Talk:Whitney Webb

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because: This is a totally new submission by me (User:Deamonpen), who has no connection to any previously submitted or deleted or draftified article on the subject (author Whitney Webb); I believe the sources I mention in this article are reliable and provide enough notability for the article to stand. Thank you. --Deamonpen (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Cannot check on the previously deleted article anymore... but it looks like they use different sources from mine, so I think there is low chance that my article and that article are near identical or very similar. Deamonpen (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Burrobert: TrineDay, publishers in general, and Jewish Chronicle

• Even with a very respected journalist or scholar, when they publish through a peer-reviewed publisher/a publisher known for fact checking, it will be different from a situation when they choose to publish through a small publisher who advertises themselves as publisher of conspiracy theory books. This happens on Wikipedia as well as in academic environment. Secondly, the matter with Whitney Webb is that she is not a conventional journalist who happens to bump into a publisher who has one or two scandals which are not related to her once or twice or thrice in her career. She almost exclusively relies on "alternative channels" that are known for publishing conspiracy theories, pro-Russian propaganda and misinformation in general. Thirdly, One Nation Under Blackmail is Webb's main work, and we don't have a separate article for it. Relevant information concerning this publication should be mentioned here.

• Jewish Chronicle is not a deprecated source if it is not about Israel–Palestine. Otherwise I want to inform you that other sources back up the information too. But now I use it for a single sentence with attribution. Does that sit better with you? If you have further problem with this source, you should do a RfC.

This is my view on the matter. Opinions from other uses are welcome! Deamonpen (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If User:GnocchiFan who has contributed to these parts and User:FULBERT who has reviewed this article would like to provide opinions, it will be a good thing. Thank you. Deamonpen (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Attribution to the JC will do. However, why don't you just use the alternative sources which you added to the article after I placed the tags? Do they not say the same things without the need for attribution?

I considered placing a NPOV tag on this article, but since you have started a discussion, I will raise the issues here first. Firstly, here are two related issues that occur early in the article.

• Regarding Webb being a former staff writer of MintPress News: “The outlet has been described as part of a pro-Russian disinformation ecosystem”. Neither of the two sources mention Webb. I would describe this as wp:synthesis and guilt by association. The implication, which is in none of the sources used here, is that, because Mint Press is "part of a pro-Russian disinformation ecosystem", so is Webb. If you want to say Webb is part of a pro-Russian disinformation ecosystem, then find a reliable source stating that.
• Regarding her book One Nation Under Blackmail: "TrineDay was founded by Kris Millegan, who has called himself a conspiracy theorist and is described by The New York Times as a "publisher of conspiracy books" ". Again neither of the two sources mention Webb. I would describe this as wp:synthesis and guilt by association. The implication, which is in none of the sources used here, is that, because Millegan is a “publisher of conspiracy books”, Webb’s book is also a conspiracy book. If you want to say that in this wp:BLP, find a reliable source which states One Nation Under Blackmail is a conspiracy book.

I have not looked further down the article, but let's start with these two. Burrobert (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not synthesis and I am unaware of any rule that says you cannot use a source that does not directly talks about the subject in a Wikipedia article. It is just that it is recommended that the majority of the sources that are used should be directly about the subjects and there are sources that provide notability among those.

The matter is when the publisher is problematic, its fact checking is unreliable. Webb might or miggt not be a part of pro country X network or whatever, but if it is a publisher of propaganda, this does have implication on Webb's published works at least regarding the matter of fact checking. The user should be given information on the publisher for that reason. Another user has put Webb and one of the channels I mention in the same place sharing the same refs, but I myself put them in two sentences, so that there is a degree of separation. So I am not the only one who feel that such info should be included as far as I understand.

I give JC one sentence that mentions one thing only they mention, and it directly talks about Webb. Also this is about sensitive mastters regarding Jews and Israel, so I feel like I should include some of Jewish/Israeli publications even if they are considered biased in other regards. I don't tend to totally rely on big or Anglo sources, and tend to insert one or two yellow sources where I can. Deamonpen (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, the alternative choice, that is telling the readers that this author are published by a lot of publishers, without noting the problems with these publishers, is giving the readers the impression that this author is so widely published, thus this writer must be reliable. I have already inserted certain academics (and made sure that the readers understand that they are academics) who support her despite the problems with her publishers. I do not think that this article is unfair to her. Deamonpen (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I have taken note of your reply, with which I completely disagree. Nevertheless, the next issue relates to the sentences:

"Israel denies Ben-Menashe's Mossad affiliation. According to The Jerusalem Post, Israeli and American officials have stated that Ben-Menashe is a fabulist. Former Israel PM Naftali Bennett denies that Epstein ever worked for Mossad. The Jerusalem Post deems the rumors associating Epstein with Mossad to be conspiracy theories, stating that Robert Maxwell died before Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein met each other".

None of the three sources used here mention Webb. Commentary on Webb's work should use sources which actually mention her. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I have taken note of your reply and I completely disagree as well, also on the matter of Ben-Menashe. Other people mentioned there are also living people who deserve to have their case stated clearly. So Whitney Webb's opinions about there people are A. Other sources' opinions about these people disagree with A. The readers should be informed about that. It is not like I use these sources to write that Whitney Webb is a liar or something. Deamonpen (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll post the issues on the BLP noticeboard to see what others think. Burrobert (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. Deamonpen (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we do need a better source than the JC for these claims, ideally. While her 9/11 comments and others cited to the JC do not relate to Israel-Palestine, Webb is undeniably an anti-Zionist and given ongoing concerns over how the JC covers anti-Zionist figures and critics of Israel (this includes instances where they do not directly discuss the conflict), a wider discussion is needed to determine whether it meets WP:RS here, even if the specific claims aren't directly about Israel-Palestine.

I think they should be OK with attribution, but a wider discussion may be needed: her claims (IMO) undeniably draw on antisemitic tropes, as with many conspiracy theorists, but I don't know if JC is the best source to use given the above. I'm also unsure about using the ADL per WP:ADL for the same reasons. This comment is purely on the reliability of the JC as a source in recent years and is not in any way an expression of support for Webb or her views. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reciprocation!

As for JC, I just want to give the readers a glimpse of words that Webb actually uses. And certainly she does say just that (from Whitney Webb, "More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story as Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative", Globalresearch):

However, as evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative, it becomes ever more clear that the reason for this media campaign is to prevent legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve, even smearing victims’ families and ailing first responders to do so.

Certainly if people think that it is not OK, I will not oppose removing it (Same with ADL). Just think that it is a simple sentence that states a simple fact, not high commentary or something.

Btw this is Burrobert's BLP thread. If you or others by any chance want to provide us with guidance, it would be welcome. Deamonpen (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I request that @Deamonpen not remove citations from other articles, and link this article that they created as the reason. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

NLM article

NLM article already discussed with User talk:Morbidthoughts on there talk page:

Deamonpen: Dear Morbidthoughts,

You said that the nlm article was mispresented. The original content is like this:

A far-right article titled “Climate Psychos Want To Abolish Freedom Of Movement” claimed:

“These [15MCs] will maintain watch and control over the populace’s movement via sophisticated surveillance technology that is already being installed across the world and promoted in the West by intelligence groups like the CIA, FBI, and Mossad.” [48].

"Here, climate activists are represented as “psychos”, implying mental instability. The article positions 15MCs alongside clandestine organizations, encouraging readers to draw a false equivalency between these. This framing may reinforce existing conspiratorial thinking. The claim lacks credible evidence and links to another media outlet MBFC classifies as a pseudoscience and conspiracy website, suggesting an intentional effort to radicalize readers through a chain of increasingly alarming narratives"[51]

[48] points to

48.Duffy-Alfonso E. Climate psychos want to abolish freedom of movement. The Federalist. 2023; Available from: https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/06/anti-air-travel-climate-psychos-want-to-abolish-freedom-of-movement/.

While [51] points to

51.Media Bias/Fact Check. 2024. Unlimited hangout - bias and credibility. Available from: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/unlimited-hangout-bias/.

My understanding is that [48] and [51] (both classified by MBFC/Media Bias Fact Check — the authors of the NLM article support this classification system) are linked in an effort to "radicalize readers through a chain of increasingly alarming narratives."

Don't misunderstand. I support your work. I just want to share my thinking on this particular case.

Morbidthoughts

You should discuss content disputes on the article talk page so others can weigh in. Your summary, "Melissa F. Legge, Elizabeth Inyang and Jonathan Stokes link Unlimited Hangout to the website The Federalist and refer to a deliberate effort by such sites to "radicalize readers through a chain of increasingly alarming narratives" convolutedly misrepresents the BMC Public Health article. The BMC Health authors wrote that the Federalist's article's link to Webb's article suggests a deliberate effort to radicalize readers. It is a direct criticism of Duffy-Alfonso's 15MCs conspiratorial claims. They did not directly suggest that Webb did the same despite the chain language. Any attempt to extrapolate that is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk)

Deamonpen:

My understanding was that these two sites (using of content) are linked (as in "connected"). But yes Morbidthoughts is probably right that it is just about The Federalist's author physically linking that part of her article to Webb's article (which is about the CIA and Mossad installing surveillance systems everywhere in the US) and Webb does not know about that. However this works because Webb provides the readers with an even more alarming narrative in comparison with what they see on the Federalist site (The Federalist maintains some veneer of a respected, mainstream site). So I think that we still have ways to deal with the situation and the NLM article can be used.

Is it fair, at least, to say that:

• The Unlimited Hangout presents pseudoscience and conspiracy content
• The Unlimited Hangout's alarming narratives are used by another site (The Federalist) to radicalize readers.

? - Deamonpen (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you about the first but it requires attribution to WP:MBFC because the authors did not state it in their own voice. There is some irony that the authors in a reputable source are hiding behind other people's opinions and use weasel words ("suggesting") in citing to the increasing alarming narratives themselves. This is too convoluted and WP:UNDUE when it's more of a criticism of the Federalist article when they only name Webb and her website in a footnote citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)