Jump to content

Talk:Piers Robinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of some subsections/ addition of others?

[edit]

I think there should be some distinction of sections here in terms of importance. I don't think that Dr. Robinson has actually published anything on anti-semitism so having a whole section on it is awkwardly placed and I think warrants deletion. There is also a section about criticism, which ignores the most prominent criticism, namely front page articles attacking his group. Surely the section should be expanded or deleted altogether. He's also much better known for his work on Syria and on 9/11 than on Russia. I can make changes but would prefer more established wikipedians to make the judgments. Also what about the latest on COVID-19, which was discussed on the front page of the newspaper this weekend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:914:500:C802:EC8E:AFF0:D177 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly room to explore his other views but I would not support removing what is already there. You will need to find reliable sources though and The Daily Mail is not considered reliable and should not be used as a source on Robinson's page [1]. Burrobert (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "occupation" description

[edit]
I have attempted to correct the occupation description. There is no WP:RS cited for “political commentator” whereas there are many for my improvement of “conspiracy theorist”. I have left the vandalised edit for now but remind editors that WP:OR is not accepted practice. I recommend either reinstating the correct description or removing the section completely. NomdeA (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are groundless, espeically as Piers Robinson isn't a full time conspiracy theorist. "Political commentator" is a better description at this time, consensus should be reached here before changing to "conspiracy theorist". Ed6767 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay to call him a “political commentator” if there is a source that is in line with WP:RS that uses that description. But you haven’t cited one whereas the sources cited in the article do call him a conspiracy theorist. Therefore I propose reinstating the description “conspiracy theorist” as his occupation. NomdeA (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is "conspiracy theorist" an occupation? Is that his full time employment? Would he say that's his occupation? This guy may indeed be a conspiracy theorist and if RS call him that, it should be included somewhere in the article, but this isn't an appropriate way to use the "occupation" infobox parameter. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”Conspiracy theorist” is the occupation given for David Icke so it is appropriate if the sources state it. NomdeA (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If he makes money from it, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) What a whacky character, a quick sampling of all that is just nuts. It's also extensively covered with more than 200 sources. That guy obviously stands out as being prolific in that field; is that a full time endeavor for him, which he has monetized as a career? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even Alex Jones occupation is not described as a conspiracy theorist, so it's probably not appropriate, I think the article as a whole is in a lot better shape now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's worth noting that an IP claiming to be Piers Robinson has complained about this article specifically about the "conspiracy theorist" claim and has threatended legal action over at the BLP Noticeboard here. The Ip address was blocked for violating WP:NLT Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it is worth noting that the subject of this article, Dr Piers Robinson has indeed been blocked. I have seen this noticed on twitter. The description of Dr Robinson as "conspiracy theorist" is misleading and constitutes "weasel word" editing. His actual academic occupation is the only occupational label that is appropriate for wikipedia. It might be appripriate to cite sources that have described Dr Robinson as a "consipracy theorist", but not appropriate for wikipedia to suggest that this is his occupation, when it clearly is not. His academic title should be stated. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Departure from Sheffield University in 2019

[edit]

I believe that for a WP:BLP only undisputed fact should be mentioned in the lead. The lead formerly implied that he had left his University because "he was accused by other academics of promoting conspiracy theories". There is no RS for that, so I have removed it, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead quoted a source that is WP:RS. You have deleted it and then misquoted it here without any reasonable cause or explanation. I will RV unless you can give good reason not to. NomdeA (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a source implicate something, without bring any RS for their view, in addition to the person himself strongly object the implication: by BLP: that should not be in the lead. We can take it to the BLP-board, if you like, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What implication? He left after his colleagues criticised him, and he denied it was because of that and due to other reasons. What is the problem in mentioning both if it is explicitly stated in the HuffPost article?[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HUFFPO I would prefer better sourcing than the Huffington Post for a contentious edit to a BLP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He left in 2019: that is undisputed fact. The implication that this was due to criticism from some colleagues is disputed (by Robinson himself.) I do not think we should have disputed facts in the lead. Again: the BLP board is the right place to handle this, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be in the lead but it should be mentioned later on. The university's student paper reported he was criticised by colleagues and students at the University before he left. [3] This part should not be controversial. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how many lectures/professors are not criticised by colleagues? (Incidentally, I see Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt being absolutely slaughtered on Twitter lately by his colleagues (due to his covid-19 views): I doubt if that will make him resign his position!). The two (being criticised /resigning) are not related (according to Robinson, who ought to know), Huldra (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enough that it is reported by the press? As for his denial, he would know but people also lie and this can be seen as a self-serving statement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know academia were well, do you? If being "criticised by colleagues" was reason to resign an academic position, the at least half of the lectures/professors I know of would have long since resigned. Actually, in my area on wp (=Israel/Palestine); I would say that being criticised by colleagues is more the rule, than the exception, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I work in academia. I understand the piss matches abound, but I am not going to substitute my judgment over what the press report on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I am reading this thread correctly, I think both of you are in agreement that the RS content about him leaving the university due to other academics accusing him of promoting conspiracy theories is acceptable down in the article's body, just not in the lead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not due to the criticism. After the criticism. If readers make a connection, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not proven (in fact, Robinson denies it) that him leaving the Uni was due to criticism. In fact, "The University of Sheffield confirmed Robinson’s departure but did not comment further." That said, the fact that Robinson has been criticised by students (reading closely, I cannot find any named colleagues criticising him?) could of course be mentioned in the body,
Also, I would agree that in the sciences it is rare to see an academic being criticised by colleagues the way Michael Levitt is being presently. But for a "Lecturer in Political Communication"? Again, I would have thought that was more the rule, than the exception, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although the natural way to read the meaning of the Huffington Post's reference to "fellow academics" is colleagues at Sheffield University, if my memory serves correctly from the digging I did, criticism directed at Robinson from other academics quoted in other sources actually came from staff at other universities.     ←   ZScarpia   08:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's wise to make that leap. While he left the university after that controversy, theres no explicit evidence that this is the direct cause, which is crucial for BLP, even if inference suggests this is likely the case. I know one of my professors from university was fired for sexual harassment from personal communications with one of his colleagues, but I can't add it to his article as because it's effectively hearsay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what it says regarding why he left Sheffield, but the fact that he has promoted conspiracy theory (9/11 Truthers, denial of Assad chemical attacks, Covid) etc. is very much NOT undue for the lede and it's what makes him notable at the end of the day. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might not care, but the guy is notable in academic circles for his research on the mechanisms of propaganda and in particular because of his highly cited 1999 publication on the CNN effect. He was hired by the University of Sheffield owing to his strong academic credentials, and organised his course and his organisation there with full knowledge and support of both the University and his academic peers. Regretfully, some editors here are unable to see beyond recent smears by a Chris York. — kashmīrī TALK 20:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'conspiracy theorist' label

[edit]

@NomdeA: re your "there are many [RS] for my improvement of 'conspiracy theorist' above: AFAICS, no RS — on this page or elsewhere — apply the label 'conspiracy theorist' to Piers Robinson. Also note:

Humanengr (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ones in my last edit to this talk page so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those, the JC, labels Robinson a 'conspiracy theorist'; and the JC can hardly be considered RS for such labeling. Humanengr (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not?Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can postpone discussion of that for now as, per above, the criteria of 'widely used' and 'commonly described' have not been met. Humanengr (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to cal him a promoter or supported of conspiracy theories as we have [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] (well it says he is on a panel of conspiracy theorists.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those labels him a 'promoter' and only HuffPo labels him a 'supporter' but only in a subheadline — and WP:RS/P lists HuffPo status as 'no consensus, …' with a note re bias. Humanengr (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the others just include him in their "academics pushing conspiracy theirs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you are correct, we have discussed this and it is now time for others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There might be enough for an attributed statement ("he has been described as ...") but there certainly isn't enough for a straight statement that he is a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's voice, and there's no way any such label could be applied in the infobox without impeccable sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the Huffington Post is a reliable source? Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it is part of their journalism side, yes. As a host for blogs? No. Granted, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference. jps (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be that is a biased or opinionated and should be attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For syndicated content, absolutely. Is the piece in this article syndicated? jps (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misreading it. The full quote is There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: HuffPost contributors. Basically the site is biased or opinionated and their syndicated content should be evaluated by original publisher. PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. You'll note that the site is coded yellow and it is considered reliable for some things. I think this particular article in on their reviewed side, so I'm inclined to vote that it is reliable enough to identify that this fellow is promoting 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories. It seems pretty obvious from their sourcing too. jps (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about the JC "Professor Piers Robinson promoted a fellow conspiracy theorist" [[7]]?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we don't go by headlines but certainly a better article. They do say Last December, HuffPost approached Prof Robinson for comment on his support for 9/11 conspiracy theorists ahead of an in-depth article. but then most of the other labeling him a conspiracy theorist is quotes from others. Near the end it also has him denying the claims as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His denial is immaterial per WP:MANDY. If the source is reliable and it identifies his ideas as conspiracy theories, that's good enough for us. I don't see any independent sources which dispute this characterization. Do you? jps (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a host of independent RS jumping at the label either. Also nice essay, not relevant since it is an essay, but it is nice. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm not talking about a label here. I'm talking about whether there are sources which indicate that he promotes conspiracy theories. Whether we call him a "conspiracy theorist" or simply mention that he promotes conspiracy theories is a style question, but the fact that he promotes conspiracy theories is pretty much established. jps (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors have explained to you clearly why such a label is not appropriate. I think we can stop this unproductive discussion here. — kashmīrī TALK 22:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any consensus? TheDarkX (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that labels expressing "contentious opinion ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution ". Burrobert (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source

[edit]

https://newlinesmag.com/argument/friends-in-strange-places/ Extensive coverage of topic of this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that most is taken from this Wiki article; and the author's analysis of the root causes of the Syrian war is laughable. — kashmīrī TALK 09:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is not on that war, your opinion about the author's views of it are irrelevant to this article or to whether the source is due. The suggestion the source is based on this article doesn't seem compelling. Content that is not in this article, for example:
  1. In his university work, Robinson’s main research area was “organized persuasive communication and contemporary propaganda.” He published several academic papers on deception in the media, particularly in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
  2. In one university lecture, posted on YouTube, he railed against “attempts to manipulate our minds” and, by way of illustration, cited the famous news photo of President George W. Bush after the fall of Saddam Hussein, standing on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished.” Astonishingly, Robinson informed his audience that the banner “wasn’t actually there” but had been “imposed” on the image.
  3. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, many of those who denied chemical attacks in Syria (Robinson included) turned to denouncing lockdowns, face masks and vaccines.
  4. Synaesthesia also hosts an “International Corona Research Cohort,” whose 20 members include [Daniel] Broudy and Robinson plus [Christopher] Shaw from the anti-vax journal [Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research] and David Hughes, a contributor to both the journal and Propaganda in Focus... According to Broudy, the “corona cohort” project was inspired by a German campaign to prosecute the WHO for crimes against humanity. He announced the cohort’s formation in a post on the website Global Research, inviting the site’s readers to take part.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
your opinion about the author's views of it are irrelevant to this article. Actually, editor's opinions on the credibility of suggested sources are very relevant.
The parts you mentioned are of little value, except perhaps #1 which uses neutral language.
Re. #2 - everyone makes mistakes and then tends to defend them. This is to be a biography and not a Times piece that collects all the possible negative information about a person.
Re. #3 - too vague to be of any use in a biography. Also, this is true, too: "Many of those who did not deny attacks in Syria turned to denouncing lockdowns". It's a false association, a non sequitur.
Re. #4 - He did not publish in Synaesthesia, he is just listed on the review board. We don't know his role there. So, guilt by association? — kashmīrī TALK 16:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piers_Robinson&oldid=1245729452"