Talk:James Le Mesurier

Criticism section

Per WP:CRITS, a Criticism section is not appropriate, even more so for someone who "has been the target of a disinformation campaign, conducted with the support of the Russian government". As a result this section can't be considered neutral and should be either removed or rewritten with proper context given. Laurent (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As the person who created most of this section, I will have to disagree with you on this. I personally do not think that most of the criticism is warranted, and much of it is extreme and propagandistic. However, Le Mesurier has been undoubtedly a controversial figure, and the funding of his organisation is something that is fair to criticise. The article does not focus on this negative criticism as per WP:CRITS, but I do think that leaving out any criticism of the subject is simply inviting people who were critical of him to believe that Wikipedia is biased. Our commitment to neutrality takes as a key pillar that all major points of view on a subject should be represented, without us taking sides between them. I think it is important for the neutrality of this article to at least make reference to the many critical responses that have been published to Le Mesurier's work. To elide these voices entirely would not be WP:NPoV. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Changed the heading to Responses from Criticism, although the POV issue still remains. Another editor had moved it to follow the section indicated Le Mesurier has died, but since the content (if not the sources which begin and end it) applies to Le Mesurier still being alive, it seemed inappropriate to retain this sequence. It is more likely that a section on the investigation (or tributes) will become a sub-section of the D-word section. Philip Cross (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not particularly mind what the section is called, but I do think that the article needs to reflect critical attitudes towards his work which we may not agree with, but which should be included for the sake of neutrality. Though I will admit that finding reliable sources for such criticism is difficult, as many of them are clearly Assadist propaganda like Vanessa Beeley and the like. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I read the section before coming here. I added a response from the UK Permanent Representative to the UN to the Russian accusations (with a source), so that para now has the Russian charge and the British response. The two paras above that seem a reasonable summary of opinions about his work, sourced to mostly reliable publications. I'll see if I can find other reliable sources that discuss this. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The New York Times article which is currently source 3 [1] says "He created Mayday Rescue, which took volunteers from Syria to southern Turkey for medical and emergency response training, provided them with equipment and supplied financial support. According to its website, Mayday, a nonprofit group, receives funding from the United Nations and international donors including Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States and the Qatar Fund for Development." Perhaps the sentence that currently reads "The White Helmets received initial funding from governments opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, like Qatar." could be edited to something like "The White Helmets receive/have received funding from governments opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, like the UK, US and Qatar"? RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Reclassified as a start

This article has been reclassified as a start due to its level of detail. Capitalistroadster (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Le Mesurier edits - article needs semi-protection.

Someone has bee editing in dodgy claims like the following: "Both claims have since been found to be false as numerous evidence of the close ties between the White Helmets, the ISIS and al Nusra terrorist groups have been proven" and "claim the White Helmets and Le Mesurier were intending to push for regime change in Syria, claims that have been proven to be correct."

- this article ought probably to be semi-protected to prevent these edits, which aren't supported by the references next to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.91.253.94 (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can a BBC clip be cited as a RS for the pronunciation of the name? People seem to be trying all sorts of pronunciations, so it might be good to dispel the confusion on this issue. It might be useful on the article about the surname, too. --77.85.55.14 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The same as John Le Mesurier, as e.g. here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Important new article

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/oct/27/syria-disinformation-war-white-helmets-mayday-rescue-james-le-mesurier BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Pay article interviewing widow

Perhaps it can be of use to further improve the article (I.m not a subscriber): Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish)

de Volkskrant article -- reliable?

There's a very recent article in Der Spiegel that I think should carry quite a lot of weight in discrediting the de Volkskrant article, with respect to our text saying that "the disappearance of the $50,000 was fraud." I wonder whether other editors are content with that sentence in our article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't include it without the refutations from De Groene and Der Speigel, and personally think this particular article is discredited so would be happy to see it go, but I'd hesitate to declare it "unreliable" without knowing more about the journalist/publication's other work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC) PS we definitely need to reference the new Der Speigel article here and on White Helmets article: adds a lot to what we have. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)