![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Vanessa Beeley, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vanessa Beeley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page was deleted twice in 2018, firstly because it was an attack page and secondly because it was created by a blocked user. It seems to have started out in the same fashion as previous versions. Why is it being recreated in this way?
* 11:10, 30 July 2018 GiantSnowman (talk | contribs) deleted page Vanessa Beeley (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (thank) * 16:19, 6 January 2018 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page Vanessa Beeley (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) (thank)
Burrobert ( talk) 05:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Snooganssnoogans:: could you give us some insights into
what has happened? Is there any means, such as a diff for the last entry, whereby the original talkpage can be accessed? ←
ZScarpia 12:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The "article" was a hit piece, "sourced" to rumor and conspiracy sites and primary sources. It may be that this individual is notable and an appropriate article can be written about them, but that one sure wasn't it. I've deleted it under G10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This article doesn't conform with WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING. It is very one-sided and there are no references in favor of her. She is not the only one who accuses the White Helmets of helping islamist extremism. They are not allowed to enter territory under control of the Syrian Democratic Forces, because they are allies of Turkey. -- PhJ ( talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
For the interested, IMO The Times of Israel is good enough for the content removed the second time here. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian article states that Beeley was given a number of questions which she refused to answer because of their nature. She responded to The Guardian stating her reasons for refusing and The Guardian published her comments. This doesn't equate to a right of reply to the article itself. Right of reply refers to having the opportunity to comment on the article itself, not about some questions that Beeley had been sent. Pilger says "The Guardian Comment page was blocked", so Beeley was unable to provide her side of the story on that page either. There is no mention in The Guardian article that she was shown the article prior to publication so that she could make a reply/make corrections. Her comments to The Guardian were only about the questions she was given, not about the article, because that was the only opportunity she was given by The Guardian. Burrobert ( talk) 18:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The video therefore cannot possibly be a reply to accusations made in the article.The YouTube video that was linked in the article contains the email sent to Beeley. I suggest you read the email. For example, it says "We would really like to include your voice within the story, and so I am including the key points below. I also have a few further questions, which I have pasted at the bottom." Also, unsurprisingly, Pilger's article misquotes the North Korea comment.
obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeleywhen she did not provide any such corrections? CowHouse ( talk) 02:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeleywhen she did not provide any such corrections?" You seem to be making heavy weather of a simple point. His statement (with my helpful spoon-feeding) is this: "This abuse [of Beeley] was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply [by Beeley]", he is obviously stating that Beeley was not given the opportunity to make "a single correction".
video therefore cannot possibly be a reply to accusations made in the article.My link included a timestamp to the email, so you don't have to watch the entire 40-minute video. You appear to be arguing that there is a significant difference between Beeley reading the finished article rather than the key points from the article.
Both the email and the youTube video occurred prior to the publication of the article and without Beeley seeing what was in the article. [...] he is obviously stating that Beeley was not given the opportunity to make "a single correction".This is false. Beeley was given the key points of the article so she did know she what was in it and obviously had the opportunity to make corrections. Keep in mind that they gave her the right of reply before the article was finished because that's how a right of reply works. The article would only be finished after they had received her response. What you are asking them to have done makes no sense.
That was something you dreamt up.I provided two alternative explanations for what Pilger could have meant and how they were both wrong. Pilger referring to corrections generally is a valid interpretation of what his article said and your personal opinion on what he meant is not the only possible interpretation. In fact, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, since if he was talking about corrections generally then, if he was correct, it would at least make sense. According to you, he "obviously" meant they should have permitted Beeley's non-existent corrections, which makes no sense at all. CowHouse ( talk) 04:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".
- In 2019, two of Beeley's planned talks at universities in Canada, organised by the Hamilton, Ontario chapter of the Stop the War Coalition, were also cancelled.
- According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers
- According to Bellingcat, Beeley received the "Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism" from a pro-Assad lobby group due to her "regime-friendly commentary”.
Burrobert ( talk) 09:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.( bbc.com). CowHouse ( talk) 13:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:POV, I reverted to the last version (mine) that resembled an encyclopaedic biography and not a campaign against the article subject or their views (whatever they are). Start editing from here. — kashmīrī TALK 09:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's start with the question of whether John Pilger's assessment of Beeley's work on the White Helmets can be included. The sentence is: "In 2018, John Pilger described Beeley's reports on the White Helmets as "substantiated investigative work". It is the view of an established journalist so deserves inclusion. I could choose a number of sentences from the article to compare it with. Here's one: "According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers". Which sentence is more encyclopaedic? Burrobert ( talk) 09:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, two of Beeley's planned talks at universities in Canada, organised by the Hamilton, Ontario chapter of the Stop the War Coalition, were also cancelled.CowHouse ( talk) 15:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That is an idiosyncratic interpretation of how "primary source" should be used. Every article is a primary source for the opinions of its writer but a secondary source with respect to the subject on which the writer is providing opinions. We would regard Pilger's article as a primary source for his own bio but not for Beeley's. With regard to whether mentioning Pilger twice is due, that seems a little extreme, given each is only one sentence. However, the two mentions can be condensed into one sentence if you think that is necessary (I don't). What about:
or
I think we could probably discuss this to the end of eternity, bouncing from one reason to another for excluding Pilger's opinion. It would probably save a lot of time to accept that we are not going to agree on this. It may be necessary to invoke an RfC or call in outside editors to have a look, possibly by posting a note on the NPOV or BLP noticeboards. Burrobert ( talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Could some of the above mentioned refs be used for a "Reception" section? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of sentences in the article that I consider problematic. Many of the sentences include unattributed claims with no attempt to explore Beeley's view or provide context. Here are aa few:
Let's remove these sentences and discuss their inclusion as part of a general NPOV discussion. Burrobert ( talk) 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Beeley supported a conspiracy theory which accused George Soros of paying the United Nations to invent evidence that Assad used chemical weapons.
After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".
In February 2018, Beeley encouraged her followers to report a list of news outlets and journalists critical of Assad for violating the UK Terrorism Act.
In May 2018, she was a scheduled speaker at an event which intended to lobby for bringing terrorism charges against BBC and Channel 4 journalists who covered Libya in 2011 and the Syrian civil war in 2016. This event was cancelled.
Beeley's other views include that Human Rights Watch is a "fake" group,[1] the Charlie Hebdo shooting was a false flag operation, and al-Qaeda was not behind the September 11 attacks.
According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers.
According to Bellingcat, Beeley received the "Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism" from a pro-Assad lobby group due to her "regime-friendly commentary".
On the Violates WP:TWITTER as it was only a tweet, additionally only one. Even if a tweet is mentioned in a third-party source, this doesn't trump our TWITTER policy. Yes it does. WP:TWITTER doesn't apply since WP:s source isn't Twitter. It was one tweet, but more than one WP:RS thought it was interesting enough to write about. That's pretty good for a tweet by a blogger. Or, anybody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, your WP:TWITTER reading makes no sense, consider articles like Donald Trump on social media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
They will require better sourcing before including.Three reliable sources are already cited.
Do we have a reliable source that confirms beyond reasonable doubt that Beeley is a Holocaust denier?Beeley's page does not say she is a Holocaust denier. "Share a platform" means "to give speeches or to perform at the same public event".
She has called quite a few Blairites, Blairites.This is what the page says: In 2017, Beeley called murdered British MP Jo Cox an "al Qaeda advocate" and "warmongering Blairite". I'm sure you must realise that the word "Blairite" is not the reason these comments were reported. It says "murdered British MP" because (a) that's what the source says, and (b) she had been murdered at the time of Beeley's comments. It is not " almost like" blaming Beeley for her murder. If Beeley's comments had been before Cox's death, and it said "murdered MP" then I would agree it is unfair. CowHouse ( talk) 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2017 she called murdered Labour MP Jo Cox — who took great interest in the crisis caused by the Syrian civil war, had close ties with the UK Jewish community and was killed in 2016 by a far-right activist — a “warmongering Al Qaeda advocate.”I would suggest: In 2017, Beeley called Jo Cox, a British Labour MP who had been murdered the previous year by a far-right activist, a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate." CowHouse ( talk) 15:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Let’s discuss the sentence "That year, she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing it as her "proudest moment"". This is linked to two sources.
The NY Review says "Beeley first went to Syria in 2016 on a six-day trip to meet with Bashar al-Assad, an encounter she called "my proudest moment"". It doesn't provide a link to Beeley’s original Facebook post.
The Guardian source says "In 2016, Beeley had a two-hour meeting with Assad in Damascus as part of a US Peace Council delegation, which she described on Facebook as her "proudest moment". It provides a link to Beeley’s Facebook post in which Beeley says ""Proudest moment. Meeting President Bashar al Assad with the US Peace Council Delegation".
We have chosen to remove mention of the US Peace delegation in our quote and have used a version similar to that of the NY Review. This distorts the meaning of Beeley’s statement. I suggest making our text closer to The Guardian’s version which is more accurate and gives context to Beeley’s statement. Burrobert ( talk) 12:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
What function does including it in an article serve?Given reliable sources say Beeley is known for her controversial views related to Syria, and describe her as pro-Assad, it is hardly unusual or inappropriate to mention this in both a news article about her and her Wikipedia page. CowHouse ( talk) 15:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It is noteworthy for us because more than one reliable sources consider it noteworthyNope, Wikipedia has its own policies, it does not simply replicate what's in the press, and also is not a collection of indiscriminate information. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the project's policies, esp. WP:IS. — kashmīrī TALK 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I have condensed it to one sentence and kept it closer to the Guardian version which is more complete. The Guardian version is also closer in meaning to Beeley's Facebook post. Burrobert ( talk) 14:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
One way of reducing what I think is the problematic nature of the statements above is to provide attribution. I tried introducing attribution a while ago but there was a disagreement as the reverting editor said the statements came from reliable sources.
As an example of why attribution might be required, let's consider the sentence "Beeley has supported a conspiracy theory which accused George Soros of paying the United Nations to invent evidence that Assad used chemical weapons". This is a faithful rending of the text from the source provided. However, the source provided doesn't link to a statement by Beeley. Instead it links to a Guardian article which states:
"The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. The White Helmets have never received funding from George Soros or any of his foundations".
So it doesn't mention that this is Beeley's view. Of course, it might be Beeley's, but we have no way of knowing from what has been provided and are left relying on the accuracy of the writer of the original article Noah Berlatsky. Burrobert ( talk) 02:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”.--Guardian [9], with a link to an Infowars article that is now dead, but (according to e.g. the Syria Campaign [10] and Wired [11] is by Alex Jones not Beeley, though it might cite Beeley. (Both those sources mention the Soros canard and Beeley, but don't link them.) The Guardian is what Pacific Standard hyperlinks, although he may have other sources in mind too, so it dependes on whether PS is an RS. I think it is probably an opinion piece in an RS, so if we used we should attribute. However, there might be another source: HuffPo says
An article on the White Helmets from 2015 claims (via discussion of 9/11 and George Soros) that Le Mesurier is linked to the CIA because a company he once worked for (Olive Group) merged with another company (Constellis Holdings) that also owns another company (Academi) which used to be known as Blackwater which was once used by the CIA to carry out assassinations.[12] HuffPo includes embedded tweets mentioning Beeley and her 21st Century Wire articles, but does not itself mention her. The 2015 article is hyperlinked and is by Beeley, and mentions Soros briefly:
A further $13 million was poured into the White Helmet coffers during 2013 and this is where it gets interesting. Early reports suggest that these “donations” came from the US, UK and SNC with the previously explored connections to George Soros in the US.That in turn hyperlinks to another 21stCW article "Soros in Syria: ‘Humanitarian’ NGO Deployed For Regime Change, Not Aid", which is about Beeley, but the Soros claim in it is too murky to follow. The Conversation also has this:
Having started the cycle of disinformation, Russian state outlets can complete it by citing “investigative journalists” such as Beeley and Blumenthal to deride the White Helmets as a “controversial quasi-humanitarian organisation” and – invoking the magnate George Soros as conspiracy master – a “Soros-sponsored” operation “cooking up lies”.[13] which is clearly too jumbled to be used in an article about Beeley. It links to a Sputnik article subtitled
"The Soros-sponsored "White Helmets," one of the largest NGOs operating on the territory of Syria, is busy with cooking up lies instead of protecting the human rights of the Syrian people."which mentions Beeley as a source but does not explicitly attribute comments on Soros to her. Similarly, StopFake says
Sputnik’s very first attack on the White Helmets quoted an article written by Syrian regime supporter Vanessa Beeley for online site 21st Century Wire. This is a conspiracy site which claims that the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, were a U.S. government “false flag” operation... The same Sputnik article called the White Helmets “Soros sponsored,” a reference to the Hungarian billionaire who has become a hate figure for the Kremlin and far right for his support for pro-democracy movements.[14] again too jumbled together for us to use. There are primary non-reliable sources where Beeley does actually make the connection (e.g. [15] but for us to use that would be OR and should be avoided. So, I'm inclined not to use this particular claim. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".
This is properly sourced and sufficiently encyclopedic, as shown here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Vanessa_Beeley#Tweet_inclusion_disagreement I suggest any further discussion go in that talk page section not this one.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In February 2018, Beeley encouraged her followers to report a list of news outlets and journalists critical of Assad for violating the UK Terrorism Act.
Source: The Intercept: In January, Oz Katerji, a British journalist who covered the war in Syria, reported that he was contacted by the counterterrorism unit of London’s Metropolitan Police force after allegations about him were phoned in to a confidential hotline.... Katerji also posted a screenshot showing that Vanessa Beeley, a pro-Assad blogger boosted by Russian state television, had encouraged her followers to report him and a list of other journalists and news outlets critical of Assad — including the BBC, Channel 4 News, and The Guardian — to the authorities for supposedly violating the U.K. Terrorism Act.
[16] The screenshot is shown in the article. This seems adequately sourced, accurately summarised in our voice, and noteworthy enough to have received this attention in an independent secondary source, albet only one. Weak keep
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In May 2018, she was a scheduled speaker at an event which intended to lobby for bringing terrorism charges against BBC and Channel 4 journalists who covered Libya in 2011 and the Syrian civil war in 2016. This event was cancelled.
Source: Snopes: The writer of the 2016 iteration of the narrative in question, Vanessa Beeley, was scheduled to speak at an event in the U.K. in May 2018 meant to lobby for terrorism charges to be brought against journalists who covered the Syrian civil war for Britain’s Channel 4 in 2016 and BBC coverage of Libya in 2011. The event has since been cancelled.
Also covered in another Snopes article
[17] and HuffPo.
[18] Relaibly sourced, adequately summarised in our voice, noteworthy enough for multiple independent secondary sources to mention. Strong keep
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This sentence appears in our article: :In response, UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Andrew Gilmour said that Beeley's activism was part of a Russian attempt to "neutralize the White Helmets because they are potential witnesses to war crimes." The source for the sentence says: ""We operate on the pretty infallible assumption that any government which refuses to let us in has something big to hide from us," UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Andrew Gilmour told me. The Assad regime and the Russians are trying to neutralize the White Helmets because they are potential witnesses to war crimes". The first sentence in the source is in quotation marks and attributed to Andrew Glimour. The second sentence, which we have have used in our article, is not in quotation marks and is not attributed to Andrew Gilmour. This second sentence appears in the source again later without reference to Andrew Gilmour. It seems likely that the sentence is actually Janine di Giovanni's rather than Andrew Gilmour's. Burrobert ( talk) 00:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Still going through Burrobert's initial list of potentially non-encyclopedic statements from the top of this section.
Here's the next: In August 2018, due to Beeley's defence of Assad and comments about Jo Cox, media reports criticised UK Labour Party MP Chris Williamson for tweeting that it was a "privilege" to have met Beeley.
This is pretty badly phrased and I would say at least needs re-writing. It is part of the paragraph that also includes the "Blairite" quote discussed above. The current given sources are the (a) Times of Israel: [Williamson's] tweet spurred a storm of condemnation and media reports critical of Williamson.
[19] No examples are given except for
David Baddiel. and (b) the BBC Over the weekend, [Williamons] was criticised for tweeting that it had been a "privilege" to have met blogger Vanessa Beeley, who has defended the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and previously described murdered MP Jo Cox as a "warmongering Blairite".
[20] Doesn't say who did the criticising. There are also other sources: HuffPo describes Beeley at length then says His latest tweet drew swift condemnation.
illustrated with tweets by
James O'Brien, Baddiel and others.
[21] A New Statesman opinion piece says Labour MP for Derby North Chris Williamson has courted fresh controversy after endorsing a pro-Assad conspiracy theorist described by the Guardian’s former Middle East editor as “the Syrian conflict’s goddess of propaganda”.
and Williamson’s tweet provoked immediate condemnation, drawing a strong response from James O’Brien, who called Williamson a “disgrace” and referred to Beeley as “Assad’s very own Alex Jones.”
as well as citing criticism by Syria expert
Louisa Lovelock.
[22] The Jewish Chronicle lists the incident among several problems with Williamson but does not note who has criticised him; this would be a primary source example of a critical media report.
[23] A brief Evening Standard diary piece says Is Chris Williamson seeing how far he can push his luck? Last night the Labour MP for Derby North tweeted: “Great to meet Vanessa Beeley today.” Beeley believes al Qaeda were not behind 9/11 and that “Zionists rule France”.
[24] - another primary source example of a critical media report.
[25] (Although both of these are secondary sources for Williamson's praise.) And another, perhaps less solidly RS, example of a critical media report would be an opinio piece from the Momentum magazine The Clarion: Really, [Williamson's] suspension was the result of months of behaviour going beyond the tone deaf and insensitive to far worse – just one dreadful example, praising Vanessa Beeley, a far-right, anti-semitic conspiracy theorist and propagandist for Bashar al-Assad’s blood-soaked dictatorship in Syria.
[26]
Discussion above includes (1) Kashmiri's argument that it belongs in Williamson's article not this one and that the Blairite claim is non-noteworthy because she calls lots of people Blairites, and (2) Cowhouse's argument that the attack on Cox was exceptional and therefore noteworthy because she was murdered and suggestion that our wording should more closely follow the source, e.g. In 2017, Beeley called Jo Cox, a British Labour MP who had been murdered the previous year by a far-right activist, a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate."
I would argue against (1) because her boost by an MP is one of the things that makes her notable, and so this boosting is relevant to our article.
So, my proposal would be to reformulate the first half of paragraph as: In 2017, Beeley called Jo Cox, a British Labour MP who had been murdered the previous year by a far-right activist, a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate."
[1]
[2] In August 2018, UK Labour Party MP Chris Williamson tweeted that it was a "privilege" to have met Beeley,
[3]
[2] for which he was widely criticised.
[1]
[4]
[3]
References
Bachner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This sentence has no context. Who are the people? What did they believe? What was the event? Did Beeley know the beliefs of these people at the time? Does she share their beliefs? Without some context, it is guilt by association. Burrobert ( talk) 03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
En juillet 2014, elle apparaît au théâtre de la Main d'Or lors d'une conférence sur la Palestine organisée par Dieudonné et Laurent Louis aux côtés de Marion Sigaut et Jacob Cohen[36] That is, the event was organised by Louis, the convicted Holocaust denier. YouTube is a primary source of her there. [37] That is also included in a recent BBC documentary, a reliable secondary source. [38] French Wikipedia uses ConspiracyWatch as a secondary source (and I beliee French Wikipedia has ruled that RS). [39] The event is also mentioned in an SPLC report. [40] BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
TFD's first comment sounded kind of neutral, but the latest one is pretty clear. I think we have consensus to delete. I'll make the update. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
She has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with David Icke. [1] [2]Cite error: ABobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [3]
She has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with conspiracy theorists such as David Icke.but perhaps safer to say
She has shared platforms with Holocaust denier Laurent Louis and conspiracy theorists David Icke.We don't need to concern ourselves with the original research that would verify or contextualise the claims RSs make about Louis and Icke (the link in our Louis article says the blogpost was in June 2014, i.e. prior to the Beeley panel), although saying the Holocaust was financed by the Jews/Zionists is of course a form of Holocaust denial anyway. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Bachner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Re these three edits: they cover three issues discussed in this talk page. My reading is we have consensus for inclusion of Williamson and no consensus either way on the scheduled event and Laurent Louis. I strongly supprt inclusion of Louis and Williamson, but think the scheduled event neeeds better explanation. It would be really good if other editors could weigh into discussions above to establish consensus on these issues. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the bio is lacking some biographical information about our protagonist. Her blog can be used as a source for this under the WP:Aboutself policy. I have censored some of the information that mentioned third parties but here are some points from her blog that may be suitable for her wiki bio:
Burrobert ( talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I tried to add it but it only lasted a few minutes. I don't think the reverting editor looked at Talk and doesn't appear to have commented previously here. Anyway, perhaps someone else can have a go at adding it. Burrobert ( talk) 21:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Someone needs to check this fact. According to this article, which claims to have spoken to a Monica Gellhorn Prize judge, no runner-up prizes are ever awarded.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-56126016
"Beeley sometimes claims to have been a finalist for the prestigious Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. But when I contacted a member of the prize committee, James Fox, he told me: "There are no finalists of the Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, and no 'runners up'. The prize does not draw up or publish such a list. The judges publish only winners or special commendations."
Neither the Wikipedia page for the Monica Gellhorn Prize, nor the Monica Gellhorn Prize website mention any runner-up prizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.161.130 ( talk) 06:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/07/bbc-white-helmets-mayday-uk-intelligence/ The author of that BBC article has recently been proven to outright fabricate accusations against Beeley, this reads like targeted slander against Beeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 ( talk • contribs)
All Beeley and her associates are guilty of are being critical of Western interference in the Syrian civil war, and this article reads like an attack ad against her It's completely absurd.
If you want to describe her as an activist, fine, I doubt she or anyone would object to such claims, but this borders on slander. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/07/bbc-white-helmets-mayday-uk-intelligence/ Minor edit to initial question: Bellingcat is cited??? Bellingcat is a propaganda arm of the CIA, it's not a neutral nor authoritative source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 ( talk • contribs)
There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.The goal of an encyclopedia is to accurately summarize knowledge. Paying attention to our sources of knowledge, and only using ones that provide accurate information, is very important and is how we prevent disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Beeley's article is polluted with hit pieces from the Times of Israel and the CIA's propaganda arm (Bellingcat) but the Grayzone crosses the line? That's absurd. Why not confront the nature of the content instead of such a sweeping condemnation? Almost all of Gray Zone's arguments are meticulously cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 ( talk • contribs)
the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed responsibility for the strike, saying it targeted “an Al Qaeda in Syria meeting location,” killing “dozens of core al Qaeda terrorists” after extensive surveillance. [...] In Bellingcat’s examination of all the photos and videos from the attack, we have identified no signs of armed individuals or military equipment at the mosque, nor have we seen any signs of al-Qaeda presence." CowHouse ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
When not to remove tags.
In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.
You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:
Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.
Burrobert ( talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Beeley has said that the statement that she has been a frequent guest on the "US conspiracy website InfoWars" is an "outright lie" and that she has "never been a guest of Infowars". The statement comes from the Pacific Standard, a source with which I am unfamiliar. The statement should be easy to prove or disprove. I found only one mention of her on the Infowars site, a tweet about COVID. Perhaps someone else can have a look to determine whether Beeley or Wikipedia is more reliable? Burrobert ( talk) 05:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The editor 'Samw' keeps edit-warring some ludicrous nonsense about Beeley being considered among the most respected journalists in the world because she was among hundreds of nominees for a prize. If there are hundreds of nominees for the prize, then there is nothing notable about being a nominee for it. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Quite a few posts on Beeley's Facebook profile amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Are there any secondary sources that have looked into this area of her activity? — kashmīrī TALK 22:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The Times "is considered generally reliable" per WP:RSP. This edit by Kashmiri is furthermore a violation of 1RR restriction on this page. [42] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
She has been described by The Times as “an obscure blogger and obsequious pro-Assad activist... Ms Beeley is assiduous in spreading the grotesque lie that the White Helmets, a humanitarian rescue agency working in Syria, is a front for Islamist extremism and she has urged the Assad regime to target them.” [1]
.
References
Beeley's publications on 21CW website span the period from 2016 to 2019 [43] but nothing since May 2019. She is also not listed on the Editorial Team page. [44] Is it still current that she is an editor there? — kashmīrī TALK 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
No mention of her trip to Russian occupied Donetsk right now? 2A00:23C8:858D:7D01:9424:CA6D:5EA1:2910 ( talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking for above, I saw these are the most recent RS mentions of Beeley. Anything noteworthy?
Among those named in the report as an influential spreader of disinformation are Vanessa Beeley, a self-described independent journalist whose conspiracy theories have been cited as evidence by Russia at the UN security council. In September 2015 Beeley accused White Helmets of being in league with al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations, claiming that the footage they gather as they rescue civilians from bombed-out buildings is staged... Since 2020, journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.
[The Institute for Strategic Dialogue then revealed that among those named in the report as an influential spreader of disinformation are Vanessa Beeley, a self-described independent journalist whose conspiracy theories have been cited as evidence by Russia at the UN security council. In September 2015 Beeley accused White Helmets of being in league with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, claiming that the footage they gather as they rescue civilians from bombed-out buildings is staged. Commenting on Beeley's accusations, Farouq Habib, White Helmets deputy manager, said: "At first we really thought this could just be someone who didn't have enough correct info, and we should contact her to explain. But then with some research, we realized it's deliberate and systematic."...
The same journalists who have helped promote Russian misinformation in Syria have also echoed its narrative in Ukraine. Vanessa Beeley, a British blogger famous for her support of Assad and her story that White Helmets are harvesting and selling organs from Syrian civilians, has been active in amplifying Russian rhetoric in Ukraine.
BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Vanessa Beeley, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vanessa Beeley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page was deleted twice in 2018, firstly because it was an attack page and secondly because it was created by a blocked user. It seems to have started out in the same fashion as previous versions. Why is it being recreated in this way?
* 11:10, 30 July 2018 GiantSnowman (talk | contribs) deleted page Vanessa Beeley (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (thank) * 16:19, 6 January 2018 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page Vanessa Beeley (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) (thank)
Burrobert ( talk) 05:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Snooganssnoogans:: could you give us some insights into
what has happened? Is there any means, such as a diff for the last entry, whereby the original talkpage can be accessed? ←
ZScarpia 12:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The "article" was a hit piece, "sourced" to rumor and conspiracy sites and primary sources. It may be that this individual is notable and an appropriate article can be written about them, but that one sure wasn't it. I've deleted it under G10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This article doesn't conform with WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING. It is very one-sided and there are no references in favor of her. She is not the only one who accuses the White Helmets of helping islamist extremism. They are not allowed to enter territory under control of the Syrian Democratic Forces, because they are allies of Turkey. -- PhJ ( talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
For the interested, IMO The Times of Israel is good enough for the content removed the second time here. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian article states that Beeley was given a number of questions which she refused to answer because of their nature. She responded to The Guardian stating her reasons for refusing and The Guardian published her comments. This doesn't equate to a right of reply to the article itself. Right of reply refers to having the opportunity to comment on the article itself, not about some questions that Beeley had been sent. Pilger says "The Guardian Comment page was blocked", so Beeley was unable to provide her side of the story on that page either. There is no mention in The Guardian article that she was shown the article prior to publication so that she could make a reply/make corrections. Her comments to The Guardian were only about the questions she was given, not about the article, because that was the only opportunity she was given by The Guardian. Burrobert ( talk) 18:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The video therefore cannot possibly be a reply to accusations made in the article.The YouTube video that was linked in the article contains the email sent to Beeley. I suggest you read the email. For example, it says "We would really like to include your voice within the story, and so I am including the key points below. I also have a few further questions, which I have pasted at the bottom." Also, unsurprisingly, Pilger's article misquotes the North Korea comment.
obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeleywhen she did not provide any such corrections? CowHouse ( talk) 02:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeleywhen she did not provide any such corrections?" You seem to be making heavy weather of a simple point. His statement (with my helpful spoon-feeding) is this: "This abuse [of Beeley] was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply [by Beeley]", he is obviously stating that Beeley was not given the opportunity to make "a single correction".
video therefore cannot possibly be a reply to accusations made in the article.My link included a timestamp to the email, so you don't have to watch the entire 40-minute video. You appear to be arguing that there is a significant difference between Beeley reading the finished article rather than the key points from the article.
Both the email and the youTube video occurred prior to the publication of the article and without Beeley seeing what was in the article. [...] he is obviously stating that Beeley was not given the opportunity to make "a single correction".This is false. Beeley was given the key points of the article so she did know she what was in it and obviously had the opportunity to make corrections. Keep in mind that they gave her the right of reply before the article was finished because that's how a right of reply works. The article would only be finished after they had received her response. What you are asking them to have done makes no sense.
That was something you dreamt up.I provided two alternative explanations for what Pilger could have meant and how they were both wrong. Pilger referring to corrections generally is a valid interpretation of what his article said and your personal opinion on what he meant is not the only possible interpretation. In fact, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, since if he was talking about corrections generally then, if he was correct, it would at least make sense. According to you, he "obviously" meant they should have permitted Beeley's non-existent corrections, which makes no sense at all. CowHouse ( talk) 04:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".
- In 2019, two of Beeley's planned talks at universities in Canada, organised by the Hamilton, Ontario chapter of the Stop the War Coalition, were also cancelled.
- According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers
- According to Bellingcat, Beeley received the "Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism" from a pro-Assad lobby group due to her "regime-friendly commentary”.
Burrobert ( talk) 09:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In response to a list of questions, she called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.( bbc.com). CowHouse ( talk) 13:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:POV, I reverted to the last version (mine) that resembled an encyclopaedic biography and not a campaign against the article subject or their views (whatever they are). Start editing from here. — kashmīrī TALK 09:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's start with the question of whether John Pilger's assessment of Beeley's work on the White Helmets can be included. The sentence is: "In 2018, John Pilger described Beeley's reports on the White Helmets as "substantiated investigative work". It is the view of an established journalist so deserves inclusion. I could choose a number of sentences from the article to compare it with. Here's one: "According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers". Which sentence is more encyclopaedic? Burrobert ( talk) 09:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, two of Beeley's planned talks at universities in Canada, organised by the Hamilton, Ontario chapter of the Stop the War Coalition, were also cancelled.CowHouse ( talk) 15:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That is an idiosyncratic interpretation of how "primary source" should be used. Every article is a primary source for the opinions of its writer but a secondary source with respect to the subject on which the writer is providing opinions. We would regard Pilger's article as a primary source for his own bio but not for Beeley's. With regard to whether mentioning Pilger twice is due, that seems a little extreme, given each is only one sentence. However, the two mentions can be condensed into one sentence if you think that is necessary (I don't). What about:
or
I think we could probably discuss this to the end of eternity, bouncing from one reason to another for excluding Pilger's opinion. It would probably save a lot of time to accept that we are not going to agree on this. It may be necessary to invoke an RfC or call in outside editors to have a look, possibly by posting a note on the NPOV or BLP noticeboards. Burrobert ( talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Could some of the above mentioned refs be used for a "Reception" section? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of sentences in the article that I consider problematic. Many of the sentences include unattributed claims with no attempt to explore Beeley's view or provide context. Here are aa few:
Let's remove these sentences and discuss their inclusion as part of a general NPOV discussion. Burrobert ( talk) 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Beeley supported a conspiracy theory which accused George Soros of paying the United Nations to invent evidence that Assad used chemical weapons.
After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".
In February 2018, Beeley encouraged her followers to report a list of news outlets and journalists critical of Assad for violating the UK Terrorism Act.
In May 2018, she was a scheduled speaker at an event which intended to lobby for bringing terrorism charges against BBC and Channel 4 journalists who covered Libya in 2011 and the Syrian civil war in 2016. This event was cancelled.
Beeley's other views include that Human Rights Watch is a "fake" group,[1] the Charlie Hebdo shooting was a false flag operation, and al-Qaeda was not behind the September 11 attacks.
According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers.
According to Bellingcat, Beeley received the "Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism" from a pro-Assad lobby group due to her "regime-friendly commentary".
On the Violates WP:TWITTER as it was only a tweet, additionally only one. Even if a tweet is mentioned in a third-party source, this doesn't trump our TWITTER policy. Yes it does. WP:TWITTER doesn't apply since WP:s source isn't Twitter. It was one tweet, but more than one WP:RS thought it was interesting enough to write about. That's pretty good for a tweet by a blogger. Or, anybody. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, your WP:TWITTER reading makes no sense, consider articles like Donald Trump on social media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
They will require better sourcing before including.Three reliable sources are already cited.
Do we have a reliable source that confirms beyond reasonable doubt that Beeley is a Holocaust denier?Beeley's page does not say she is a Holocaust denier. "Share a platform" means "to give speeches or to perform at the same public event".
She has called quite a few Blairites, Blairites.This is what the page says: In 2017, Beeley called murdered British MP Jo Cox an "al Qaeda advocate" and "warmongering Blairite". I'm sure you must realise that the word "Blairite" is not the reason these comments were reported. It says "murdered British MP" because (a) that's what the source says, and (b) she had been murdered at the time of Beeley's comments. It is not " almost like" blaming Beeley for her murder. If Beeley's comments had been before Cox's death, and it said "murdered MP" then I would agree it is unfair. CowHouse ( talk) 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2017 she called murdered Labour MP Jo Cox — who took great interest in the crisis caused by the Syrian civil war, had close ties with the UK Jewish community and was killed in 2016 by a far-right activist — a “warmongering Al Qaeda advocate.”I would suggest: In 2017, Beeley called Jo Cox, a British Labour MP who had been murdered the previous year by a far-right activist, a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate." CowHouse ( talk) 15:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Let’s discuss the sentence "That year, she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing it as her "proudest moment"". This is linked to two sources.
The NY Review says "Beeley first went to Syria in 2016 on a six-day trip to meet with Bashar al-Assad, an encounter she called "my proudest moment"". It doesn't provide a link to Beeley’s original Facebook post.
The Guardian source says "In 2016, Beeley had a two-hour meeting with Assad in Damascus as part of a US Peace Council delegation, which she described on Facebook as her "proudest moment". It provides a link to Beeley’s Facebook post in which Beeley says ""Proudest moment. Meeting President Bashar al Assad with the US Peace Council Delegation".
We have chosen to remove mention of the US Peace delegation in our quote and have used a version similar to that of the NY Review. This distorts the meaning of Beeley’s statement. I suggest making our text closer to The Guardian’s version which is more accurate and gives context to Beeley’s statement. Burrobert ( talk) 12:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
What function does including it in an article serve?Given reliable sources say Beeley is known for her controversial views related to Syria, and describe her as pro-Assad, it is hardly unusual or inappropriate to mention this in both a news article about her and her Wikipedia page. CowHouse ( talk) 15:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It is noteworthy for us because more than one reliable sources consider it noteworthyNope, Wikipedia has its own policies, it does not simply replicate what's in the press, and also is not a collection of indiscriminate information. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the project's policies, esp. WP:IS. — kashmīrī TALK 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I have condensed it to one sentence and kept it closer to the Guardian version which is more complete. The Guardian version is also closer in meaning to Beeley's Facebook post. Burrobert ( talk) 14:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
One way of reducing what I think is the problematic nature of the statements above is to provide attribution. I tried introducing attribution a while ago but there was a disagreement as the reverting editor said the statements came from reliable sources.
As an example of why attribution might be required, let's consider the sentence "Beeley has supported a conspiracy theory which accused George Soros of paying the United Nations to invent evidence that Assad used chemical weapons". This is a faithful rending of the text from the source provided. However, the source provided doesn't link to a statement by Beeley. Instead it links to a Guardian article which states:
"The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. The White Helmets have never received funding from George Soros or any of his foundations".
So it doesn't mention that this is Beeley's view. Of course, it might be Beeley's, but we have no way of knowing from what has been provided and are left relying on the accuracy of the writer of the original article Noah Berlatsky. Burrobert ( talk) 02:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”.--Guardian [9], with a link to an Infowars article that is now dead, but (according to e.g. the Syria Campaign [10] and Wired [11] is by Alex Jones not Beeley, though it might cite Beeley. (Both those sources mention the Soros canard and Beeley, but don't link them.) The Guardian is what Pacific Standard hyperlinks, although he may have other sources in mind too, so it dependes on whether PS is an RS. I think it is probably an opinion piece in an RS, so if we used we should attribute. However, there might be another source: HuffPo says
An article on the White Helmets from 2015 claims (via discussion of 9/11 and George Soros) that Le Mesurier is linked to the CIA because a company he once worked for (Olive Group) merged with another company (Constellis Holdings) that also owns another company (Academi) which used to be known as Blackwater which was once used by the CIA to carry out assassinations.[12] HuffPo includes embedded tweets mentioning Beeley and her 21st Century Wire articles, but does not itself mention her. The 2015 article is hyperlinked and is by Beeley, and mentions Soros briefly:
A further $13 million was poured into the White Helmet coffers during 2013 and this is where it gets interesting. Early reports suggest that these “donations” came from the US, UK and SNC with the previously explored connections to George Soros in the US.That in turn hyperlinks to another 21stCW article "Soros in Syria: ‘Humanitarian’ NGO Deployed For Regime Change, Not Aid", which is about Beeley, but the Soros claim in it is too murky to follow. The Conversation also has this:
Having started the cycle of disinformation, Russian state outlets can complete it by citing “investigative journalists” such as Beeley and Blumenthal to deride the White Helmets as a “controversial quasi-humanitarian organisation” and – invoking the magnate George Soros as conspiracy master – a “Soros-sponsored” operation “cooking up lies”.[13] which is clearly too jumbled to be used in an article about Beeley. It links to a Sputnik article subtitled
"The Soros-sponsored "White Helmets," one of the largest NGOs operating on the territory of Syria, is busy with cooking up lies instead of protecting the human rights of the Syrian people."which mentions Beeley as a source but does not explicitly attribute comments on Soros to her. Similarly, StopFake says
Sputnik’s very first attack on the White Helmets quoted an article written by Syrian regime supporter Vanessa Beeley for online site 21st Century Wire. This is a conspiracy site which claims that the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, were a U.S. government “false flag” operation... The same Sputnik article called the White Helmets “Soros sponsored,” a reference to the Hungarian billionaire who has become a hate figure for the Kremlin and far right for his support for pro-democracy movements.[14] again too jumbled together for us to use. There are primary non-reliable sources where Beeley does actually make the connection (e.g. [15] but for us to use that would be OR and should be avoided. So, I'm inclined not to use this particular claim. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".
This is properly sourced and sufficiently encyclopedic, as shown here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Vanessa_Beeley#Tweet_inclusion_disagreement I suggest any further discussion go in that talk page section not this one.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In February 2018, Beeley encouraged her followers to report a list of news outlets and journalists critical of Assad for violating the UK Terrorism Act.
Source: The Intercept: In January, Oz Katerji, a British journalist who covered the war in Syria, reported that he was contacted by the counterterrorism unit of London’s Metropolitan Police force after allegations about him were phoned in to a confidential hotline.... Katerji also posted a screenshot showing that Vanessa Beeley, a pro-Assad blogger boosted by Russian state television, had encouraged her followers to report him and a list of other journalists and news outlets critical of Assad — including the BBC, Channel 4 News, and The Guardian — to the authorities for supposedly violating the U.K. Terrorism Act.
[16] The screenshot is shown in the article. This seems adequately sourced, accurately summarised in our voice, and noteworthy enough to have received this attention in an independent secondary source, albet only one. Weak keep
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In May 2018, she was a scheduled speaker at an event which intended to lobby for bringing terrorism charges against BBC and Channel 4 journalists who covered Libya in 2011 and the Syrian civil war in 2016. This event was cancelled.
Source: Snopes: The writer of the 2016 iteration of the narrative in question, Vanessa Beeley, was scheduled to speak at an event in the U.K. in May 2018 meant to lobby for terrorism charges to be brought against journalists who covered the Syrian civil war for Britain’s Channel 4 in 2016 and BBC coverage of Libya in 2011. The event has since been cancelled.
Also covered in another Snopes article
[17] and HuffPo.
[18] Relaibly sourced, adequately summarised in our voice, noteworthy enough for multiple independent secondary sources to mention. Strong keep
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This sentence appears in our article: :In response, UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Andrew Gilmour said that Beeley's activism was part of a Russian attempt to "neutralize the White Helmets because they are potential witnesses to war crimes." The source for the sentence says: ""We operate on the pretty infallible assumption that any government which refuses to let us in has something big to hide from us," UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Andrew Gilmour told me. The Assad regime and the Russians are trying to neutralize the White Helmets because they are potential witnesses to war crimes". The first sentence in the source is in quotation marks and attributed to Andrew Glimour. The second sentence, which we have have used in our article, is not in quotation marks and is not attributed to Andrew Gilmour. This second sentence appears in the source again later without reference to Andrew Gilmour. It seems likely that the sentence is actually Janine di Giovanni's rather than Andrew Gilmour's. Burrobert ( talk) 00:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Still going through Burrobert's initial list of potentially non-encyclopedic statements from the top of this section.
Here's the next: In August 2018, due to Beeley's defence of Assad and comments about Jo Cox, media reports criticised UK Labour Party MP Chris Williamson for tweeting that it was a "privilege" to have met Beeley.
This is pretty badly phrased and I would say at least needs re-writing. It is part of the paragraph that also includes the "Blairite" quote discussed above. The current given sources are the (a) Times of Israel: [Williamson's] tweet spurred a storm of condemnation and media reports critical of Williamson.
[19] No examples are given except for
David Baddiel. and (b) the BBC Over the weekend, [Williamons] was criticised for tweeting that it had been a "privilege" to have met blogger Vanessa Beeley, who has defended the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and previously described murdered MP Jo Cox as a "warmongering Blairite".
[20] Doesn't say who did the criticising. There are also other sources: HuffPo describes Beeley at length then says His latest tweet drew swift condemnation.
illustrated with tweets by
James O'Brien, Baddiel and others.
[21] A New Statesman opinion piece says Labour MP for Derby North Chris Williamson has courted fresh controversy after endorsing a pro-Assad conspiracy theorist described by the Guardian’s former Middle East editor as “the Syrian conflict’s goddess of propaganda”.
and Williamson’s tweet provoked immediate condemnation, drawing a strong response from James O’Brien, who called Williamson a “disgrace” and referred to Beeley as “Assad’s very own Alex Jones.”
as well as citing criticism by Syria expert
Louisa Lovelock.
[22] The Jewish Chronicle lists the incident among several problems with Williamson but does not note who has criticised him; this would be a primary source example of a critical media report.
[23] A brief Evening Standard diary piece says Is Chris Williamson seeing how far he can push his luck? Last night the Labour MP for Derby North tweeted: “Great to meet Vanessa Beeley today.” Beeley believes al Qaeda were not behind 9/11 and that “Zionists rule France”.
[24] - another primary source example of a critical media report.
[25] (Although both of these are secondary sources for Williamson's praise.) And another, perhaps less solidly RS, example of a critical media report would be an opinio piece from the Momentum magazine The Clarion: Really, [Williamson's] suspension was the result of months of behaviour going beyond the tone deaf and insensitive to far worse – just one dreadful example, praising Vanessa Beeley, a far-right, anti-semitic conspiracy theorist and propagandist for Bashar al-Assad’s blood-soaked dictatorship in Syria.
[26]
Discussion above includes (1) Kashmiri's argument that it belongs in Williamson's article not this one and that the Blairite claim is non-noteworthy because she calls lots of people Blairites, and (2) Cowhouse's argument that the attack on Cox was exceptional and therefore noteworthy because she was murdered and suggestion that our wording should more closely follow the source, e.g. In 2017, Beeley called Jo Cox, a British Labour MP who had been murdered the previous year by a far-right activist, a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate."
I would argue against (1) because her boost by an MP is one of the things that makes her notable, and so this boosting is relevant to our article.
So, my proposal would be to reformulate the first half of paragraph as: In 2017, Beeley called Jo Cox, a British Labour MP who had been murdered the previous year by a far-right activist, a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate."
[1]
[2] In August 2018, UK Labour Party MP Chris Williamson tweeted that it was a "privilege" to have met Beeley,
[3]
[2] for which he was widely criticised.
[1]
[4]
[3]
References
Bachner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This sentence has no context. Who are the people? What did they believe? What was the event? Did Beeley know the beliefs of these people at the time? Does she share their beliefs? Without some context, it is guilt by association. Burrobert ( talk) 03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
En juillet 2014, elle apparaît au théâtre de la Main d'Or lors d'une conférence sur la Palestine organisée par Dieudonné et Laurent Louis aux côtés de Marion Sigaut et Jacob Cohen[36] That is, the event was organised by Louis, the convicted Holocaust denier. YouTube is a primary source of her there. [37] That is also included in a recent BBC documentary, a reliable secondary source. [38] French Wikipedia uses ConspiracyWatch as a secondary source (and I beliee French Wikipedia has ruled that RS). [39] The event is also mentioned in an SPLC report. [40] BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
TFD's first comment sounded kind of neutral, but the latest one is pretty clear. I think we have consensus to delete. I'll make the update. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
She has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with David Icke. [1] [2]Cite error: ABobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [3]
She has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with conspiracy theorists such as David Icke.but perhaps safer to say
She has shared platforms with Holocaust denier Laurent Louis and conspiracy theorists David Icke.We don't need to concern ourselves with the original research that would verify or contextualise the claims RSs make about Louis and Icke (the link in our Louis article says the blogpost was in June 2014, i.e. prior to the Beeley panel), although saying the Holocaust was financed by the Jews/Zionists is of course a form of Holocaust denial anyway. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Bachner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Re these three edits: they cover three issues discussed in this talk page. My reading is we have consensus for inclusion of Williamson and no consensus either way on the scheduled event and Laurent Louis. I strongly supprt inclusion of Louis and Williamson, but think the scheduled event neeeds better explanation. It would be really good if other editors could weigh into discussions above to establish consensus on these issues. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the bio is lacking some biographical information about our protagonist. Her blog can be used as a source for this under the WP:Aboutself policy. I have censored some of the information that mentioned third parties but here are some points from her blog that may be suitable for her wiki bio:
Burrobert ( talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I tried to add it but it only lasted a few minutes. I don't think the reverting editor looked at Talk and doesn't appear to have commented previously here. Anyway, perhaps someone else can have a go at adding it. Burrobert ( talk) 21:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Someone needs to check this fact. According to this article, which claims to have spoken to a Monica Gellhorn Prize judge, no runner-up prizes are ever awarded.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-56126016
"Beeley sometimes claims to have been a finalist for the prestigious Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. But when I contacted a member of the prize committee, James Fox, he told me: "There are no finalists of the Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, and no 'runners up'. The prize does not draw up or publish such a list. The judges publish only winners or special commendations."
Neither the Wikipedia page for the Monica Gellhorn Prize, nor the Monica Gellhorn Prize website mention any runner-up prizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.161.130 ( talk) 06:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/07/bbc-white-helmets-mayday-uk-intelligence/ The author of that BBC article has recently been proven to outright fabricate accusations against Beeley, this reads like targeted slander against Beeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 ( talk • contribs)
All Beeley and her associates are guilty of are being critical of Western interference in the Syrian civil war, and this article reads like an attack ad against her It's completely absurd.
If you want to describe her as an activist, fine, I doubt she or anyone would object to such claims, but this borders on slander. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/07/bbc-white-helmets-mayday-uk-intelligence/ Minor edit to initial question: Bellingcat is cited??? Bellingcat is a propaganda arm of the CIA, it's not a neutral nor authoritative source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 ( talk • contribs)
There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.The goal of an encyclopedia is to accurately summarize knowledge. Paying attention to our sources of knowledge, and only using ones that provide accurate information, is very important and is how we prevent disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Beeley's article is polluted with hit pieces from the Times of Israel and the CIA's propaganda arm (Bellingcat) but the Grayzone crosses the line? That's absurd. Why not confront the nature of the content instead of such a sweeping condemnation? Almost all of Gray Zone's arguments are meticulously cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 ( talk • contribs)
the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed responsibility for the strike, saying it targeted “an Al Qaeda in Syria meeting location,” killing “dozens of core al Qaeda terrorists” after extensive surveillance. [...] In Bellingcat’s examination of all the photos and videos from the attack, we have identified no signs of armed individuals or military equipment at the mosque, nor have we seen any signs of al-Qaeda presence." CowHouse ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
When not to remove tags.
In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.
You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:
Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.
Burrobert ( talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Beeley has said that the statement that she has been a frequent guest on the "US conspiracy website InfoWars" is an "outright lie" and that she has "never been a guest of Infowars". The statement comes from the Pacific Standard, a source with which I am unfamiliar. The statement should be easy to prove or disprove. I found only one mention of her on the Infowars site, a tweet about COVID. Perhaps someone else can have a look to determine whether Beeley or Wikipedia is more reliable? Burrobert ( talk) 05:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The editor 'Samw' keeps edit-warring some ludicrous nonsense about Beeley being considered among the most respected journalists in the world because she was among hundreds of nominees for a prize. If there are hundreds of nominees for the prize, then there is nothing notable about being a nominee for it. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Quite a few posts on Beeley's Facebook profile amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Are there any secondary sources that have looked into this area of her activity? — kashmīrī TALK 22:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The Times "is considered generally reliable" per WP:RSP. This edit by Kashmiri is furthermore a violation of 1RR restriction on this page. [42] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
She has been described by The Times as “an obscure blogger and obsequious pro-Assad activist... Ms Beeley is assiduous in spreading the grotesque lie that the White Helmets, a humanitarian rescue agency working in Syria, is a front for Islamist extremism and she has urged the Assad regime to target them.” [1]
.
References
Beeley's publications on 21CW website span the period from 2016 to 2019 [43] but nothing since May 2019. She is also not listed on the Editorial Team page. [44] Is it still current that she is an editor there? — kashmīrī TALK 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
No mention of her trip to Russian occupied Donetsk right now? 2A00:23C8:858D:7D01:9424:CA6D:5EA1:2910 ( talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking for above, I saw these are the most recent RS mentions of Beeley. Anything noteworthy?
Among those named in the report as an influential spreader of disinformation are Vanessa Beeley, a self-described independent journalist whose conspiracy theories have been cited as evidence by Russia at the UN security council. In September 2015 Beeley accused White Helmets of being in league with al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations, claiming that the footage they gather as they rescue civilians from bombed-out buildings is staged... Since 2020, journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.
[The Institute for Strategic Dialogue then revealed that among those named in the report as an influential spreader of disinformation are Vanessa Beeley, a self-described independent journalist whose conspiracy theories have been cited as evidence by Russia at the UN security council. In September 2015 Beeley accused White Helmets of being in league with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, claiming that the footage they gather as they rescue civilians from bombed-out buildings is staged. Commenting on Beeley's accusations, Farouq Habib, White Helmets deputy manager, said: "At first we really thought this could just be someone who didn't have enough correct info, and we should contact her to explain. But then with some research, we realized it's deliberate and systematic."...
The same journalists who have helped promote Russian misinformation in Syria have also echoed its narrative in Ukraine. Vanessa Beeley, a British blogger famous for her support of Assad and her story that White Helmets are harvesting and selling organs from Syrian civilians, has been active in amplifying Russian rhetoric in Ukraine.
BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)