Talk:Eliot Higgins
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eliot Higgins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eliot Higgins. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eliot Higgins at the Reference desk. This talk page is not a blog and it's not our job to speculate on things not previously discussed in reliable sources. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
not balanced
editThe article is one-sided. The man has many critics, most of which point out that he has zero training or formal qualifications in forensics work and typically produces results that fit in just a bit too well with certain political interests. Not to at least mention this criticism is leaving out important details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.92.160 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- He has many enemies, due to the nature of what he does (exposing people doing bad things) and thus has acquired many "critics" whose lack of neutrality makes their inclusion here biased. A lack of neutrality includes statements like "produces results that fit in just a bit too well with certain political interests" ie. a preconceived conspiracy theory from which the facts are cherry-picked to portray this view. -- GreenC 13:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate he is unduly hated, but this and Bellingcat's article are now one sided in the alternative. His coverage of MH17 was full of tantalising tabloid speculation, whereas the Dutch Safety Board identified the missile and launch area, and left it at that. His coverage of Douma featured the same wanton speculation and later playing down of evidence. Contributer232312 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is a joke. Whenever the subject of Wikipedia being captured by the western security establishment comes up, I will now just link to this piece of trash and the point will be unquestionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.81.56 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a major long-term contributor to the article and have no connection to the "western security establishment". Yet another unfounded and unsupported conspiracy theory by Bellingcat haters. -- GreenC 04:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic Council over-weight
editThere is a conspiracy theory that Higgins is actually a military or intelligence operative of the US/West and therefore can't be trusted. The theorists point to his association with the Atlantic Council. Of course, this article is going to great lengths (weight) to highlight his association the AC. I would suggest there is far too much weight being given to the AC and it's a minor part of his biography deserving a sentence, not an entire section and photograph. - GreenC 20:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Without secondary sources it is hard to know what if any of this is DUE. Have trimmed slightly but would support further work.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is a conspiracy theory that says Russian disinformation is trying to connect Higgins and Bellingcat with Western intelligence. There is a further conspiracy theory that says that the previous conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory ...
- I don’t think we need a separate subsection devoted to the "Atlantic Council". The material in that section can be merged into the "Life and Work" and "Bellingcat" sections. However, I don’t see why we shouldn’t mention the dreaded term "Atlantic Council" when it is relevant. The connection appears in three separate items, the two reports Hiding in Plain Sight and Distract, Deceive, Destroy and also the Digital Forensic Research Lab. I rather like the photo. Burrobert (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Should we be providing the material for a conspiracy theory? What about the Streisand effect? Burrobert (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
References