WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, 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.
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Syria may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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:
Burrobert ( talk) 04:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
[1]
?
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
References
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)
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)
@
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:
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)
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)
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.
References
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, 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.
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Syria may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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:
Burrobert ( talk) 04:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
[1]
?
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
References
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)
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)
@
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:
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)
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)
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.
References