Talk:Ruth Smeeth

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2016

It's extremely important to contextualise the latest paragraph about her accusing Corbyn & his supporters of antisemitism - she did so in the immediate aftermath of the results of the Chakrabarti inquiry coming in, which found unambiguously that THE LABOUR PARTY IS NOT OVERRUN WITH ANTISEMITISM. Her accusation of continued antisemitism came on the same day as an independent report found there to be no antisemitism issue within the party. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36672022

86.176.108.171 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Declined. The article already discusses this topic in the context of the report. Also, although the report does say Labour is not overrun with antisemitism, it goes on to suggest the party has an "occasionally toxic atmosphere" and "too much clear evidence [of] ignorant attitudes", both of which would seem to be evident in this particular case. This is Paul (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinking/explaining 'culturally Jewish'

Not sure how this question might be received but I added http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/136201/newest-jewish-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-victory-was-bittersweet which says Smeeth identifies as 'culturally Jewish', and Googling this phrase doesn't seem to readily bring up clear reliable sources or definitions. Wikipedia itself seems to have a confusing mix of pages: Cultural Judaism (so Judaism not Jewish), Jewish secularism (separate from religion), Jewish atheism (not believing in deities). Jewish identity references Jewish culture. Who is a Jew? Talks about "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism". But I had the impression that's kinda what culturally Jewish means in the UK maybe? E.g. per http://www.thejc.com/business/business-features/robert-peston-the-bbc-reporter-who-means-business Eversync (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

US embassy cable

I removed this passage, ultimately drawn from a Wikileaks release, because it is trivial:

"The Daily Telegraph reported in February 2011 that Smeeth had been named in a 2009 US embassy communiqué as a source to "strictly protect", having reportedly divulged details of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's intentions around calling an election in late 2009.

On its own, it is also misleading. From The Daily Telegraph source:

"Ms Smeeth said she thought the comments could have been made at a breakfast meeting she attended with a friend who worked at the US embassy. She said: 'I was hugely surprised to see my name in that [the cable]. I have no recollection of saying what has been attributed to me. I would not consider myself to be a source for the US government'."

It is really nothing more than gossip, although it might be found insinuating if one wanted to see it that way.

Philip Cross (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to include both the fact and her explanation? The article is not overly long, what's the policy basis for deletion? Eversync (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Telegraph still looks like the only usable source for the cable and the "strictly protect" tag. In other words, it was not taken up by the media as being significant or notable. There are no reasons to clutter up any article with half-forgotten incidents no matter how short an article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Phillip you have some previous on Wikipedia. From your rather strong political point of view, a UK MP being an informant to another country is 'trival'. It is obvious to any normal person (assuming here that you are one person) that it is not trivial. Imagine for example that the other country had been Russia. I think you would suddenly find it the opposite of trival. By the way the source I have provided is the best possible type of source, never mind the 'Telegraph', it is the original US embassy cable. 88.106.133.142 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough for now, I added Smeeth's denial which should have been included. Philip Cross (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Telegraph remains the main source for this incident. The passage might come under the undue weight guidelines as being of disproportionate length given the limited reliable sources which are available. [added by Philip Cross (talk as above] 07:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the paragraph as it does indeed seem of undue length. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Since it has been readded; importance is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not whether something feels important, or is "obviously" important. I could support maybe a short sentence somewhere in the career section, but the current version is way way too much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

disagree wikipedia is more than just a collection of MSM stories, or stories the MSM is interested in. A lot of wikipedia science articles would be removed to 'save space' if that was the case. Anyway this has been discussed in MSM see the Telegraph link, I'm sure I can find others.88.106.133.142 (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunno why you're quoting "save space", when I have never said that nor has anyone else that I can see. We are, indeed, per our policies, based on mainstream reliable sources, including mainstream news media but not fringe sources. Merely being discussed does not mean it meets WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, or atleast to have so many sentences and the full quote of the cable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I added:

The Daily Telegraph reported in February 2011 that Smeeth had been named in a 2009 US embassy communiqué as a source to "strictly protect", having reportedly divulged details of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's intentions around calling an election in late 2009.

This was then removed with the edit line "really not clear what -- if any -- significance this had in Smeeth's career. Without such mention in a reliable independent source, seems undue." As the source stated "Ms Smeeth said she thought the comments could have been made at a breakfast meeting she attended with a friend who worked at the US embassy." ...it seems unquestionable that it the story was true. And The Daily Telegraph was WP:RS last time I checked. And proven significance in their career has never been a requirement for inclusion, anywhere, on en.wp, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have been going round in circles for nearly three years now? Why are you surprised at the reversion of re-added material almost exactly identical to what was questioned above on the grounds of being WP:UNDUE? Misleading at worst, certainly confusing for the reader, the way it's phrased. MPS1992 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the editor who seem to be fighting to keep all mention of it out, is Philip Cross, and he has been topic banned from the area of "British politics". And if you thought that the phrasing was wrong: why not suggest an alternative phrasing? Huldra (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

He's been topic banned? So it's time to re-add any edits that he disagreed with? I'm not sure that's very creditable. Why didn't I suggest an alternative phrasing -- well, because I believe the whole thing is undue. I might have mentioned that already. MPS1992 (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It does mean that your "going round in circles" is no longer quite accurate. And your edit−line for removing this ("really not clear what -- if any -- significance this had in Smeeth's career. Without such mention in a reliable independent source, seems undue") ...is not based on any wp policy, AFAIK. That is just your POV. And you say it is "Misleading at worst, certainly confusing for the reader, the way it's phrased"...without pointing out what you think is "misleading" or "confusing"; ie, you could remove anything with the same "justification". So yeah: I am asking: What exactly was confusing/misleading? Huldra (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MPS1992 that it seems too trivial to include in this article as per WP:UNDUE. See the first comment in this section for an explanation as to why it is misleading. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitic abuse

An editor has added a subheading 'antisemitic abuse' over the Wadsworth incident, perhaps coincidentally after comments on the Marc Wadsworth article about how this is apparently an accusation not a proven fact. The content of that subsection fails to reveal to readers the specific incident involving Kate McCann that Wadsworth was referring to. It quotes Lansman's negative judgment of Wadsworth's 'attack' but the source doesn't clarify whether that was on the basis of it being antisemitic (though the article is on that topic and notes Lansmann describes himself as an 'atheist jew'). WP:BLP states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" Eversync (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We have Wadsworth claim in the passage ("'hand-in-hand' with the right-wing media at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report into allegations of antisemitism"). This is his claim which does not seem to have been taken up elsewhere. Unless you can find a source sustaining this interpretation. I do not think there is anything to add, and there is no reason to mention the journalist Kate McCann. Philip Cross (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The Antisemitic abuse section is entirely what it says, either abusive behaviour towards Ruth Smeeth or anti-Jewish actions by people connected with the Labour Party. As such incidents have largely either been confirmed or assumed to be true the word "alleged" does not need to be added to the heading. The editor responsible was quite right in adding the sub-section heading. Your objection ("the source doesn't clarify whether that was on the basis of it being antisemitic") is hardly valid as this article does not make additional assumptions about what Jon Lansman might have thought. Reference to Lansman being Jewish and an atheist are not included here or in the Marc Wadsworth article as it is irrelevant, so I do not understand why you raise these facts, but it is properly cited in Lansman's own article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"The Antisemitic abuse section is entirely what it says, either abusive behaviour towards Ruth Smeeth or...." You appear to be saying that any type of behaviour described as abusive, if it is directed at someone who (or two people apparently one of whom) is Jewish, is by definition 'antisemitic abuse'. I assume in good faith that is genuinely your understanding of the term? Eversync (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic abuse is the main theme of the section. Above, I simply did think it needed mentioning that Ruth Smeeth is Jewish. For some reason, you are desperately clutching at straws to try and gain consent for the removal of the heading. Philip Cross (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not at all clear, nor definitively asserted across sources, that the Wadsworth incident constituted antisemitic abuse. The second and third paras, OK, but that incident should not be under such an explicit heading, and having it there is a clear BLP issue re Wadsworth. WP should not be a venue for pushing and attempting to validate contentious accusations. And there is indeed a rather obvious logical disconnect in the quoted comment defending its inclusion under that heading, as queried just above. N-HH talk/edits 22:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is 'Accusations and abuse' acceptable? Since the police have taken the case seriously I do not think we need to add 'alleged' before abuse. Philip Cross (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The current wording of this incident seems rather biased against Smeeth, to say the least. TrottieTrue (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the issue of the article omitting that Wadsworth was referring to a specific incident of McCann handing over a leaflet, I couldn't follow the response about an 'interpretation'. The point is simply to include the facts. Further, the article quotes Smeeth appearing to quote Wadsworth as saying 'media conspiracy', but he never did, so what was Smeeth quoting? (I gather the traditional antisemitic slur has been of Jews actually controlling/owning the media). On a related note, the article quotes a tabloid claiming Wadsworth didn't apologise, but he did:[1] First line of clip: "I'm sorry if Ruth felt any offense" (but clarifies that although she told him her name MP, he didn't know about her). Eversync (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Peerage

Please update the details in german artcile. 79.238.83.116 (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)