Talk:Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media

Wikipedia describes the group as academics, independent researchers, and conspiracy theory bloggers

This label has been inserted into the article a few times. I have reverted a few times but it keeps reappearing. I stated my reasoning when reverting but this didn't prompt a response on the talk page. My reasoning is as follows:

• 1. The label is contested (by me and maybe others) and, since no discussion has occurred relating to this issue, the wp:BRD policy dictates that the text should be removed while a discussion occurs.
• 2. the label is plural (having an 's' on the end). One of the members is described as a "conspiracy theorist, activist and blogger" in the body. However, that member is a singleton.
• 3. wp:label states that "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. One member is described as a "conspiracy theorist, activist and blogger". That label is supported by only one reference. The description has not been attributed.
• 4. The member referred to is described as a "conspiracy theorist, activist and blogger" in the article body. Only two of the traits been selected for inclusion in the lead. A more complete description based on the body of the article would be "conspiracy theory activist blogger".

Burrobert (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Rewrote the lede. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of the conspiracy theorist description; there are reputable sources that describe the disseminated views of each of the members as conspiracy theories. It is important to note the difference between upholding a neutral point of view and whitewashing the fundamental nature of the organisation. This is patently not about ascribing biased value labels; rather, it is about accurately describing the group and its activities to readers. There appears to be a misapprehension that the conspiracy theorist descriptor is only relevant to Vanessa Beeley. It is actually applicable to each of the members listed in the article. Atiru (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Journalists' opinions are, well, opinions. However, this is an encyclopaedia, not a summary of "reputable opinions", and editors have to stick by its rules, WP:BLP being one of them. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We have to rely on reliable sources – often articles written by journalists – to write these articles at all. What you may think is neutral may be different to what I think is neutral, and that is precisely why we rely on external sources. Atiru (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We have to stick to NPOV first of all. If a source has a strong bias, we should either avoid it or balance it with a differently biased source. In all cases, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are non-disputable policies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiri, please stop editing the article while this discussion continues. If your dispute is with the neutrality of the sources, that is a much broader discussion. We need to avoid censoring information based on individually-held opinions about sources. If you think that the cited sources are biased, let's talk specifics. Atiru (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Enforcing WP policies is not a dispute, sorry. Besides, are you perhaps arguing that a journalist calling someone publicly an "idiot" is writing in an objective, neutral way? Take a look at WP:POVS, it's an interesting essay. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID

Kashmiri, can you explain the removal of this para: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Robinson and Hayward shared others' speculation on social media that COVID-19 is a biological weapon and that Microsoft-founder Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum have been involved in plots to use COVID-19 against groups of people.? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Was this in a publication or any other official document of the Working Group? Or, rather, were these private opinions of these individuals? Any hints? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I've managed to look past the Murdoch paywall and see the article is about the OPS and not the WGSPM, although their members overlap. The story is clearly noteworthy in the articles of the relevant academics, as an MP weighed in. Here are the relevant passages for future reference:

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.

Richard Benyon, a former Conservative MP who served on the home affairs select committee, said: “These are Russell Group, internationally respected universities. These people have access to the next generation of young people and are able to cast doubt about the clear realities of modern life.”

The OPS tweeted a YouTube interview last week headlined “Is Coronavirus The New 9/11?”, where Dr Robinson said it was now obvious the official story of the World Trade Centre attacks was incorrect. “The question is who was involved in influencing, arranging, and which states, including from within the US political system. And if that’s the case with 9/11 it’s perfectly possible that there are actors at play in relation to this. Some people have talked about bioweapons.”[...] The OPS has given Companies House the address of the School of Policy Studies at Bristol, where one of its directors, David Miller, is professor of political sociology. A university spokesman said it had not been aware its premises were listed.

Another director, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor at New York University, has written that the coronavirus “may be an artificially created bioweapon”. Professor Crispin Miller was approached for comment.

Professor David Miller issued a statement from the OPS saying it “includes a range of academic and expert contributors with independent views.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but if I tweet a link to a conspiracy theory article, should it automatically go into my encyclopaedic biography? Really?

We are trying to build an encyclopaedia here, not a press clipping archive. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No of course we shouldn't automatically include every tweet, but if mainstream news sources are reporting this (and particularly if it is the main reason mainstream media finds you of note), it becomes noteworthy and therefore worth considering including. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead dispute

There seems to be a war by reversion between Kashmiri+Burrobert vs Atiru+RaiderAspect over the lead, basically between this version (let's call it version 1, favoured by Kashmiri/Burrobert) and this version (version 2, favoured by Atiru/RaiderAspect). Version 1 advocates say version 2 violates NPOV and is slanderous. Version 2 advocates say version 1 relies on SPSs and promotional sources. Perhaps it would be good to talk to see if consensus can be established? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes that seems like a good idea. My main points are

• the claim that the group "promotes conspiracy theories about the Syrian Civil War" needs to be attributed to Rupert and
• that claim should not be the first sentence that a reader sees when she reads the article.

Burrobert (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My view is that NPOV requires articles to represent the views that are published in reliable sources, and that those sources uniformly present the SPM and its members in, shall we say, a negative light. The current lead unfortunately falls into "he said, she said" false balance; it gives the SPM's view (studying propaganda surrounding the Syrian War) equal weight with the view of the RS' (attracted criticism for their views on chemical weapons and the White Helmets). --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view with the requirement of sourcing. They are not the same! The bulk of negative coverage of this initiative comes from a few journalists at the New York Times (yes, the same that had deliberately pushed the WMD lie a few years earlier) The Times. Because of its POV on one hand and its libellous character on the other, such a source cannot be used to neutrally describe the subject in an encyclopaedic manner as required for the lead section. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth the source is The Times, not The New York Times. The HuffPost and BBC sources are also relevant.

Per WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (my emphasis) and "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources". Since the weight of opinion on the SPM contained in RS' is critical, the article should also be critical. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, hence we have the second paragraph in the lede, with criticism of the group, presented as impartially as possible, additionally even without balancing it with the group's response (it's only further down in the article).

FYI, even though a number of reliable sources called, say, Trump an "idiot" (I won't spam with links but they are aplenty), we as Wikipedia editors don't have a liberty to stick the term into the lead section at Donald Trump – precisely because of the NPOV requirement.

Regarding BBC article, it definitely belongs to Paul McKeigue but its relevance here is unclear to me.

Times vs NYT noted, thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right, there are a lot of articles that describe the subject as conspiracy theorists in the lead. Anyway, since it just seems to be the pair of us debating, I'm going to post this to WP:NPOV/N and see if anyone else is willing to weigh in. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at all the RSs we currently cite. Sources which seem to me to support version 2, a group of academics promoting conspiracy theories, are: the Times,[1][2][3][4] HuffPo,[5][6][7] PBS,[8] plus weaker/opinion sources OpenDemocracy,[9] Newlines,[10] Daily Beast.[11] I also note that some sources say things like a group of "academics and bloggers" (Bellingcat[12]), "independent researchers and academics" (BBC[13]), "academics and others" (PBS[14]). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The PBS article does not describe the group as conspiracy theorists. All the HuffPuff articles were written by Chris York. It is not considered a good source for politics. Version 2 says the group "promotes conspiracy theories about the Syrian Civil War ". The HuffPuff articles don't seem to say outright that the members are conspiracy theorists and mostly discuss non-Syria related issues. The articles say things like:

• "Kristyan Benedict, of Amnesty International, told HuffPost UK ... "They’re just in the realm of conspiracy theorists as far as I’m concerned". "
• "Professor Piers Robinson ... was revealed by HuffPost UK to be a believer in long-debunked conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks".
• "Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, ... told HuffPost UK: “The paper ‘Doubts about Novichok’ is just a collection of conspiracy theory, speculation, and distortion of material".
• "The group has so far reported on the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, chemical attacks in Syria and a British organisation that counters Russian propaganda but its findings have been described by experts as “speculation”, “distortion” and “in the realm of conspiracy theorists”.
• "The 19-year-old Bristol University student said ... “The idea that Bristol Jewish Society is somehow part of a global conspiracy of dominance is not only ludicrous, but is rooted in historic and age-old anti-Semitic conspiracies"."
• "Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media [was] founded by a 9/11 truther that has promoted a number of disproven conspiracy theories".
• "None of the academics – one of whom left his job last year after it emerged he was a supporter of 9/11 conspiracy theories ... "
• [WGSPM] was established in 2017 by Piers Robinson, who used to teach at Sheffield University but left last year after HuffPost UK reported he was a supporter of 9/11 conspiracy theories".
• "The group’s conspiracy theory was given an apparent boost last year by a leaked internal report penned by an OPCW worker ..."

Regarding York's statement about the reason for Robinson leaving Sheffield Uni, Robinson said he left because of "professional goals and personal circumstances".

In addition to the questions of whether this should be mentioned in the lead and how it should be worded if it is included, there is the question of whether it should be the first sentence the reader sees when viewing the article.

Burrobert (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We've already had this debate and could not come to a consensus. I then asked for outside help and was told to try to reach consensus. If both sides think the other's position is ridiculous, clearly an outside mediating voice is needed. The other part of this is how much time any one editor can commit to "debating" something (especially when the debaters are intransigent in their views). I don't know how balanced this kind of "debate" can be when the two sides have a marked difference in free time; it's a power imbalance rooted in time wealth/poverty. There has to be a way to solve this without continuing to argue fruitlessly on the Talk Page. Atiru (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What's more, Kashmiri's incredibly patronising tone and outright dismissal of any point that disproves their position make communicating with them exhausting. Atiru (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH

@Cloud200 in her edit added: [The SPM] made numerous accusations about the White Helmets being involved in financial fraud (which were later dismissed by financial audit), and lists two sources: the New Lines Magazine and the Groene. However:

• The New Lines does not mention any fraud allegations against the White Helmets, and
• The Groene does not even mention the SPM.

Actually, the Groene – and it reads like a very good piece of reporting – describes (malicious) allegations of misappropriation of funds made by the former WH Chief Financial Officer personally against the WH founder. It reports that these allegations then spread in popular media, chiefly in the Netherlands, and possibly led to the WH founder's suicide. They also triggered financial audits that cleared the founder.

How on earth did Cloud200 arrive at her idea, seemingly based on these two sources, that it was the British group to accuse the WH organisation of fraud, is beyond me. Does Hanlon's razor apply here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I presume the fraud you are referring to is the same as that related in James Le Mesurier's bio and in the Mayday Rescue Foundation article. "[T]he Grant Thornton audit had found Mayday Rescue's accounting practices were seriously inadequate. The organisation lacked internal financial supervision and payments were untraceable. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided that an independent forensic follow-up investigation would be pointless because of the inadequate accounting records". De Volkskrant lodged a complaint against the reporting of De Groene. Burrobert (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Numerous allegations against White Helmets and Le Mesurier personally were raised by the former CFO but largely inflated primarily by Russian state media and amplified by their proxies, including SPM, which then triggered interest in Netherlands, which resulted in cutting funding for WH. Especially Vanessa Beeley was active on this particular front.[15] These accusations are summarised in White_Helmets_(Syrian_civil_war)#Controversies and White_Helmets_(Syrian_civil_war)#Partnerships_and_funding. These have been contested by the organisation itself but until the Grant Thornton audit it was largely "he said, she said" type of argument. The Groene article[16] is probably the best summary of the whole campaign against White Helmets, and the outcome of Grant Thornton audit is summarised (based on Groene) in the following paragraph of White_Helmets_(Syrian_civil_war)#Partnerships_and_funding:

A number of accusations against White Helmets and Le Mesurier, especially regarding alleged fraud and lavish lifestyle, were dismissed in May 2020 by forensic audit experts from Grant Thornton, which came to a conclusion that "the key finding of our investigation of the flagged transactions leads us to believe that there is no evidence of misappropriation of funds. For the most part we have been able to refute the alleged irregularities. (…) In particular, the cash withdrawals by James Le Mesurier and Emma Winberg were justified and are accounted for". The audit highlighted that "book keeping was sloppy" in Mayday, but admitted that in the complex war-time environment where the organization was operating these that understandable, and the leadership was able to ensure transparency and "high integrity" of its operations.

Hope this clarifies the link between (malicious) accusations against WH and SPM. There was "sloppy accounting", but there was no fraud (per our own article on fraud: "fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain"), quite the opposite, "the leadership was able to ensure transparency and high integrity of its operations". The role of the former CFO is also quite unclear, which is pretty well summarized in the Groene article.

You might argue that SPM merely amplified someone else's accusations of fraud, but they didn't merely report it, they creatively amplified them, enriched and presented in negative context. You might also argue that it was Vanessa Beeley who was mostly attacking White Helmets but since she is an active member of SPM her publications were frequently published and/or amplified by SPM. Happy for the language to be adjusted to a ensure WP:NPOV but participation of SPM in malicious campaign against WH is a fact.

Regarding "slanderous", I would like to remind that the term initially appeared in Kashmiri's edit[17] where he/she argued that description of the group as "promoting conspiracy theories" is "slanderous". So the description was "slanderous", even though it has been demonstrated by a number of fact-checkers that SPM was simply lying and manipulating facts, while SPM false accusations of "fraud" against WH and OPCW were apparently not slanderous... how exactly? So let's avoid applying double standards - a statement like "SPM was accused by promoting conspiracy theories by a number of fact-checkes" would be fully justified and WP:NPOV in the lead. Cloud200 (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: You're throwing some heavy dirt around. I will appreciate if you could provide sources to substantiate a few of your claims, in particular that:

1. The SPM inflated allegations [of receipt forgery – one that the Grant Thornton auditors cleared acc. to the Groene] against White Helmets and Le Mesurier. This should ideally mention the title of a SPM publication or their official statement where such allegations against the WH would be contained.
2. It was the SPM's and Russian activities that triggered the interest in the Netherlands (and subsequent decisions of the Dutch MFA; you certainly understand that you are arguing that Russia is behind these decisions of the Dutch government).
3. The SPM is a proxy for the Russian state media. The source should ideally name the specific Russian media titles that, as you allege, control the SPM.

Additionally, on top of conflating the WH and its CFO (even though the articles did not mention fraud allegations against the WH), you deliberately conflated the SPM and Beeley, even though you know perfectly well that Beeley had no spokesperson role and never spoke/wrote on behalf of the SPM. Beeley even wasn't a member of the SPM throughout most of 2018 when the WH irregularities saga unravelled.

The following quote from The Groene also does not help your cause: At the office of Mayday Rescue the conviction is they were sacrificed because of the political sensitivity of the entire portfolio. ‘We were collateral damage’, states Wilson. That is exactly how Kaag will remember it, when she tells her staff that ‘already in February 2018 has been decided’ to end the support to Mayday and that ‘it had to do with NLA’, the controversial ‘non-lethal assistance’ to the moderate armed opposition, as becomes clear in an e-mail from the Ministry’s director-general dated 19 December 2019. You surely know that the SPM, which came to existence around January 2018, published its first paper – about Novichoks, not WH – only in in March 2018. Therefore, your claim that the SPM was behind WH's problems has little basis in facts.

Re. your deliberations on the use of the term "slanderous", you either do not understand what we should and should not publish in Wikipedia voice, or you are deliberately digging yourself in. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

References