User talk:Jontel/Archives/2019/September

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Antisemitism in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Socialist Movement

Board of Deputies of British Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal Judaism

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McCann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

BLPs, Jews, anti-semitism

From your editing history you seem very focussed on Jews, Jewishness and antisemitism in biographical articles. As I'm sure you are aware, Wikipedia has a particular policy (WP:BLP) which require that particular care is taken when editing about people. With this in mind I have concerns about some recent edits:

1. In this edit[1] you attribute a view to Stephen Pollard based on his own column, yet from the source it is clear he is discussing the campaign of Anders Fogh Rasmussen rather than his own views.
2. In this edit on the same day[2] you removed content from Melanie Phillips article with the edit summary saying it lacked an independent source. Yet the material you added to Stephen Pollard's article was not independently sourced. This seems puzzlingly inconsistent.

I am raising this here prior to possibly taking it to WP:AIN in case I have misunderstood something. Have I? Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn I think that Pollard's own views on policy issues, as a longstanding, senior and active commentator, is of public interest, just as Phillips are. This comes from a reliable source and is clearly his work. On the charge of misrepresentation, I accept that Pollard's article describes the Danish Liberal Party's policy. However, the article sets out the case for the policy at length, including how it addresses issues in the UK, and I regard the whole thrust of the article as an endorsement of the policy, both for Denmark and for the UK. For example, Pollard says "Mr Rasmussen ... realised that nothing makes more sense, intellectually and politically, than to tackle the argument head on." and "A Rasmussen-style policy ... squares the circle of allowing the gains which immigrants can bring to a country, whilst at the same time taking the ground from under the feet of the racist right." If I said "He has endorsed the policy suggestion that immigrants, excluding "genuine political refugees", be denied access to state benefits, except for schools and emergency heath care, for the first seven years.", would that be satisfactory? If you do not accept that that is what he is doing in this article, I disagree with you but will accept the omission.

On my differing treatment, I draw a distinction between what I assert is Pollard's view on policy and Phillips' accusations. On the first, a secondary source is hardly needed to evidence what he said in his own column in a reliable source. It does not reflect on anyone else or requires facts to be asserted. In the Phillips case, she is making serious accusations against individuals and institution, with the desire that someone be dismissed. The complainants on which she relies are anonymous. Based on WP:BLP, I would have thought that Phillips view, published in her own column, is an insufficient basis for this accusation, damaging to the private individuals concerned, to be included in Wikipedia. She is a campaigner: she has been criticised for bias and has lost defamation cases. Do you really think that her unsupported accusation should be left in? If you do, should I add an independent source for the story?

I am trying to improve these articles.Jontel (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

We really can't put stuff about people's views based on a mere interpetation of what they might be. But as to his view being "of public interest" – that leads on to another recent edit[3] that has me puzzled. Rupa Huq was quoted as saying "I am an MP who is a resolute remainer [...] I will continue to fight for the UK to stay in the EU and vote accordingly", and this was sourced to an independent secondary source,[4] yet you removed it so that the article makes no mention of her committed "remain" stance any more. Do you have any WP:COI for this topic space? Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As indicated in my edit summary, the intention of the edit was to reduce a repetitive and extended section on the Green Party decision not to stand against her. Her quote seemed to me to be, in effect, self-promotional. Her remain stance played no part in my edit decision. Somewhat contrary to your assertion, text in the the separate Brexit section strongly implies her remain stance. Moreover, her position on Brexit via the many parliamentary votes is a matter of public record and anyone can easily add them to the article if so minded: it is not something I could conceal even if I wished to, and I have no reason to - she certainly does not seek to conceal her stance in her remain constituency. I have put the Brexit quote back, in the Brexit section, for your peace of mind. The "topic space" of Labour MP Huq's views on Brexit and editor Pollard's views on immigration seems rather broad and undefined but, no, I do not have any WP:COI. I have three questions for you. 1) Do you want me to reinstate the Phillips accusation? 2) Can I in turn ask what is the reason for your uncharacteristic, relative to your other edits, interest in Stephen Pollard? 3) No-one has threatened me with WP:AIN, which is for 'discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems', regarding any of my other 8,000+ edits and you did so before we had even discussed my one sentence addition about a policy Pollard is at the very least sympathetic to. Are you being particularly aggressive on this occasion and, if so, why? Jontel (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) I don't intend to get involved in the Phillips article content; (2) I have no relevant COI; (3 & 4) It is recommended (as well as common courtesy) to discuss potential problems with editors directly before making a noticeboard posting. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)