LIE to us, all the time :( We need people like Piers Robinson (unless you still think that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003: lol!) Huldra (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Outside of the US, almost everybody knew that Saddam had nothing to do with it. That "official narrative" fooled only US Republicans and Tony Blair. This is different. Answering a question by simply copying the answer to another question does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hmmm, no: a Newsweek survey taken in 2003 showed about 70% of the American people believed it, sorry to say, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  And I am also old enough to vividly recall how Bush senior retold the lies of Nayirah testimony, Huldra (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  "Only US Republicans and Tony Blair" was clearly a figure of speech. Of course, since Tony Blair was not a dictator, he alone would not be enough to add the UK to the anti-Saddam crowd. My point was that the US is not the world, that Fox News had and has far less credibility outside the US than inside, and that 70% of the US population is about 3% of the world population. Yes, large parts of your gullible country fell for W's lies, but the rest of the world did not. Because the lies were easy to see through. For people who do not get their information from Fox.

  And this case is entirely different, because this time the "official narrative" is not based on Republican belief in rumors, Republican wishful thinking, Republican simplemindedness, Republican jingoism, and Republican tribalism, but on solid research checked by several multinational groups independent from each other. So please stop judging current problems based of superficial similarities to previous ones, it's silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  No, no, and no again. It was NOT only the Republicans who supported Bush in 2003, virtually ALL Democrats supported him, too. (This is like writing 2+2=4; elementary stuff if you are interested in the Middle East). And so what if the US only represent 3% of the populations: that had the guns, they (and their allies) destroyed Iraq, Libya, and have done their very best to destroy Syria (read eg. link, or see Institute for Statecraft.) (...and having Europe swarming with refugees as a consequence). Again, in 2003 people with my views (eg: not believing the that the "evidence" of Saddam Husseins WMD was ...convincing) were regularly pilloried. BUT: we were right. Now the "independent multinational groups", people like Bellingcat, or Institute for Statecraft: Both paid for by the US/UK(!) magically find "proof" supporting ..the US/UK/Nato policies.

  To my nose: it stinks, Huldra (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  PS. User:Hob Gadling: please name ONE leading Democrat who was against the 2003 Iraq invasion? Huldra (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  You keep talking not about the current question, but instead about the old story twenty years ago where you were right (and I was right and practically all the non-US part of the world was right) and a large part of the US was wrong. Then you seem to conclude that because you were right back then, you must be right this time too (and I am wrong). By the same reasoning, I could say that because I was right back then, I must be right this time too (and you are wrong). I do not do that because I can tell good thinking from bad thinking. Instead, I actually look at the actual case that is actually at hand now. Because that is how you answer questions: by answering the question at hand and not by copying the answer to a different question. I just changed my !vote because the reasoning of you folks are so abysmally bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I could also mention the 2011 military intervention in Libya: equally based on NATO's false intelligence. My point is this: the Western leaders/Nato have given us false info, again and again these last 20 years. IMO: it would be extremely foolish to uncritically accept any viewpoint from Western leaders/Nato as the God-given "Truth" wrt to the Middle East. As I have said before: "Fool me once: shame on you. Fool me twice: shame on me", Huldra (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I see. And therefore it would be extremely foolish to mention that others disagree with Robinson. Extremely foolish to not accept Robinson's viewpoint uncritically. Which this survey is actually about. I repeat: Absymally. Bad. Reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of straw in two lines of text Mr Goblin. Burrobert (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

See above: "the "official narrative" needs to be questioned" was given as a reason for not mentioning that Robinson's output is seen as "conspiracy theories" by others, and the other reasons were given that Bush did this and Americans did that and other irrelevant things. And when I point out that those things are not relevant, more irrelevant things are added. Repeat the last step twice.

Somehow, that person seems to believe that Bush's lies about Saddam magically not only make the UN untrustworthy but also turn the Times in an unreliable source or something. It is never explained how the "logic" is supposed to work, how conspiracy theories stop being conspiracy theories because someone else did something else. Nothing about it makes any sense, try as I might. And you think I am the one who uses fallacious reasoning? My guess was as good as any other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is: the Times has been an unreliable source, AFAIK with say, both the 2011 Libya and 2003 Iraq. (Much like other WP:RS: New York Times was notoriously unreliable wrt to the WMD-issue.) IMO, we should therefor NOT accept their views as "the Truth". Huldra (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you should go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and try to get it demoted. (Even if they accept your claim that what the Times wrote back then was untrue, they will tell you that even reliable sources are not infallible, so it will not work.)

Instead, you keep misrepresenting what this thread is about: yes, this is about balancing one viewpoint with another, and yes, it is about presenting one viewpoint as "the Truth", but you are on the side that is against balancing viewpoints and for presenting only one viewpoint in the article.

But this is pointless. You will not get it anyway, and everybody else understands it already. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, no: adding The Times conspiracy theory is accepting them as "The Truth". And that, in a WP:BLP?

There are two standards on WP:RS: MSM are more or less automatically WP:RS, irregardless of how many times they have gotten their facts wrong. Other media: not so. Sad, but true.

Again, sorry you have to resort to PA: please "tackle the ball, not the person" as they say in football. (Also I am not very concerned with what "everybody else" thinks; I am concerned with what is right. "Everybody else" (ie 70% of the American people) believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 -attack: that doesn't make it right.) "Think for yourself", is an old advice I try to follow, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have called the Syrian articles (about the war) "the greatest shit-hole on Wikipedia" (see User_talk:Huldra#AN_discussion), and I stand by that. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes -- there are some impressive contortions being offered here to justify exclusion of some material that has exactly the sort of sourcing we'd normally insist on. This all amounts to WP:OR, and it should stop. The material meets core policies for inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I do find it kind of ironic we are almost seeing "SNG means we do not need to use these media sources about him" when it is there for academics who do not pass GNG because of lack of media coverage (unlike here where he clearly passes GNG in the first place due to media coverage).Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• No -- per Hob. The people making the accusations should be named. (The origin of the term "conspiracy theorist" -- used as a label for living people -- should also be borne in mind.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Piers Robinson & his fellow conspiracy theorists work tirelessly to obscure the truth, cover up crimes against humanity & effectively encourage more atrocities to be committed by war criminal & tyrants. In Syria, their disgraceful attempt to whitewash Assad's & Putin's crimes against humanity, eg the Douma 2018 chemical attack, would have encouraged perpetrators of crimes against humanity to commit more atrocities with impunity. The 'managed massacre' conspiracy theory, for example, is one preposterous example. Robinson et al accuse rescue workers of staging the massacre, falsely claiming that the victims, many are children, are abducted & gassed to frame Assad. They fail to name any victim, even though activists from the Violation Documentation Center listed victims by name. A pdf detailed documentation of the attack is available here: (https://vdc-sy.net/suspected-chemical-attack-douma-city/). It's worth mentioning that, initially, Robinson et al denied a chemical attack took place at all. Piers Robinson went to the extent of telling a blatant lie to viewers of @SkyNews, where he falsely claimed that "UN agency in Damascus reporting they are not finding any evidence of a chemical attack"(at 01:24, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M9PtP5x6fE&feature=youtu.be). When challenged, he admitted he was referring to a Russian general, not the 'UN agency', in Syria. Here is a Twitter exchange with Piers Robinson:

https://twitter.com/MaherBarotchi/status/1066815355090321408?s=20

Giving platform to genocide deniers & propagandists for tyrants cost further loss of innocent lives. If Robinson & his fellow conspiracy theorists were manufacturing stories to deny the holocaust, they would have been rightly persecuted in a court of law. Wikipedia should not provide a platform for genocide apologists.

For a glimpse of Assad's crimes against humanity, one could start reading about the systematic torture & extermination of tens of thousands of detainees, eg (Inside Syria’s Secret Torture Prisons: How Bashar al-Assad Crushed Dissent https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/world/middleeast/syria-torture-prisons.html?smid=tw-share). Moreover, Assad's & Putin's indiscriminate bombardment of heavily populated civilian centers caused mass murder & displacement of millions of Syrians. Those who doubt Assad's crimes against humanity, including genocide, have the same mentality of Holocaust deniers.

Would you mind backing up your emotional claims (the Syrian war being a "genocide", a "crime against humanity", Assad being a "war criminal") with reliable sources, including court cases or legal analyses? Otherwise it may feel you are pushing a POV with little backing in either WP policy or reliable sources, and definitely without the slightest understanding of the legal terms you use. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Denying Assad is a war criminal is tantamount to other recognizably atrocious genocide denial. The evidence is overwhelming, and this time, the pictures are in colour. He is currently involved in a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court and his minions are on trial in Koblenz for war crimes and crimes against humanity al-Assad ordered and his government carried out, and continues to carry out. Denial of these facts only illuminates a certain Muscovite POV. GPinkerton (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm not denying anything, but this project has its set of policies and WP:CRIME was among them the last time I checked. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Firstly, please do not refactor your comments once somebody has replied to them. Secondly, it's no big secret that Robinson's views on certain elements of the Syrian conflict are more closely aligned with the Syrian/Russian propaganda. I have no problems saying that in the article. At the same time, your use of "tyrant", etc., for Assad is a clear sign of a brainwash by the other side's propaganda (as a matter of fact, Assad's Syria was among the more liberal countries in the Middle East; incomparably more liberal than, say, Saudi Arabia which you won't call a tyranny, will you?). Now, I don't think a person should be called a "conspiracy theorist" simply for believing propaganda of a different warring party than you do. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Firstly, I don't know what "refactoring" you're speaking about but I know have done nothing of the kind. Al-Assad is unquestionably a tyrant, just like his father before him. Denial of that will not credit you. You have made some bizarre and wrong assumptions in your attacks. Saudi Arabia is a paramount example of a tyranny. It is both absolute monarchy and theocracy. Its rulers behave in just the same way Hafez did. Your absurd assumptions about what I would and would not call tyranny are as telling as they are wrong. Ditto your point about "the other side's propaganda. Another point you have missed, is that Robinson is not some mere dupe believing their propaganda, but actively creates it, all the while covering himself in a veneer of an objective "propaganda expert" routinely wheeled out to reaffirm the echo chamber that is Russian foreign policy. He is not a congregant but a priest of their cult of al-Assad. People should be called conspiracy theorists when their behaviour, their position, their conspiracies, and their theories all point to the multiple reliable sources use of that exact phrase being accurate. GPinkerton (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Won't you agree that most people who speak out their political beliefs repeat propaganda phrases? But somehow it seems ok to support one side of a policy war in the West, however, as you are implying, it's not ok to support one side of an armed conflict in Syria. Weird. It will be fine to repeat Trump/Biden propaganda, even if thousands die as a result of their policies, but it's bad to side with Assad's propaganda – especially that we all perfectly know that the alternative to Assad was either ISIL or Qatar/Saudi-funded rebel groups, so the moral dilemma is of a different calibre (btw, I'm not justifying Assad's policy decisions or the acts of his army's commanders in the field, just recalling the grim situation there). By the way, I wonder what words will you use in an encyclopaedia for people who analyse national and international policies of countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia and sometimes find them rational and justified, and maybe defend their propaganda lines. "Super hyper conspiracy theorists"? You sure you want to write an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What a weird question. If those people who defend Saudi Arabia or North Korea use conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theorists. If they don't, they are not. Why would anybody need superlatives? Also, it's not like the application of the word to Robinson was the choice of a Wikipedia editor: it was used in reliable sources, which makes the question even weirder. Go write a letter to the Times and ask them instead of GPinkerton.

I think you are drifting farther and farther away from the subject of this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's truth is another man's conspiracy theory.

Also, this is not Murdoch's website but an independent encylopaedia, we are not obliged to copy whatever is published in The Times, especially when it goes contrary to our policies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We are obliged to use reliable sources for the encyclopaedia, and your increasingly wild special pleading and whataboutery is not diminishing the suspicion that you would whitewash Robinson and deny the reliability of sources which criticize him because of their criticism. This circular argument of yours is very convenient for writing a POV gush about al-Assad's friends' purity of heart, it is not helpful in an independent encyclopaedia. It is clear you would have Wikipedia not use the Anglophone world's oldest broadsheet as a reliable source because you don't like its reporting. Fine, but your opinions on Murdoch don't change the facts reported by the Times, and the fact that they were reported by the Times and multiple other outlets (entirely unlinked to Murdoch, who you appear to believe is the source of all evil) does not make them untrue. In any case, truth is not what we're establishing, it's the facts as reported by reliable sources. GPinkerton (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• No - or at least, name the theories. The term "Conspiracy Theorist" is negatively charged and usually used as a smear. Simply saying "so-and-so is a conspiracy theorist" doesn't give the reader any useful information while also acting as a knock against his character. It is much better to say "so-and-so promoted the XYZ and ABC conspiracy theories" or something along those lines. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No per Kashmiri ~ HAL333 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to stating as facts in the Wikipedia voice that Robinson is a conspiracy theorist or that he has been promoting conspiracy theories. I have no objection to it being stated that accusations have been made, preferably with the accusers being named.

Stating that Robinson is a conspiracy theorist would require interpretation of the sources and contravene the instructions in WP:BLP to avoid contentious labels and loaded language. It would also be of questionable neutrality.

Personally, I find Kennedy's Times' articles a bit tabloidish in style: they're full of insinuations; they make damning claims without giving verifying detail; they cherry-pick quotes without giving any context; they imply guilt by association. Vindictively, Asa Winstanly is referred to as a blogger. John Mann, a loudmouth poor-man's McCarthy in my opinion, who has a bit of a reputation as a Romany-phobe, is quoted, a poor choice when Mann wasn't actually part of the story.

Recently, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday had to pay libel damages to the Palestine Return Centre after their serialisation of a book by Tom Bowers.[53][54] "Carter-Ruck, representing the PRC, said the 'grotesque but utterly false' allegation had come from the misreporting in the media of comments made by a member of the audience at an event hosted by the PRC at the House of Lords in 2016." Examination of a report by the House of Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct indicates that the misreporting referred to is likely to have been in an article by Kennedy in the Times, “Jews blamed for Holocaust at ‘shameful’ House of Lords event” (if not a similar one in The Jewish Chronicle by Marcus Dysch). Kennedy's article had already had to be amended after a succesful complaint made to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

In an article about David Miller, another member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, Kennedy wrote, supposedy based on a statement given to Asa Winstanley, that Miller had "blamed Israel" when resigning from the Labour Party. The truth of that claim can be judged by reading Winstanley's article.

Additional food for thought about the reliability of Kennedy's reporting can be found in a document and artice on the Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) website.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• No — Agree w ZScarpia, particularly that The Times does not provide context. Further, neither the proposed text nor the articles cited in the RfC indicate with specificity any 'conspiracy theories' Robinson is accused of 'promoting'. Making vague accusations violates WP:BLP. Also, as others have noted, the proposal improperly states the accusation in Wikivoice. Humanengr (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

(Moved from section above): ---Dear Editors, Briefly, regarding the suggestion that my departure from Sheffield was due to my 'promoting conspiracy theories', this is entirely false. I never received any criticism from the University for my research and public engagement and my departure was entirely related to personal circumstances and professional goals. It is categorically untrue that I was forced or pushed to leave. Sincerely, Piers Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersgregoryrobinson (talk • contribs)

I agree with Hob Gadling here. Russ Woodroofe, while I agree with you that Piers is a significant and highly cited academic, and that has been unfairly downplayed in some of this discussion, His involvement with the SPM and investigation of the Douma chemical attack, which disputes the mainstream narrative of the event in favour of Assad and the Russian goverment is a significant part of his present notability and shouldn't be downplayed either. I think that it would be good if more of his early career could be covered in order to give a wholistic account. @Kashmiri: "It takes a lot of naivety or bad faith to argue that to question and challenge accepted narratives equals supporting conspiracies." What exactly is your point here? You could say the same thing about Holocaust denial, Vaccine hesitancy etc. that it is "challenging accepted narratives", but nobody sane would support that, for good reason. Are you saying that his views on 9/11 and Douma aren't at least somewhat fringe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"See, propaganda studies are a fascinating area, and you would serve as a good study object", Kashmiri, that's a blatant and uncalled for personal attack. The gloves are now off. I always suspected that you had a biased POV in this discussion and this cements it. Regardless of your fringe views on Douma, on Wikipedia we go by reliable sources, not parrot the narratives of RT and Sputnik, we should not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this has much to do with Holocaust denial, Vaccine hesitancy: no Western political interest in those two. The Syrian attack has much more to do with Nayirah testimony, Niger uranium forgeries and all the other lies we were told in connection with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, (and I absolutely hate to say this) the RT and Sputnik were far more right about the alleged WMD of Saddam Hussein, than most of the Western Press, :( Huldra (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

My point wasn't about the WMD's it was about rhetoric complaining about the "mainstream narrative" is classic conspiracy speak. There are times to be suspicious of authority, but also when to know when that suspiscion ultimately leaves the realm of reason and into tin-foil hat territory. You can see this a lot with the Pro-Maduro people, a man widely regarded as having decimated the lives of his countrymen through poor management of the economy. The only reason these people support Maduro is because the US goverment opposes him, which provokes the knee-jerk "anti-imperialism" crowd to support him out of contrarianism and anti united-states sentiment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I confess I don't know too much about the Latin-American situation; my interest is the Middle East. And in my experience the Western governments and the Mainstream (Western) Media has been telling us lies after lies after lies these last 20-30 years, whenever they push for another war ("regime change") in the Middle East. That is the unfortunate facts. (the wars in Iraq or Libya as the main examples). So yeah: you bet I question the "mainstream narrative" wrt the Middle East.

"Fool me once: shame on you. Fool me twice: shame on me", Huldra (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately though, Wikipedia is governed by the reliable sources guidelines, meaning that we have to rely on mainstream sourcing, not what "alternative media" tells us for better or worse. The problem is if we allowed all the problematic sourcing, even if it had its uses in specific circumstances then we would be awash with many dubious claims, ultimately we have to draw the line somewhere, even if that line isn't perfect or even great. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but remember that in 2003 anyone who didn't believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD was a "promoter of conspiracy theories". The press against anyone who didn't believe the "official story" was almost overwhelming. Remember Freedom fries?? Huldra (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, So typical! I object your narrative, therefore I must be a Russian agent. Or an anti-vaxxer. Or a supporter of "dictators" who must be overthrown because they are bad or have WMDs (nothing to do with oil!). Am I allowed to laugh? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri You've put words in my mouth, I said none of these things, only criticised you rhetoric. Perhaps you have difficulties with reading comprehension and interpreting that I was having a separate conversation with Huldra, I said nothing about WMDs. Your pathetic, childish and substanceless response has cemented the fact I no longer respect you as an editor. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia so, you have no more argument, but instead resort to WP:PA. Noted, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra: How exactly was I supposed to respond to that?, Kashmiri's sentence was also a non-argument. Kashmiri's "See, propaganda studies are a fascinating area, and you would serve as a good study object" to Hob Gadling was already clearly a personal attack, so I was simply returning the favour for someone who's clearly not here to argue in good faith. If you don't like it take it to ANI, otherwise I don't care. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia: If you criticise other editors rhetoric, it doesn't exactly enhance your argument by using even worse rhetoric....Huldra (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter? It's very clear what your POV is about the Middle East and I know that I won't change your opinion on it, so discussing with you is not fruitful, no offense. What exactly is Kashmiri's argument then? The Times is one of the major newspapers of record in the UK and a reliable source according to WP:RSP, It's not "mud slinging". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To re-iterate: these WP:RS (like The Times) have been about 100% wrong before wrt the Middle East. (anyone editing in the area, or coming from the area knows that). Therefor I would not take their opinion/reporting as "written in stone", or "The Truth" about anything. On the top of that, we are dealing with a WP:BLP, here, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Maybe I was wrong, but please explain why you brought antivaxxers and Holocaust denial into the discussion, and suggested that I am "parroting the narratives of RT and Sputnik". These were all rhetorical tools - precisely, a discrediting tactic that attempts to discredit me by linking me to entirely unrelated but laughable theories (this trick is called Appeal to ridicule) or suggesting I have something in common with untrustworthy people or things (Association fallacy). All of this is a simple, blatant Ergo decedo trick, now in your last sentence sounded even more expressly. Do you believe that such tricks, or manipulation, encourage anyone to discuss the matter with you or to take you as an editor seriously? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, Thanks for your considerate response. Nothing in my initial response was personally aimed at you. My point about the holocaust and anti-vax was not to accuse you of those things, but to provide an extreme example about people who use similar rhetoric to "Questioning official narratives" to promote narratives that (to you and I, at least) are obviously fringe and not supported by evidence, and why the use of that rhetorical device isn't a good argument. The line that the SPM, including Piers has taken on Douma is well in line with the position of Russia and Assad and has been promoted by both RT and Sputnik (which Piers has regularly appeared on), as well as an envoy of the Russian Government. That is clear, regardless of what actually happened at Douma. No reliable source supports the theories on Douma that Piers supports. The Grayzone, RT, Sputnik and the Mail on Sunday have been depreciated (full disclosure I called the Sputnik RfC, but this was after the RT RfC closed with the depreciate vote and so was somewhat inevitable), while pretty much all reliable sources support the mainstream Douma narrative, for better or for worse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is plenty of things that some governments blame others for, and the latter ones deny (shall I start listing?) – and each government has its propaganda tools to make its version more believable. How many Germans believed in 1939 that the reason the WW2 started was because they were attacked? How many Russians believe that it was the Ukrainians that shot down the MH17? 80%! We all are being subjected to propaganda on a daily basis, and such phenomena precisely are the subject of research of propaganda studies. Science is about re-analysing "the obvious", and ridiculing such research ("oh, it sounds too much like the government we don't like", or "oh, it's like anti-vaxxers") doesn't really help in describing the subject in an encyclopaedic manner. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was about Robinson, not the organisation he runs.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead section now includes a sentence that The Murdoch Times identifies Robinson’s organisation as a spreader of conspiracy theories. This is quite close to the topic of the current RfC. What do other’s think? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It has done for a while, this is not some new addition.Slatersteven (talk)

And (as far as I am aware) once an RFC is launched you cannot alter it to include new questions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

it was added by web manager at 5:20 today. Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And you are fully aware it was in the article before that point as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

this is the lead just before snog made his change and just before the RfC was started:

“Piers Gregory Robinson (born 1970) is a British former academic, a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, and a founder of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM). As part of the SPM working group he has gained attention and criticism for disputing the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War”. Burrobert (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You are fully aware of what I mean, at least be honesty about this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have temporarily lost my mind reading powers. You may need to give a hint. Burrobert (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct I was thinking of the material for the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. This is exactly why I suggested in the thread above that we should not begin editing from the last stable version until we have some kind of consensus. It is getting very confusing following who had deleted or added what.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It has become had to keep everything straight lately. Let’s hope everything becomes clearer after this RfC is resolved. Burrobert (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: it's not even clear in the article's body at current time. —PaleoNeonate – 21:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of The Times questioned

The proposer identified two cites, both from the The Times, the second being the 6/13/2020 Conspiracy theories spread by academics with university help. From that cite:

Coronavirus: Piers Robinson said on the same video: “Some people have talked about bioweapons and so on. All of that is possible. The US has been building facilities.”

From the YouTube interview:

PR: I'm happy to say that it's you know the question from a kind of mainstream academic point of view is: What was the level of states' involvement? Which states were involved in it? And I think that it's pretty obvious now that the official story is incorrect. Now the question is who was involved in it and who was involved in influencing arranging etc, — and from which states — okay including from within the US political system. And you know — if that's the case of 9/11— then it's perfectly possible that you know there there are actors at play in relation to this. And some people have talked about bioweapons and so on. All of that is possible. I mean, after 9/11 you had the anthrax scares, of course, which Graham McQueen wrote about or researched and wrote about. The anthrax scares at the time they were always presented that it was some kind of Al-Qaedas-like fundamentalist terrorism.

As it transpired, the anthrax came from a U.S. laboratory and it was released by a U.S. scientist who committed suicide prior to his trial.

And so this issue of bioweapons and and so on, yeah, is something which needs to be considered. In all of this there are so many, there are so many, so many sort of things that everyone's — balls people got to keep their eye on in all of this. But it is not an unreasonable question … and it's not an unreasonable question to think through the possibility of any number of actors being -nefariously- involved in this, you know, beyond sort of the idea of governments can always [poor audio] to exploit this. It is possible that would be. I mean this is one of the sad realities. I think when the OPCW [inaudible] and the Chemical Weapons Convention you know that you haven't got something really equivalent for biological weapons. And then the US has been building facilities and so on.

I think you know this is this is one of the things which we need to keep our eye on through all of this — the fact that — especially if we're in a hybrid warfare situation you know are there actors who might be sort of using technologies in order to create, modify viruses, and so on and use them in a strategic way. It's a possibility. I wouldn't rule it out, especially given the concerns that we now have in relation to 9/11.

We live in a world where people do dark deeds.

The Times elided the text between the sentence "All of that is possible." and "The US has been building facilities." Beyond that, they elided without indicating the elision with ellipsis. Does The Times do fact-checking? Humanengr (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, SELECTIVE QUOTING has not been invented by Wikipedia, and it is well possible that the oldest English-language broadsheet also has the longest experience in it.

That said, Robinson's longish speech sounds a tad incoherent - or is it only me? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's far from the only incoherent screed he's capable of. I don't see what the problem is here. The paper didn't print all of his waffle but picked out the key bits - the conspiracy theory he's promoting - leaving out his rhetorical exempla resting on further implied conspiracy theories. All quite apart from the inherent unlikelihood of using such a survivable pathogen as a biological weapon, and the fact Robinson seems to believe that "because there is now a fringe belief about 9/11 that I now subscribe to, I must also subscribe to all other fringe beliefs, including any and all about Covid" which is really just too absurd to comment on. What is The Times left to report? "Once-respected academic jumps on conspiracy bandwagon. 'I wouldn't rule it out', Robinson says to new conspiracy." GPinkerton (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, re "because there is now a fringe belief about 9/11 that I now subscribe to", which 'fringe belief' is that? Re "'I wouldn't rule it out', Robinson says to new conspiracy.", To be clear, the ‘new conspiracy’ is that the U.S. developed and released the coronavirus? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: In both instances I refer to the fringe beliefs discussed, espoused, or promoted by Robinson. My point is that whatever new conspiracy emerges, Robinson will be there to endorse it (deprecated media outlets permitting, of course) - at least, that's the emerging trend. It looks very much like he subscribes to these beliefs because they are fringe, not because of their inherent (de)merits. GPinkerton (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Which theory do you take The Times indicating Robinson to be 'promoting' re coronavirus with the text quoted at the top of this §? Humanengr (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The one he is talking about. GPinkerton (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

qqs re the first cite

@Snooganssnoogans: Which conspiracy theory does the first cite indicate Robinson 'promoted'? Thx Humanengr (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to expect academic precision from what essentially is a mud-slinging piece of writing whose apparent purpose was only to discredit the article subject. The objective was to create an association: Robinson = conspiracy theories. It's irrelevant whether he indeed supported any specific theory, and if so which one; it's about an association to be formed in the reader's mind.

Goebbels (and others before him) did that long ago, primarily through what we would term as "reliable mainstream sources".

This is an encyclopaedia, so if we are to write about an academic's views, we must rely on academic sources. When we describe the views of Immanuel Kant or Noam Chomsky, we do not source it to opinion pieces in the Times, do we? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop godwining. It does not help your position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Forge

I removed the Forge cite with edit summary "unsupported accusation in title violates BLP; title not supported by article". Nomoskedasticity reverted with edit summary "Nope". Please elaborate. Humanengr (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to see why it needs elaboration. If you perceive a problem with the source, I suggest you take it up with the source. It's not open to editors to delete sources because they think the sources are wrong. It's textbook WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say Robinson -is- a conspiracy theorist? Humanengr (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you've noticed that in the headline the term is in quotation marks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I rather see the problem that Forge Media is "a volunteer run media outlet within the University of Sheffield’s Students Union" and thus the content it publishes is not created by professional journalists. Meanwhile, contentious claims, esp. in a BLP, should be sourced to professional journalism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit didn't remove a "claim". It removed a source, on grounds that had nothing to do with the assertion in the article for which the source is being used. Sure, we can insist that contentious claims not be sourced only to student journalism (though I'm pretty sure there is no policy along these lines). But that idea is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to make sure this point isn't missed -- the relevant sentence in the article is: "Robinson says that reports of anti-semitism in the UK Labour Party have been exaggerated for political purposes". The editor's complaint about the headline of the source has nothing to do with that portion of the article; the source is not being used here for assertions about Robinson being a 'conspiracy theorist'. Your concern about not using student journalism for contentious claims is not in play here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In quotes or no is immaterial as is the issue of what it is ostensibly used to support. It is a disparaging and defaming title that is not supported. It has no place in a BLP. (I am ignoring the anti-semitism issue for the moment). Humanengr (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You are saying in effect that this source can never be used, anywhere on Wikipedia, on the basis of your own opinion about the truth or otherwise of its content. That's WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, where in the source does it say Robinson -is- a conspiracy theorist? The issue is not whether the claim that Robinson is a conspiracy theorist is true or not; the issue is that the defamatory title is not supported. Humanengr (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Its not slander if it's true. It calls him one in the headline. GPinkerton (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity and GPinkerton: Do you consider this headline to be reliable? Humanengr (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What portion of the article text are you concerned about? To put the question another way: reliable for what? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The headline is "Sheffield University ‘conspiracy theory’ professor quits". Is that headline reliable for referring to Robinson as a 'conspiracy theorist'? Humanengr (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you proposing to describe Robinson as a conspiracy theorist in the article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it is reliable for referring to Robinson as a 'conspiracy theorist'? Humanengr (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What edit do you propose to this article? The talk page is for discussing how to edit the article; I'm not interested in discussions that don't connect to that purpose. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is to do as I did: remove the Forge cite. The text of the Forge article provides no support for that claim; the title defames Robinson and, as such, a citation to the Forge article does not belong in the WP article. Humanengr (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so reliability here is a red herring -- our article does not assert that Robinson is a conspiracy theorist, and so there is no issue of reliability in connection with the article text. Thanks for clarifying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: This is not about any of the following: red herrings, whether the body of the WP article asserts Robinson is a conspiracy theorist, WP:OR, or what the cite is being used for in the WP article. You are, however, right that I am saying "this source can never be used, anywhere on Wikipedia". But it is not "on the basis of [my] own opinion about the truth" of its headline or text. It is, again, because the Forge headline is not supported by its text and, as such, is unsupported defamation that violates WP:BLP. The article should not be included in the References section. Humanengr (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You are doing original research about the source -- in connection with an issue that is not relevant for our own article text. This isn't going anywhere... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Setting aside the ‘relevance’ issue, to make sure we aren’t talking past each other: I said the Forge headline is not supported by its text; you responded You are doing original research about the source. What about my statement is OR? Humanengr (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Why on earth would I set aside 'relevance'? If I did, I'd be in violation of WP:TALK: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article..." I'm also going to decline your invitation to engage in WP:OR. I'm not sure why you're struggling to understand these basic policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Is the headline to be taken as a reliable statement? Humanengr (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you suppose that if you simply keep asking I will succumb? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the claims by Forge count as self published? WP:BLPSPS states:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article

Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference to review of 9/11 Unmasked

The article cites Piers Robinson's review of 9/11 Unmasked. The review is on off-guardian.org. Some editors on WP:RSN are suggesting that off-guardian.org be deprecated, which would probably result in removal of the cite. I am a one-person minority saying that's wrong, and specifically here: (1) There should have been notification on this talk page, (2) WP:RS/QUOTE says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." and there is a quote and the original source is off-guardian.org, (3) Removing the original cite would only leave a cite to HuffPost attacking Mr Robinson, which is unattributed opinion. Who agrees|disagrees with any|all of my claims? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thx for the heads-up. Iiuc, WP:RS#Deprecated sources and WP:DEPS#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources indicate OG would still be appropriate to cite on this page: Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. Humanengr (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS#Deprecated sources doesn't say that, I'm advocating removal of what it does say, in Deprecated sources section of WP:RS. So if you mean that you favour keeping the off-guardian cite, then I hope you will say so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS#Deprecated says there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something. On that basis alone, the cite to OG should stay. Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my words "doesn't say that", above, are wrong. Thanks for being civil. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I should have also indicated I agree with all 3 of your bullet points. Humanengr (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would we want to quote a conspiracy theorist slapping other conspiracy theorists' backs, even if they had managed to publish that in reliable source, which this is not? This is a highly superfluous variation on WP:MANDY and deep in WP:FRINGE territory.

If the result of deleting shitty sources is an article that agrees with the mainstream and disagrees with the extreme fringe, then that is how it is and how it should be. Has nobody ever pointed you to WP:FALSEBALANCE, or did you just choose to not read it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No content has been changed, so WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:MANDY, and WP:FRINGE are irrelevant. Humanengr (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Peter Gulutzan, (1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is a practice on WP of notifying the talk page of every article that cites a particular source when that source is raised on the RSN; (3) The HuffPost UK article is not "unattributed opinion"; it's a news article in a reliable source, which quotes accurately and links to the original source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Re (1) I acknowledge it's practice, I am saying it is bad practice, WP:CAUTIOUS. The trick, alas, is that WP:DISRUPT only says "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." without saying which talk page. However, at the top of this talk page you will see "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Piers Robinson article." You will not see a disclaimer "... but it's great to discuss improvements to the Piers Robinson article on WP:RSN without mentioning the Piers Robinson article or notifying people on this talk page." Re (2) I see there's no reply and if there's never a reply then it's a safe conclusion that indeed the removal would violate a guideline. Re (3) I believe what Wikipedia believes, that Huffpost "is an American news aggregator and blog", but suppose you are right this is a "news article". That does not mean it is unbiased (a hint is in their claim that Mr Robinson is a 9/11 truther), and pointing to Huffpost which points to off-guardian is one level of indirection, so even if Huffpost was a reliable source for this it would still violate WP:V which requires a source "that directly supports the material". Removing the required cite is the same as making the statement poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That is 1) sophistry, 2) Wikilawyering, 3) off-topic and 4) bullshit. Offguardian is a bad site, even within that the article is a primary source, and its content is fringe. Nothing you can say will magically turn that thrice-bad link into a source useable for a Wikipedia article. Most of what you wrote attacks the Huffpo source anyway, which would at best be a reason to delete that source, not to keep a much worse one - that is why it is off-topic. (Doubtless, someone else will inform you why "biased" is not a valid reason to reject a source). --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling has removed the cite. I reverted but my reversion was reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil folks. If there is no consensus we normally revert to status quo ante, but with a BLP we should follow WP:BLPREMOVE and remove bad sourcing. I don't understand Peter's comments no.1-2 above, so I'll respond to no.3. The source is not US HuffPo but UK HuffPo. See WP:HUFFPO for our consensus on this source: A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012. This is a fairly reliable news source, and it does directly support the quotation, as it directly quotes him and we directly quote it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The indenting indicates you're addressing me while saying "Let's keep it civil folks", let me know what I said that you think was offensive. Re (2): do you specifically not understand what "original source" means in this context? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not "contentious material about a living person", so WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply. Humanengr (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As Peter Gulutzan indicated at the top, WP:RS/QUOTE says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." and there is a quote and the original source is off-guardian.org. No arguments presented counter that guideline. Humanengr (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That being the case, OG should be re-included as a cite per WP:RS/QUOTE. Humanengr (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. I'll add that Cambridge dictionary says "direct" means no stopovers to e.g. change trains, so the HuffPost cite is indirect. Also I'm pleased to see that the proposal to deprecate off-guardian was archived without action. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. But we say "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." I think it's obvious there are exceptional times when there's a good reason to cite a secondary source only (if we can be certain of the accuracy of the quotation, as we clearly can here). Personally, I think this would be the case with a deprecated source, although I'm not sure if that's our policy. It is correct that RekishiEJ's proposal to deprecate OffGuardian was not actioned, but all editors joining the conversation supported deprecation apart from one so there's nothing to stop that from being actioned now, except it isn't worth it as the source is neither frequently used nor frequently discussed. If it were to be, I think it'd be deprecated immediately. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)