Talk:Northern Independence Party

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is notable - see https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-northern-independence-party-to-stand-first-parliamentary-candidate-in-hartlepool-by-election-3168052 and https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19164754.northern-independence-party-stand-hartlepool-by-election/ and https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/politics/northern-independence-party-new-campaign-independent-north-england-explained-3019241 ---- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a Notable party that is gaining traction, so it shouldn't be deletedJudeobasquelanguage (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be deleted, it's a newer party that's gaining traction in North England, even soruces like Evolve Politics have talked about them Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

The Policies part has too much uncited POV statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.192.168 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Edits are being reverted if they mention that the party appears to have attracted a large number of people alienated from the Labour Party by the new leader's clampdown on Antisemitism, and indeed that there are serious questions to ask about the leader who has made Antisemitic statement and blocked Jewish journalists who have sought answers about these, in addition to selecting a candidate who has defended Corbyn's antisemitic behaviour and backed the "smears" narrative of denying anti-Jewish racism. Can we have a discussion about how to incorporate this important issue in a NPOV way? 90.252.117.157 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that demonstrate there is an issue of antisemitism in the party? — Czello 17:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle would seem to be a good place to start when looking for sources on the existence of anti-Jewish racism. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/northern-independence-party-leader-s-israel-zionist-posts-revealed-1.513655 90.252.117.157 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel and Zionism isn't antisemitism, though, and there is also a premis being raised that Corbyn is antisemitic without any evidence being shown.

The Jewish Chronicle is a right-wing rag and have no credibility on this subject ItsKesha (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle with regards to the British left is in serious doubt, and no accusation of anti-semitism has been levelled at the party or its members in RS. BLP would mean we must be exceptionally careful around this, I am seeking advice about whether the IP's comments should be removed per BLP. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP's comment is completely fine. Giving an opinion that Corbyn and Proudfoot's behaviour and statements (not their intrinsic character) is antisemitic is well within WP:BLP and if no-one could make comments like this then Wikipedia would be unable to stop antisemitism festering within our community. However, the JC source doesn't look particularly useful here, because (a) it's mostly about a person, not the party as a whole; and (b) it doesn't really contain any evaluative opinions or relevant facts. For example, in some contexts, using the phrase "dark money backers" can be antisemitic (if the person is implying some conspiracy of a Jewish-controlled society), but in other contexts it's simply a concern over a politician's corporate conflicts of interest. So we'd need a source indicating in whose view (the journalist's, or maybe some non-profit) what comments or actions by the party are antisemitic and for what reason in order to mention it (with attribution to the originator of that view). — Bilorv (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the comment is the individual opinion of the poster, not of the source, so it is OR whatever. Without going into detail, the remarks on dark money relate to literal dark money, money whose source was not known. The relevant section of BLPTALK is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Boynamedsue (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

But the comment is related to making content choices (we should very much be thinking about content choices in whether/how to mention antisemitism in this article) and that some people think Corbyn has made antisemitic statements can easily be sourced with most anything from Jeremy Corbyn#Allegations of antisemitism or antisemitism in the Labour Party, while the IP gave a source which they reasonably thinks indicates that Proudfoot has made an antisemitic statement. — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be discussing this until a decision is made re BLP by a competent admin, given the legal implications.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely worrying to see an editor parroting the talking points of anti-Jewish racists, down to falsely claiming that anti-Jewish racism is merely "criticism of Israel" and falsely claiming there is no evidence for Jeremy Corbyn's racism (much of it is even in his Wikipedia article, though I see the same problematic editor has been trying to remove it with the result that the page is now subject to arbitration under the category Arab-Israeli conflict (imagine how ridiculous that would sound if we hadn't lived through the last six years)).

Yes, the Jewish Chronicle has supported the political right more than the political left over the last decade. Given the way the left in the UK has comported itself with regard to Jews, that shouldn't be surprising in the slightest. Before you defame a 180 year old newspaper merely because it reflects its readership, maybe consider how you would react if someone said (for example) that criticism of anti-black racism in the Conservative party couldn't be sourced from The Voice simply because its editorial (as opposed to reporting) content reflects its readership of African Caribbean Londoners. 84.68.41.136 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You could give WP:NOTAFORUM a read, though I suspect you probably already have, given your use of the term "problematic user". There are concerns about the JC on leftwing topics as it has been found by IPSO to have published 7 or 8 stories containing false information about people on the British left in 3 years. As for the article, it does not even claim that any NIP-related individuals are antisemitic, therefore no claim of such can be included in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a forum on Antisemitism. I'm asking for a conversation about how we objectively address an emerging problem of racism in a new political party which has been judged notable. and it would be great if that conversation could be done without acting as a comment honeypot for those apparently who wish to excuse all the other anti-Jewish racism which has been endured from the UK left in the last six years. That's you two using this as a forum, not me.

Smearing one of the main reporting outlets of the community which is the victim of that racism isn't a constructive contribution to that discussion, but since you brought it up - it's interesting that detail is rarely given by those who wish to do them down. The most high profile example was that they had to apologise for claiming someone now close to Corbyn had been thrown out of the Labour Party in the 1980s, because Corbyn's Labour Party said they'd lost the paperwork from that era, so couldn't prove it was true. Utter joke.

Now, does anyone have anything on-topic and substantive to say about the fact that the leader of this notable party defends people who smear British rabbis, boasts of his ability to track down "Zionists", and blocks Jewish journalists who ask him questions? 84.68.41.136 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)