Talk:Eliot Higgins

not balanced
The 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. --  Green  C  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. -- Green  C  04:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic Council over-weight
There 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. - Green  C  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)