Talk:Paul McKeigue

Copied content from Tim Hayward (political scientist); see that page's history for attribution

The following text was copied from the page for Tim Hayward (political scientist) (with name changes):

McKeigue is a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM). The SPM states that the group was established to "facilitate research into the areas of organised persuasive communication (including propaganda and information operations) and media coverage, with respect to the 2011-present conflict in Syria including related topics". The first publication of the SPM, titled Doubts about "Novichoks", questioned whether Russia's secret nerve agent programme ever existed.

Other members of the SPM include political scientist Tim Hayward, blogger Vanessa Beeley, former academic Piers Robinson, lecturer in International Relations Tara McCormack, and sociologist David Miller.

The SPM states that the 2018 Douma chemical attack was faked by the White Helmets civil defence organisation. In early 2018, The Times newspaper ran a series of reports on Hayward and the SPM, in which it said the group spreads "disinformation" in support of the government of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War and "conspiracy theories promoted by Russia". In response, the Group said that its members have a shared interest in "investigating the 'information operations' (...) associated with the Syrian conflict" and stressed that "the Working Group does not take any position for or against the Syrian government."

Burrobert (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Daily Beast in a BLP

Any thoughts on using the Daily Beast as a suitable source in a BLP? I noted on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources project page that: "Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." and I would concur with that viewpoint. I've looked for alternative sources to include, but can only find what is basically a rehash of the same article, by the same two authors in Newlines Magazine. Courtesy ping: User:Philip Cross --DSQ (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The material in both articles is based on the content of emails by McKeigue sent to his supposed Russian contact. The contents of some of these emails, received via the CIJA sting, are openly available. Despite your partial account of what is said about The Daily Beast on the perennial sources page it is green listed and the websites apparent revelations about Paul McKeigue are attributed to this citation in this article. More to come from Newslines magazine apparently. Philip Cross (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've not read any of the emails to judge, but I find the DB a bit tabloidy, one notch up from The Sun. Yeah I know it's green listed, my "partial acount" specifically relates to its use in BLP's not in general, sorry if I didn't make that clear. --DSQ (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as reliability in this case goes, perhaps some of the points made by Aaron Maté of The Grayzone are valid. Hopefully time will tell.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Those involved in what is clearly a Russian disinformation campaign, and has been shown to be by multiple reliable sources, lack any credibility (I'm being kind). Philip Cross (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

100% agree and Aaron Mate has been involved in actively spreading Russian disinformation, for example in the MH17 case[1] and OPCW[2], for years. Cloud200 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Philip Cross and Cloud200: as I said, hopefully time will tell. That is, tell where exactly the truth lies ... and which sources are reliable ... and which propaganda. On the question of whether to include the material or not, it's always worthwhile to ask yourself in these situations whether you would include that kind of material, from that kind of source, in an article about someone or something you admire. Editors are obliged to edit neutrally, meaning that their own feelings about subjects should not alter how they edit articles. That's particularly true when writing about living people, which is supposed to be approached conservatively. Thank you for sharing your convictions about Paul McMcKeigue and Aaron Maté's relationships to the Russian regime.     ←   ZScarpia   21:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I see there hasn't been a rush to report on the latest DB revelations as yet. We're reduced, effectively, to putting the same article in twice to bolster its relevance. I'd query whether Newlines Magazine/Forum could be considered a high-quality, reliable source too. An ex DC-based think-tank now working out of a "private" university. You offer some very sage advice User:ZScarpia around potentially differing sourcing standards dependent on whether you are aligned with someone or not; the practice of cramming every piece of negative material that can be found into a BLP, while arguing that anything vaguely positive is "unreliable" remains one of my biggest bugbears about Wikipedia. It debases the encyclopedia and it's unfortunate that it's not more robustly challenged. --DSQ (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The ethics of Wikipedia editing! And what editing neutrally and encyclopaedically means? Although it's only an essay rather than a policy, I would like to see the first line of the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent displayed at the top of talkpages: "Editors must either create edits for the opposing point of view themselves, or at least allow it." Perhaps with a reminder that acknowledging that there may be other points of view is important.     ←   ZScarpia   10:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

It doesnt use the words conspiracy theory @Burrobert youre right. What it says is

One of Paul McKeigue's main preoccupations has been the supposed faking of chemical attacks. Through the Working Group he has co-authored papers, for example, suggesting that the Syrian regime might not have been responsible for the 2018 chlorine attack on the town of Douma as inspectors for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concluded. Instead, he has put forward the idea that more than 40 victims might have been deliberately killed in a gas chamber as part of a "managed massacre" by rebel forces with the help of the White Helmets in an elaborate scheme to con the world.

It turns out McKeigue borrowed the gas chamber idea from a retired American pharmacologist, Denis O'Brien, who described in a self-published paper how it had come to him in a dream after he had eaten an anchovy pizza. O'Brien's paper is full of assumption and conjecture and his analysis is based on his own dream and grainy photographs.

How should we describe it? Softlemonades (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Our current description seems reasonable, except that we should say "was staged by rebel forces with the help of the White Helmets civil defence organisation" rather than "was staged by the White Helmets civil defence organisation". We don't need to mention the source's critique of O'Brien's paper unless the source says the same critique applies to McKeigue's theory. Burrobert (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

unless the source says the same critique applies to McKeigue's theory The article says he took the theory from O'Brien then critiques O'Brien, so it does Softlemonades (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The source says "McKeigue told me he didn't believe O'Brien's personal views negated the "compelling" evidence his paper offers for the idea that chemical attacks were staged using gas chambers". The implication is that McKeigue did not use O'Brien's reasoning but included other evidence for the theory. The source does not comment on McKeigue's paper. Burrobert (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The RSP says it as fact that McKeigue got the idea from O'Brien Softlemonades (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont think well change minds, so best to summarize the source? Say he got it from OBrien then what you said?

Any idea how to put all that wiki voice without risking COPYVIO? Softlemonades (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We already say "McKeigue had, “borrowed the gas chamber idea from a retired American pharmacologist, Denis O'Brien, who described in a self-published paper how it had come to him in a dream after he had eaten an anchovy pizza” ". What else do you think needs to be said? Burrobert (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you ever read something without finding the words youre looking for right in front of you? Or lose the remote youre sitting on?

Youre right its fine Softlemonades (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You are living out Poe's The Purloined Letter. Also happens when you put sunglasses on the top of your head and then go looking for them. Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)