Talk:Vanessa Beeley

Why?

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)

I was not aware that this page had existed at some point and was after that deleted. The page clearly deserves to exist, given the abundance of RS coverage of this person, who RS say is renowned for pushing disinformation about the Syrian Civil War. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have looked far and wide for links to the previous versions without success. It may require a request for undeletion if needed. The editor who made the first deletion explained the decision as follows:

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)

I think the second deletion may have been speedy. When I asked for the reason at the time the reply was

WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

which seems fairly clear. Burrobert (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

The text reflects what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Pure one-sided hit piece. Incredible. Compare: Piers Robinson on same issues. --Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Can you check the article now, PhJ and Denis.g.rancourt? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That was a substantial rewrite. I haven’t checked the new article thoroughly yet but my first impression is that is closer to an encyclopaedia article now. The previous version was a hit piece which was why something similar had been deleted in the past (see the Why? section above). Burrobert (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a good start. There is a lot of propaganda and disinformation in the fields Beeley is involved with and WP:NPOV should be aimed for without becoming guilty of False Equivalence. Rankersbo (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If she is genuinely a conspiracy theorist and spreads mass disinformation, Wikipedia will state so. Just because you believe her theories doesn't make it true. If she has been proven to be a conspiracy theories who spreads garbage claims we state so that's it. Vallee01 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tweet inclusion disagreement

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 Times of Israel is sourced only to that single tweet whereas WP:TWITTER requires a much higher standard of sourcing, esp. in a biographical article. To put it blatantly - a social media post is insufficient to put forward a claim that it expresses the author's views.

I don't deny that Beeley might have indeed believe this at the time of posting, or might still believe in this now. But for now we have no WP:RS-compliant source to support such an unusual claim. Maybe, maybe sometime in the future someone will publish a biography of hers based on a multitude of sources - then we will finally have a RS-compliant source for her bio. Until it is there, however, we must avoid partisan sources like all the national varieties of The Times, unless we are able to balance them with more neutral sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER is not relevant unless the Wikipedia page directly linked to her tweet as the source. The source is The Times of Israel, not Twitter. The Times of Israel article does directly link to her tweet, which has not been deleted, so I do not see how there would be any dispute regarding its authenticity. There is no policy which says that, even if it is mentioned in reliable news sources, we cannot mention what someone tweeted in their biography. It is not particularly relevant whether or not it was a single tweet (how many times does she need to tweet it?). I'm also not sure why you are singling out the national varieties of The Times as partisan sources, and you haven't really indicated in what way they are partisan. Besides, per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. CowHouse (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary also said the sentence you removed was "smears about a tweet". I don't see how quoting someone's tweet could possibly be interpreted as a smear about that tweet. CowHouse (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Afaict, there's no reason to see The Times of Israel as non-WP:RS compliant in this context. They can be seen as WP:BIASED, but that doesn't mean they can't be used for the content in question. If you want to add in-text attribution, I guess that'd be possible, but it'd look weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, more coverage: [1][2][3]. Per WP:RSP, Huffpo is the better one. If there's doubt on existance, there's the tweet itself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

One more: [4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The tweet is a primary source. The fact it has secondary coverage in reliable sources shows it is noteworthy. The reliable sources are enough for Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. There is no credible policy-based objection to this inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Secondary sources reporting on a tweet mean that WP:TWITTER doesn't apply — this simply isn't the kind of situation where WP:TWITTER is relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

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)

For background, here is my edit summary: If The Guardian contacted Beeley and submitted questions to her, then she was given the right of reply. The article included her response where she called the questions a "McCarthyite interrogation" and declined to answer them. Since this is already stated in the paragraph, I added a contradiction template.

Are you suggesting the questions she was given were unrelated to the article? The Guardian even included a link to Beeley's appearance on a "40-minute-long YouTube programme in which she discussed the emailed requests for comment and criticised the Guardian’s coverage of Syria". It is simply inaccurate to say they did not offer a right of reply, whether or not you think they should have done it differently. I'd also like to point out that Pilger's piece from September 2018 says The Guardian's article was published "without permitting a single correction". At the end of The Guardian article, it says "This article was amended on 21 December 2017." Pilger's article does not appear to be a reliable source. Regardless, this minor incident does not warrant seven sentences in a relatively short page. CowHouse (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• A right of reply to an article surely requires that you actually see the article that you are replying to.
• The Guardian did link to a youTube video in which Beeley talks about the questions posed to her by The Guardian. Beeley made the video "shortly after requests for comment" and before the article was published. The video therefore cannot possibly be a reply to accusations made in the article.
• The correction you refer to is: "This article was amended on 21 December 2017. An earlier version said that Patrick Henningsen is an editor at Infowars.com. Henningsen is a former editor". This correction is unrelated to Beeley's refusal to answer a set list of questions. Pilger says "This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply". He is referring to the article's abuse of Beeley and is therefore obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeley.

Burrobert (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Before addressing your comment, I will reiterate that the paragraph in question has been given undue weight.

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.

If Pilger was talking about corrections generally, then he was wrong. If he was talking about not permitting a single correction about Beeley specifically, then he was still wrong because Beeley was given the chance to respond and declined. How could Pilger be obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeley when she did not provide any such corrections? CowHouse (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I’ll reorganise the text to reduce the overall space taken up by this point. What’s you argument for saying it has undue weight?
• The email and youTube. You can use any definition of "right of reply" that you like. In my opinion, any useful definition would require that you see the article that you are replying to prior to making the reply. Otherwise what are you replying to? Both the email and the youTube video occurred prior to the publication of the article and without Beeley seeing what was in the article. Therefore they cannot be considered a right of reply to the article.
• "If Pilger was talking about corrections generally, then he was wrong". He wasn’t talking about corrections generally. That was something you dreamt up.
• "How could Pilger be obviously referring to corrections provided by Beeley when 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".

Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It has undue weight because, as I have already said, it is a very minor incident and takes up an entire seven-sentence-long paragraph in a short biography. I am not convinced it is worth mentioning at all, let alone seven sentences.

As stated in the email, it contained "the key points" of the article. I suspect you didn't read the email if you are still trying to make the same point that the 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)

• I can probably cut it down by another sentence or so. I moved Pilger’s evaluation of Beeley’s work out because it can stand by itself as an example of the reception to her work by an established and respected journalist. We need to measure the weight of the controversy against sentences such as:

- 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”.

• I have seen the list of questions sent to Beeley. They provide a strong indication of the tone of the forthcoming article but provide no factual basis for the implied claims. Pilger didn’t consider the email equivalent to a right of reply and he has been a journalist for 50 years so he will know what the common practice is. For the purposes of our article, it doesn’t matter what we think right of reply means since our views won’t be appearing in the article.
• Regarding the opportunity to make corrections to the article, I don’t know why you think your interpretation matters. We are providing Pilger’s view as an established journalist.

Burrobert (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To summarise the event in question, The Guardian emailed Beeley with the key points in an upcoming article and asked for her response. Beeley declined and criticised the email. Pilger also criticised the email, said it didn't constitute a right of reply, and misquoted a portion of it.

What exactly is noteworthy or encyclopaedic about this "controversy"? Should we mention every time she declines to answer questions for an article? (e.g. this article for Snopes.)

I have never suggested my views should appear in the article. I do have a view on whether or not we should include unreliable sources, which is why I mentioned the inaccuracies in Pilger's article. CowHouse (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

See also: 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)

I agree with CowHouse here. If this incident was noteworthy it would be have been covered by reliable sources and not just this one self-published source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted

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)

Fair enough. I wonder if it is going to be possible to create an encyclopaedic article about our protagonist. Would it be better to delete the entire article? The previous incarnation of the article had the same problem and was eventually deleted because it became a hit piece. Burrobert (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I am sort of fed up with some editors using Wikipedia as a campaign for their political views. Perhaps deleting the entire article would be the best solution.

On a side note, don't you find it weird when an editor replaces a neutral sentence "X received a journalistic award in 2019" with conspiracy-sounding wording? Strange how some people are afraid to state simple facts - they always try to attach an opinion to them if facts are not aligned with their beliefs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, gain consensus before reverting to significantly different version of the page. Particularly when that version contains original research, removes a significant amount of sourced content and does not comply with the WP:FRINGE policy. Your version also misrepresented sources, e.g. referencing Bellingcat's article "Pro-Assad Lobby Group Rewards Bloggers On Both The Left And The Right" and saying nothing but the name of the award she received, with zero context. I don't see how any honest person could read that article and think that was a fair summary. CowHouse (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide some examples of how the page pushed an editor's political views rather than accurately reflect what was said in reliable sources. CowHouse (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have placed a POV tag on the article while we discuss the way forward. I think we need to go through it sentence by sentence, including the way the Serena Shim Award is described. Burrobert (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest editors, especially Kashmiri, should read the article if they think it was simply a "journalistic award". The article says the award was from a pro-Assad lobby group and other winners include Eva Bartlett, a comedian with a YouTube channel and MintPress News (a WP:DEPRECATED source on Wikipedia). CowHouse (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pilger's assessment

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)

Looking through the current list of references, many people's views of Beeley are mentioned. Here is a list, in non-primary reliable sources, including whether or not their opinion of Beeley was critical or supportive:

• nybooks.com & uk.news.yahoo.com: Brian Whitaker (critical)
• snopes.com & theguardian.com: Scott Lucas (critical)
• thetimes.co.uk: Diana Darke (critical)
• pbs.org: Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (critical)
• jyllands-posten.dk: Naser Khader (critical)
• thenationalnews.com: Robin Yassin-Kassab (critical)
• theguardian.com: James Sadri (critical)
• theintercept.com: Oz Katerji (critical)
• bbc.com & timesofisrael.com: Chris Williamson (supportive)
• thetimes.co.uk: Lady Cox (supportive)
• nybooks.com: John Pilger (supportive)
• thetimes.co.uk: Tim Hayward (supportive)
• uk.news.yahoo.com: Fares Shehabi (supportive)

I see no reason to cherry-pick Pilger's view specifically. Whitaker, Lucas and Williamson have the most coverage in non-primary reliable sources so it is worth mentioning their views more specifically (e.g. a quote), but I would suggest something along the lines of this: "Beeley's work and views have been criticised by ... Others have defended Beeley, including ..." CowHouse (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I support CowHouse here. That would be the encyclopedic, NPOV approach: use reliable, secondary sources and give due weight as per weight of coverage in RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To frame the debate using the loaded term “cherry-picked” is misleading. I’ll make it simple.

• include Pilger’s assessment because he is a renowned journalist.
• include other appropriate assessments as well.

Burrobert (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pilger is already mentioned on the page. Mentioning Pilger again is giving his views WP:UNDUE weight, especially considering the reference you are proposing is a primary source. CowHouse (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope you will apply the same logic to Chris York, will you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the referenced article written by Chris York is not an opinion piece. Are you suggesting we should say it is York's opinion that Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France"? CowHouse (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The only content in the page that is sourced solely to York's article is hardly an opinion: 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)

York in HuffPo is clearly not an opinion piece and is a reliable source for statements of fact. Pilger's piece is clearly an opinion piece and it would be undue to give his opinions more weight than it already has. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 30 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:

• Australian journalist John Pilger, who described Beeley's reports on the White Helmets as "substantiated investigative work" and who has cited her writing, oversees the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism for which Beeley was a runner-up.

or

• Beeley's reports on the White Helmets were described as "substantiated investigative work" by John Pilger, who has cited her work and oversees the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism for which Beeley was a runner-up.

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)

Yes that is a way of dealing with the various assessments of her work. Burrobert (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Are any of these sentences encyclopaedic?

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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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".

Let's remove these sentences and discuss their inclusion as part of a general NPOV discussion. Burrobert (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

One of these are discussed above at Talk:Vanessa_Beeley#Tweet_inclusion_disagreement. No, I don't think you should remove all of these in one go, much of this looks about what I'd expect in a CT-related WP-article. But sources are what matters. For example, can *According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers. be improved with more WP:RS, so we can drop the in-text attribution, and if not, is it a good idea to remove per WP:PROPORTION? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 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.

No idea what supported is to mean here. Reposting a tweet or publishing books in support of the theory? These two would be of completely different weights - regular, active support and promotion of that conspiracy theory (other than Tiwtter sharing) would naturally merit including.

• After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France".

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.

• 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.

I'm ok with keeping it, recommend to confirm the wording "critical of Assad" with sources.

• 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.

Looks like another attempt to dig out anything that can put the subject in a bad light. Never mind that the subject did virtually nothing, they are guilty.

• 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.

Wrong article. Can be added to Chris Williamson (politician), though (unless violates TWITTER). We don't stick, say, in Donald Trump that "Mr John Doe was criticised on Twitter for having met Trump" – why should we push in similar content here?

• 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.

If these are actually her views, then they should be kept. They will require better sourcing before including.

• According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers.

"Shared platforms"? What does it mean? Do we have a reliable source that confirms beyond reasonable doubt that Beeley is a Holocaust denier?

• 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".

Does the author who added that really believe that, say, Oscars are awarded based on merit? [5][6] Yet articles on actors somehow don't mention who was behind each Oscar award, meh.

Additionally, it's irrelevant to mention how Beeley called Jo Cox. She has called quite a few Blairites, Blairites. To mention specifically Cox along with the reminder that Cox was a victim of murder sounds almost like blaming Beeley for it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Nope. The aim of WP:TWITTER is to ensure utmost reliability of information added to biographies of living people. Here, the information is sourced to a single tweet and it is irrelevant whether the tweet is taken from twitter.com or from another website. To put it simply: a tweet is not a sufficient source for information on a living person or their views. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, there's nothing here [7] that goes against what's written/implied at WP:TWITTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 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)

Trump's Twitter activity is somewhat distinct. But even there, my opinion is that the guy's views are not worthy of so much storage space and editors' time, if you know what I mean... — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your or my opinion on the guy's or Beeley's views are off-topic for this talkpage. What matters is that their tweets are covered in WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you are misunderstanding the WP:TWITTER policy, as already stated in a previous section of the talk page. By your own reasoning, are you suggesting the Donald Trump page should not mention anything he tweeted? Your standard that she needed to tweet "Zionists rule France" more than once is not supported by any policy.

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".

I strongly suggest you read the Bellingcat article. We go by what reliable sources say, so presenting it as some kind of journalistic award with no context is not following the source. In fact, it is completely misrepresenting it.

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)

We could amend the wording from "murdered British MP Jo Cox" to something closer to how it was reported in The Times of Israel: 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)

This discussion is going to get quite messy and hard to follow. Is there a better way of doing it?Burrobert (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. As it covers lots of sentences which require different discussions, can I suggest splitting with subheadings? I'll make one for the following section which deals with one of the sentences. If this is unhelpful, please delete the sub-head.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Proudest moment quote

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)

Why does anyone have an urge to have it here how she described a meeting? In all other encyclopaedic biographies, do we include subjects' impressions after meetings? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, for most people that would be an unremarkable comment, after meeting any country's leader as part of a peace delegation. Why would sources consider it noteworthy? What function does including it in an article serve? However, we can't avoid the fact that reliable sources have printed it (for whatever reason) and, if we are going to mention it, we should at least provide her actual comment, not an abridged, distorted version. Burrobert (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, I have rewritten the passage.

Kashmiri, email the source authors if you want to debate their writings with them. Reliable sources consider it noteworthy that she described a meeting with Assad, five years after the beginning of an ongoing civil war during which he had been condemned by many international figures and organisations, as her proudest moment.

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 noteworthy, perhaps because it is a controversial and uncommon opinion. Because they are generally reliable sources, it doesn't concern us whether they link to primary sources such as Facebook because we broadly trust them, unless other reliable sources contend the factual claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It is noteworthy for us because more than one reliable sources consider it noteworthy Nope, 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)

And what does WP:IS, which is not a policy, have to do with the use of The New York Review of Books and The Guardian in this context? Are you arguing that they are closely affiliated with the subject? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, if you read WP:IS it says: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. BobFromBrockley is not the one who needs to familiarise themselves with the project's policies. CowHouse (talk) 14:56, 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)

Looks ok to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ta. Burrobert (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Good edit Burrobert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Attribution/Soros

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.

• Not everything in a reliable source needs to go into Wikipedia
• Not everything that comes from a reliable source can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

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)

You have a point. WP:PROPORTION is a thing and can be a valid argument.

On the particular case I quote the Pacific Standard [8]:

"The glue for this rebuilding is conspiracy theories. Beeley is one of the main figures pushing the argument that George Soros is paying the United Nations to invent evidence that Assad is using chemical weapons against his people."

Link as in original. Afaict, The Guardian doesn't support the Beeley-Soros-CT claim directly, it's more hinted. However, Pacific Standard's link isn't exactly like a WP-cite, is it? Then again, it kind of reads as if they mean it like that. It's possible there's support for this (that Beeley likes the CT) in places like RT, Sputnik and Infowars, but of course we don't use those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Soros claim might be one we should be more cautious with. Reliable sources: 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)

If you have done that much digging and still haven't found evidence for the view then I agree it should be removed. I looked at her blog but was unable to find anything supporting our text either. She does have a category devoted to Soros but her view seems to be that Soros funds NGO's which work against the Assad government. It would be good to include this in her bio as she has devoted a few of her blog articles to it. However, it would need to appear in a reliable source, which seems unlikely. Burrobert (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No objection atm, Pacific Standard isn't obviously non-RS, but it's a bit lonely on this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Twitter/Zionists

After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France". This is properly sourced and sufficiently encyclopedic, as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

There is no doubt she did tweet this statement. Is it the sort of thing that needs to be included in an encyclopaedia. I would say not but it is not worth arguing about. Burrobert (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Inciting fake counterterrorism reports against anti-Assad journalists

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)

We have transcribed the source accurately and Beeley did post a tweet which asked her followers to report various media sources under the UK Terrorism Act. My points are:

• The phrase "critical of Assad" comes from the source and perhaps should be attributed. Beeley actually lists the sources she thinks should be reported.
• It would be nice to see some context. What is it about these sources that Beeley thinks is in breach of the UK Terrorism Act. However, the context isn't given in the source we use and it seems unlikely any RS will provide the context. Burrobert (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The source says "including the BBC, Channel 4 News, and The Guardian", so we could mention that if you believe it is an improvement. As far as context, the source shows Beeley's tweet which includes a screenshot from gov.uk saying "Report online material promoting terrorism or extremism" but doesn't include any specific allegations or examples. CowHouse (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit is a fair transcription of what was in the source and what Beeley actually tweeted. It doesn't give her reasons but as you mention her reasons are not in the source. Burrobert (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Event lobbying for journalists to be designated terrorists

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)

Statement from Andrew Gilmour

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)

You are correct. @Kashmiri: since you added it to the page your input would be appreciated. CowHouse (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cox/Williamson

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." In August 2018, UK Labour Party MP Chris Williamson tweeted that it was a "privilege" to have met Beeley, for which he was widely criticised.

References

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your version is reasonable and a fair summary of the sources available. As with many of these statements, it would be good to get some context. Why did Beeley describe Cox as a "warmongering Al Qaeda advocate"? Her views on this are available in sources which we can't use but, unfortunately, not in reliable sources. Burrobert (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

According to an article in The Times of Israel, Beeley has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers

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)

Additional refs: [27][28][29][30]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, what do we mean by "platform"?. Is it a speaking event or is the platform 21stCenturyWire?

Of the four sources, two mention that Beeley is an editor at 21stCenturyWire which they say publishes Holocaust deniers. The other two sources mention that Beeley has appeared at speaking events at which Holocaust deniers also spoke. The details provided are not very useful though. The HuffPuff article links to a video site that is advertising Beeley’s video. The article by Oz Katerji (again) in the Newstatesman does mention a name - Laurent Louis. Louis "was convicted of Holocaust denial in 2015 after he wrote blog posts publicly doubting whether Jews were killed en masse in Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War". The panel on which he and Beeley appeared was dated 6 September 2014. This information is taken from the links provided by Katerji in his article.

So, in summary, the sources don’t help in filling in the missing context (unless I have missed something). However, I did notice that the video site mentioned above included a bio of Beeley which said she is "a member of the steering committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement International http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/". Perhaps we can remove the attribution to Bellingcat for this statement.Burrobert (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The Times of Israel (actually Jewish News, hosted by ToI), in a news piece (so no need for attribution), says she "has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers". This is a statement of fact that shows why she is notable. I don't see why we need context. HuffPo, in a news piece (so no need for attribution), notes her "speaking at events alongside holocaust deniers and David Icke" with a hyperlink to one example; as a RS source we can trust them to have verified their statement that she has spoken at "events" plural and not simply the one they link. (Note: our article on Icke does not say that he is a Holocaust denier but that he has been described as such, which goes with HuffPo's phrasing "holocaust deniers and Icke".) New Statesman (an opinion piece so might need attribution though we can expect them to fact-check) says "In 2014 Beeley appeared on a panel in Paris alongside French “comedian” and convicted anti-Semite Dieudonne M'bala M'bala... and convicted Holocaust-denier, Laurent Louis." (Note: our article on Dieudonne doesn't call him a Holocaust denier; our article on Louis does in the lead.) In addition, Jewish News (2018) says she has "more recently appeared alongside conspiracy theorists such as David Icke, Holocaust denier Laurent Louis and was featured in far-right German magazine ‘Compact’."[31] I think with these four sources we can simply say "She has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with David Icke."

Freedom (we could only use with attribution, but may not be noteworthy enough) says something else: "The website where she works as an editor, 21st Century Wire, features anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers such as Gilad Atzmon." (Note: the lead of our Atzmon article says "He has been described by scholars and anti-racism activists as antisemitic and a Holocaust denier.") Snopes also says the same thing: Beeley and a fellow speaker at a UK event are both "editors for 21stCenturyWire.com, a disreputable web site that posts pro-Assad disinformation among a garbled cornucopia of pseudoscience and Holocaust denial. The site often hosts David Icke, a British personality who sells the belief that the world is secretly controlled by a race of shape-shifting lizard people who have faked mass casualty events like 9/11."[32]

Re removing Bellingcat, considered an RS by Wikipedia, and replacing it with Alternative View, a fringe website that mainly sells DVDs: not a good idea.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There isn't much detail because the source article, which is inaccurately attributed btw, is about a British MP and mentions Beeley in passing. This is what happens when we create articles about people who fail notability. We have few if any articles written about them and have to mine for passing references that provide little detail or context. TFD (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support deleting this sentence. Too vague, not notable, and possibly a smear. Usually "sharing a platform" means using the same social media platform such as Twitter. If so, this could be the logical fallacy guilt by association. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Burrobert (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Sharing a platform" does not usually mean using the same social media platform; it usually means speaking on the same panel or equivalent.[33][34][35] It is only guilt by association if you extrapolate from the fact of sharing a platform that two speakers are somehow equivalent. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, fair enough, "speaking on the same panel" is probably what they mean here. I went to go re-word the sentence to say that, then realized that the sentence is still vague. What conference/panel was it? Was it a conference/panel where everybody denied the Holocaust? Was there just randomly a person on it that was a Holocaust denier? I'm still thinking this is vague and guilt by association. I opened the linked article and searched "platform" and "Holocaust", and I found no additional information that could help clarify the situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

See my comment above. It is not a single conference/panel, but events plural. If "shared platforms" is too vague, we can say ""She has shared platforms at events with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with David Icke." It doesn't matter whether people denied the Holocaust at the event (we don't say they do). People are not "randomly" on platforms; they are invited, and this is why sharing platforms can be controversial and noteworthy. We don't need to do original research to find the context; it's a simple statement of fact backed up by four reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden "shared a platform" with Donald Trump. It is an implicit criticism without providing details. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article unless the circumstances are explained. In articles about notable people against whom accusations have been made, we can find sources where the person explains themselves. Maybe if asked Beeley would have said that she did not know Icke was a Holocaust denier or that getting out the truth about the lizard people is so important that it's something she was willing to overlook. Or maybe she was debating Icke on whether the Holocaust occurred. TFD (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Laurent Louis is more salient than Icke as he is the (convicted) Holocaust denier mentioned by more than one source. French Wikipedia says: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)

@Novem Linguae: Three editors opposed and two in favour is not consensus! (Text was inserted in November by CowHouse so presumably they also support, making 3-3.) I'm not sure who the WP:ONUS is on in a no consensus situation like this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, I assessed it as 3 to 1. Me, Burrobert, and TFD are for deletion. You're for keeping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång didn't say much, I just assumed they were neutral. Anyway, I don't want you to feel that I'm being sneaky, so I'll revert right now until we get more people to chime in. Sorry for any misunderstandings. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and CowHouse: –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking to include contested material, so if there is no consensus it should probably be removed. If there is support for going back in, here is the formulation I would propose: She has shared platforms with Holocaust deniers such as Laurent Louis and with David Icke. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes that does seem to be the policy. Regarding the proposed wording:

• "such as ...". Apart from Louis and Icke, do the sources mention anyone else?
• Is Icke a HD? This is unclear from the sources and from our own page on Icke. If he isn't a HD, he should be mentioned in a separate sentence.
• As I mentioned earlier, Katerji's links show Beeley and Louis shared a stage at an pro-Palestinian conference in September 2014. Louis was convicted of HD in 2015.

Burrobert (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources mention some other people as per my comments earlier in this sub-section but Louis and Icke are the most frequently mentioned. The "and with" is meant to show that Icke is not included among the HDs (he has been described as such but it is also disputed). I'm not sure the 2014/15 issue is important; he was convicted in 2015 of stuff that he did prior to that and our article gives examples of his HD from January 2014 for example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Other names appear in your earlier comments but I can’t find any other HD’s mentioned with whom Beeley has “shared a platform”.
• Louis’ 2015 conviction appears to be related to blog posts he made. I haven’t been able to find a source, including the JC article that is linked, that specifies when the posts were made.
• The other mention of HD in our article on Louis is in the paragraph: “In January 2014, during discussion of current affairs in the Chamber of Representatives, he made the quenelle gesture and spoke of, "this Holocaust produced and financed, let us remember, by the founders of Zionism." The president of the chamber condemned these remarks and the "hateful" and "uncalled-for" gesture, while the Belgian League Against Antisemitism brought suit against Laurent Louis for "antisemitism and Holocaust denial." It is unclear where the HD comes in here. There is also the issue of what relevance this has to Beeley’s bio given the lack of context already mentioned. Burrobert (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right other Holocaust deniers are not named though two of the RSs use the plural. So it would be following the sources to say 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)

• Yes, you have now added the date of the blog posts to the Louis article and the source you use does say June 2014.
• The original research that you mention is to determine whether the statement should be included in the article. None of the original research itself should appear. Our state of knowledge is:

1. Louis posted comments on a blog a few months before he and Beeley "shared a platform".

2. We don't know whether Beeley was aware of his comments or read his blog.

3. If Beeley was aware of Louis' comments, we don't know what her attitude was to them.

• Given our lack of knowledge around the statement, I think it would be unhelpful to include the statement in Beeley's bio as it tells us nothing about Beeley while tainting her by association.

Burrobert (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from other editors. My feeling is stil that if these facts are considered noteworthy by a bunch of RSs in their explanations of who this person is, then it is due to include them in our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t find the argument that, if something appears in a number of RS’s it should be in Wikipedia, very convincing. Being in an RS is a necessary, but not sufficient, reason to be included in Wikipedia. It is up to editors to decide what RS content to include in Wikipedia. That is the discussion we are having here. It is unlikely that we will agree on this so we can add it to the list of things that are in dispute, see what other editors think and move on to the next issue. Burrobert (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The source are solid and multiple I don't see why I shouldn't appear in the article --Shrike (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I support delete. I really don't think it matters who else has spoken at events she has spoken at, or worked at places she has worked at. These are weak associations and are reminiscent of show trials or ideological purges. It will be a better article if it is limited to what she has written and said. Given that she is a journalist and activist, surely that provides enough rope to hang her, if that is what people want to do. Going to such lengths is actually a sign of weakness: it suggests that the animosity of her critics is greater than the evidence against her. Also, there seems to be a trend to include Holocaust denial wherever possible as some some of ultimate demonisation and I think that should be resisted where it is not clearly relevant. Jontel (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Need consensus

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)

More information about Beeley

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:

1. The majority of my articles are published at 21st Century Wire. I am a special contributor at Mint Press in US and at the UK Column daily news channel. My work is re-published at the Ron Paul Institute, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Sott., Greanville Post, The London Journal among others.
2. I have appeared on RT Cross Talk, RT News, Press TV, Ron Paul Liberty Report, Sunday Wire, Sputnik Radio
3. I am an independent researcher, writer and photographer. I am 100% self-funding which enables me to maintain my independence.
4. I focus also on peace activism and defend the sovereignty of nations and the self determination of their peoples without foreign intervention or destructive meddling in independent state affairs.
5. In 2012 I made several trips to Gaza, the first being in August 2012 when entry was not permitted after the murder of Egyptian soldiers during Ramadan. I finally made it into Gaza via the tunnels system in November 2012, just prior to the Israeli aggression, Operation Pillar of Defence. I was present on the borders in Khan Younis, when Hamid Abu Dagga was murdered during an Israeli incursion into Gaza territory days before the aggression began. I left Gaza in December 2012 and spent extended time in Egypt, where I witnessed the 2012 referendum designed to increase Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi’s powers in Egypt. I returned in 2013 and was witness to many of the anti Morsi demonstrations. I re-entered Gaza in April 2013 and spent a further six weeks inside Gaza working with various local initiatives and projects.
6. After several trips to Gaza, I launched the Facebook page, The Wall Will Fall to publish my photographs and articles on life in the Gaza strip. The idea behind the page and The Wall Will Fall was to raise awareness but also to convey the idea that through education, awareness and the development of our own consciousness we can bring down all walls that keep us in ignorance and far from the Truth.
7. In 2013 I became a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine and attended their inaugural conference in Beirut.
8. In 2014 I established the Gaza Smile Project to raise funds enabling children to return to school after the devastating Israel aggression that had decimated huge areas of the besieged coastal enclave.
9. In 2015 I started writing as a special contributor to 21st Century Wire
10. March 2016 – I represented Yemen at the UN HRC, Geneva. I testified on the Saudi Coalition use of US supplied cluster bombs against civilian targets in Yemen.
11. May 2016 – I was a speaker at the Alternative View Symposium AV7 and at Frome Stop War
12. June 2016 – I was invited as a special guest on the Unified Ummah TV programme that examines the motivations of foreign activists who are protesting their governments illegal and criminal interventions into the affairs of nation states.
13. July 2016 – I first entered Syria as a member of the US Peace Council delegation. We met with religious leaders, government ministers, unarmed opposition members, Syria NGOs and Humanitarian institutions, Syria state institutions and finally with President Bashar Al Assad who spoke with us for almost two hours and answered a series of probing questions from the delegation. (Note we have already mentioned this meeting but this provides more background).
14. August 2016 – I re-entered Syria as an independent writer and photographer and extended my visa to three weeks in total which enabled me to visit many areas, including Aleppo. I met with the REAL Syria Civil Defence, established in 1953 and a member of the ICDO [International Civil Defence Organisation] and recorded their testimony against the White Helmets.
15. November 2016 – I was invited to Moscow, Russia with Mother Agnes de la Croix. During this time I met with deputy FM, Mr Bogdanov and MFA spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova.

Burrobert (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The meeting with Bogdanov and Zakharova is already mentioned in nybooks.com so I see no issue with adding the information from that article (rather than needing to use a source from Beeley herself). Some of your examples are WP:UNDUE and/or would fall under the "unduly self-serving" exception to the WP:ABOUTSELF policy (e.g. "I focus also on peace activism..."). There are doubts as to the authenticity of other points (e.g. "without foreign intervention" [does that include Russia?], "100% self-funding"). Other examples are already mentioned on the page (e.g. 21st Century Wire, her appearances on RT and Sputnik, her blog "The Wall Will Fall", and her self-description as an "independent researcher, writer and photographer"). If Beeley and the White Helmets are the two primary parties, then the point about "the REAL Syria Civil Defence" is a claim about a third party which means WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply, especially since you're using Beeley as a source about someone else's supposed testimony. CowHouse (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

1-2) Potentially useful but I'm slightly wary about using this. A search of Dissident Voice shows she has written there three times; a search of London Journal, though, shows nothing at all. Maybe include the more easily verifiable items on the list? 3-4) Seems too flim-flammy and self-serving to be useful in an encyclopedia. 5-9) Some of this might be OK if we avoid using it for any claim about third parties, although if it is due there should be other sources. 10) If this is true, it should be easily sourced from better sources (and if not it raises a question mark. 11) AV7 maybe worth mentioning, as this is one of the contentious platform-sharing events discussed in previous talk. Frome Stop War is not noteworthy. 12) Not noteworthy. 13-15) Probably due although independent sources would be better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks that's helpful. I'll work through the list, try to find independent verification of items that you think should have it, and come back with a refined list of possible additions with suitable wording since the wording above is in Beeley's voice. Burrobert (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the result of my first bit of research. It includes information that can be verified from the sites mentioned. I haven't included a link to the Ron Paul Institute verification as the search results were not provided by a link. I was unable to provide a link to the Global Research verification as this is blocked by a spam filter. I have omitted Press TV as I couldn't find any mention of her there although it would be surprising if she hadn't made some appearances there. I have omitted UK Column News and Greanville Post, both of which can be verified, as they may not be sufficiently significant - e.g. they don't have wikipedia entries. The Sunday Wire is linked to 21st Century Wire and the Ron Paul Liberty Report is linked to the Ron Paul Institute. This is my suggested addition for points 1-2 above:

She contributes to MintPress News and her work has been republished by the Ron Paul Institute and Global Research.

Burrobert (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Basing a substantial amount of an article on what the person has written goes against the basic approach to writing articles. Essentially articles should summarize what the relevant sources say about someone. That's why in my opinion this article should be deleted: we lack adequate sources to provided an informative article. ABOUTSELF is mostly for basic information, such as how old she is or where she went to school, if it is not already mentioned in reliable sources. If readers are interested in reading her articles, we provide a link to her home page.

The problem with summarizing what she says in her articles is that it requires us to determine which ones are most important and to explain the degree of credibility and acceptance of the views she expresses. That goes beyond the skill set of most editors and is prohibited by policy. But we can't just say for example that she supports 9/11 truth and provide her reasons without going into why that position is rejected in mainstream sources. If a journalist had written an article about that, we could use it as a source, but it's not something that Wikipedia editors should be doing themselves.

TFD (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that her blog would generally be inappropriate as a source for her views. It does seem reasonable to use it as a source about things such as where she has worked, where she has lived, what groups she has been a member of etc. as long as the statements are not extraordinary or self-serving. I think most, or possibly all, of the statements I suggested above are not about her views. For example, the statement "She contributes to MintPress News and her work has been republished by the Ron Paul Institute and Global Research" seems to fit into your description of "basic information". Burrobert (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine. And of course it is verifiable information, since we can look for her contributions on those sources. TFD (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My next suggestion covers points 5 to 12. I have left out some items that didn’t seem significant, such as her volunteer work for The Global Campaign to Return to Palestine and the establishment of the Gaza Smile Campaign, neither of which could be independently verified. I also haven’t been able to independently verify point 10. The 31st session did discuss the situation in Yemen but the minutes don’t provide detail about the speakers. Other than her own statement, the only other verification of her speech at the Alternative View Symposium AV7 is the youtube video to which she links. The Alternative View website has a bio of Beeley but doesn't mention her participation in the conference. For point 9, we have already mentioned that she writes for 21stCenturyWire and could add 2015 as the date she commenced writing for it.

Beeley first entered Gaza in November 2012, just prior to the commencement of Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defence. She made further trips to Gaza and set up a Facebook page, The Wall Will Fall, where she publishes photographs and articles on life there. In 2016, Beeley spoke at the Alternative View Symposium AV7.

Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Both these suggestions look fine to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 28 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)

I do not see the value of this content. It's primary sourced and is trivial (appearing at some non-notable event, running a facebook page, traveling to Gaza). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Agree with Snooganssnoogans. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I read it that the trip to Gaza was the trigger behind her activism. As such it would merit inclusion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Was she really a Gellhorn runner-up?

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)

That is a good article. As is the podcast Mayday by the same author. It's more about the disinformation about the White Helmets, but it's good background reading for anyone wanting to contribute to this article too. Rankersbo (talk) 19:26, 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)

The article you cited says nothing at all about the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. CowHouse (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This reads like propaganda, why is it allowed in its current form

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)

Geriv98. The Grayzone is not a reliable source. WP:RSPSOURCES. 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)

Those who dismiss Bellingcat as "a propaganda arm of the CIA" should actually read Bellingcat's articles. For example, their article on the 2017 al-Jinah airstrike says: "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)

Removing Tags from pages

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:

• You do not understand the issues raised by the template;
• The issue has not yet been resolved;
• There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
• The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;
• You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.

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)

1. You do not understand the issues raised by the template

   Easily understood that the claims were unjustified, no reliable sources were presented that present the topic in other terms

2. The issue has not yet been resolved

   No valid issue to resolve per above

3. There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue

   There was some in 2020

4. The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

   It sometimes is the case as in COI related ones

5. You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.

   Of course not,

—PaleoNeonate – 14:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is ongoing disagreement regarding some of the above points which is why the tag is still relevant and should remain. You should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. 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) 16:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Frequent guest on Infowars

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)

Good catch. I did not find any other mention of Beeley on infowars.com. It seems that the claim must be removed as factually incorrect (unless proven otherwise). — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I had a look and saw no other reliable sources either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the world's most respected journalists

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)

It was a poll, not even a prize. I'd keep it out. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Edit warring" seems a little harsh; it was once with explanation! The original revert with an explanation of "so one person nominated her" wasn't very informative. My rule-of-thumb is that if the "poll" and organization gets mentioned in another Wikipedia articles, then it merits mention. What I propose to add is simply a statement of "fact":

The National Council for the Training of Journalists lists her as one of the "238 most respected journalists" in 2018.

If you think NCTJ is not prestigious or it's only "one person" please provide references (& we should probably update the NCTJ article). Thanks! Samw (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

These are things that RS would provide context on if any RS found anything notable about this poll or award or whatever it is. You just linked to some random PDF. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The PDF is from NCTJ! Samw (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Haven't seen a response and it's been 24h+ since the last revert so I'm going to put the above statement back in pending more info/references; thanks. Samw (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

{[tq|All those appearing on the 238-strong list were nominated at least once by a total of 411 people who voted for the “living journalist they felt most embodies the values of journalism that they respect and adhere to”.}}[41] Not sure this constitutes noteworthiness, unless any secondary RSs included her in their reportage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the research and thank you for updating the NCTJ article! Samw (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

COVID-19 conspiracies

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)

I had a look but found only one source, which I've added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The Times

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)

Here is the text that is in dispute. Its addition has been reverted by two separate editors.

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.”

.

• The Murdoch Times may be a reliable source but not everything that appears in reliable sources is suitable for an encyclopaedia. The decision on what to include is made by editors, in this case using the WP:BRD process.
• Who wrote the article? The author is not mentioned in the citation and is not contained in the small part of the article that is visible to non-subscribers to the Murdoch Times.
• Who provided the quote? Was it the writer of the article or someone whom the writer is quoting?
• The words "obscure blogger", "obsequious", "assiduous" and "spreading the grotesque lie" indicate that the writer is not a neutral commentator. There are ways of summarising the writer's view without using her emotional language.
• Some of this is already in our hero's bio in a different form. For example we say "Beeley has accused the White Helmets, a Syrian humanitarian organisation that operates in parts of opposition-controlled Syria and in Turkey, of being a fraudulent terrorist organisation that engages in organ harvesting and its volunteers are a legitimate military target". The part about the WH being a "legitimate military target" is presumably what the Murdoch Times means when it says "she has urged the Assad regime to target them". This leaves the first part of the quote which could be summarised as "The Murdoch Times wrote that Beeley is a pro-Assad activist". Whether that would be worth including in her bio is a matter that we could discuss.

Burrobert (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a leading article, so (although obviously there was an author or authors) it is correct to credit "The Times". This lead is the collorary to their front page that day about a JISC mail group. I don't think 'reliability' is the question, since it's an attributed quote, but rather whether its inclusion is unbalancing the article or even an undue attack on the subject. Personally I think its inclusion is ok: as you say, it isn't out of line with anything else in the article, and it is notable that she was personally attacked by the Times (something which say something about the Times too). 82.19.214.50 (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that not everything in a RS is suitable, and it is right to come to a consensus decision via BRD process as per Burrobert above, but worth noting that it does not meet the WP:GRAPEVINE criteria cited by Kashmiri on reverting: it is a reliable source, not based on an SPS, and not original research. Personally, I think this is DUE: it is a succint summary of the mainstream view of her. It could be toned down a little to avoid skewing our article away from a NPOV, e.g. by saying: "She has been described by The Times as “an obscure blogger", a "pro-Assad activist" and "assiduous" in spreading the myth that the White Helmets are "a front for Islamist extremism and she has urged the Assad regime to target them.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

21st Century Wire?

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)

I can't anything definitive. On her Wall Will Fall blog, she says she started there in 2015 but does not give an end date. Perhaps change the wording to "Beeley has written for ... " which leaves open the question of an end date. Burrobert (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Web Archive says that she was an Associate Editor until June 2019, thereafter she was a Special Contributor, whatever it means, until December.[45] — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I just rolled back an attempt by an IP contributor, content was fine but langauge was not NPOV Rankersbo (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

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)

It doesn't seem to have been covered in reliable sources. Latest mention of Beeley is a Reuters factcheck of a tweet shared by several twitter accounts including Beeley and it only shows her as a twitter user. Rankersbo (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I expect RSs will emerge before long. Meanwhile, here's a list of the observers. Presumably not RS: https://imi.org.ua/en/news/foreign-journalists-with-ties-to-rf-were-among-the-international-observers-at-the-sham-referendum-i47970 BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent sources

Looking for above, I saw these are the most recent RS mentions of Beeley. Anything noteworthy?

• Townsend, Mark (2022-06-19). "Network of Syria conspiracy theorists identified – study". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-09-28. 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.
• "Russian-Backed Campaign Fueling Disinformation Revealed In Syria". Asharq AL-awsat. 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-09-28. [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."...
• Christou, William (2022-02-24). "For Syrians, Russia's road to Ukraine started in Damascus". The New Arab. Retrieved 2022-09-28. 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)