Talk:Bellingcat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saymay23, Zacharymiller 93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation on this article

There seems to be unsourced/ un-cited information that was added, which states: "Journalist Emma Best published a correspondence from Wikileaks, which explicitly states that Bellingcat, which position themselves as an “independent investigation center” is on the balance of the British Ministry of Defense." As far as I can tell, this: https://emma.best/2018/07/29/11000-messages-from-private-wikileaks-chat-released/ is the source from which the allegation is based. However... all it shows is a sort of DM conversation between wikileaks and other parties, with no corroborating evidence at all. It should be treated more as a personal comment. However, it should be noted that this allegation has been shared mostly on russian-language websites, with no corroborating evidence as well. As a result, I have for now deleted this claim. Perhaps this article may need some sort of edit protection, considering that there has been persistent efforts at misinformation on this article. TheRealSuu (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It was added 40 minutes before your comment here, and has now been removed [1]. Stickee (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Spreading fakes by Bellingcat

Want to point out how Bellingcat posted not reliable information about MH17 crash investigation. In particular: Bellingcat says its findings about photo manipulation of satellite images released by the Russian Ministry of Defense are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com. But its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat's conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of "how to not do image analysis." It is a very important information, that shows us how not reliable are all claims of Bellingat's investigations. But some users delete it. Is it some censorship in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кислый Сахар (talk • contribs)

The quote by Neal Krawetz is an exceptional claim (ie. Bellingcats conclusions are unreliable). It is based on a single Tweet with no explanation other than basically "I disagree". Tweets are not a reliable source for such an exceptional claim. If Neal Krawetz released an in-depth report explaining why Bellingcat was wrong it would be different, but an off the cuff casual Tweet is not good sourcing for the magnitude of the claim - for all we know he is generating artificial controversy to draw attention to himself and product, using Bellingcat as a foil. And just because Neal Krawetz invented the software doesn't give him any special insight into Bellingcats conclusions, which are based on multiple lines of evidence beyond photo analysis. -- GreenC 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Before you revert again, Кислый Сахар, suggest you notice there are at least two other editors opposed to it, meaning you do not have consensus and continued reverts prior to resolution on the talk page here will be seen as edit warring. You can't force your way when there are more people opposing it then supporting it. You will need to get community support and read Wikipedia policy on conflict resolution options. -- GreenC 13:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

..and just noticed you've added this same material NINE times and been reverted NINE times since May 2018 and that you are a single-issue SPA. It is already an edit war, and probably should be reported. Take this as a final warning that you must get consensus on the talk page here before adding it again, the next time you will be reported and very likely blocked given how long it's been ongoing, the number of reverts, and being a single-issue SPA. -- GreenC 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

Boyd-Barrett

Should we be quoting an anti-imperialist and Marxist professor for sourcing in this article? In my opinion, not really for weight. Stickee (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick look around. I can’t see where the source of the description “anti-imperialist and Marxist” comes from. He doesn’t seem to describe himself in that way on his website. No source for the description was given when the edit was made by GreenC. Apart from that he is a Professor at a University who seems to specialise in media studies so his opinion seems relevant to me. The book was published by Routledge which is a well known publisher. Burrobert 01:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

That's what he is, he published a book titled Media Imperialism which is about media imperialism, a critical look at imperialism that sees mainstream media as serving the imperial interests of which he is critical ie. anti-imperialism. It's an extension of the cultural imperialism thesis as Boyd explains in this article. Anti-imperialism is not a dirty word, his views and positions on the media are of a school of thought, a thesis, that need be placed into context when he is making criticisms of Bellingcat, they are not objectively neutral observations but part of a thesis. I stand corrected on the Marxist as I thought imperialism was a Marxist / neo-Marxist discourse (not uncommon in academia particularly of his generation), but it appears media imperialism has both Marxist and non-Marxist interpretations, and according to this Oliver Boyd-Barrett is in the non-Marxist camp.

It's also worth mentioning Boyd-Barrett is another one of those American professors treated well by the Russians, brought over there to give talks with anti-western narratives ie. Russia did nothing wrong in 2016, Russia does not hack elections, it's all fake news, mainstream media has an imperialist agenda, Russia is a victim of the West, etc. He does not look like a disinterested neutral professor when it comes to Russian interests. -- GreenC 03:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Funding

This article needs a section on funding. I created one, citing tweets from Bellingcat's official Twitter account and from the verified account of Eliot Higgins, who created and runs Bellingcat. But User:Stickee reverted the edits and removed the funding section, writing "twitter is not a reliable source, especially for due weight or balancing aspects." While it is true Twitter is not usually a reliable source, these are tweets directly written by Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins, in which they acknowledged Bellingcat's funding sources, so in this case these tweets are indeed reliable sources. Unless there are any other objections, I will re-create the funding section. SpiritofIFStone (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"This article needs a section on funding" - Maybe? I looked at what was written:

Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is in turn funded by the United States government

This is a bit misleading as it implies some connection between the US Federal Government and Bellingcat that may just simply be happen-chance, it is food for the conspiracy minded particularly those Russian-philes who keep saying Bellingcat is a CIA operation designed to make Russia look bad in the Malaysian airline accident, chemical attacks in Syria etc.. So we need to be extra careful here. Simply repeating data-points can be misleading. The other concern is no 3rd party sources have discussed funding, it's a WP:WEIGHT issue. Also arguably WP:PRIMARY since the topic is only sourced to Primary. Before restoring, please discuss until there is consensus per WP:BRD, as you started thanks. -- GreenC 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, reliable third-party sources have not commented or discussed this aspect, so it wouldn't meet WP:BALASP or WP:WEIGHT to include it. Stickee (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A section on funding is not unreasonable and seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia pages about groups. I looked at pages of a few groups/organisations which I could quickly bring to mind.

“National endowment for democracy” page has a section called “source of funding”. “BBC” page has a revenue section “RT news” page has a budget section On the “Voice of America” page there is a statement that it “is a U.S. government-funded international radio broadcast source” The “ACLU” page has a funding section.

The only exception in the few organisations I looked at was the page for the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which didn’t mention funding for whatever reason.

If the statement that “Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is in turn funded by the United States government” is considered “a bit misleading” then perhaps just drop the second part of the statement and include “Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy”. If I am reading the discussion correctly has been verified directly by Bellingcat. Burrobert 12:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The previous comment was from me (forgot the tildes). What about “Bellingcat has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy”? Burrobert 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

There still isn't any sources that show this should be given WP:WEIGHT. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There are some sources of information about Bellingcat’s funding available via online news services. It seems it started with a Kickstarter project (https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/bellingcat_brown_moses.php, http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/bellingcat-citizen-journalist-eliot-higgins-is-holding-global-governments-to-account/news-story/196436ab0cba6b6eea0a76c5f16af0a1 etc). He has also received funding from Google Digital News Initiative, Adessium, and Open Society Foundation (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat-the-home-of-online-investigations) and the Atlantic Council (https://www.rt.com/usa/423741-eliot-higgins-debate-postol/). Outside of the twitter feed from Higgin’s verified twitter account I haven’t yet been able to find anything about NED funding. The financial times did an article on Higgins in February 2015 which may contain some information but unfortunately it is paywalled. However the NED does have an online Awarded Grants Search tool so presumably the information can be verified there however the volume of grants is quite high and Higgins didn’t provide much information in his tweet to use in the search. What we need is an appropriate news agency to read his tweet and then print it word for word. Anyway, I think the verifiable information above should be enough to put together a funding section even though we aren’t in a position yet to list all sources of funding. Burrobert 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

I do support a section about Founding. In this case it seems very important and relevent Geirsole (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It 'seems' to who? See WP:WEIGHT -- GreenC 16:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To me - because that indicates if I should take them seriously or not. When government funding comes through various organisations it looks like somebody wants to conceal a connection. Especially when they wear the label of NGO or want to appear like one, then deception is involved. E.g. The German Marshall Fund is usually described as an NGO, but they are government financed, so they are not an NGO. The International Crisis Group looks very official, but is a Soros organisation, i.e. a hobby horse of George Soros. There is also a Carnegie Endowment for peace, although we haven't seen a lot of peace in the last 30 years. Carnegie can fund what they like, successfully or not, but at least we know who is involved. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:15C:D3D0:4155:F19D (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

PS: I had a quick look at the bellingcat page at wikispooks. I cannot verify what they say, but there's certainly a fair bit of info. I am convinced bellingcat's info is useful, how unbiased or biased they are is for experts. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:15C:D3D0:4155:F19D (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Spiegel article

I noticed some people linking to a Spiegel article. Are you aware it's already linked in the article? It's reference 11 as of this oldid: [2]. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I recently reinstated a quote and provided a reference to a spiegel article to replace the previous twitter reference which was considered inappropriate. However my reference was also removed with reason “still doesn't meet due weight, per previous discussions on higgins talk page”. I have not been able to find anything relevant on the Higgins talk page about this. It also appears as mentioned above that the reference has been used elsewhere on the page. As a result I am confused about what the problem is with the reference and why it can’t be used to substantiate the quote to which it was attached (something about showing this was the way NOT to do image analysis). Can you provide some clarification please? Burrobert 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Sure: Click the link provided. Go down to reference 11. Read the sentence before it. Then see the WP:DUE section of the policy. Stickee (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am still lost. The comment from Neal Krawetz that Bellingcat's methods were a good example of "how to not do image analysis" was initially removed because “remove per WP:PRIMARY - this is not reliable nor evidence of notable and issue of WP:WEIGHT. Please provide a secondary source”. I then provided the Der Spiegel article as a secondary source since the quote is mentioned in that article. Your comment on removing my update was “still doesn't meet due weight, per previous discussions on higgins talk page”. I travelled to the Eliot Higgins talk page (I assume this is the “link provided” that you mentioned) and found this

“The following conversations are currently active Length of this page On "the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons." Edits”

None of the three topics covered the spiegel article or discussed due weight.

Regarding reference 11, it is the article Jens Kriese (June 4, 2015). "Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation". Der Spiegel. Retrieved June 11, 2017

which contains the quote. I am not sure what “sentence before it” you are referring to. The der spiegel article has been used twice elsewhere on the bellingcat page to substantiate the statements

“including by a German image forensics expert who said that Bellingcat's report did not prove anything” and “Image forensics expert Jens Kriese of Germany maintained that Bellingcat's report used invalid methods to reach its conclusion”.

I think that the second quote above may in fact be partly referring to the quote from Neal Krawetz that Bellingcat's methods were a good example of "how to not do image analysis". Maybe the quote from Neal Krawetz could be added after the second quote above as they are related?

Unfortunately without further guidance I have no idea of what the previous discussion was nor can I guess what the issue is with “due and undue weight” of the quote.

Having said that, I think the issue is partly covered by the two quotes from the Jens Kriese interview that already appear on the bellingcat page. It would be nice though to include a more specific instance (namely the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com) of where bellingcats methods are considered to be in error. Burrobert 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

"I think the issue is partly covered by the two quotes from the Jens Kriese interview that already appear on the bellingcat page". Which is why I linked to WP:DUE above. Stickee (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent thanks. That’s the clarification I needed. Burrobert 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Funding (based on tweets)

Hi, I don't have an old enough account to edit this page but could someone add a section on how Bellingcat secures its funding (Open Society Foundation/George Soros; Meedan; NED (US govt); Google; Adessium; Kickstarter crowdfunding)

See this tweet by Eliot Higgins: https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/828554441485869056

(Archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160121/https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/828554441485869056)

As well as this follow up tweet: https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/828555399544582145

(archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160348/https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/828555399544582145)

This is the kickstarter page: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat

(Archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160434/https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat)

(All archived on 21 September 2018)

Thanks.

Riudbvskj (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Tweets are not reliable for this. They can be non-factual or missing context on closer inspection, there's no independent editorial oversight and fact checking we normally recognize in reliable sources. The funding of Bellingcat is a complex issue with lots of info out there, some of accurate at one time and no longer, some of blown out of proportion, some of it framed to support an agenda, etc.. -- GreenC 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

the mere fact that bellingcats are doing an almost total work vs Russia and hes allies, speaks very well about suspects on their real founders. remember Udo Ulfkotte? of course wikipedia cannot say this this cleary but the mere list of tge so called scoops made by them, speaks a lot for who want to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the Bellingcat site and see articles on Kashmir, Yemen, Afrin Insurgency, Iran, Trump, Ukraine far right, Nicaragua, United States, Africa, etc.. your conspiracy theory does not hold up to the evidence. -- GreenC 00:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

For some reason only one of these investigations appears on the Bellingcat wiki page. The exception is Yemen but it seems that Bellingcat does not mention the main actor Saudi Arabia in its investigation or, if it did, it didn't make it to the page.Burrobert (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The section is labeled "Notable cases". These were all high profile cases that receive considerable coverage in the press generally and in which Bellingcat played a part revealing some new information. -- GreenC 02:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

New funding section

The previous funding section on this article was removed after some concerns that there were no reliable third-party sources that commented or discussed Bellingcat's funding. Well now there is: The United States government-funded fact-checking website Polygraph.info published a report that details the funding of Bellingcat, which includes quotes from the founder Eliot Higgins himself. I have therefore added a new funding section based on this Polygraph.info report.

This article needs a funding section. Most articles on organizations like this have one. SpiritofIFStone (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, there's already funding info and it's been there for more than a year. I've merged the text as it's basically identical. Stickee (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I think it needs a separate funding section. I came to this page to find out how nonpartisan and reliable they were, and my first question was, where do they get their money? That's the first question a lot of readers have. That's one of the basic questions journalism schools and editors train reporters to ask -- "Who funds it?" It was hard for me to find, and I almost missed it. User:SpiritofIFStone had the same problem. It's not "basically identical," it's hard to find. As for WP:WEIGHT, just do a Google news search for "Bellingcat funding" and you'll find all the WP:RS you want that report it. I'd like to see User:Stickee give a good reason for not putting it in a separate section. --Nbauman (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

IMO breaking it out into a separate section feeds into the narrative that Bellingcat is somehow impartial, namely an instrument of the CIA or Sorros or whatever which is the buzz being generated by Bellingcat's enemies (Russia mainly) who seek to undermine Bellingcat's credibility and its findings. Because there isn't a lot that needs to be said about funding that can't be done in a single paragraph as part of the main text there isn't much to be said. Over-weighting the funding turns it into a larger issue which is exactly what Bellingcat detractors want to see, the creation of controversy, doubt, uncertainty. -- GreenC 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Breaking it out into a separate section makes the facts clearer. Are you objecting to making the facts clearer? --Nbauman (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the facts are unclear. My comment raises additional WEIGHT and NPOV concerns. -- GreenC 03:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

TWEETS

..are not reliable. This sort of Tweety criticism has no substance, the issue is much more complex and nuanced then that Tweet allows for. Also the way it is worded: "Bellingcat says its findings about photo manipulation of satellite images released by the Russian Ministry of Defense are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com" -- is completely inaccurate and misleading. -- GreenC 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens Kriese discussed his analysis in detail in the article where he also referred to Neal Krawetz's tweet Burrobert (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I just cannot understand your opinion.

@IndependentOpinion:

1. Verisign's WHOIS database information can be modified by registrant.
2. The registration date does not represent the date on which the current website owner started to prepare for this website. Domain name trading is very common.
3. There is no logical correlation between the registration date and the website's open day. Also, a website is not registered to the domain registry, but a domain name does have a record in WHOIS. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we normally do not note when a domain name was registered, unless there is a specific reason given for noting this information (sourced to a secondary source WP:SECONDARY), and certainly not in the lead section, much less the first sentence. -- GreenC 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You might also want to read WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY as these are relevant policies. -- GreenC 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

3RR reported here. -- GreenC 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Published counter-argument to Syrian chemical weapons reporting

https://twitter.com/SGSJournal/status/1172974238334107648 From the journal "Science and Global Security" : "Regrettably, the Bellingcat group blog post contains a number of incorrect statements..." 65.96.160.169 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

We haven't mentioned Bellingcat's criticism of the paper so the statement doesn't contain anything we can use at the moment. However the paper once published may be useful. Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Reliable Source Noticeboard

Bellingcat has recently been accepted as a generally reliable source at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If another RFC is opened in the future, I think that its alleged links with the Integrity Initiative should be taken into consideration.     ←   ZScarpia   12:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC) (nb: "A June 2018 leaked document from the Integrity Initiative rated Bellingcat's 'Integrity' as 'Medium' although reportedly concerned that “Bellingcat was somewhat discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself, and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay”, the II did propose to include the group in the EXPOSE Network proposal, although the UKFCO declined to fund the project."[3])

The Wikispooks page ("alleged links") is lol. It was mostly written by 1 anonymous person and is an obvious non-neutral attempt to discredit Bellingcat. I looked at the WikiSpooks "About" page and it's like they don't use or need reliable sources. The most recent edit page shows three edits to the entire web site on October 9. Nobody uses the site because it is obvious crank. -- GreenC 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Could well be that you're right. Articles there do cite references so readers have a chance to check for themselves the verifiability of at least part of the content. As for neutrality, well that's anyone's guess. Oh joy! ... I've just spotted that they have articles on Jennifer Arcuri and Dominic Cummings. Topical stuff! What? Michael Gove? Nooooooo!!!!     ←   ZScarpia   15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The nature of that site anything is possible and nothing is true. -- GreenC 15:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing?     ←   ZScarpia   15:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nichego. -- GreenC 15:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A good name for the next generation of nerve agent!     ←   ZScarpia   16:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Anything is possible with Unit 29155. -- GreenC 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a severe problem with considering Bellingcat a reliable source in ongoing "war debates" on issues like the veracity of evidence presented in case of the Douma_chemical_attack. Please study the Wiki discussion pages on this issue and the Commentary pages of Bellingcat itself on the incident and the WikiLeaks revelations

Bellingcat is clearly financed by one of the war parties, the US. And all it's statements on the Douma issue were in interest of this one war party. So there is by far no consensus that Bellingcat falls in the utmost reliable source category Wikipedia has. There should be a small warning mark, like I find very appropriate for the source like RT (Russia Today). So Bellincat should have the same warning " ! " category like RT.

I urge the responsible persons for that in Wikipedia to do it quite soon. Otherwise I have to assume for Wikipedia that there is a collussion of interest of Bellincat financers and quite many, and/or really important ones, making this decisions, of our fellow editors. Greetings from Vienna, Austria - a non NATO country with a small military but many diplomats - FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@FrankBierFarmer: Wikipedia users a few months ago did not agree with you on Bellingcat. Perhaps you would list the authorities and websites you consider reliable so editors can see where you are coming from. I would urge you to file an RFC so this issue can be resolved, but then again its probable your request would be rejected. As probable as suggesting the Daily Mail/The Mail on Sunday should return to being RS, the latter newspaper may well be one you would consider reliable on Douma. Philip Cross (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@FrankBierFarmer: this was already discussed, at the well-attended and recent RfC archived here. VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat is similarly reputable as the Daily Beast. Bellingcat is often the source material for highly reliable sources including Reuters as well, that build onto the subject matter. Many organizations receive grant funding by the US government, because of Congress, but they act independently of it. Corporation for Public Broadcasting is funded by the US government which funds NPR and PBS, which are highly reliable and professional networks. There is no comparison of Bellingcat to Wikileaks and RT, which are propaganda and used as arms of the Russian government. Caesar116 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat isn't NPR or PBS. NPR and PBS run programs critical of US foreign and domestic policy. It's not Wikileaks, either, which is an international organization that's been critical of many governments, including Russia's at times. NED grants don't function like normal congressional ones and give way more latitude towards propagandizing. It's a American equivalent to RT and blithely asserting it has editorial independence doesn't make that true; if Reuters trusts it, shame on Reuters. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat investigates the US and western Europe it is international scope. Nobody has ever presented evidence they are not editorially independent, it is a conspiracy theory. Bellingcat has made many enemies due to their investigation findings, the response is to discredit Bellingcat with misinformation. -- GreenC 15:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that Reuter's, which must be one of the most reputable news organisations, came up. Last year, it was revealed that "the British government secretly funded Reuters in the 1960s and 1970s at the direction of an anti-Soviet propaganda organization with links to MI-6."[4] A declassified document explained: "HMG's interests should be well served by the new arrangement." Regarding editorial independence, the same news article cites a BBC spokesman: "The BBC charter guarantees editorial independence irrespective of whether funding comes from the UK government, the licence fee or commercial sources," a BBC spokesperson said in a statement on Monday." Pardon me for soapboxing, but, I suspect that the BBC charter wouldn't be much of an obstacle to any government intent on subverting the BBC's editorial independence.     ←   ZScarpia   17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You are indeed soapboxing. Bellingcat is a RS full stop. Until you can show otherwise this forum is being used as a breeding ground of conspiracy theory and misinformation. -- GreenC 18:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes. I think that the RSN discussion from which Bellingcat was adopted as a reliable source was fairly shocking. As far as establishing that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" goes, it was one of the worst cases of editors really just voting on whether they like it or not that I've seen. Not that it's worse than many news organisations, but there tends to be a double standard operating. When somebody writes that a source is "reliable full stop", it's a good indication that its reliability is a bit questionable. "This forum is being used as a breeding ground of conspiracy theory and misinformation." Nice use of fashionable buzzwords! Personally, I'm hoping that a new set of words and phrases to overuse will be latched on to soon.     ←   ZScarpia   07:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of Bellingcat was based on how other reliable sources consider Bellingcat. There you go again with misinformation and conspiracy theory ("editors really just voting on whether they like it or not"). Not just buzzwords, they are what you are doing. -- GreenC 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact, this discussion, which does centre on what other sources have written about Bellingcat, wasn't the one I was recalling, so I must concede that what I stated about editors' justifications was incorrect. There has been a more recent discussion (which I wasn't aware of). This Grayzone report, which mentions Bellingcat's involvement in the Zinc Network, was one of the sources used in an attempt to have Bellingcat's reliablility as a source revised. GreenC, it would really be better if you gave up the clichés though.     ←   ZScarpia   12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The recent discussion just shows there is a minority of editors using unreliable sources like Grayzone, sadly, in a continual attempt to take down Bellingcat. FWIW, Grayzone is operated by Max Blumenthal who regularly writes for RT, just another American critic funded by the Putin regime. -- GreenC 14:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

So, you've decided to sit on the fence then? How about we meet back here in 15 years time and see how things are looking in retrospect? I think that you'll find that the Russians aren't the only ones who disseminate propaganda. In the meantime, I do recommend Hugh Wilford's books about the CIA. Although it's possible that the document is a forgery, you might also like to think about the Integrity Initiative's purported critical comments about Bellingcat.[5]

Regarding Grayzone, the RSN discussion which concluded with it being deprecated is here. Subsequently I requested more detail about the reason for result from the closer. It appears that the comments of two of the participants carried particular weight. In February of this year, another editor contacted the closer about the decision. Grayzone's own response to being deprecated is here.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL that last link is hilarious. More of the same, conspiracy theory and misinformation. These are not cliches, they mean something and are apt descriptions. They generate false narratives of conspiracy ("cabal of editors") and misinformation ("Wikipedia is corrupt"). Some intelligent looking people buy into it ("we meet back here in 15 years time and see how things are looking in retrospect"). -- GreenC 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The word "false" in "false narratives of conspiracy" is an interesting one. Theories that groups of people conspired to perpetrate acts are common (that would apply to much of Bellingcat's output, for instance). Those theories will have varying degree of truth or falsity. Each person will determine for themselves how much faith to put in each one. For editors of Wikipedia, there then comes the problem of preventing their own opinions from adversely affecting their editing.

I'm old enough to have experience of how the lens of the present changes how events are perceived in major ways. Some reasons for that are that additional information is revealed over time and that distance from events changes perspective (for instance, situations lose their danger once they have passed). I'd say that it's pretty much guaranteed that the understanding of events which Bellingcat is involved in will change in major ways. I chose 15 years as a period because I suspect that's how long it will take before separation in time will allow a longer term view of current events to coalesce and because there's a reasonable chance I'll still be around then.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I seriously hope this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. A diabolical organisation and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/ Apeholder (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What does "this site" and "this outlet" refer to? -- GreenC 00:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat

Here's another example of their unreliability: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html Apeholder (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What that article states is that one imagery expert disagrees with Bellingcat's analysis of a particular set of images in a particular case. This suggests that Bellingcat's analysis in this particular case should not be treated as gospel truth but rather as one contested point of view where relevant. What that article does not state is that Bellingcat's analysis was provably factually wrong, much less demonstrate is that Bellingcat is, on the whole, an unreliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

We have to revert the status of utmost reliable source for Bellingcat very soon. There is enough evidence around. Please see my comment, moments ago, on the RFC: paragraph above. There is NO CONSENSUS on being a reliable source!! FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, just because the US Federal Government funds PBS doesn't stop PBS from airing anti-Federal Government programs. You seem unable to differentiate what kind of organization Bellingcat is. It is not controlled by the dictates of another organization. It is free press. The concept of free press is foreign to some people who see deep conspiracy. They believe nothing, but anything is possible. This is how they discredit organizations they wish to take down. -- GreenC 16:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also from Consortium News: Robert Parry - Will NYT Retract Latest Anti-Russian ‘Fraud’?, 22 July 2016.
Over the longer term, for evidence of any links Bellingcat has with the intelligence community, it may be worth checking for sources which cite Hugh Wilford's books, "The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America" and "America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East".
    ←   ZScarpia   22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Funding again

Unless reliable secondary sources discuss Bellingcat's funders, there's no reason for us to include that information. A revert was made with the claim that "Funding sections are common for most articles about NGOs" - I haven't seen any other NGO articles which feature information about donors that is solely sourced to the organization itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Such section are common in articles about organizations, often with no secondary sources. See for example Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Finances - the entire first paragrph is sources exclusively to the organization itself. Ditto for Human_Rights_Watch#Financing_and_servicesHere come the Suns (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those sections you cite include specific funders solely sourced to the organization itself. HRW's discussion of a specific funder is sourced to an article in The Washington Post, which indisputably provides the required secondary source proving relevance. In neither of those articles is there a mere laundry list of people or organizations which have donated money at one point or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've also added a secondary source which discusses the funding. You can stop beating this dead horse now. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a dead horse, because you haven't demonstrated secondary sources for any of the other names in the useless laundry list. The grant from the Dutch Postcode Lottery is relevant because it has secondary sources. Funding from the other groups... isn't, until they do also. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the standard used in other articles, and no reason to apply such a standard here. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with NBSB - there isn't WP:WEIGHT to warrant a dedicated section. Much of the text duplicates existing text earlier in the article anyway. Stickee (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Call for quote

From the entry:

Bellingcat provides transparency regarding the process by which it uncovers stories. It has been argued that Bellingcat's transparency has encouraged legacy outlets to increase their own transparency.

The word transparency, here repeated three times, led me to conduct inquiry into whether the article actually said this. None of the five occurrences of the term (which span the article, not two sentences as the three here do) really support the claim as written, because the claim gets lost in its jargon of transparency. Perhaps it would just be wiser to say something like: ... has encouraged traditional media to question the culture of sources speaking on condition of anonymity. (This is amply present in the source.) Just a thought, didn't mean to rile anyone up! ( [6], [7] )

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made a new bald edit here suggesting another (more directly verifiable) angle to take based on the source. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing funding

The page currently states: "For example, Bellingcat has received grants from Adessium, Digital News Initiative, Open Society Foundation, Pax, Porticus, National Endowment for Democracy and The Dutch Postcode Lottery.[14][8]"
This is not true, Bellingcat currently receives grants from the above. The text implies that they were one-offs and are historical. They have received, and continue to receive ongoing grants from these foundations. For some reason, a few editors want to maintain this inaccurate text on this page? What is their motivation for this?
Their website right now states they "currently receives funding from" - https://www.bellingcat.com/about/ It doesn't say "previously". The words "received" (past tense) needs to be changed as does the "for example", which implies that they are occasional, not regular contributions. It appears they are not
Apeholder (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

At least one of the organizations that has funded them is not on that 'current' list. Furthermore, we should write for the long-term, and not constantly update which groups have funded them and when (in particular, when the content in question is not secondary coverage, but our attempts to interpret the site's own 'about' page). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If it is not on the current list - then make a separate sentence saying they have previously received funding from them. This isn't rocket science. And your seemingly newly made up rule of "writing for the long term", means that you can pick and choose what information goes up depending on how convenient it is for you? If they change their funding - we update the page. That's how WP works. You don't write an article with the assumption that there shouldn't be too many changes because that's not how things work. Also, without going through their financial records, we have to take some of what they say on their about page at face value. If you're saying it's not a good source, then I'm sure I can cut a lot of many pages if the source is their own website Apeholder (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Machiavelli Foundation

According to the US Embassy in Netherlands the organization has "prestige" [8] and the prize was reported in multiple sources eg. [9]. The award has its own Wikipedia page [10]. -- GreenC 15:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's aim for "improving" the article, please, rather than simply repeating clumsy US media blurbs. Since the US State Department appears to be publicly documented as a funding source for Bellingcat, and paying for contributions, you can't reasonably suggest that the US Embassy is a reliable source in this instance! Santamoly (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Science magazine article

Here's an article in Science magazine about a dispute between Bellingcat and Theodore Postol about whether Syrian forces used sarin nerve gas. Science is irrefutably a WP:RS.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/scientists-clash-over-paper-questions-syrian-government-s-role-sarin-attack#
Scientists clash over paper that questions Syrian government’s role in sarin attack
By Kai Kupferschmidt
Science
Sep. 24, 2019

Postol says Bellingcat’s founder, U.K. journalist Eliot Higgins, “has no scientific training, knows no science, and is not interested in learning any science.”

This was also discussed in the Wikipedia article Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. --Nbauman (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What is going on?

Things keep flying on and off this talk page. Can comments please be left on the page long enough for editors to have time to consider them and respond. Burrobert (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to see an admin get involved here because the posts are clearly meant to insert conspiracy theories onto the talk page that wouldn't otherwise have a place anywhere on Wikipedia. --GreenC 17:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe editors should be removing other editors comments unless directed by policy to do so. If you disagree with a comment either ignore it or explain why you think it is wrong. Burrobert (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You can present an argument demonstrating that the claims are bogus if you like, but removing other editors' comments out of hand without a strong, rules-based justification is impermissible. Also, in my opinion, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is being seriously overused. It's use to describe fairly extreme nuttiness is reasonable; otherwise it has the appearance of tendentious viewpoint-pushing.     ←   ZScarpia   19:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM in particular #1 and #4. We remove comments based on FORUM all the time. The personal viewpoint is of the poster, not reliable sources, and that is a WP:FORUM violation. -- GreenC 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Off topic comments are pretty clearly acceptable to remove under WP:TPO. Loki (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t define comments as “off-topic” in order to remove them. Also “Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution”. As an example the comment:

“Let's aim for "improving" ... you can't reasonably suggest that the US Embassy is a reliable source in this instance!”

is discussing the reliability of a source being used on the page.

Burrobert (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

New article on Bellingcat funding, connection with intelligence agencies

Take a look at this: [11] It's written by Mary Dejevsky, who "was Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992. She has also been a correspondent from Paris, Washington and China."

The current [edit:wikipedia] article talks about Bellingcat's fundings, and states that the Russian media deride the website as "a front for foreign intelligence services". [edit: On the other hand,] the article I linked was published last week and makes the connection between the two. I think our article needs to reflect this now. Mottezen (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your quote ("a front for foreign intelligence services") is not in the article you linked and the only mention of Russian media is this: Bellingcat found that the pair, who had presented themselves as tourists in a widely ridiculed interview on Russian television, were in fact intelligence officers: Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga. CowHouse (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read carefully, when I wrote "a front for foreign intelligence services", I was quoting Bellingcat the wikipedia article, which was itself quoting a Guardian article. Mottezen (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The point I was getting at is that the question of Bellingcat's funding and its connection to national western secret services are currently separated in the article because, as pointed out above, no RS was making the connection. That is, until now. Mottezen (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah maybe rephrase "the website" to be "our article" rather than tell others to read carefully. You mention Bellingcat after "our article" so it's really confusing to ascertain what you're referring to as "the website". What specific changes are you proposing to the article? VQuakr (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Is "unHerd" a reliable source for such contentious claims? Does it have a track record of fact-checking and accuracy? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This source being new, I couldn't find anything on its reputation of fact checking and accuracy. What I can say is that, regardless, this is not a statement of fact she is making, but a statement of opinion, and could be included through WP:RSOPINION with attribution. Mottezen (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is just a blog of a journalist, not a subject matter expert (security or intel). I see nothing salvageable.--Renat 13:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a blog, it's a news source staffed by a group experienced journalists. Her work on Russia issues would be consider notable here while she worked for "The Times" between 1988 and 1992. I see no reason this is not the case when she moves on to a different outlet. Mottezen (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that adequate WP:WEIGHT has been demonstrated to merit mention in the article. Notability isn't a factor here, and 1992 was a long time ago. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, this article resonated enough that it warranted the subject to respond to its criticism in the same publication (see below). Surely this whole dialogue deserves a mention in our article. Mottezen (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, due prominence of her viewpoint is no coverage, which is roughly proportional to the level of coverage it has received. Practically speaking, her op-ed says very little about the subject. Basically just a "we don't know what we don't know" - Higgins's response is essentially just that, to point out that these are vague, evidence-free insinuations. It still would be helpful to hear what, specifically, you are proposing to add. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, faced with these unknowns, she uses logic to make hypotheses on the nature of Bellingcat. Responding by asking for evidence, like Higgins did, is missing the point. Note that in his piece, Higgins didn't address any of her arguments, and instead derided caricatures of his detractors, such as his inclusion of a laughable quote from the Russian Ambassador to the UK. Mottezen (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

She doesn't have any arguments. She has unsupported conjecture. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Her article was debunked today - [12].--Renat 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

By "Debunked", I think you mean "the criticism was addressed by the subject's creator". See my above comment. Mottezen (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually read the whole article. Far from "debunking", Higgins doesn't address any of the points made by Mary Dejevsky. Mottezen (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

New paragraph and section proposal

As requested by User:VQuakr, here is my proposed addition. I propose to split the "History" section into 2, separating off any discussion on Bellingcat's funding and independence into a new section. I propose we add the following paragraph to this section:

"Multiple observers, such as former The Times Moscow correspondant Mary Dejevsky, have questioned the independence of Bellingcat from secret services. Her doubts stems from the fact that Bellingcat has received funding from organizations linked with the american and british government, and that most of "Bellingcat’s findings bolster what might be called a Western case: for anti-Assad rebels in Syria, against the Kremlin." She questions Eliot Higgins's ability to conduct his open-source investigations despite not having a university degree and the integrity of the data Bellingcat obtained though the russian data black market. In response to these to these criticism, Higgins states that "allegations of our involvement with the intelligence services are of course false, fueled by a lack of understanding of our work"."

Just a few example of other sources showing WP:SIGCOV of these questions: [13] [14] (pro) [15] (con) [16] (debate)

Any comments/suggestion? Mottezen (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Since when is "Off-Guardian" a reliable source? The Spectator podcast you cite is literally just an interview with Mary Dejevsky. The Independent link is... another column by Dejevsky. I see no evidence that there are "multiple observers" here, just one person with an apparent axe to grind. I would oppose this as UNDUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I listed 2 spectator sources. One is a journalist argumenting against Dejevsky, and the podcast is actually a debate between the two. In the face of the overwhelmingly positive Reception section of this article, adding her criticism will not be UNDUE in this article. Mottezen (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And having spent five minutes reading "Off-Guardian," which is laden with COVID and vaccine conspiracy theories and even a claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump by enemies of populism, I am quite certain it will never qualify as a reliable source for anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I only included Off-Guardian to make a point about the broader SIGCOV conversation, not for any statement of fact. I was unaware of the source's other coverage, and I didn't see it listed on WP:RSP. There is, in fact, multiple observers commenting on this, most of them I cannot cite here because they are Russian-language or are depreciated sources. Here is TASS citing Russia's foreign minister. Eliot Higgins also cites the Russian ambassador to the UK in his piece. Mottezen (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything in TI about this issue, and the other cited sources don't seem reliable. No support for this fringe theory section, which seems like a fake news story designed to undermine the reputability of this organization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing a specific edit. I am opposed to adding this per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

>This is just a blog of a journalist, not a subject matter expert (security or intel). I see nothing salvageable.

You could say the same thing about bellingcat Occams ied (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Amateur status of Higgins / Bellingcat?

Why is there absolutely no reference to the lack of training or expertise of Higgins in relation to military or political investigations? I'd add it, but I know someone like Phillip Cross or Snoograssians etc. will just revert it Apeholder (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Bellingcat, not about Higgins.--Renat 05:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The concept of citizen journalism is pretty prominent in the article (I just linked it in the lead, to be even surer), which does the work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

FP article

diff. I was never happy with this wording. Without context it plays into the discredited conspiracy theory that Bellingcat is a black ops of the CIA/Western intelligence and don't you know Russia is the victim, it's the West who is to blame.. who needs sources, read between the lines... But the FP article is not even about Bellingcat, specifically, it is about "open-source investigations" (ie. Open-source intelligence) which includes Bellingcat and many others besides. That Bellingcat is used as an example is not surprising as they are well known, but it's really about the entire industry of open source intelligence and the consequences for traditional intelligence. It was not by design. -- GreenC 03:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"discredited conspiracy theory that Bellingcat is a black ops of the CIA/Western intelligence ... ": a good recent source for the connection between Bellingcat and the US state apparatus is a MintPress News article by Alan Macleod. MintPress is a deprecated source for Wikipedia so the article itself cannot be used here. However, Macleod includes enough references in his article to allow editors to verify his statements independently of MintPress.

• Bellingcat's personnel often come from the Western intelligence and defence communities and, after leaving Bellingcat, they often continue to work within that community. Macleod said that Bellingcat does not fully inform its readers about its contributors connections with Western defence and intelligence.
• Bellingcat receives funding from the NED which "was explicitly set up by the Reagan administration as a front for the CIA’s regime-change operations. "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA", said the organization’s co-founder Allen Weinstein, proudly". (This quote also appears on the NED's Wikipedia page)
• "Higgins himself was a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, NATO’s quasi-official think tank, from 2016 to 2019. The Atlantic Council’s board of directors is a who’s who of state power, from war planners like Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell to retired generals such as James “Mad Dog” Mattis and H.R. McMaster. It also features no fewer than seven former CIA directors".
• Marc Polymeropoulos, the CIA's former deputy chief of operations for Europe and Eurasia said "I don’t want to be too dramatic, but we love [Bellingcat]. Whenever we had to talk to our liaison partners about it, instead of trying to have things cleared or worry about classification issues, you could just reference [Bellingcat’s] work".
• "Bellingcat certainly seems to pay particular attention to the crimes of official enemies. ... [I]t has only published five stories on the United Kingdom, 17 on Saudi Arabia, 19 on the U.S. (most of which are about foreign interference in American society or far-right/QAnon cults). Yet it has 144 on Russia and 244 under its Syria tag".

As I said earlier, Macleod provides links so that editors can determine the accuracy of his statements and possibly expand this article. Burrobert (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that MintPress News is a deprecated source (see WP:DEPSOURCES) and should certainly not be used for such contentious claims. Until you can find usable sources I don't see the value of this discussion. Those who consider Bellingcat as a "black ops of the CIA/Western intelligence" should actually read Bellingcat's articles. For example, one of their articles "under its Syria tag" is about an American airstrike in 2017 and 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) 06:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that MintPressNews has literally been caught publishing a bogus article espousing a conspiracy theory that a chemical weapons attack was staged...attributed to an AP journalist who didn't write it and had nothing to do with it. Sailor Ceres (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

My comment was not about MintPress News and I was not proposing that that the article be used here. Firstly, I was responding to an unsubstantiated claim about a "discredited conspiracy theory". Secondly, editors can determine whether the highlighted points are accurate by following the links in the article. It is those links which may be suitable for use on Wikipedia. Burrobert (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Vicors

@Vicors about this - diff. What is "fixing"? Renat 14:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's "correction" Vicors (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Shireen Abu Akleh

Bellingcat did a report on the killing of the Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, in which they conclude that the evidence supports the IDF being responsible. So they do criticize US allies sometimes.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2022/05/14/unravelling-the-killing-of-shireen-abu-akleh/

Unravelling the Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh

While the open source video evidence currently available does not detail the exact moment or shot that killed Abu Akleh, multiple witness testimonies place the blame on IDF soldiers. The available video evidence does not provide good grounds to doubt their accounts — indeed, it appears to support them.

--Nbauman (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section?

So, no "Criticisms" section.
Interesting. Amazing actually.

Yeah I came here to ask about this. it seems quite strange to me that this very online intelligence agency equivalent of a private military contractor has seemingly never done anything wrong ever worth mentioning here.

98.36.201.241 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Why did they investigate the Texas shooting but not the Nashville shooting? 69.120.128.146 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See the reasoning at WP:CSECTION. Generally a dedicated criticism section isn't something we want. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Two points

1) There should be a funding section. There is already information about Bellingcat's funding in the article, so this should be easy to do.

2) There are an awful lot of quotes from Higgins discussing his organization. In my experience, that's not normal. Perhaps this should be toned down a bit. As is, the article almost reads like an advertisement.

Thoughts? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

1 I dont understand why a different section for funding would be better than keeping it in History because its just a few mentions but I dont think it would make it worse so I dont object. I made a subsection for it and for Reception in History and moved text there

2 I removed one quote that I dont think we need. Im not sure what else you mean Softlemonades (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Theres a Reception section I missed so Im going to merge that there Softlemonades (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice. At a glance your edits look like good improvements to the article. I'll take a closer look later and come back here. Pecopteris (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357 because you contacted me, I looked at the article. I don't agree that it looks like an advertisement, but do agree that a funding section is a non-objectionable idea. BTW, good job keeping your talk page messages to a readable length. Pecopteris (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)