Talk:Jackie Walker (activist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Anti-semitism allegations

Given that Ms Walker is now best known for the allegations against her, I suggest they appear in the lead. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The subject certainly dominates the page. It is there implicitly in her one woman show; I have made it explicit. Jontel (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Under "Labour Party" it seems to me to be misleading to state that Jackie Walker has been a member of the Labour Party since 1981 in a short paragraph and then to immediately then expand upon the allegations made against her in 2016, and her recent expulsion from the Labour Party, at some length under the same heading. Most of the details of her thirty five years of Labour Party activism are missing from this section.

I think it would also be useful to expand upon the final sentence outlining Jackie Walker's expulsion from the Labour Party. I quote here this piece from the "Labour Against the Witch Hunt" website http://www.labouragainstthewitchhunt.org/tag/jackie-walker/  :

"Jackie walked out on the first day of her hearing, because the panel did not allow her to read out a brief statement. This ruling once again emphasised the lack of fairness at the heart of the party’s disciplinary procedures: for example, the investigating officers added five new charges to their allegations a mere three working days before the hearing began, giving her no time to effectively challenge them and defend herself." John2o2o2o (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely belongs in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

≤== Ethnicity in lede == MOS:ETHNICITY is quite clear on us not specifying this in the lede. A prior RfC concluded we can say she is Jewish - it did not state we should state in the first sentence of the lede that Walker "is a British black Jewish political activist and writer." - diff. Doing so runs in the face of MOS. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In this edit User:RevertBob seems to be saying an RFC was taken to overrule MOS:ETHNICITY. RevertBob, are you referring to the RFC above? I don't see it referring to the lede at all, but rather it appears to be a discussion of whether the article can indicate that Walker is Jewish (which would normally be done in the article body, not in the lede). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The point of contention of the RfC was over whether it should be included in the lead as it was already in the body of the article. MOS:ETHNICITY states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." There are plenty of sources which was presented during the RfC supporting this. RevertBob (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The initial RFC question (and section title) didn't mention it was in the lede, but the link was to an edit in the lede. Most of the comments do not address whether or not it should go in the lede either (including yours), but merely whether or not the article can state Walker is Jewish. It doesn't seem that most of the people answering the RFC were addressing that specific point. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of the most widely used sources in Wikipedia which support this being relevant to Walker's notability: BBC "Ms Walker, who is Jewish herself,"[1]) and "Jackie Walker, who is Jewish" [2]), The Guardian "Walker, who along with her partner is Jewish,"[3]), The Telegraph "Ms Walker, who is Jewish"[4]), Jewish News, a British Jewish newspaper "Walker, who is Jewish,"[5]), and the Tablet, an American Jewish magazine "Walker herself is Jewish"[6]) or the Forward, another American jewish magazine "Jackie Walker, an activist who defines as being both black and Jewish"[7]). RevertBob (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

CHERRYPICKING. Most aources do not mention this at all. It does not belong in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

STRAWMAN to suggest BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph and Times of Israel is cherrypicking. RevertBob (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Her Jewishness seemes to be related to her notability in that her references to Jewish involvement in the slave trade and the level of security for Jewish schools were based upeon her interest/ knowledge as a Jew. Moreover, it seems that anti-Zionist Jews are more notable i.e. get more coverage than anti-Zionist non-Jews e.g. Peled, Mayer, Greenstein, Eisen, Atzmon, JVL are all Jewish. Jontel (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is she notable because she's Jewish? It appears from the article that's she's notable because of her involvement in the Labour Party, and subsequent expulsion. Neither of those depended on her being Jewish, nor do they seem particularly related to her being Jewish. Or to put it another way, did her involvement in the Labour Party, and eventual expulsion, come about because she was Jewish? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out by Jontel, it's relevant to her notability which is supported by RS. RevertBob (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Jontel did make some assertions about it, but nothing particularly backed up by sources; please remember that the issue is not whether the individual is notable, or whether their article should mention their ethnicity, but rather whether their ethnicity is "relevant to the subject's notability". Other active Labour members who have been suspended/expelled under somewhat comparable circumstances include Ken Livingstone and Derek Hatton; I see nothing about their ethnicity in the ledes of their articles. And I think we would all agree that Walker would have a Wikipedia article regardless of her ethnicity. Is the view here, then, that ethnicity belongs in the lede if the person in question is a Jew, but not otherwise? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources I've cited above. It's not a case of whether Walker would have a Wikipedia article regardless of her ethnicity (this would likely apply to every Wikipedia article) it's whether it's "relevant to the subject's notability". As I said Jontel has pointed out her relevance from the body of the article above. As for Livingstone and Derek Hatton sources haven't made mention of their ethnicity when discussing their expulsion suspension. RevertBob (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither Ken Livingstone nor Derek Hatton has been expelled from the Labour Party. Livingstone resigned from the party before his hearing, in order not to further fight and damage the party. Hatton has been suspended, but has not yet had a hearing. RolandR (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources you brought definitely state she is Jewish, but that's not enough when trying to decide if it's "relevant to her notability". She's not Elie Wiesel, who was sent to concentration camps because he was a Jew, and wrote about it extensively; in his article it makes sense to describe him that way. On the other hand, if we look at Bernie Sanders, we see nothing about ethnicity in the lede, despite the fact that I can find dozens of reliable sources that state he is Jewish[8][9][10], even in headlines.[11][12][13] As for "haven't made mention of their ethnicity when discussing their expulsion", this isn't an article about the expulsion, it's an article about Walker. The expulsion is one small part of her life and accomplishments. You'll have to find something more convincing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST argument is weak. The suspension and subsequent expulsion takes up a large part of the article which is relevent to the subject's notability. RevertBob (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this isn't an "OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST" argument. Being black is "relevant to her notability" for Walker, but not for Martin Luther King Jr. or Rosa Parks? Walker's Jewishness is on a par of notability with Elie Wiesel and Anne Frank, above pretty much everyone else in the world except various first and second century rabbis? You are arguing for an exemption to MOS:ETHNICITY, so you have to make a very strong case; even stronger, because you want it in the very first sentence. All you have done so far is show that it is relevant to the article, not to the lede. Please justify this exemption you are claiming. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the case for including mentioning Walker's ethnicity for the light it throws on other material in the Lead. Walker's ethnicity has effected what she has done and what has happened to her. In that way, she's similar to Luciana Berger and Diane Abbott. Malcolm Gladwell would be an example where it would be hard to detect any significance of ethnicity to his career. MOS:ETHNICITY (Manual of Style/Biography:Context) doesn't lay down hard and fast rules and does say that commonsense should be applied. The argument that the Style Guide "is quite clear" about not specifying ethnicity in the Lead overstates the case.     ←   ZScarpia   22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see these examples as comparable. Abbott was the UK's first black MP; one could argue that that is a significant milestone worth noting in the lede. Berger's bio shouldn't mention the "Jewish" thing at all, per MOS:ETHNICITY; perhaps unsurprisingly, that was only added to the lead a couple of months ago, no doubt because of issues I'll discuss in the next paragraph. Perhaps I'm a bit of a hardliner when it comes to this sort of thing, but ethnicity really should only be in the lede when it's a significant part of the notability of the person in question. So Elie Wiesel? Yes. Simon Wiesenthal? Ditto. Maimonides? Check. Anne Frank? Of course. Luciana Berger? Her being Jewish is not at all why she is notable. As for including "black", as I've pointed out, even the ledes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks do not start with "X was a black American activist etc."

Look, I get that there is some sort of kerfuffle going on in the British Labour Party about antisemitism, and that supporters of the party are eager to downplay/dissociate the party and its members from any negative material related to that (and other editors are eager to highlight the negative material). And I admit, I don't really care much about the topic, so I don't have any strong feelings about the accusation. However, I do have a distaste for violations of MOS:ETHNICITY, and for people slapping the label "Jewish" in the lede of any article on a Jew (or in front of their names); I've been fighting this for over ten years on Wikipedia. We don't accept it when it is used as triple parentheses or a yellow badge, and I don't think it should be accepted for other reasons, even if the person adding the label intends to say something positive (or exculpatory) about the individual in question. Can the editors here restrict this political infighting to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article, and leave MOS:ETHNICITY violations out of this WP:BLP? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead mentions Walker being an anti-racism trainer and the allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, her ethnicity makes mention of both those topics relevant. ETHNICITY isn't a rule to exclude content but rather provides guidance about what can be included. Walker's ethnicity enhances content in the lead which is relevant to why she is notable. RevertBob (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This revolves around different ways of interpreting the phrase "relevant to the subject's notability" in what is, after all, a guideline, not a policy, those arguing in favour of inclusion saying that, here, it is. "Violation" is a strong word. Obviously, those supporting inclusion don't see it that way. Hopefully, you don't believe that those supporting inclusion have motivations akin to yellow-badging or triple-parenthesising. Perhaps in this case the reasons why attempts are being made to delete mention of ethnicity are as important as those for attempting to do the opposite. If you read back through the talkpage archive and the edit summaries, I think that you'd come to the conclusion that it's not really about enforcing a guideline. As to whether this is about antisemitism or not, there are obviously different opinions on that.[14]     ←   ZScarpia   20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Zscarpia, as I said, I don't care about this whole "antisemitism" kerfuffle, and I certainly have no interest in outside materials pro or con on the subject. UK's Labour party holds no interest for me; in fact, I can barely keep my eyes open for the far too frequent mentions of "Brexit" in the news. UK politics just aren't my thing. What I do care about are the various editors who have decided to bring that fight to the lede of this article, attempting to do an end-run around MOS:ETHNICITY as part of a proxy battle in some other article. Walker may be the most authentically Jewish Jew in the entire history of the United Kingdom, but that doesn't mean she should be described as a "British black Jewish politician" in the first sentence of this article. Anyone who didn't have a dog in some other article fight would be embarrassed at reading that ridiculous opening sentence, much less putting it in the article, and then defending it. No, I don't think the motivation for doing this is yellow-badging or triple-parenthesising, but the effect is the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't care about this whole antisemitism, Labour Party or British politics then I think you might be in the wrong place. I suggest that you AGF and don't accuse editors of a proxy battle without evidence. You're right because she's described as a British black Jewish political activist and writer in the lead. RevertBob (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's break this down, espcially for those who are less involved. 1. She is only notable (has an article) due to her suspension/ expulsion from the UK Labour Party for misconduct related to alleged antisemitism, and her response to that. She was not an elected politican and had not achieved any prominence except as an unpaid party activist. She had little or no media coverage before her suspension. By comparison, Derek Hatton and Ken Livingstone were universally known and polarising elected politicians in their day. 2. Her ethnicity as a Jew is significant to her assertion that she is not antisemitic, which allegation is the cause of her notability, both because it is unusual, though not unknown, to attack one's own race, and because her ethnicity justifies her interest in/ engagement with Jewish issues. 3. Also, the level of hostile coverage she has received e.g. 135 mentions in the Jewish Chronicle, as part of its campaign against the left, is likely partly related to her (disputed) ethnicity, in that some Jewish nationalists dislike both Jews who are pro-Palestinian and Jews who do not meet their criteria for Jewishness, though the impact of this on the level of coverage is hard to prove. In comparison, Marc Wadsworth had 36 mentions. 5. So, I think this is an exceptional case where inclusion of ethnicity in the lead can be justified. I can see where User:jayjg is coming from in terms of first impressions and perhaps the lead should be rewritten so that the rationale for inclusion of ethnicity is explicit e.g. Jacqueline Walker (born 10 April 1954) is a British black Jewish political activist and writer who, following allegations of antisemitism, was expelled from the Labour Party for misconduct. She has been an anti-racism trainer and charity worker and is the author of her family memoir, Pilgrim State, and co-author and performer of the one-woman show, The Lynching, about her experience. As a Labour Party member, she held the roles of Vice-Chair of South Thanet Constituency Labour Party and Vice-Chair of Momentum. Jontel (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Walker was a notable activist (and author) well prior to the antisemitism allegations (or declared Jewish identity). Her role in Momentum (that got Corbyn elected) was significant.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, there were a few reviews of her single book reminiscing about her mum and some mentions of her role in the newly formed Momentum; however, I doubt that either would have prompted a Wikipedia page and, indeed, they did not. Even if they had, I guess that 99% of coverage now relates to the antisemitism allegations. Jontel (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jontel, for giving a reasoned response. I don't necessarily agree with all of your points, and again, not knowing (or caring) about British politics, I can't really speak to some of them (e.g. point 3). However, even if one were to agree that the lede should in some way refer to Walker being Jewish and black, can you see how awkward and inappropriate the first sentence is? To use Zscarpia's example Luciana Berger, regardless of whether or not you agree the mention of Berger's being Jewish should be in the lede, surely you can agree that it would be poor writing at best to start the article with "Luciana Berger is a British Jewish politician...". It might be appropriate to bring up her Jewishness in a more natural way in the lede: see, for example, her article, or Joe Lieberman, where the relevance of mentioning he is Jewish comes in naturally in the second paragraph of the lede. The way it's done here is bad writing that slaps the reader in the face, and reeks of an agenda. Can this not be fixed? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, How about this, which briefly references her ethnicity and includes the allegations.

Jacqueline Walker (born 10 April 1954) is a British political activist and writer. She has been a teacher and anti-racism trainer. She is the author of a family memoir, Pilgrim State, and the co-writer and performer of a one-woman show, The Lynching, about her black and Jewish identity, her experience of racism on settling in the UK and the allegations she faced of antisemitism as a Labour Party activist. She held the roles of Vice-Chair of South Thanet Constituency Labour Party and Vice-Chair of Momentum before being suspended and ultimately expelled from the party for misconduct, following the allegations.

Jontel (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That is vastly better! It reads well. I support that lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding: the final "allegations" should probably be changed to "accusations", referring back to the use of the term in the previous sentence. Or both terms can be "allegations", just so they're synchronized. Otherwise I think it's a bit confusing. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've changed that. I'll change the article in a few days, or I'm happy for you to, subject to objections or alternatives from other editors. I'm not sure what procedures apply, exactly. Jontel (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not wait a couple days for other opinions, then go ahead, assuming no serious objections (I can't see why anyone would object, it's a huge improvement)? There's no specific "procedure" required other than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a huge improvement over the current state (we do not define people by religion on wiki - Walker is defined by what she accomplished - not skin color nor religion). I do not think one's religion (Jewish, Christian, etc.) is relevant to antisemitism accusations - so I do not quite endorse the version above, but it is an improvement.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg, although having a different viewpoint, I could appreciate the reasons why you held yours and that others would share it. I don't really want to inflict the current version on you if you have strong feelings against it, so am pleased that an alternative which you can accept has been proposed.

Addressing other points in your comment of 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC), I'm not sure whether it was meant seriously, but I think the concept of an authentically Jewish Jew is a bit bizarre, particularly as a standard for mentioning ethnicity on Wikipedia. What I was trying to base a judgement on was the effect that ethnicity had on the course of Walker's life and whether mentioning it affected the way that other material in the Lead would be understood.

The effect of mentioning Walker's ethnicity may have crudely the same effect as yellow-badging or triple-parenthesising in that the 'what' is similar, the highlighting of someone's ethnicity, but the 'who' and the 'why' are very different. The purpose of yellow-badging and triple-parenthesising are to exclude or excommunicate. Removing mention of ethnicity may also do that, a likely intention behind this edit.

Sadly, I would count as one of the ARBPIA 'usual suspects' and do have a strongish interest in the articles related to the current Labour Party antisemitism controversy, though I'm a bit bemused at the suggestion that I might be indulging in a proxy for a battle being waged in some other article.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Zscarpia, I support MOS:ETHNICITY; that means I think ethnicity should almost never be noted in an article lede, whether it is to exclude, excommunicate, exculpate, or exonerate (it appears to have been added to or deleted from this article's lede for all of those reasons). To be honest, I don't think the 'who' or the 'why' really matters much, it's the effect on the article that we care about. And if ethnicity is such an important component of an individual's identity and notability that it belongs in the lede, it almost never belongs in the first sentence. I again encourage you to compare this lede to that of Martin Luther King Jr., which somehow does not feel the need to identify King's ethnicity, despite it being so central to his identity and notability.

As for the "proxy" issue, if you look at the editing statistics for Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, or peruse the article's history, it becomes obvious that this (Jackie Walker) article is serving as a proxy for battles at that (Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party) one. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Film: "Witchhunt"

An Electronic Intifada article containing "Witchunt" as an embedded video (and featuring an appearance by Roland): [15].     ←   ZScarpia   13:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Responsibility of Intellectuals, Reflections by Noam Chomsky and Others After 50 Years" (2019, UCL Press) - Nicholas Allott, Chris Knight, Neil Smith (eds)

[See The Canary] In 1967, Noam Chomsky wrote an essay. "The Responsibility of Intellectuals", which helped to launch the US movement against the Vietnam War. Fifty years later, in 2017, a conference took place in which a group of academics which included Jackie Walker reviewed the essay. The conference led to a book which has just been published by UCL Press in which Walker contributed a chapter. The book may be downloaded free from the UCL here.     ←   ZScarpia   23:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaked report: section 3383.3.5. Jackie Walker.

Section 3383.3.5. of the recently leaked Labour Party report, "The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019", discusses Jackie Walker's disciplinary case. Interventions by Marcus Dysch and Dave Rich (tweets here) are mentioned, the latter being described in detail (and uncritically). Ian McNicol seems to have pushed for suspension. Signed witness statements were taken from Ella Rose and Mike Katz of the JLM. Also see the section '3.3.1. Summary'.     ←   ZScarpia   02:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, senior members of partly lobbying organizations that are highly hostile to Walker's pro-Palestinian views. Also, associating Walker's informal and private social media comment with the thesis of an entire book seems a huge stretch. Jontel (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)