This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In § Education and career, re the HuffPost claim he was accused of promoting conspiracy theories, the only reference to 'conspiracy theories' relevant to left his post provides no sources for those accusations. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. I removed, with edit summary WP:BLPGOSSIP — sources for criticism re 'conspiracy theories' are unnamed. Nomoskedasticity reverted with edit summary so what??. The reversion violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. Iiuc, it is appropriate for me to revert under WP:3RRNO #7 as this is poorly sourced. Humanengr (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of journalism. The source (Huffpost) is not "poor". The idea that the article must name its own sources is not a coherent idea: journalists commonly take the view that they must not disclose the identity of their own sources. Here's what our own [article] says about that topic. In trying to describe the source here as "poor", you are imposing a standard that is not found in our own policies. We are advised only to "be wary" of material attributed to anonymous sources -- this is by no means the same as a policy saying such material must be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding that newspapers in general offer only raw facts and may thus have "absolute" reliability, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they offer opinion more often than not, trying to influence the reader's opinion. For me, there is not much difference between He worked at a university where the HuffPost claim he was accused of promoting conspiracy theories and He worked in a hospital where some patients claim he injected them with 5G chips. Both sentences try to create an air of malice or viciousness around the subject, deliberately not identifying the sources or going into the background story (who the accusers where, how many, what their relation was with the subject, etc.). Such statements, aimed only at forming an opinion in the reader without giving them facts, are technically called smears. We easily recognise the second sentence as possibly untrue based on our faith, but we sometimes fall for the first one also based on nothing else than our faith. At WP, we should be better than that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing whether Huffpost UK was a "poor source"; my reference was to specific content that was poorly sourced. As for your link, thx. Use of anonymous sources is not justified under any of the criteria mentioned there. From its cite 18: Today in newsrooms across the country there is a consensus that anonymous sources weaken credibility. Humanengr (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the Edward Elgar publisher site, Robinson is not listed as a contributor to the research Handbook on Political Propaganda. I have therefore removed this citation from the article. NomdeA (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He was listed in the original edition.[1]

It's a worrying development - the book chapter has certainly passed peer review and the entire editorial process, yet the publisher bows to political (non-academic) pressure. Hard to view it as compatible with academic ethos. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He’s not in the book so the book doesn’t belong in the article. NomdeA (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He's authored a chapter in this book, so it belongs here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not according to the publisher. You should acquaint yourself with WP:NOR as there isn’t a WP about disagreeing with a publisher about whether it has published something. NomdeA (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the publisher listing of the book. No sign of Robinson among the contributors so it is a mistake to include it here.[2] NomdeA (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a fascinating story and it would be great if we could somehow get it into both Robinson’s and Kamm’s bios. It is a good illustration of Robinson’s work and the effect it has on establishment figures. Here is what I have picked up from the usual suspects:

Robinson wrote the chapter Democracies and War Propaganda in the 21st Century in the book "The Edward Elgar Handbook on Political Propaganda". Robinson mentioned Oliver Kamm in his article and, in a footnote, provided a link to a website article. Kamm said this linked article "was not only abusive but defamatory". Kamm contacted his lawyers and then the book’s publisher. As a result the book was withdrawn from sale. Some comments:

• There has been no suggestion that Robinson’s article contained errors.
• Defamation law in the UK is a powerful tool if you have the resources.
• Was Robinson asked to remove the footnote from his article, as an alternative to having the whole article removed from the book?
• Has Robinson provided a response?
• Kamm works for The Times, which published a series of negative articles about the organisation that Robinson founded. We have used four of those articles in Robinson’s bio, one of which may have been written by Kamm ("Assad’s useful idiots" which is described as a “leading article”).

Burrobert (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You missed something. The suggestion is that Robinson’s allegedly defamatory source was a Nazi website. Worth mentioning if there is WP:RS for it. NomdeA (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What was the website? What action did Kamm take against the website? Burrobert (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting you didn’t think the Nazi angle was worth a mention. NomdeA (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What was the website? What action did Kamm take against the website that Kamm said had published defamatory material about him? Burrobert (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

See my previous comment. I don’t think you should be editing this article. NomdeA (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Best to avoid personal comments. We need to work together to flesh out the story. Missing information includes the name of the website that Robinson's article linked to and the action that Kamm took against that website. We know that he said it published defamatory material about him. At this stage we are also lacking usable sources - the information I have quoted has come from Twitter. I haven't been able to locate a copy of Robinson's paper. ResearchGate has an abstract which says "A preliminary analysis of the 2011-present Syrian War and UK propaganda indicates how a range of non-governmental and civil society actors, purportedly independent but many with links to Western governments, have been involved in promoting Western government narratives regarding the war and underpinned a misleading impression that Western governments are bystanders to the conflict. As such, the role of the UK in fostering ‘regime-change’ in Syria has remained obfuscated with serious consequences for democratic control over foreign policy". Burrobert (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The information you have quoted SELECTIVELY from Twitter. You didn’t include the Nazi bit. If you don’t see why that might be important, that’s weird. Also I remind you of WP:NOR. NomdeA (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

For info:

• Oliver Kamm Twitter thread starts here. Key extract: "In that chapter he made specific reference to me, putting in the footnotes a link to a website that I will not name but whose output includes virulent antisemitism, including overt Holocaust denial. One of its contributors is, quite literally (and obv posthumously) Adolf Hitler. I need not spell out why that site targets me. The article that Robinson cited was not only abusive but defamatory. With advice from my lawyers, Charles Russell Speechlys, and keeping my employers informed, I pointed this out to the publishers. The book was withdrawn from sale. Others concerned with factual accuracy also pointed out the failings of Robinson’s work. As noted here by Brian Whitaker and confirmed to me today, the book will now be published in revised form in March, excluding the chapter by Robinson."
• Brian Whitaker articles: How a book about propaganda succumbed to a pro-Assad propagandist 23 December 2021; Academic publisher removes conspiracy theorist's chapter from new book, 31 January 2022

I looked at the chapter on Google Books when it appeared there in December. I can recall the website sourced, as well as numerous errors in the article, but anything I can recall would be un-verifiable original research so not worth sharing. We obviously can't simply list the chapter as a publication without comment. It might be worth a sentence or so, but let's wait and see what RSs emerge, especially as we are dealing with potential legal matters around living persons including Robinson and Kamm. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be fair to describe Al-Bab as Brian Whitaker's blog? The "About" section of the website suggests he is the only person involved. Anyway, one of his articles says Robinson's chapter was removed on legal advice, which agrees with the twitter thread above. Neither of the two articles by Whitaker criticise Robinson's contribution to the book.
• If you give us the website that Kamm said published defamatory material about him, we should be able to track down the article that Robinson linked to.
• Kamm does not criticise the chapter written by Robinson. His issue appears to be with the link that Robinson included in his chapter. Does anyone know what Robinson said about Kamm in the chapter? Kamm does not mention it, so presumably he does not disagree with whatever Robinson said about him.
• I am not suggesting we include a reference to the book as part of Robinson's bibliography. However, it would be good to include the story around the publication and then withdrawal of the book in Robinson's bio - and Kamm's as well. That would of course depend on finding better sources than we currently have. Burrobert (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not really relevant for us to speculate about what Kamm and Whitaker think of the chapter. I would say "Others concerned with factual accuracy also pointed out the failings of Robinson’s work" is a criticism of the content and that "'highly manipulative and deceptive persuasive communication'...is also a fair description of the chapter itself... propaganda dressed up as academic research... misleading" are also criticisms of the content. Yes, al-Bab is Whitaker's blog, so it likely falls under WP:RSSELF which we shouldn't use for a BLP. Let's wait and see if any RSs emerge. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I should have said "Neither of the two articles by Whitaker criticise Robinson's contribution to the book in any meaningful way". There were a few vague, meaningless comments which you have quoted. Kamm's comment refers to the judgement of others, and there is a hint that he agrees, but again the comment is fairly meaningless. It seems significant that Kamm does not take issue with anything Robinson said about him in the chapter. Happy to await coverage in better sources. Burrobert (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t even WP:OR. It is all conjecture from beginning to end. It does not belong on this site. NomdeA (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, a thought occurs that there may be published reviews of the chapter that we could refer to. Kamm said "Others concerned with factual accuracy also pointed out the failings of Robinson’s work". Presumably, he is referring to "others" who have read and written reviews of the chapter, otherwise how would Kamm know about them. It may be worth looking at academic sources to see what comes up. Burrobert (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that the reasons for the article removal from the book are less relevant here, although thanks for the details @Burrobert. What's important is whether Robinson has authored a chapter of this book or not. As the archive link demonstrates, yes he has authored one. Even if the publisher later pulled the chapter from the new edition, I argue that we shouldn't censor this fact from this biography. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No article by Robinson appears in the book. The book therefore cannot be listed among his publications. NomdeA (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It does. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It does not. If Robinson self-publishes it as a blog post then it would be eligible to go in the main body of the article about him (but not in any other entry), but it doesn’t belong in a section about published work because it is not published. Otherwise you could just put any blog post in as a published work. NomdeA (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again: the chapter has made it to the first edition of the book. The publisher has withdrawn the book after it has already been published. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again, it hasn’t, if the book is withdrawn then that means the chapter is unpublished. The revised edition of the book is the first edition not the second. You can check the publisher site and you will find no listing of Robinson. To include this in a list of his published works is obviously false, which is why I deleted it. NomdeA (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have been unable to locate any reviews of either Democracies and War Propaganda in the 21st Century or "The Edward Elgar Handbook on Political Propaganda". It seems unlikely that Kamm was talking about Robinson’s chapter when he said "Others concerned with factual accuracy also pointed out the failings of Robinson’s work”. Presumably, he is talking about prior work of Robinson.
• Piers Robinson has published the chapter Democracies and War Propaganda in the 21st Century at the SPM website.^[1] At Appendix One, Robinson has included a letter to the publisher discussing Kamm’s legal threat and the publisher’s decision to remove his chapter from the book. Robinson responds to two points that Kamm raised in his legal threat. Firstly, there was the link to a website that Kamm said had published defamatory material about him. Robinson explains why he linked to the website and suggests replacing the link with another one. It appears that Robinson was discussing a decade-long dispute between Kamm and journalist Neil Clark. Clark had reviewed a book by Kamm in 2006. Clark later described the review as “critical, but as reviews go, not particularly harsh”. Kamm responded to the review on his blog and Clark then threatened to "sue blogger Oliver Kamm for libel over comments made on his website, in a move understood to mark the first time such legal action has taken place".^[2] The saga seems to have dragged on for ten years. In 2017 Clark sued Kamm for libel and harassment. In 2020, Clark and Kamm signed a statement about the legal dispute in order to "move on from their past disputes".(Appendix One contains a link to the full statement). Anyway, Robinson said the link he had used in his chapter was to provide background to the Clark-Kamm dispute and suggested replacing this with a link to the statement signed by Clark and Kamm. The second point raised by Kamm in his legal threat relates to Robinson's description of the activities of Bellingcat as "trolling". Robinson defends the description but says "if your lawyers still believe there is legal risk, the reference to ‘trolling’ can be replaced with ‘attack’ ".

Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Robinson’s site fails WP:RS. Sorry. NomdeA (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a few puzzling issues here:

• Why would Kamm threaten to sue over something that was said about Bellingcat?
• The alterations suggested by Robinson seem reasonable and address the points raised by Kamm. Why did Edgar Elgar Publishing choose to remove the whole chapter rather than make two minor alterations?

Burrobert (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps an anti-vaxxer loon may not be credible. Who knew? NomdeA (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed that there was only one threat of legal action. However, Robinson does not say that, and it seems unlikely that Kamm would threaten legal action to protect Bellingcat. Robinson introduces the chapter by saying that "Upon publication the chapter was immediately attacked over social media by Professor Scott Lucas and Elliot Higgins (Bellingcat)". I believe "Scott Lucas" refers to the creator of EA WorldView. It is significant that Bellingcat was aware of Robinson’s chapter, which includes the sentence "Others have criticized these social media actors, arguing in particular that Bellingcat promote narratives broadly consistent with Western foreign policy objectives as well as engage in the ‘trolling’ of academics and experts who challenge their analyses". The website that Kamm was referring to is Russia Insider, "a news website that was launched in September 2014 by American expatriates living in Russia".Burrobert (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Lot of speculation here. Totally irrelevant to our mission as an encyclopedia. (I mean maybe Bellingcat were aware of the chapter because we listed it in this article? No reason to think that's significant.) Please let's just see if any RSs report this, and otherwise ignore it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@NomdeA: What is the source for the claim in your edit summary regarding the reason the publisher removed his chapter from the book? Humanengr (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

No source cited. Reverted. Humanengr (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)