Talk:Patrick Lancaster

• "Russian propaganda efforts aided by pro-Kremlin content creators, research finds". NBC News. 2022-06-08. Retrieved 2022-06-27.

The most popular of the pro-Kremlin influencers identified by researchers is Patrick Lancaster, a Missouri-born Navy intelligence veteran and self-described independent crowdfunded journalist embedded with the Russian army. Since December, Lancaster’s YouTube channel has grown from 57,500 subscribers to more than 500,000, with daily dispatches from Russian-occupied Ukraine. His videos are often breathless reports with graphic footage of dead bodies, violence for which Lancaster claims Ukraine is responsible. The scene in at least one video was reportedly staged. Lancaster often appears on Russian state media and on the Texas-based conspiracy theory radio show “Infowars.” Below Lancaster’s YouTube videos, he posts, “I show what the western media will not show you.”

• Schogol, Jeff (2022-04-19). "How a former US Navy sailor became a Putin propagandist". Task & Purpose. Retrieved 2022-06-27.

Navy veteran Patrick Lancaster describes himself on Facebook as “an independent crowdfunded journalist,” but critics argue that he is a foot soldier in the Kremlin’s information war against Ukraine...

Christopher Paul, who researches information operations and psychological warfare, said Lancaster’s reporting “feels like Russian propaganda” by repeating Kremlin talking points and conspiracy theories. Lancaster’s videos repeat Russian propaganda themes along with conspiracy theories, said Paul, a senior social scientist with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization... Lancaster’s videos have often appeared on Russian state-run media, including Russia Today and Zveda, a television channel owned by Russia’s defense ministry, reporters Jason Paladino and Anya van Wagtendonk with Grid, an independent news site, revealed on Monday.

Not only is Lancaster able to travel through Russian-controlled territory at will, but in one video he wore a white band on his arm and leg, which is a method that Russian troops use to distinguish friends from foes, Grid reported. Shortly before Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Lancaster reported on an alleged Ukrainian roadside bomb attack inside territory held by Russian-led separatists. The Russians claimed three people were killed in the attack, but Grid as well as the investigative website Bellingcat subsequently noted that the incident appears to have been staged. The charred remains of one person whom the Russians claim was killed by an explosion had deep cuts to the skull, indicating that the body had undergone an autopsy procedure before it was placed at the scene.

During his video about the event, Lancaster said that he was “investigating on what really happened,” but never challenged the official Russian narrative that three civilians had been killed by a Ukrainian roadside bomb.

“It’s not possible to know if in this incident he’s knowingly involved with producing propaganda, but he has a long track record of biased reporting when it comes to pro-Russian separatists and Russia itself,” Eliot Higgins, founder and creative director of Bellingcat, told Task & Purpose...

He served in the Navy from 2001 to 2006, during which he became a cryptologic technician — a job that involves using “high-power jamming signals to deceive electronic sensors and prevent enemy attacks,” according to the Navy.

He was trained at the Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center in Dam Neck, Virginia, and he served aboard the now decommissioned aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk from 2002 until 2006, according to his official service record. His rank when he left the Navy was petty officer third class.

Lancaster’s military awards include the Navy Unit Commendation Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, four Sea Service Deployment Ribbons, and four Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbons...

His videos — which contain factual errors, misinformation and in the case of the video involving the alleged IED, have been accused of being outright fabrications – have the potential to reach a wide audience. His YouTube channel has 408,000 subscribers and he has also been featured on InfoWars, a website owned by radio host Alex Jones that passes off conspiracy theories as news. During a Feb. 25 interview with Jones, Lancaster said the people in eastern Ukraine controlled by Russian-led separatists were “in tears of happiness” over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

• Bright, Sam (2017-07-24). "The communist soldier using charity sites to fund his war". BBC News. Retrieved 2022-06-27.

Phillips works with a third pro-separatist video maker - American-born Patrick Lancaster. Lancaster also describes himself as an independent journalist, and says his work is entirely funded through crowdfunding. Despite this, he seems to have raised less than $6,500 in the past eight months.

Lancaster's videos have been featured by mainstream media outlets and he has contributed to The Telegraph and Sky News.

However, some of his reporting has been openly hostile towards Ukraine and the West. Speaking on RT in February 2015, Lancaster said that the Ukraine's current president, Petro Poroshenko, is an enemy of the people.

In November 2016, Lancaster set up an Indiegogo campaign to raise $2,000 for his reporting in eastern Ukraine. Donation incentives included a guided trip from Russia into the battle zone, which would have violated the Ukrainian border crossing l

aw, although there's no evidence that anyone took up the offer. Lancaster recently removed this perk, after BBC Trending contacted both him and Indiegogo.

On the same crowdfunding page, Lancaster offered military souvenirs from the Ukrainian war, including pieces of shrapnel or rubble from Donetsk airport. Yet, in an email to Trending, Lancaster distanced himself from Bentley, and said that he is not a fighter or an activist in the conflict.

• "Putin-Propaganda: Wie deutsche und internationale Influencer die Blockade russischer Medien unterlaufen". stern.de (in German). 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-27.

The most popular of the pro-Kremlin influencers identified by the researchers is Patrick Lancaster, a Missouri-born US naval intelligence veteran and self-proclaimed independent crowdfunding journalist embedded in the Russian army, according to NBC. Since December, Lancaster's YouTube channel has grown from 57,500 subscribers to over 500,000 with its daily reports from Russian-held parts of Ukraine. His videos are often dramatic reports with gruesome images of dead bodies and violence for which Lancaster blames Ukraine. In at least one of the films, the scenes shown were reportedly staged. Lancaster appears frequently on Russian state media and on Infowars, a far-right Texas radio and online conspiracy-telling channel.

• Rabiega, Hubert (2022-06-12). "Głos Rosji w internecie. Wpływowi youtuberzy szerzą na Zachodzie propagandę Putina". Polska Times (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-06-27.

One of the most popular pro-Kremlin influencers identified by ISD researchers is Patrick Lancaster, a Missouri-born US Navy intelligence veteran, currently active as a self-proclaimed freelance crowdfunding journalist with ties to the Russian army. Since December 2021, Lancaster's YouTube channel has grown from 57,500 to over 500,000 subscribers. Such a leap in growth was due to Lancaster's daily reports from the territories of Ukraine occupied by the Russians. "His films are often dramatic accounts of gruesome images of dead bodies and violence for which Lancaster blames Ukraine," notes stern.de. Lancaster appears frequently in the Russian state media.

• ""Information Dumps": From the Kremlin to Your Screen". bywire news. 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-06-27.

Since 2014, there is a group of Western journalists channelling the point of view of the Russian occupiers in Ukraine, for example, the UK Graham Phillips, Patrick Lancaster, and many French and Italian bloggers and podcasters, who do not have any professional training. Many such journalists and media personalities get indignant if confronted and claim that they simply cover all points of view.

• "Kto wierzy Lancasterowi? Nachalna ustawka rosyjskich służb". Wiadomości z Polski i ze świata (in Polish). 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-06-27.

Russian media present him as "the only Western journalist" who reaches various forbidden places on the front in order to show - as they argue - the truth about Ukrainian crimes. In Patrick Lancaster's reports, everything is presented not only in reverse - all Russian atrocities and lawlessness are shown as Ukrainian - but also in a comic version, by showing the unreal realities of the war.

One fact from Lancaster's life is enough, which disqualifies him as an observer of the Russian invasion - he himself admits that for years, with his family (wife and two children), he has been living in Donetsk - i.e. in the territory occupied by Russia with the help of hybrid units - "Separatists" from the unrecognized Donetsk People's Republic. This alone shows that this American is breaking international law and, in addition, must enjoy the operational support of the Russian services. Over the years, it showed more peaceful content, which kept the mythology of Moscow alive - and this is the prosperity of life in Russian-occupied Crimea, and these are tourist curiosities from the territories occupied by Russia. With the full-scale invasion, his popularity has grown and he is considered a nonconformist on the Internet who opposes Ukrainian, American and - yes - Jewish propaganda...

Lancaster also talks with the inhabitants of the occupied territories in a manner that is inadequate to reality. The villagers tell him, for example, from which side the rocket came - Ukrainian, of course - that hit the building. This would fit perhaps in "Star Wars" where bullets are visible as brightly lit lines that fly from weaponry to target - in real life the average person has no chance of seeing where the missile is coming from. The American builds a mirror image of responsibility for war crimes - he attributes Russia's crimes to Ukraine. However, the mirror image has a number of disadvantages - in the sad reality of war, civilians are so afraid of criminals that they rarely talk about them in front of the cameras. For Lancaster, every randomly encountered civilian is ready for anti-Ukrainian stories with a smile... The American is quoted in "Russia Today", and Internet trolls with a strangely non-Polish or non-English syntax repeat comments in various places on the web in which the media is "not believed" and prompted by an "independent" journalist.

The US media has long established that Lancaster is a veteran of the US Navy, in which he served from 2001-2006. There, he dealt with disrupting the enemy's communication signals, i.e. also ... disinformation. The American himself is a certain axis around which additional disinformation aids revolve, although no one "independent" reporter asks about strange scenes in his recordings. However, the aura of nonconformity and anti-systemism gives the Russian agent of influence credibility for those who have been fashioned before against the plots of this world.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, do any of the additional sources listed by Bobfromrockley pass muster in your opinion? If the article is in fact kept, it would be good to have more than three in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Oops, trying again EvergreenFir Bobfrombrockley.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit was a violation of WP:BLP rules that forbid using self-published sources in biographies of reliable persons.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point to remind us that WP:BLP allows self published sources if it is from the subject themselves! Thus we can include anything in the article that is direct from Patrick Lancaster himself. Mathmo ^Talk 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Depending on what it is, that's true. But we have to balance whatever Lancaster says about himself with what RS say about him - such as there are.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of tasikherbal.com or Ivan Farrell. It's not even a self published article by Lancaster so its not reliable for anything. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean you've never read sterling journalism in impeccable English like "How A lot Does the US Owe in Reparations for the COVID-19 Bio-Assault?]"?! To quote Farrell Usually nations don’t should pay reparations till they badly lose a warfare. They certainly don't should, he's absolutely right.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RE: Ermenrich

• Warned Both editors have violated WP:BLP by using less-than reliable sources to make contentious claims about a living person with attributing those claims. Do not use tabloids like The Mirror or Vice Media as sources to make claims about living people (see WP:RSP). To claim someone is a propagandist, you need rock-solid sources.

666hopedieslast (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-pasting this. I'll add: a single source cannot be used to support such a contentious claim. You can/should attribute that claim to NBC. If, say, BBC, NBC, NPR, and NYT all say someone is a propagandist, then it would not need to be attributed, just cited. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. 666hopedieslast (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

NBC News

The most popular of the pro-Kremlin influencers identified by researchers is Patrick Lancaster, a Missouri-born Navy intelligence veteran and self-described independent crowdfunded journalist embedded with the Russian army. Since December, Lancaster’s YouTube channel has grown from 57,500 subscribers to more than 500,000, with daily dispatches from Russian-occupied Ukraine. His videos are often breathless reports with graphic footage of dead bodies, violence for which Lancaster claims Ukraine is responsible. The scene in at least one video was reportedly staged. Lancaster often appears on Russian state media and on the Texas-based conspiracy theory radio show “Infowars.”

Below Lancaster’s YouTube videos, he posts, “I show what the western media will not show you.” He did not respond to a request for comment.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Good source. The attribution currently in the article is good. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich you are still not getting it, do you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella. No, I'm not "getting it". If the RS say he is "pro-Kremlin", why do you keep removing that? There is no argument among any RS that he supports the Kremlin's line. At any rate, I've attributed it and quoted it in the lead. That should satisfy whatever objection you have.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks EvergreenFir. As these edits show: I added the 2 articles in this 1st few edits of the article. 666hopedieslast (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Admin edits so they are not lost in future edits

Statement: admin action; do not re-add

RE:

https://zaborona.com/en/from-the-lancaster-family-the-story-of-an-american-reporter-who-settled-in-the-dnr-was-a-friend-of-givi-and-uses-morgue-bodies-for-fake-news/

666hopedieslast (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In this edit, I did not restore the contentious propagandist claim. On what grounds was the source and non-containtesious claim removed? IntrepidContributor (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unclear if Zaborona is a good source to many people editing here (including me). I wouldn't cite Ukrinform of Ukrainska Pravda on Lancaster if they had written on him, after all. As for the rest, I guess ask GizzyCatBella.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you disputing the use of Zaborona for establishing the notability of the Lancaster and what he is known for? If so, please say so in the discussion about this on the reliable sources noticeboard. IntrepidContributor (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I am disputing Zaborona. It does not indicate who the editor is. Or any staff really. You'd need consensus from RSN to use it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't work for me atm. Has he been moved or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

works just fine, but for some reason I can't see, the link in the infobox/refs doesn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, perhaps you know? It seems the infobox link etc should work, but they don't. Could it be a Wikidata thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, umm, confusing stuff, but yeah I messed around with the relevant template some time ago.
UCbjTWVaRx6jMN5ZYgbqe2_w is the channel_url (/channel/) for Patrick Lancaster. The channel_name is what comes after /user/ which I don't know for Patrick. The /c/ channel name isn't directly supported by {{Infobox YouTube personality}} unless you enter c/PatrickLancasterNewsToday for channel_direct_url.
YouTube is really confusing with this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, a bit like adding a imdb-EL template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Are regional newspapers Leeuwarder Courant, BN DeStem, and Dagblad van het Noorden really the best sources for this article? I'll note that while these three all have headlines about how "remains from "malaysian airlines flight 17" have been found, the headline from NRC (newspaper) is more cautious: "Mogelijk weer menselijke resten MH17-ramp naar Nederland" ("Possible human remains of MH17 disaster to the Netherlands again"). All of the articles are unfortunately behind a paywall, but the NRC one, according to its WP page the paper of record of the Netherlands, is also the one that includes accusations that Lancaster is spreading pro-Russian disinformation.

I highly suspect that Lancaster somehow framed these remains, whether they were really from the crash or not, as a way to claim that Ukraine shot down MH17 or that the passengers were already dead when it crashed, which we for some reason don't mention and is established as Russian disinformation (see []).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I added some more details and sources about this. The headlines from July 2017 say that remains were "possibly" found, the Netherlands Forensic Institute analyzed them and confirmed in November 2017 they found remnants of 7 passengers in the remains Lancaster found.
Two thirds (193) of the victims of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were Dutch so naturally the subject got more attention in The Netherlands. 43 victims were from Malaysia so perhaps some sources in Malaysian Malay would also exist, but I don't speak that.
Not everything is behind a paywall, you might be confusing the mandatory cookie wall they all have with a paywall. (try pressing "Akkoord", "Accepteer", "Selecteer alles" or whichever button is green to eat the cookies) NRC mentions "Lancaster" 7 times, the fact you refer to is "Lancaster wordt er door de Oekraïense autoriteiten van beschuldigd propaganda te bedrijven voor de pro-Russische separatisten in het oosten van het land." (source) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern is mostly that the newspapers are regional rather than national in scope.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I notice that, despite having different authors, the Stern article's information on Lancaster is a word-for-word translation of the NBC article. Compare:

Der beliebteste der von den Forschenden identifizierten kremlfreundlichen Influencer ist nach Angaben von NBC Patrick Lancaster, ein in Missouri geborener Veteran des US-Marinegeheimdienstes und selbsternannter unabhängiger Crowdfunding-Journalist, der in die russische Armee eingebettet sei. Seit Dezember sei Lancasters Youtube-Kanal mit seinen täglichen Berichten aus von Russland besetzten Teilen der Ukraine von 57.500 Abonnenten auf über 500.000 angewachsen. Bei seinen Videos handele es sich oft um dramatische Berichte mit grausamen Bildern von Leichen und Gewalt, für die Lancaster die Ukraine verantwortlich mache. In mindestens einem der Filme seien die gezeigten Szenen Berichten zufolge inszeniert worden. Lancaster trete häufig in russischen Staatsmedien und bei Infowars auf, einem rechtsradikalen, texanischen Radio- und Online-Kanal für Verschwörungserzählungen. Er habe ebenfalls nicht auf eine Bitte um Stellungnahme reagiert.

to:

The most popular of the pro-Kremlin influencers identified by researchers is Patrick Lancaster, a Missouri-born Navy intelligence veteran and self-described independent crowdfunded journalist embedded with the Russian army. Since December, Lancaster’s YouTube channel has grown from 57,500 subscribers to more than 500,000, with daily dispatches from Russian-occupied Ukraine. His videos are often breathless reports with graphic footage of dead bodies, violence for which Lancaster claims Ukraine is responsible. The scene in at least one video was reportedly staged. Lancaster often appears on Russian state media and on the Texas-based conspiracy theory radio show “Infowars.”

In fact, it cites NBC as a source.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, you are right, I missed that. So as a source it's probably not that useful. I think the Stern article possibly still counts towards notability - not fully sure though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The dismissive tone of the lead is supported by references to Vice Media (which has itself been found to have published photoshopped images as real) and to Zaborona.com, a Ukrainian site which tries to discredit any voice which disagrees with the official Ukrainian narrative. Neither of these sources is reliable, and material which depends on them should be removed.

The lead-in calls Lancaster "a self-described 'independent crowdfunded journalist'". He is an independent crowd-funded journalist; Wikipedia does not call other reporters "self-described journalists". The implied smear is a NPOV violation in itself.

Lancaster clearly has opinions and a point of view. So do many, perhaps most, journalists. He has made mistakes; so have most journalists. His opinion is different from the editorial positions of the New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post, the Guardian etc. That does not automatically make his reports less valuable, or Patrick Lancaster less of a journalist. It is all too easy, for those of us who live in NATO countries, to accept at face value the barrage of propaganda all around us, and imagine that everything we read in the mainstream media is unbiased and accurate. Anyone who has the slightest interest in seeing beyond official propaganda needs independent sources, of which Lancaster is one. Insulation2 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There’s nothing wrong with either source. Virtually all reliable coverage of Lancaster is hostile. The same claim is made by NBC news and can be sourced in the lede as well.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This entire article reads with a cartoonishly propagandistic tone, I suspect that it's been written by hostile editors from the start. If Wikipedians are incapable of writing a neutral article about a living person, then perhaps it's better not to have an article on that person at all rather than be used as a vehicle to libel them. I'm surprised to find a Wikipedia article about this person of relatively low notability in the first place, it's almost as if the sole purpose of this article is to throw shade on a critic of the Ukrainian government. Honest editors should ask themselves this: if the subject's politics were reversed, would they have an article at all in the first place? 47.45.218.112 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This Wikipedia Article contains false statements, fabrications, derogatory and offensive commentary, illogical innuendos, and other malicious statements about my son Patrick Lancaster. I contend it is therefore libelous and a violation of United States Civil Law. As well as Wikipedia's content violation policies and procedures Not so much if at all; do I hold Wikipedia at fault. I’m sure malevolent contributions often slip past your editor. And most people, can see the malevolence in what is written here, and take it with a grain of salt.

Patrick and I have both known about this article for years. And Patrick has long been used to these cruel and defamatory allegations. But I am Patrick’s father and I am very upset. To the point I must respond.

I am an academic with two masters' degrees in the social sciences from the University of Missouri, these illogical, derogatory and false statements infuriate me as a person who understand logical and truthful written prose.

So lets get right to it.

I’ll start with the minor libelous statements such as where Patrick being demeaned as a “vlogger, podcaster, influencer.” And they reference Patrick as a “so-called journalist.” Patrick is on sabbatical due to the war in Ukraine from a prestigious Christian University in the United States where he has Junior Standing in their Journalism Bachelor’s degree program. He is a journalist, not a “vlogger, podcaster, or influencer.” The "journalists” who have written these false, libelous, and derogatory mean accusations should be ashamed.

In Patrick’s Wikipedia biograph here, Graham Philips wrote that my son is an “illiterate, grifting charlatan, with a journalistic acumen and ability lower than a potted plant.” This is a disgraceful statement and I am shocked and dismayed that a statement of this kind could ever appear in what I consider a high-quality web site. Certainly, Wikipedia must have allowed this statement in error.

According to Phillips own Wikipedia biography; “Phillips became the only British-born citizen to date to be sanctioned by his own country.” Due to his interview with a British soldier who was caught and detained by Russia as a prisoner of war after fighting as a mercenary for Ukraine. The article states that “On 20 April, Phillips was criticized by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and by Member of Parliament Robert Jenrick in the House of Commons. Johnson accused Phillips of producing propaganda messages and Jenrick said ‘Graham Phillips is in danger of prosecution for war crimes.” YouTube since removed Phillips' interview of the British citizen and demonetized his channel.

And this guy has the temerity to slander and libel my son.

It is sad that Philips has distributed these vile comments on the World Wide Web. Patrick decided to pursue a career in journalism after working for a time with Philips in Crimea during the referendum that led to the territory voting to join Russia. Clearly Patrick and Graham had a falling out after Patrick went on his own to report in the Donbas.

The biography attempts to further damage and discredit Patrick for appearing on controversial media figure Alex Jones’ television show in the United States. This is a common logical fallacy referred to as “guilt by association.” This fallacy occurs when someone is judged by their association with a group or person, rather than their own actions or merits.

Another derogatory reference in this biography of Patrick, Jeff Fogel wrote in the Task & Purpose online publication; “Navy veteran Patrick Lancaster describes himself on Facebook as an independent crowdfunded journalist, but critics argue that he is a foot soldier in the Kremlin’s information war against Ukraine.” This is a highly offensive statement with no basis in fact. Therefore, it could be seen by the courts as a libel against my son.

And all of this pales to the horrible statement that Patrick “has been called a double agent due {...} to his videos covering the War and repeating pro-kremlin talking points. Lancaster is known for regularly filming staged scenes and attempting to pass them off as real, and has been referred to as a fake master.”

This type of rhetoric become life-threatening to individuals, particularly in the case of my Son.

Do I need to go on?

I suggest this entire biography be either deleted or cleaned up to remove the clearly false, libelous, and slanderous statement. Tim191k (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are legal terms. I've already referred to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I suggest you take legal action against the journalists that you claim are slandering and libeling your son if they really are slandering and libeling him - unless and until you do, nothing is going to change here, see WP:RS.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No where in my response do I threaten legal action. I make a factual statement by explaining what libel and slander are. Tim191k (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that:

"Wikipedia is generally safe from libel liability because it's considered a service provider, not a publisher, and is protected by Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230 protects service providers from liability for information provided by third parties.

However, Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove libelous material from its pages and page history. Wikipedia also encourages users to try to resolve issues through its internal mechanisms rather than litigation.

A process called "citogenesis" can occur when Wikipedia references false information from sources that are considered reliable. This can make the false information seem credible and increase the likelihood of it being reported in other media." Tim191k (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is generally safe from libel liability because it's considered a service provider, not a publisher, and is protected by Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230 protects service providers from liability for information provided by third parties.

However, Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove libelous material from its pages and page history. Wikipedia also encourages users to try to resolve issues through its internal mechanisms rather than litigation.

Here are some other things to consider about libel and Wikipedia:

Legal threats

Wikipedia's community policy is to not hold statements made in anger or error against someone once they've been withdrawn.

Citogenesis

A process called "citogenesis" can occur when Wikipedia references false information from sources that are considered reliable. This can make the false information seem credible and increase the likelihood of it being reported in other media. Tim191k (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose deletion or significant change, @Tim191k: is welcome to take any legal action they wish against either the sources or wikipedia itself but is reminded that threats of legal action are forbidden on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the senior editors above. Patrick's father seems to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is, as per Wikipedia policy WP:No original research, there is nothing new or original to Wikipedia in the article, everything is referenced, cited from WP:Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So, as suggested above, Patrick's father needs to raise his complaints with the journalists who have written what they have written about his son, rather than Shooting the messenger.Luganchanka (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So this comment is appropriate and not a violation of Wikipedia's content policies? Graham Philips wrote that Lancaster is an "illiterate, grifting charlatan, with a journalistic acumen and ability lower than a potted plant.”

It just doesn't seem like something a professional organization should allow. Are personal insults not based on fact or referenced per Wikipedia policy Ok?

Can I dispute the false statements myself in the body of the article with my personal opinions and insult Graham Philips??

Or go to Graham Philips page in insult him with false allegations not properly supported or referenced. If so, I would have fun doing that. This would be easier and a lot more fun actually. Tim191k (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The only real problem would be if Graham Philips didn't write that, we care if its verifiable we don't actually care if its true or not. If your opinions about Graham Philips are considered important enough to be published by reliable sources yes we could include them (even if Philips' dad didn't think they were true). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim, I am concerned at your approach to editing Wikipedia, and would like to direct you to the appropriate policy page WP:No personal attacks. Luganchanka (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What I have been complaining about is the personal attacks against my Son on his Wikipedia page.

And you suggest my edits here contains personal attacks against the editor who made personal attacks against my son?????

Are you serious?

Are the editors here required to have an sort of educational or ethical certifications?

Wow! Tim191k (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You're suggesting going and making intentional attacks against Graham Phillips on his talk page. The more relevant policy is WP:biography of living persons.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You state that if I made false intentional attacks against Graham, and that would be against WP's: Biography of Living Personas policy.

Yet you support Philips was making false intentional attacks against Patrick.

Can't you see how tautological sounds? Tim191k (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I support nothing. We are merely reporting what Graham Phillips has said. We can have a discussion about whether his statement belongs here, but coming here making accusations of slander and libel and making threats to insult Graham Phillips in revenge are unlikely to win you any sympathy here, particularly when you have an obvious conflict of interest.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That is simple not true.

What Philips wrote was libelous 100%.

And you wrote: "we don't actually care if its true or not."

But you are 100% correct.

Wikipedia doesn't profess that anything contained in its Encyclopedia is true.

So... what is the purpose then. If it doesn't require truth in its content.

I do contend however, that some of the responses to my queiries have definitely violated request from editors:

"Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers."

And this is the primary guilty party: Horse Eye's Back Tim191k (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim191k (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

In the first paragraph the subject of the article is said to be referred to as a double agent. This is undue weight to an almost certainly false claim. A double agent (as described in the linked Wikipedia page) refers to a very specific circumstance in which someone engaging in espionage deliberately transfers secret information to both sides. There is zero evidence of Lancaster engaging in espionage for anyone, let alone two parties. All that is being described is information that someone publicises being used by a party that they ostensibly oppose, this does not make them a double agent.

The cited source is a headline by an Azeri website that produces no evidence of any espionage, and mostly complains about Lancaster purportedly producing propaganda for Armenia (using mostly irrelevant facts).

I might also recommend a proper review of the sources. JSory (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I’ve moved it out of lead but it needs more careful handling in body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s back in it seems. Can you explain edits, Texpertt? “Allegations” is in the plural, but there seems to be only one, from a fringe source (see above), and there seems to be no source saying he “inadvertently exposed” stuff, which seems to be original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bob, I've made an edit to reflect that!Texpertt (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I still think this is way too fringe for the lead, per JSory BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources for the claim in the lead and there are no sources saying he has regularly exposed compromising Russian military information, including revealing identities of suspected war criminals. This is not part of the Azeri website claim either.

The extraordinary term double agent appears in that article only in its headline, and the article is written by someone who clearly struggles with English so may not even know what the words mean. Per WP:HEADLINES, we cannot use information that is only in the headlines and not in the body of a news article.

Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, extraordinary claims require exceptional sourcing which this website clearly isn’t. That’s especially true with the biography of a living person.

Per WP:ONUS, the onus on achieving consensus is on those who want to include disputed material, and that consensus has clearly not yet been achieved.

I don’t want to edit war about this and am uncomfortable reverting again something I’ve already reverted, even though this is a BLP. Therefore Texpertt you need to remove the unsourced material from the lead and get consensus here before putting it back in. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bob buddy, sorry was away from my computer for a while, back now doing what needs to be done!Texpertt (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologise for being offline; we are all volunteers here! All good. However, this edit does not solve the problem. Bellingcat does not say either that he has regularly exposed compromising Russian military information, including revealing identities of suspected war criminals, nor that anyone has accused him of being a double agent. On the first count, at best Bellingcat might be a primary source example of his reporting helping to reveal the identity of suspected war criminals on one occasion, although Bellingcat refrain from naming the perpetrator, which would make it original research. In fact, though, Bellingcat derived the identification from triangulating several different pro-Russian sources, including the Cargo 200 Telegraph account, a YouTube channel run by the Russian journalist Andrey Guselnikov, RT, RIA Novosti, Ramzan Kadyrov's Telegram channel and the YouTube channels Kadyrov 95 and Zhdanov: OSINT investigators like Bellingcat derive such identifications regularly from all Russian propaganda outlets. This is one of the reasons why the "double agent" claim is so implausible and requires a better source to even mention, let alone in the lead. I've used your Bellingcat source in the body to convey the part of it that does say something about PL, but we can't use it for this claim in the lead. So, once again, I implore you to revert yourself and to remove the extraordinary and potentially libellous claim at least from the lead. If other editors (JSory and Denaar have previously commented for example) are able to intervene on this issue that'd also be great.

Maybe I should also ask RSN about Fakt Yoxla, unless anyone else here can comment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bob, I think we're doing great work here, and I'm really enjoying working with you! Let me work on with your points!Texpertt (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this Isaidnoway. I’d previously moved this source out of the lead and into the body and used it, with attribution, for a less controversial claim (and for something that was actually in the source, unlike the double agent claim). But maybe that shouldn’t be used to all if the source is too weak – maybe take a look? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't use WP:DAILYMIRROR in this BLP, since it's only WP:MREL, and I also removed the claim about being a double agent, since it was poorly sourced with only a headline. I haven't looked real close at all the sources used in the article, but they should be looked at to see if they are RS for a BLP, and/or to see if they are being cherry-picked to include negative info about this person. I kinda get the vibe this article may only exist for that purpose, since Twitter and Reddit were improperly used as sources to make a ridiculous claim about this person.— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Texpertt can you give a quote from the Dutch sources that supports this edit? I can’t see it. At best it seems like it could be original research. (Also, these aren’t “copy edits” per your summaries; you should be more descriptive in your summaries.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again Bob, no original research at all, perhaps just a case of the sources listed by the information needing checked again, which I will work on.

From https://www.rd.nl/artikel/769297-appel-op-journalist-om-stoffelijke-resten-mh17

"The American freelancer has angered relatives by repeatedly posting images of human remains allegedly found in the disaster area. Lancaster's actions have long been a source of frustration for the foundation formed by the relatives. They believe he is disregarding the remains of their loved ones. He is also allegedly exploiting them in his campaign to exonerate the Russians of the downing of the passenger plane."

Texpertt (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This page, which contained important information, is no longer active - https://www.christenunie.nl/k/n29626/news/view/1229721/347467/schriftelijke-vragen-stieneke-van-der-graaf-e-a-over-de-verklaring-(nr-2)-van-het-bestuur-van-de-stichting-vliegramp-mh17-inzake-meldingen-en-publiciteit-over-lichamelijke-resten-op-mh17-crashsite.html

Texpertt (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Similarly this source doesn’t say anything like “Lancaster has also been accused of exploiting the MH17 tragedy for self promotion and profit” that I can see. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

you’ve deleted my comments from this talk page. Can you restore them please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Bob are you saying I've deleted your comments??Texpertt (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring them. Appreciated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I see Bellingcat used as a source multiple times in this article.

Considering the subject of this article, should we consider replacing it or adding other supporting sources where it is used?

The reasons:

• Bellingcat receives or has received funding from the highly anti-Russian National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundations and generally leans quite anti-Russia.
• Wikipedia's own view is that the source may be unreliable. ( )

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose replacing Bellingat - thanks for sharing this Anna, but I think we are going down a very dangerous road if we start striking off Bellingcat as a source, and indeed I note that most of the comments in the noticeboard discussions you have posted describe Bellingcat as either a reliable or 'generally reliable' source. There is also no definitive Wikipedia guidance stating that Bellingcat is an 'unreliable source'.Texpertt (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BELLINGCAT - There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source.

So if it is being used to make a claim about the subject of this article, then attribution should be used.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your feedback. And I'm only slightly in favor of it not being used for this topic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose removing Bellingcat. As Isaidnoway says, The community consensus, which has built over time, is that it is indeed a reliable source, per a 2019 RfC and subsequent discussions confirming that.

A small number of editors advocate attributing their comments, and I think that makes sense, especially in a BLP, for anything that isn't a straightforward factual claim. This article falls within their area of greatest expertise, so it's entirely appropriate to use them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's a "strong view". :) Good points. Now, you've moved me to about neutral on "replacing it or adding other supporting sources where it is used". Thanks for weighing in, Bob! It's appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest folks simply ignore this thread unless there are strong views. I just thought making people aware of this source during the revamping of this article is best. If it gets raised later, it could open a can of worms. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Bobfrombrockley has on multiple occasions removed the following text from the article:

"In 2024, Lancaster's videos from Russia's Kursk region in the context of the Kursk campaign showed local residents speaking positively about the Ukrainian army."

Bob's edit summary:

"Apostrophe is dead link and not archived."

This is clearly not the case, Apostrophe is a live link:

https://apostrophe.ua/en/society/prokremlevskiy-blogger-patrik-lankaster-uslyishal-pravdu-pro-vsu-ot-jiteley-kurschinyi.html

And it is also archived:

https://archive.is/j1DBJ

I am assuming WP:good faith on Bob's part, and that he is in a geographic location where the site is blocked.

Texpertt (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Every time I clicked on the link in your note in my browser it went nowhere. Clicking this now in my phone it does work fine. I’m very sorry and have no objection to this being restored and I agree the link supports that text. I’d recommend including the archive link and a quote in the footnote in case my problem was not unique to me. Apologies again and thank you for clarity here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this Bob!!!Texpertt (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Do other editors feel this content is due? It seems to me not that informative about the subject of this article. I feel its inclusion is perhaps intended to give the tendentious impression that Lancaster is deliberately undermining Russia as a “double agent” (see above). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not DUE, the story makes it clear it is about Roman Alyokhin and Vladimir Solovyov with just a very brief mention of Lancaster, what happened between Alyokhin and Solovyov is not relevant to Lancaster's biography, I removed it.— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)