Talk:David Miller (sociologist)

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media

Should this also cover his involvement with the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, which Amnesty & others have criticised as a channel for pro-Assad and pro-Russian disinformation re Syria? Huff Post Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dingley: Absolutely it should. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

use of sources for the "open letter"

The policy on this point is clear: we should prefer secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue?

"Miller has attended and spoken at multiple events headed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission,[26] which organised the annual Quds Day march in London. Prior to 2015, some of these marches featured flags of the Lebanese political party and militant group Hezbollah,[27] which was added to the UK's list of terror groups in February 2019.[28]

Attended events of IHRC (who organized marches, did Miller attend?). At some marches before 2015, sometimes a Hezbollah flag was displayed. What is this, long distance guilt by association? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s the “long bow” school of Wikipediaism. It is also synthesis as the second sentence is sourced to articles which don’t mention Miller. The first sentence is not well sourced as it is a list of articles on the Islamic HumanRights Commission website that mention the term “David Miller”. It would be appropriate to mention Miller’s support or connection to the IHRC if we could find proper references. Burrobert (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it for now. Miller was present at the launch of the IHRC report into Islamophobia in 2015 (so was Peter Oborne) and he was a keynote speaker at a IHRC conference in 2016, along with dozens of others, including Yvonne Ridley. I'll have a look for further coverage of any association he may have/have had with IHRC, if it's notable it'll be there. As for the Quds march, unless he organised it what's the relevance? None. :) --DSQ (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've found a list on Millers' website Lectures, Papers And Talksand the only other ref I can find to the IHRC is a seminar he attended in 2007. I've been unable to find any other coverage which mentions his keynote appearance or his attendance at the Islamophobia report launch. I've also added an undue weight tag to the article - the majority of this BLP covers a three week period of his life and, whilst the events are notable, the coverage is far too detailed imo. --DSQ (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal of the sentence "Miller has attended and spoken at multiple events headed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission" until we can find a suitable source. You are also correct about the coverage of that short period being undue because of its "depth of detail" and "quantity of text". We can either trim that section or try to expand the rest of the bio. Burrobert (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Burrobert. I'm still looking for sources that cover Millers' ties with IHRC but so far I've come up with his own website, the IHRC website, and their YouTube channel - nothing else. I guess we could use those sources to support a brief mention? Having said that, he's spoken at dozens of events over the years around radicalisation, terrorism, Islamophobia, lobbying, media spin, etc - so I'm pondering why the IHRC was singled out for mention. Odd. :) With regards to the undue coverage of recent events, I was thinking we could trim it down a bit, I personally think there's an overuse of both quotes and detail and the entire section could certainly be more succinct. I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to chime in before I do a "bold" on it. --DSQ (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated agreement with DSQ & Burrobert for removing the IHRC stuff which involves synthesis and reliance on primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I could support some trimming -- especially of statements by individuals (as against group efforts). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree there might be excessive opinions of individuals, e.g. Kamm, York, Bouattia, "Media Guido", unless secondary sources refer to these. (York reporting is RS for fact, but his opinion is not really due.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd remove the "Syrian Civil War" section completely. His links to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media can be adequately covered in the "Career Section" and the opinions of Kamm and York should be in the article about the group - not in a BLP. If readers want to know more about the group, they can click on the wikilink and go there. :) I'd trim the second paragraph in the "Statements and activities" section slightly and remove the third paragraph in its entirety. I'm sure Finkelstein, Young & Guido Fawkes will offer further musings if/when the case actually goes anywhere. The opinion of his peers and colleagues is relevant, random journalists not so much. I'm not too sure about the final paragraph - the letter was signed by less than one-tenth of MP's and Peers. As for expanding on his career, there's lots of info that might be useful, but it'll take me some time to collate it and look for sources to back it up. If we trim down the sections as I've suggested and expand the career section, it'll appear more balanced and more like an actual BLP. Let me know what you think. --DSQ (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Syrian stuff is one of main grounds for his noteworthiness, but might not require own section. However, not sure it's relevant to his academic career as it is activism that spills past border of his area of expertise. "Statements and activities" is an odd title. Agree second para could be shorter. Third (& 4th/5th) para also probably trimmable. Secondary source debate (start of 3rd para) may be due. View of individual local MP (para.3) and of APPG (para.6) view seems noteworthy as reported in independent secondary RSs (respnse may not be - see WP:MANDY), but APPG para might include overlong verbatim quotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We should remove anything expect basic information that is not sourced to reliable secondary sources and anything whose source doesn't mention Miller. TFD (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to pick this up after a delay. I agree that this is a very odd page, and also with lots of the specifics here. So that would mean deleting a) the third and fifth paragraphs in full (the Bouattia opinion piece not being a RS); b) presumably anything from the Electronic Intifada (as per [1] (I gather from this TheJC is considered legit? [2]; c) presumably the block quote from the "Support David Miller" campaign which has been hyperlinked in (6th paragraph). What proportion of the block quotes in the 4th paragraph should stay? Finally, what is the view on the value of the Bristol Uni paper, The Tab, as a source of factual information? Thanks for the constructive work on what is definitely a delicate topic Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not having heard much here, I had a go at bringing the page back into line. What do people think? Obviously very happy to discuss further and make consensus-driven amendments, emendations, or other alterations etc. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, here are the items which have been removed in the recent edit:

• In February 2021, Miller was reported as saying at an online campaign event: "It’s a question of how we defeat the ideology of Zionism in practice. How do we make sure Zionism is ended essentially. There’s no other way of saying that. It’s not enough to say Zionism is racism, Israel is a settler colonial society… The aim of this is not only to say things but to end settler colonialism in Palestine, to end Zionism as a functioning ideology of the world."
• He has said that his university's Jewish Society has mounted a campaign of censorship that made some students feel unsafe. Miller discussed recent attacks on him and others in an op-ed in The Electronic Intifada: "The Israel lobby's attack on me lays bare what is actually going on – a weaponization of bogus anti-Semitism claims to shut down and manipulate discussion of Islamophobia".
• In The Times, journalist and Conservative peer, Daniel Finkelstein, argued that Miller should be sacked for his "attack" on the Bristol University Jewish Society.
• In response to Finkelstein, Toby Young, co-founder of the Free Speech Union, wrote an article in The Critic defending Miller on free speech grounds. Young said that he had "little sympathy" for Miller but that he "would stop short of calling for him to be fired". Young also said that: "Grossly offensive speech is unlawful, but nothing Miller has said meets that threshold".
• Miller was also defended in a tweet from the Media Guido Twitter account of the right-wing political website Guido Fawkes, saying: "Personal statement: I don't think David Miller or Roy Greenslade should lose their jobs for disagreeing with me."
• Later in February, Miller was defended in an open letter by over 315 academics and others, including Noam Chomsky, Ahdaf Soueif, Norman Finkelstein, Judith Butler, Ilan Pappé, John Pilger and Deepa Kumar. The signatories said that there had been "unrelenting and concerted efforts to publicly vilify" Miller, praised him as an "eminent scholar" and said that the "impact of his research on the manipulation of narratives by lobby groups has been crucial to deepening public knowledge and discourse in this area".
• Miller has also been supported by Malia Bouattia, a former president of the National Union of Students. "The attacks against Miller are part of a chilling wave of intimidation sweeping across British universities, targeting critics of Israel", she wrote in a piece for Al Jazeera. "Years of onslaughts by the British government and the Israel lobby on Palestine solidarity movements in UK universities have led us to this point."
• In response, the Support David Miller campaign commented: "It is reprehensible but unsurprising that campus lobby groups for Israel which have organised this letter ... are attempting to suppress and censor criticism of Zionism. In their bid to silence Professor Miller, they are attempting to whitewash apartheid; the daily demolition of Palestinian homes; and the racism at the heart of Zionist ideology."

Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the undue template should now be removed. The issue(s) discussed in the "Statements, activities and responses" section are the main reasons for Professor Miller to have a Wikipedia article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The tag was added because the article has "way too much detail on events that effectively cover a three-week period of his life/career". That reason still holds. The page has existed since 2018. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue goes back many years. Professor Miller's periodic interventions relating to Zionism have gained media attention for more than a decade. His comments and history in this area isn't restricted to February and March 2021. Philip Cross (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that being anti-Zionist, anti-racist and concerned with fighting Islamophobia is an "issue". Miller's views have presumably been long-held. Hopefully we can document them in a neutral way with sources going back earlier than this year. Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

What is this "three-week" period you think is getting too much focus in the article? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The tag was added by DSQ who has provided some comments above. One of our editors suggested inclusion of material from earlier in Miller's career as a way of dealing with this. A full exploration of Miller's views on Zionism, racism and Islamophobia would be useful. You should refrain from editing this article until you become qualified. Burrobert (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronizing commentary. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I am as qualified as you. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It was not meant to be patronising. There are restrictions for new editors. There is a notice at the top of this page and I have posted a standard notice on your talk page. There is no expectation that you would have been aware of these restrictions until advised. Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I was not aware of this restriction. I find it odd that Miller's investigation for a possible hate crime is considered part of the the Arab–Israeli conflict, but so be it. I'll limit my contributions to this talk page, for the time being. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries. You can still make comments on the talk page and make edit requests here in the meantime. Burrobert (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Morning. Just to clarify, this is what the article looked like when I came along. [3]. It had a standalone section on the newly commenced police investigation and this had been prominently inserted right under the career section. I removed it. It has some original research about Miller's links to IHRC - also removed. Para 2 onwards of the "Statements and activities" section covered the period February/March and took up practically two-thirds of the article. Clearly undue. I added the tag for this reason. I see it's been trimmed right down - I'm not a fan of the inclusion of the opinion of random journalists - facts, yes; opinion, not so much, so I don't think the opinion of both The Times & Finkelstein are necessary, one or the other. I do think the opinion of Jewish students from Bristol Uni are relevant and they're not included. Clearly, the section will be expanded when the Uni investigation & police investigation are completed, until then I personally think the section is still undue. Side issue: I also still think that the Syrian Civil War section should be expanded upon or removed. A standalone section that effectively just tells us that he's a member of a group? The section is puffed out with irrelevant detail and the opinion of Chris York, both of which belong in the article about the group, if they belong anywhere. :) --DSQ (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)\

I disagree with removing that entire section and replacing it with just a sentence saying he's a member of the "Working Group on Syria", As you note, the material you removed also includes criticism of him, personally, due to the group's activities. This is relevant and sourced. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I would mention that the opinion of all students should be included not just the Jewish students.Selfstudier (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

DSQ, I refer you to my comments opening the section below. Without Finkelstein's article and the response from the Board of Deputies, there is no response from the Jewish community to Professor Miller in the article. So these additions are not exactly random. I am sure you care a great dal about the Jewish community, and no one has directly responded to the comments I made yesterday. You might as well be the first.

Selfstudier, without reports of current Bristol University students being polled on this issue, I do not see how that community can be fairly represented in this article. Philip Cross (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am simply making it clear that all sides need representing, there is a student petition supporting Miller for instance but as I have made plain I am not in favor of introducing every bit of tittle tattle that comes out.Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. While it true primary sources are not outright banned when cited alone, this section begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." So it is desirable to include a secondary source at when Spinwatch is mentioned in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are making here? Selfstudier (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your removal of the Standpoint citation in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean in the lead? I explained why in my edit summary. If you are complaining about the self ref in the lead for spinpoint, that's fine by virtue of aboutself but you can delete if you want.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no desire to remove the mention of Spinwatch from the lead since there is a significant detail below which Miller took seriously enough to apologise for. Double sourced as well. Philip Cross (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)~

I already removed it, not necessary there anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip, to be honest I haven't read that section, I was responding to a ping and wasn't intending on sticking around right now. :) I'll read it later and comment. Ta. --DSQ (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Jewish responses to David Miller

Leading figures in the Jewish community, regardless of political affiliation have been calling for Miller to be removed from his post for some time. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, it is not difficult to think of reasons to respect responses from the Jewish community and as to why they should be included in the Wikipedia article on Miller. This Times article has been removed in the recent past, one assumes by a defender of Miller, but Daniel Finkelstein (who identifies himself as Jewish in the article) expresses himself very subtly and sensitivity in article as I have tried to suggest, if my extended summary seems undue. I consider it fundamentally regrettable, regardless as to whether his article remains in the text, that no member of the (British) Jewish community or a community organisation has been allowed to have their responses included in this article. I regard it as indefensible and unforgivable.

The issue of including Daniel Finkelstein's Times article is thus quite minor in comparison. A certain detail is likely to be restored quite quickly, but I think Daniel Finkelstein is better known as a journalist and thus his peerage is irrelevant in this context, as is the question as to whether or he is a cross-bench peer (ie, formally non-political). I have to express the issue in such an imprecise manner as a means of self-protection because of a topic ban on contemporary UK politics. The immediate issue, and my edits, relate to the article subject's attitude towards Israel. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are editing purely on a POV basis, looking up every half baked source you can find, including one from 2010! The only real facts are that there are two outstanding investigations, neither of which has reported yet, all this stuff is just yada yada until they do. (and don't put sources in the article before you put the content in). Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I on the other hand think that adding Finkelstein's view is a pretty good edit. In general I find him quite loathsome -- but I agree with Philip Cross that this perspective on Miller is quite relevant. (And since it wasn't published in 2010, I'm not sure what the previous response is getting at.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Look closer "ref name="Spoint2010">Maher, Shiraz (13 July 2010). "Questions David Miller must answer". Standpoint. Retrieved 13 August 2021.- crud.Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The issues around Miller have been around a long time, in fact since before 2010. I wouldn't describe reliable sources as half-baked. You can of course suggest how The Times and Standpoint should be treated as sources elsewhere, but for now I do not see reasons to not use them. The details in the summary needed confirming by a third-party source (primary sources directly connected with the subject of an article are not considered ideal), so it was quite legitimate to split my additions. I fixed the citation error, User:Selfstudier. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

They may have been around a long time but they weren't in the article because they are undue and not news. Where is the university statement ( a week or so ago, not in 2010) that its freedom of speech policy and its commitment for the right of staff and students.. to speak openly without fear of censorship or limitation, as long as it’s within the law. That count for anything? Or just your one sided view of the situation?Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The defence of academic freedom argument has already been included in the article, but citing a further, more recent, response from the University of Bristol would be worth including. Miller's websites did gain quite a bit of attention in reliable sources a decade ago, so it is part of the long-term ongoing issue about Professor Miller. Philip Cross (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A "long term ongoing issue", cute, there is an ongoing issue, 2 cases pending a result, the two cases have nothing to do with any prior issues which are undue and not news, I suspect some NPOV editors will come along here and undo some of this rubbish, I am not going to edit war.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There are now two good sources from 2010 in the article concerning Miller's websites. Probably many more if anyone thinks all this is unimportant. Philip Cross (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier, the Bristol University statement you mention, which is included here, does not substantially develop beyond their earlier statement in March and reiterates it. Philip Cross (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion, mine is that they are reiterating it while under pressure re the ongoing investigation and could indicate that it is a factor in their current thinking (not that one would expect Algemeiner to emphasize that).Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is my opinion, I don't have any other. You are free to expand the passage on the original statement, if you wish, but merely restating a five-month statement fails on notability grounds. Philip Cross (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeating myself, I don't introduce every bit of title tattle into the article and I haven't, my antenna get tripped when people do.Selfstudier (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, after a bit of research I now know what the "2010" stuff is about. It's about a case dating from 20 years ago in which Miller wasn't even involved, duh, and because DM hosted on a website dubious material from 2 people who were involved (which he removed and apologized for), we have to have all this undue stuff in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It was an incident on a website he took responsibility for, chose the people involved and went to the trouble to apologise for his website formerly hosting material by Kevin MacDonald. The article now indicates Miller's connection very well. Looks as though his Neocon Europe is being revived after being in abeyance for some years. Other Standpoint articles from a decade ago refer to as being defunct. Philip Cross (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to take it out as dated, undue and only tangentially relevant (it has nothing really to do with his "Career", the section title) but I will wait and see what others have to say about it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So "dated" when it's old, and "not news" when it's recent? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

What material are you referring to? The dated stuff is undue AND not news.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier, coming back to the beginning of this section, do you have any specific objections to Jewish responses to Professor Miller being included in this article? Philip Cross (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit abstract, you put them in, I'll tell you what I think of them (like anything sourced to the JC will get short shrift, for example).Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Too much source material critical of Professor Miller to exclude, I am afraid. Astonishingly little from reliable sources defending him comes up in Google searches, and the weight of evidence in RS seems to be against him, "Jewish press" or non-Jewish press alike. Philip Cross (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea, we know your opinion, I want to hear from other editors. He's still at the Uni, right? There are 2 investigations pending, right? Apparently there may also be some sort of legal proceeding against the university as well. It's still all heat and little light, considering that according to you he has been a problem for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is reverting back into a hatchet job. We have two negative, accusatory opinion pieces in the "Other affiliations" section. Why is it not possible to simply explain what the websites and wiki cover? Why are those opinions relevant? They're not imo. Not too sure about the paragraph on Neocon Europe either - seems a bit dated and both links provided to the site/database are effectively redundant. So what's the point? Re: "Statements, activities...." and the Jewish response - I'd suggest that van der Zyl covers that. No need for Finkelstein too - if you put his opinion in, then we should put Young & Guido's counter opinions back in - then we're getting into undue territory again. (Having said that, & I reiterate, I'd include something from the Jewish students at the Uni who were directly involved). As it stands Miller is still employed & is, in fact, listed to teach this coming term & he hasn't been charged with anything - unless that changes imo the section should be kept as succinct as possible. Finally, I agree with User:Selfstudier re the JC as a source - as a result of the recent history of IPSO decisions and libel cases, I don't think we should rely on anything they publish on left-wing figures and certainly not in a BLP.--DSQ (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So let's see if I've got this straight. We don't need Finkelstein because we already have van der Zyl. But we don't want van der Zyl because that's the JC, and something something libel. And we could use something from the Jewish students at Bristol directly affected -- but it seems there isn't anything (sadly). Do I have it right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a "hatchet job" (that's what all the recent editing looks like to me as well) when the guy is still in post and nothing of any of these allegations has been proven. What we ought to be doing is reporting the allegations tersely, a list of them with refs will do, a sentence or two, they are all the same thing anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If Bristol University eventually finds Miller has broken his contract of employment in his behaviour towards Jewish students, I imagine Miller's defenders on Twitter will transfer there allegedly conspiratorial thinking to the institution itself. Wikipedia editors write articles based on reliable sources, the balance being strongly against Miller. Articles about the letter defending him signed by Noam Chomsky are the main ones in his defence. Bristol University has distanced themselves from his opinions.

The claims against Miller are not "all the same thing anyway." Miller's academic work about the treatment of Muslims in the UK is arguably flawed as well. The term antisemitism applies to supposed Jewish/Zionist threats to World peace, claims Miller has made, so it legitimate to use reliable sources describing the accusations in this way. As antisemitism is not itself a criminal offence in the UK, the police or university investigation of Miller do not change the fact such allegations have been made against the professor in the mainstream media or by reputable organisations. "I don't like it", the shortest phrase to describe comments opposing the article's correct form, is not a good enough reason to remove content from this article. Philip Cross (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing BLPs in particular and on the subject of anti-Semitism requires NPOV and for myself I see your editing as anything but, including and up to the inserting of a false statement that the Times had accused Miller of anti-Semitism and then attempting to maintain this untruth in the face of two editors asking for clarification and only finally withdrawing that when presented with irrefutable evidence of inauthenticity. As I said before but will repeat, I think we are well aware by now of your position, let's see what others have to say as well.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

And, btw, editing comments that have already been replied to is not done. I want it to be clear what I am replying to, not your ex post facto version.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip - "I don't like him", the shortest phrase to describe the comments of those attempting to fill the article with anything negative they can find, is not a good enough reason for a hatchet job. I don't see your editing on this article as neutral either. --DSQ (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No need for the snark Nomoskedasticity, ta! No, we don't need Finkelstein at this stage, unless the counter-arguments go back in; van der Zyl's reaction, as a community representative, are important & her comments/letter can be found here & here. No need for the JC. Comments from students, UJS, and Bristol J-Soc can be found here, here, here and I don't doubt other sources can be found if these aren't good enough. So, no you don't have it right. Hope that helps! --DSQ (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

So you'd be in favour of using the usable sources? (i.e., not the primary ones) If so, why not proceed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't have the time or patience right now to get embroiled in a bun fight over an article that doesn't particularly interest me. I don't have it watchlisted, I did a couple of drive-by edits a while back & added the tag. I may return to it if/when something notable happens; meanwhile if Philip wants to turn it into a roll call of those who've linked Miller to antisemitism, insists that he is creating a neutral BLP and that his edits comply with the spirit of the policies he quotes, so be it! I'd personally add a POV template, but I don't have the time to debate that either at the moment. --DSQ (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking about that as well. A large number of edits devoted mainly to allegations of anti-Semitism by one editor certainly appears as POV editing.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, the editor is trying to remedy the POV editing of other editors. Context matters -- in fact, it's pretty much the only thing that matters here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the allegations would be POV if they were original research. They are not. Nomoskedasticity, thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It turns out on inspection that all the guff about spinprofiles is also dated (defunct since 2010). The POV of the editor becomes more obvious with every examination of the editing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It is still part of Professor Miller's history with proper third-party citations for its inclusion and you have indicated via a citation that is defunct. Philip Cross (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:INDENT (reminder about your random placement of responses)Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the indentation. Philip Cross (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for verification

Would someone who has access to the Murdoch Times please verify the statement "In February 2021, Miller was accused of antisemitism by The Times newspaper after calling for the "end of Zionism," and saying Israel is "trying to exert its will all over the world"? Specifically, did Murdoch accuse Miller of antisemitism or did the accusation come from someone or some group that is being quoted in the article? The small snippet that is visible to me says "Miller was accused of antisemitism after calling Zionism “the enemy” ...". This suggests that it is not Murdoch who is accusing him of antisemitism. However, there may be another accusation later in the article. Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you don't wish to, but someone might take up the suggestion I am about to make. It is possible to sign up to The Times for free and access a handful of articles each month. That is probably the best solution. Philip Cross (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you able to provide the verification? Burrobert (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio rules probably mean it would unwise for me to add a more substantial slab of the article. I added the citation to The Times yesterday and tried to explain the context in the hidden message. Philip Cross (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

From the article - "In February 2021, Miller was accused of antisemitism by The Times newspaper in about Miller below, so the above is from that letter" <- This is not even English, duh. Are we talking about https://archive.ph/20210304171933/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-and-peers-call-on-bristol-university-to-condemn-academic-in-antisemitism-row-qkpgzphzw ? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the article. Just added the archive-url/date. Philip Cross (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh, show me the accusation by the Times, I can't see it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's see, you appear to have added a false statement into WP and when it was queried you have removed the tag and left the false statement in, am I right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for rectifying that. Please take care when editing a BLP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The section "Statements, activities and responses" appears to be about little else except accusations of anti-Semitism so maybe we should call it that instead? Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

By way of contrast to the views espoused by The Times:

- The Electronic Intifada's archive on David Miller: <<<REDACTED>>

- Tony Greenstein (the anti-KammFinkelstein): <<<REDACTED>>

    ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

EI is considered "generally unreliable" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Electronic Intifada (EI). The other source is a self-published blog, which cannot be used for that reason. There was a recent libel case (which he lost) suggesting Tony Greenstein is not an ideal defender of Professor Miller. Unfortunately, when I looked a few weeks ago, I found no usable source citing Ken Loach's high opinion of Professor Miller. Wikipedia policies say nothing about adding comments from individuals who are not an "ideal defender" of another person's position and it is to hoped Loach's positive opinion of Miller will be reported by a reliable source in due course. Philip Cross (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for interest I tried to track down where this Ken Loach quote originated. At a 4 March online meeting, it was read out and claimed as a message from Ken Loach by Dr. Nariman Massoumi, a Bristol Uni lecturer. (https://twitter.com/hurryupharry/status/1367864628777222146?s=20 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhfg2M9Dsw). perhaps only of academic interest at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The quote from Ken Loach I found was in an article on The Canary website, but it may originate from the Support David Miller website where I have also seen it. Philip Cross (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I saw those (and freespeechonIsrael) but those seem to be dated after March 4, so I think that video could be the original source of it. So we don't actually see the man himself saying it, just a statement to the effect that it is from him and it being read out.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Still undue?

I put all the criticism/controversy material together in one section and now it is very easy to see that way over half the article is about that. Miller is a controversial figure and that should be addressed but this seems ott for someone who has not as yet been found guilty of anything.Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest making edits intended to improve the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the article was better before your edit. Wikipedia does not separate content into controversy and criticism in this way. The controversy is the main reason for his notability. I tried to explain above that he cannot be found guilty of the main allegations made against him over many years because antisemitism is not formally illegal, but the existence of the controversy certainly remains verifiable. Philip Cross (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes we do, all the time. It looked like a substantive improvement to me, much more logical layout and what was described as pointy remains true, well over half of the article is given over to the afore mentioned "hatchet job". Allegation does not equal guilt where I come from. The sheer quantity is completely undue.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens in other articles, this is the policy on Wikipedia:POVNAMING: "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed 'Societal views on X'). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." (Minor fmt edit only.) This is about article titles, but a section titled "Criticism" is thus clearly invalid also, as for any article section regardless of the content. Philip Cross (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not only irrelevant, it is completely and hopelessly wrong in nearly every respect. The problem with this article is the same now as it has been for a while, the amount of undue material in it being created by non-NPOV editing first raised as an issue by myself in March at the top of this talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing balance with the weight of reliable source material which takes Professor Miller to task, NPOV does not work in that way. Philip Cross (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDHT -> WP:UNDUESelfstudier (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Enough, ffs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now an editor, by way of edit summary asks whether "I have an aversion to constructive editing" Apparently because I had the temerity to tag for citation of an uncited quote, a quote which was in fact wrong per the cite now given. The POV here is once again obvious.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I continue to wonder whether you are here to improve the encyclopedia, or perhaps for some other reason. It took all of 30 seconds to identify a suitable source, and to make the minor change that was needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC) A second personal attack. One more and we will visit the boards. You have been warned.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Please, do it now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I have made the warning "official" at your talk page, your blanking of it won't help you at all as I have kept a record of it for future reference.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Yes, of course you have -- and I now give you leave to avoid my talk-page in the future, just assume I know all about the policies and the warnings, and make your way to the noticeboards where I'll be pleased to respond to your childish behaviour. This entire section is a mistake on your part, an abuse of article talk-pages, where contributions must be geared towards edits of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Stick to discussing content and we won't have a problem.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I have every intention of continuing to call out shitty editing. Count on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Then best not complain when I do the same? Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather embarrassing, isn't it? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight/crystal ball?

Hi Selfstudier, could you please kindly spell out your rationale for adding the undue weight tag? From my perspective, I added a sentence and a half that state in neutral terms basic facts that have been amply reported by reliable sources. Furthermore, these facts provide crucial context without which the university's statement is vague and unclear (perhaps deliberately so, but it isn't my place to speculate on the motivations of the Bristol VC or legal team). If you'd like, we could even add the Bristol newspaper (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-university-professor-david-miller-5999798), which in general has been quite solid in reporting on the Miller affair (and cannot be credibly claimed to be pro-Israel or the like), to provide extra depth and demonstrate significance.

I am further perplexed by your remarks concerning a crystal ball. Might I kindly ask what part of the following sentence and a half I added anything concerning what results of any legal process might have been:

the university statement cited its "duty of care to all students and the wider University community" and observed the need to "apply its own codes of conduct." At the time Miller's sacking was announced, the University faced the threat of legal action for breaching its legal obligation to provide a duty of care to its students; in addition to potential violations of the Equality Act, the case against the University of Bristol centered on Miller's comments that "Zionists are the enemy of world peace...and must be directly targeted" and his singling out of a specific student at Bristol, who was subsequently the target of abuse, as being a Zionist.

(Parenthetically, it struck me as a bit peculiar that these 1.5 sentences should be considered UNDUE in a section that subsequently devotes several a couple of sentences to advancing a particular POV - one sentence from Miller would, I think, certainly be fair - and relies on a second-hand claim sourced solely to an notably tendentious source....)

I would of course be happy to negotiate any specific points of language in the text above, or elsewhere on the page. Looking forward to a calm and well-reasoned discussion of these points. With best wishes --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"the threat of legal action for breaching its legal obligation to provide a duty of care to its students" , the threat of a legal action means precisely nothing unless it is executed. Then speculation based on this threat is just that, speculation. "potential violations" are not violations, "the case against the University of Bristol centered on Miller's comments", what case? There is no case. Do I really have to spell this out? I thought I made it quite plain in the edit summary. I understand that there are those of a certain POV that want to pin the anti-Semitism tag on Miller, in fact the entire article is laid out with a view to doing just that and why virtually the entire article is tagged as UNDUE for a while now so your addition being tagged is the rule not the exception. The facts are that the Bristol statement makes no mention of antisemitism and Miller says that the university QC confirmed that. So who is it exactly that knows different? At best there are allegations of antisemitism which are currently unproven, rather like the police case that has never been reported on since it was filed. This is a blp and I don't propose to engage in any kind of fight with anyone so I am stepping away from this page and you can write up as much unproven innuendo as you care to.Selfstudier (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)