Talk:Keep Talking (group)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the British conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial group Keep Talking unites the far right and far left? Source: https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/keep-talking-report/

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Evans (journalist) ‎

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hook is interesting an adequately sourced. Article is new within the last seven days, having previously been a redirect, and well written. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 10:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

One report and an inconsequential group

This article seems based almost entirely on one report from partisan campaign groups and references to that report from partisan media. Unless additional sources can be found, it seems hard to justify the article. Moreover, does the group do anything except hold occasional talks with presumably tiny audiences? Is an article even justified? Jontel (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It meets WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, reported in reliable sources. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Far-left activists?

I do not see evidence of the involvement of far-left activists and would be interested in hearing who they are. This is a convenient spin by the pro-Israel sources. Pro-Palestine activists would be a more accurate descriptor, as per the quote of the report in the Jewish News. Jontel (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

One of the sources specifically has “far-left” as a descriptor, so I’ve added that back into the article. - 109.249.185.101 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is all based on one report, which does not see it that way. From Jewish News: “The deeper we looked into the ‘Keep Talking’ group, the harder it became to know whether it was far-right, far-left, a mixture of the two, or something else entirely,” said Dave Rich and Joe Mulhall, joint authors of the report." and "There are few people who can bring fascists and other far-right activists and pro-Palestine Labour activists into the same group, but Kollerstrom and Fantom have made it a regular occurrence.” The report itself talks of leftwing activists. The Observer talks about left activists and former Labour members. The Jewish Chronicle talks about Labour activists and ex-Labour members. Only the CAS and Nick Lowles say far-left and both are polemicists. I suggest that the authors of the descriptors in the article are named. Jontel (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It Seems there is no adequate evidence for far left activists involvement. In any case it is rather subjective what far-left or far-right means in this context. Can I suggest we delete that unless adequate sources or clarification can be found? Billlion (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems the sources are there already. It may make some people uncomfortable that the far left share some ideas or conspiracies with the far right, the sources are clear on this. - 109.249.185.101 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is not making people "uncomfortable" but rather confused. If you are going to abide by a source that calls social democrats "far-left", then we need to go and edit any Labour Party pages to signify it as a far-left entity instead of center-left. This is why the source is still disputed. As Jontel said, this appears to be a deliberate spin on the definition of "far-left" by the source. 2603:9000:9507:6100:30B9:4767:1A83:4C62 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

See straw man? - 109.249.185.101 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Source show both right and left wing involvement. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The common factors of those involved seem to be interest in conspiracy theories and hostility to Jews and/ or Israel. The far left and far right descriptors is a bit of a red herring. The report presents Chabloz and Thring as both left wing and right wing, which rather supports this. I don't think we should uncritically adopt the political characterisations of highly partisan sources, and especially without making clear that it is the sources saying this. Calling someone far left is not a fact; it is an opinion as it does not have a commonly agreed definition as the Wikipedia article points out. Let us look at those few individuals identified in the report. None of those on the left are noted for distinctive involvement in left wing politics per se. All of them are known for their sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Attendees: Tony Gatrex, administrator of the Palestine Live group, head of the Bracknell Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Elleanne Green, creator of Palestine Live group; Gill Kaffish, secretary of the Camden Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Their past Labour membership or attempt to join Labour make them left-wing, not far-left. Speakers from the left (though they do not necessarily endorse the group): Peter Gregson, expelled from Labour for comments relating to Israel; Milo Peled, critic of Israel.You can certainly be pro-Palestinian without being far left; some Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are. The report, on page 8, described them as pro-Palestine Labour activists. The Observer talks of left activists. The Jewish Chronicle refers to Labour activists. Can I suggest we either, which I would prefer, use one of these three descriptors. or author the description e.g. "The discussion group includes those described by CST and HNH as far-left and far-right activists." Jontel (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

To do this would be original research. Mrclapper1 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, everything should be sourced and all of these can be. Jontel (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, ‘Far-left politics in the United Kingdom …(follow) ideologies such as Marxism, revolutionary socialism, communism, anarchism and syndicalism.’ The sole regular attendee shown to have left wing links appears to be Elleanne Green, a former Labour Party member, which is not a far-left organisation, and she has not been shown to have far-left views. The guest speakers or someone attending one meeting are not regular attendees or part of the group, nor have they been shown to be far-left.

Referenced sources are inconsistent on this. The report uses ‘far left’ three times, (front page, p4 and p7), ‘left’ or ‘left wing’ five times (p6, p6, p9, p16, p21) and ‘Labour’ two times (p8, p21). The Observer article uses ‘left activists’ and ‘Labour supporters’. Jewish News uses ‘far-left’, quoting from the report. So, left wing or Labour is more accurate and closer to the sources.

Additionally, only three regular attendees, in addition to Kollerstrom, are identified as far-right activists. It is a small number and it would be clearer to communicate this by expressing it as “Several of the regular attendees are ex Labour Party members or far-right activists.” OK to change? Jontel (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There has not yet been full agreement on this, I have updated the article to reflect the current consensus. Mrclapper1 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mrclapper1 I and others have pointed out several times in some detail on this talk page why far-left is not supported by the facts or the sources. That is the consensus unless someone can dispute this. It does not require everyone who has edited this article to agree explicitly; it simply requires an absence of disagreement. You have not updated the article; you have reversed the change. If you have any reasoned justification for the phrase, please make it. Jontel (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My view is we should go with the reliable sources. To my mind, the best independent neutral source on the group is the Guardian/Observer.[1]. Their headline is "UK left activists attended events with far right antisemites" and their lede is "Former Labour party members have regularly met elements of the far right to discuss and propagate antisemitic conspiracy theories, an undercover investigation has found." Here, "left" and former Labour are the key terms, along with "far right", but not "far left". The most comprehensive source on the group is of course the CST/HnH report, but because it is long it is not the best for establishing due weight. Their subtitle is "The conspiracy theory group uniting the far left and far right". As Jontel notes, they use the term "far left" three times, but in a slightly more nuanced way than the subtitle implies: "hateful conspiracy theories have permeated the far left as well as the far right, and have brought both together. The deeper we looked into the Keep Talking group, the harder it became to know whether it was far right, far left, a mixture of the two, or something else entirely." They use "far right" twelve times, identify Thring as part of it, Kollerstrm as engaging with and associated with it, two attendees Sarah Steadman and Michele Renouf as being part of it, and another attendee Gilad Atzmon being close to it. Some independent sources give similar weight, e.g. Jewish News has it in the headline and quotes the bit of the report I just quoted as well as the quote Jontel hightlights about "pro-Palestine Labour activists", but gives a lot more detail about the far right, while the JPost doesn't mention far anything or Labour. In short, I think "far right" should definitely be in our article and lead, and I think the "UK left activists and former Labour members" would be best for the lead. On the other hand, I don't think the sources suggest "far-left" is wrong so it would be fine to mention "far left" in the body if that enabled a compromise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a constructive analysis. I would say that the Guardian/ Observers appear to be using the phrases left activists and former Labour interchangeably to refer to the same people, so I think we should just choose one. CST/HNH may be confusing what is usually defined as the far left of politics in general i.e. to the left of the Labour Party, with the left wing of the Labour Party, which is not of course the same thing. Jontel (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley , I agree with you that we should go with the reliable sources. My concern is that in this case The Guardian/Observer cannot be called the most "neutral" because as a left-wing publication, they would subjectively refer to some people as "left wing" while other publications on the right of the guardian/observer would call those same people "far left".

So I did what should be the best for everyone - I did not reverse your change Jontel, I left your change in, I simply added in extra words so it now reads "Regular attendees have included ex Labour Party members, far left activists and far-right activists" (as Bobfrombrockley recommended).

As far as I can see this is the consensus. This is also closer to the sources. This also adds to the neutrality of the article as this way there is no confusion and all can see that the article is not mixing Labour with the far left. Mrclapper1 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the only people talking about the far left is the report, which does not define the term, describe anyone specifically as far left or provide any evidence that anyone who attended the meetings was far left. We don't have other sources using the term, unless they are simply quoting from the report. So, what we need to do is attribute the term, i.e. make it clear that it is the people writing the report who provide this description. Is that fair? Jontel (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well everything on Wikipedia must have a citation, so this is no different. The consensus here seems to me that the sources support the phrasing to remain. Mrclapper1 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant in-text attribution WP:INTEXT. We don't have any reliable sources for any of this. Jontel (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that would be a good compromise. (As it is we already have in the article "According to Rich and Mullhall..." a couple of times). Mrclapper1 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting of Atzmon quote

Just for the record, it is worth pointing out that the report on which the article is based misrepresents Atzmon's speech. The quote it uses actually comes from a synopsis on his YouTube channel.The video of it is easily accessible online and he goes on to indicate he is referring specifically to Jewish domination of Britain's Middle East policy. Jontel (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You actually watch Atzmon videos? Concerning. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting this in the article might be original research, no? Do you have an independent source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the video recording of his talk is a good source and not original research. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Atzmon is currently quoted in the article as saying that he ‘told the group that the Balfour Declaration was meant to "conceal a century of Jewish political hegemony in Britain"’. What he said, from the recording, 12 minutes in, was “the history of the Balfour Declaration is there to conceal…total (Jewish) domination of (British) foreign affairs, at least as far as (the) Middle East is concerned.” [[2]] I suggest that we use the quote from the video which makes a more limited claim, rather than the incorrect version. Jontel (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that the report (and news articles based on the report) is inaccurate requires original research: it requires us to listen to the entire video (which does not appear to have a transcript) to ascertain that the quoted words are not said at some point. As the secondary sources give context and weight to the quote, it is preferable to link to them than the primary source (as well as problematic to unnecessarily link to an antisemitic source). The quoted text currently in the article does not have a substantively different meaning than the quote revealed by original research, so there is no real problem anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 12:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

At the moment, the article seems to say that the declaration was produced in order to influence attitudes over the following hundred years, which is barely credible and simply misunderstands his point, as well as not being what he said. His point was that celebrating the Balfour Declaration during its centenary i.e. in 2017 conceals a century of Jewish political hegemony in Britain, particularly with reference to Middle East policy. I suppose we could keep the secondary references for 'context and weight' and use the written version on his site to most accurately reflect his point. I understand you not wanting to link to his writings but hostile commentators typically misrepresent them. Alternatively, we could use the talk title, which is undisputed: "History Concealment and the Balfour Declaration". One could even not mention him if the sources are unsatisfactory: he is only one of two dozen speakers at various group meetings. I just want to provide some alternatives to using a inaccurate quote, but I don't have anything to add if you think that the reported quote is close enough to what he said. Jontel (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust denial group?

As far as I can see, the report does not give examples of the group discussing holocaust denial except in passing, so it is hardly a central characteristic of the group. Am I wrong? This article is systematically misleading.Jontel (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you are wrong. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/lauded-anti-racism-activist-has-ties-to-holocaust-denial-group-631705 109.249.185.101 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it is the headline to is wrong. It is wrong to rely on headlines: due to space limitations, they are rarely accurate. The text of the article says holocaust denial is commonplace; the report says that it is discussed sometimes. That sounds, not like a holocaust denial group but a discussion group on conspiracy theories, including holocaust denial. Jontel (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The article reflects that source, as far as I can see – it seems to be stretching opinions to breaking point and beyond to remove the reference to Holocaust denial from the article. The article (and others and the report), all refer to HD being one of the frequently discussed topics. Ignoring it goes against the sources and raises problems with a non-neutral approach to the subject. 109.249.185.101 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The report includes a list of announced events on pages 22 and 23, none of which are on Holocaust denial. On page 20, it references an audience member denying the Holocaust after the speaker said that it did happen. On page 6, it references the same meeting, saying there was "open and unchallenged Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories about Mossad and the Rothschild banking family.", which is quoted in the Jerusalem Post article. Given the background of some of the attendees, I am actually somewhat surprised that, after three years of infiltration and "dozens of hours of undercover recordings" from "many meetings" the report's authors could find only one example of Holocaust denial, and that from an audience member, not a speaker. If they had, I feel sure that they would have included them. The report says that "Antisemitic conspiracy theories are at the centre of the group. Sometimes these are expressed in more overt terms, in the form of Holocaust denial and ideas of Jewish influence. Other times these work as explanations for event-based conspiracy theories." Unfortunately, this gives little indication of how often Holocaust denial was discussed and whether they were the main topic or just mentioned by an audience member. It seems that antisemitic theories are commonly discussed; Holocaust denial much less so. Can I suggest something definite and supported for the first sentence? How about: "Keep Talking is a discussion group in the United Kingdom that, according to a report by Hope Not Hate and Community Security Trust, primarily discusses conspiracy theories, including antisemitic ones. Attendees include both far-left and far-right activists." The Holocaust denial comment in the report would continue to be covered in the second section. Jontel (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources say Holocaust denial. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To be far left and far right is totally wrong aswell as being left but right wing is the only correct and logically makes sense Dolo2728 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Jontel you are totally mixed up And the same as all the other wicked people. Dolo2728 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

While the group is described as a Holocaust denial (Hd) discussion group in the lead, it is not so asserted in the body. None of the speakers spoke on Hd or was reported as raising it, while a founder said Hd was explicitly not a subject for discussion. [[https://www.unz.com/article/uks-labour-antisemitism-split/]]

The CST/ HNH report, based on three years observation, gives only one example of Hd, an audience member’s comment. The report’s references to Hd are vague and refer to it as a subset of a subset of a subset of the discussions, meaning that it must account for a small proportion of the discussions: ‘Many Keep Talking meetings have centred on an alleged Jewish conspiracy of one sort or another: either explicitly, as in the case of Holocaust denial, or implicitly, as in the case of theories outlining Jewish influence as underlying reasons for terror and murder.’ (p9) and ‘Antisemitic conspiracy theories are at the centre of the group. Sometimes these are expressed in more overt terms, in the form of Holocaust denial and ideas of Jewish influence. Other times these work as explanations for event-based conspiracy theories.’ (p17).

Regarding referenced sources, Jewish News and the Guardian do not describe it as an Hd group. The Jerusalem Post does, though only in its headline, and headlines alone are never a reliable source. In its article text, it says that Hd was commonplace i.e. not unusual, but this does not mean it discussed more than other topics.

Hd is described as a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia and so is covered by the description ‘conspiracy theory’. I suggest that it is misleading to single it out, given that the meeting topics were all on other subjects, and it should be removed from the lead. Jontel (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, The article (and others and the report), all refer to HD being one of the frequently discussed topics. Ignoring it goes against the sources and raises problems with a non-neutral approach to the subject. Surely the other topics discussed can be added to the lead, which should make the article even more comprehensive. Mrclapper1 (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mrclapper1 One cannot tell from the report how often Hd was discussed because it is mentioned in combination with other antisemitic theories. Calling it a 'Holocaust denial' discussion group on the basis of one example is a huge overclaim. So, I am not saying it should be ignored, just treated proportionately. Moreover, the lead should summarise the body of the article MOS:LEAD, and should not introduce original material. For your suggestion to work, we have to make the lead and body match each other better. At the end of the Topics and speakers section, we could add e.g. 'According to Rich and Mulhall, meetings often discussed alleged Jewish conspiracies, including Holocaust denial'. Then the lead could be 'Keep Talking is a conspiracy theory discussion group in the United Kingdom. Speakers' topics have included 9/11, the London terror attacks, assassinations, EU/ Brexit and COVID-19. According to Rich and Mulhall, meetings often discussed alleged Jewish conspiracies, including Holocaust denial. Regular attendees have included ex Labour Party members, far left activists and far-right activists.' How would that work for you? Jontel (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think to have those details in the lead would be very helpful. It should just be rephrased slightly because the way you presented it is ambiguous and is not clear whether the group agrees/disagrees with these conspiracies. Mrclapper1 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a discussion group rather than being action oriented: I did not see anything about whether they tried to reach a consensus on whether they agreed or disagreed with the conspiracy theories. As a talking shop, they presumably have no need to reach conclusions. Did you read anything that indicated they did? Jontel (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

All the sources (every single one) appear to say that the group agrees with the conspiracy theories. Mrclapper1 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so you can best prove your point and get your way by providing a quote and source (evidence) supporting that assertion. Jontel (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

When I have the time I will be happy to go through all the sources and show them. For now the entire report from beginning to end clearly seems to want to show that the group agrees with the conspiracy theories. I think we should throw this open to other editors and see what they think, there might be a bit of a struggle with just us two going back and forth on this. Mrclapper1 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another approach: I have suggested some wording which you say should just be rephrased slightly. Perhaps you could say what your preferred version would be, ensuring it is supported by the sources? Jontel (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry been busy until now. Here is your suggestion with clarifications for clarity, neutrality, and transparency: 'Keep Talking is a conspiracy theory discussion group in the United Kingdom. Speakers' topics have included 9/11 and the 7/7 London terror attacks having been faked, the supposed hidden agendas behind assassinations of public figures, "secret" agendas of the EU/ Brexit negotiations, and COVID-19. According to Rich and Mulhall, meetings often discussed alleged Jewish conspiracies, including Holocaust denial. Regular attendees have included ex Labour Party members, far left activists and far-right activists.' While this does not actually say that the group agrees with the theories, it gives the reader a better idea of what they are about. Just one thing - your suggestion mentions that one of the topics are COVID-19, how do you know this-Is it in the sources? I didn't see it in the sources, can you tell me where it is mentioned? Thanks. Mrclapper1 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

On Covid-19, I made a mistake. There was a passing reference to it in one unidentified document but it was not recorded as a talk. I've removed it. I accept your description of the topics and discussions. On the attendees, the report mentions as regular attendees several specific far right activists, one former Labour member and 'far left' in quite general terms, so perhaps it would be fairer to express it as 'Rich and Mulhall reported that regular attendees included a number of far right activists, at least one former Labour Party member and unspecified far left activists. Jontel (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that with the sources saying that antisemitism is "central" to the group's topics, it would seem to me that antisemitism should be mentioned in the lead together with the other topics like 9/11, not in the next sentence (of Rich and Mullhall's findings), which somewhat plays this down. Mrclapper1 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are the two report quotes: ‘Many Keep Talking meetings have centred on an alleged Jewish conspiracy of one sort or another: either explicitly, as in the case of Holocaust denial, or implicitly, as in the case of theories outlining Jewish influence as underlying reasons for terror and murder.’(p9) and ‘Antisemitic conspiracy theories are at the centre of the group. Sometimes these are expressed in more overt terms, in the form of Holocaust denial and ideas of Jewish influence. Other times these work as explanations for event-based conspiracy theories.’(p17). At the same time, the report seems to show that none of the formal topics, which they list, necessarily involves discussing Jews; rather the ensuing discussion quite often does. The phrase, which is also used in the report, "alleged Jewish conspiracy" is more neutral WP:NPOV than 'antisemitic', which is clearly a judgement, so we should use the former. Maintaining the distinction between formal meeting topics and actual discussion, then, the lead could be, as an example: 'Keep Talking is a conspiracy theory discussion group in the United Kingdom. Researchers Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust and Joe Mulhall of Hope not Hate conducted a three-year investigation into the group (which included attending and secretly recording meetings). They reported that speakers' topics have included 9/11 and the 7/7 London terror attacks having been faked, the supposed hidden agendas behind assassinations of public figures and "secret" agendas of the EU/ Brexit negotiations and that meetings often discussed alleged Jewish conspiracies, including Holocaust denial'. This would bring your point into the same sentence as the topics. Jontel (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gregson - 'in some form'

I presume this, from the article: 'Peter Gregson[6][7] was ridiculed by members of the group for saying that the Holocaust did happen in some form.' came from this on page 17 of the report: 'Gregson was ridiculed at the meeting for suggesting that the Holocaust had actually happened.' Some readers might get the erroneous impression that 'in some form' was his words, or the words of the report. To avoid this misconception, I suggest deleting the words 'in some form', unless there is an evidenced objection. Jontel (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. That's a sensible edit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Content

I think that this section could be improved. Some items could usefully be moved between sections and the section could better reflect the report. I suggest the following:

- moving the sentences about the responses of the audience and Thring to Gregson to attendees as that is what it is about

- moving the sentence about Covid from history to the end of content, as it is about content

- replacing the first and last sentences in the content section with something more comprehensive and based more closely on the relevant page (p16) of the report e.g.

The group has discussed a wide variety of conspiracy theories, particularly those relating to 9/11, the London terror attacks, assassinations, antisemitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial, and the White Helmets.

Any suggestions for improvement? Jontel (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of those sections, possibly with addition of false flag theories to the "The group has discussed" sentence. I wonder if "Content" is actually the right title, sounds a little odd to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps topics or subjects would be better. Jontel (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thring - links with David Duke

Regarding 'with links to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke' within: 'James Thring, a regular attendee with links to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke,[8] claimed that there were no recorded deaths at Auschwitz concentration camp.'

Wikipedia says WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR). We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Thring is alive. It is somewhat contentious to assert a link with David Duke. The material is questionable: in the source, the nature, extent, duration, timing or location of the asserted links are unstated, making it unverifiable. There is no consensus on whether Hope Not Hate is a high-quality source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. The other source simply repeats what Hope Not Hate said. Finally, the assertion about links is not necessary to sustain the principal assertion about Thring's comments. Jontel (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. Guardian: "During one gathering in London last year, suspended Labour supporters heard James Thring, an infamous antisemite linked to the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, speak openly and unchallenged about Holocaust denial.". This tendentious editing needs to stop. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article is about the HNH report and simply repeats it. There is no sign of original research or factchecking so adds no verification. What does 'linked to' mean? Even as character assassination and guilt by association, it is pretty pathetic. What significance does it have, given it is essentially meaningless? You could connect Thring to anyone on the planet using this tecnique, given there is no way of disproving it. It should be removed. Jontel (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mr Duke was speaking in conversation with James Thring, an anti-Israel activist who attended a meeting in parliament organised by Mr Corbyn. Mr Thring claimed that although Mr Corbyn did not “mention Jewish power” it was “obviously behind in his mind”.-The Times[3] (also in The Australian[4])
• Last year, James Thring, a notorious 9/11 “truther” and associate of the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, was allowed to take the stage at a pro-Palestinian event hosted by Corbyn in Parliament.-Politico[5]
• Thring has previously claimed that "Jewish elders" control the world's financial markets, that Jews were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and has campaigned on behalf of leading Holocaust denier David Irving when the latter was jailed for hate speech in Austria. He is also close to former KKK leader David Duke, and regularly features as a guest on Duke's radio show to rail about "Jewish" or "Zionist" conspiracies.-Arutz Sheva[6] [I'mnot familiar with Israeli press so don't know if RS]
• at one of the events organised by Keep Talking, Labour supporters heard James Thring, an infamous antisemite linked to the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, speak openly and unchallenged about Holocaust denial.-Jewish Chronicle[7]
• At past Keep Talking events Holocaust denial literature has been readily available and attendees have included members of the far right London Forum and extremists such as James Thring who has links to former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke.-HopeNotHate[8][9]
• In the radio interview now being cited by the British press, Duke was speaking with James Thring, who believes that the Holocaust was a hoax and that “Jewish elders” control world financial markets. He also spoke at a pro-Palestinian rally organized at the Houses of Parliament by Corbyn. Corbyn's success in the leadership election, Duke told Thring, “can be viewed as a positive sign that understanding of the harm being done to the world by Zionism is spreading.”-The Advocate[10]
• Copies of Kollerstrom's Holocaust denying books have been openly on sale at these previous meetings. Another regular attendee, who has spoken at Bedford-Turner's events, is Holocaust denier James Thring who has links to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Thring is known for his links to various despotic Middle East regimes.-Libcom[[11] [probably not considered an RS, although I personally usually find it reliable and certainly can't be accused of being some right-wing Israel lobby publication]
• James Thring, who spoke at the meeting last October, is described by ant- fascist campaigners as a ‘neo Nazi’ and has won praise from the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. He regularly appears as a special guest on Duke’s radio programme and was recently interviewed on the topic of ‘the Jewish elders behind the scenes and their possible strategy.’ He has claimed on the radio station that concerns about Iran's nuclear programme were ‘whipped up by the Israeli high command.’-Scottish Mail [12] [NOT a reliable source, posted for illustrative purposes only]

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well done to BobFromBrockley for doing a source search. It does seem that Thring was interviewed on Duke's daily radio show. That appears to be the mysterious link, in the absence of anything else. Perhaps the article should be explicit about that to avoid giving a misleading impression. Jontel (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding responses section

The history section seems to comprise responses to the group: the report prepared on it and the response of event facilities to information they received on the group. Similarly, the Black Lives Matter photograph section relates to the response of media outlets to the connection of someone to the group. As the first section is not about group activities and the second is not particularly consequential, I propose that these be rolled into a Responses section, as responses describes the principal activities reported. Jontel (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any merit to this proposal, this group should be described as it is described in sources. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As this proposal does not change the description of the group, I do not understand this response. Jontel (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to frame a report by serious highly regarded anti-racist researchers as a "response" as if it is an opinion piece. It's an investigative report. The BLM photo story is also a news story not a "response". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley Leaving the report to one side, then, the point I was trying to make was that the venue episodes and removal of the BLM story were not about the group’s decisions: they were responses to the group by other organizations. The two occasions when venues cancelled or apologised for hosting the group do not really belong in a section headed attendees - which does relate to the group’s activities – they occurred as a result of venues presumably being informed by others about the group’s characteristics. The initial Black Lives Matter photograph story similarly was not related to the group’s activities: the only connection with the group is that ITV subsequently withdrew the story about an individual after they were informed of his attendance at the group's talks. So, there is a common theme in the three events and they are distinct from the group’s activities, covered in other sections, which is why a Responses section for the three items seems to make sense. Perhaps there are alternative headings for the section? Jontel (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what this group is known for, for being toxic enough that venues kick it out. It is their main claim to fame, not a response.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jontel:, OK I get that point re the BLM thing and the venue cancellations. This version seems preferable to this version (now current) on this, as cancellations don't exactly relate to "attendees", but I don't think it's a big deal. An alternative heading might be "Notable events" or something? The earlier heading "History" also seems OK to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it is circuitious: venues cancel and apologise due to what they learn of the group's reputation, while the group's reputation is then affected by the cancellation and apology. The point is that the actions of the venues and ITV are a response or reaction to the group. Normally, I would agree that 'Notable events' would work, except that they are not particularly notable and the group puts on events, so there might be initial confusion. One could put everything in 'History' so that might not help. 'Reactions' or 'responses' still seems best to me. Jontel (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ridicule

Re this edit by SlimVirgin. The report says "Gregson was ridiculed at the meeting for suggesting that the Holocaust had actually happened." (p.17) I won't revert the edit, as not 100% sure this is noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Bob, thanks, I'll restore it. The ref given was not the report. I did look through the report and couldn't find it, but I see it now. Thanks for the page number. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am a little uncomfortable with this. It does not say what form this ridicule took or who expressed it. It is not a verifiable fact but an interpretation of behaviour by the report’s author or agent. As it is vague, I feel it may facilitate possibly unfair inferences WP:NPOV. I suggest that it is better deleted. Jontel (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The ridicule text is based on more than one secondary RSs, and therefore seems both accurate and due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That does not seem to address my point. I accept the 'ridicule' took place. However, its significance is unclear as we are not told the nature or origin of this ridicule. What was the behaviour? Was it from Thring? The report's vagueness in several places results in the casting of aspersions without substance. Multiple publications uncritically parroting the report's contents without independent verification does not at all contribute to reliability. Jontel (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplication of Thring

Thring's comment seems to be reported twice. This is presumably an error in drafting. Jontel (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of sensible changes

User:SlimVirgin has mass reverted [[13]] a range of sensible minor and uncontroversial edits I have made to follow Wiki policy and improve the article's readability and consistency, all provided with a justification in the edit summary, without providing any rationale in the edit summary, contrary to Wikipedia best practice. 'Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.' WP:REVEXP Are there any specific objections to me reinstating them? Jontel (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object to your restoring them. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jontel that the wholesale revert is wrong. I think some of Jontel's edits were uncontroversial and clearly improved the article (e.g. explaining who Elleane Green is, making the Jim Curran material make sense) whereas others are contestable (e.g. removing a key fact from the lead without placing it in the body). It would be far better to make edits one by one with edit summaries, and to discuss changes where necessary. I will restore Jontel's version as a baseline, and then we can start to edit with edit summaries. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not think I removed a key fact from the lead without placing it in the body: by all means mention it if I did and I will self-correct. The lead should now be expanded with material based on the body as per MOS:LEAD. Jontel (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That's correct Jontel; I was wrong about you removing a key fact as you did indeed move it to the body. Edited lead looks fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Improving the Formation of the group section

I think that this brief section can be improved in style and content. It omits Kollerstrom's promotion of a range of conspiracy theories, set out in his article, which is clearly relevant to his establishment of the group, and mentions 9/11 twice, which can probably be avoided. How about changing it from:

In existence by 2010, the group was founded by Holocaust denier Nicholas Kollerstrom and 9/11 truther Ian Fantom. Fantom helped to set it up because he believed the 9/11 truth groups had been "sabotaged from within".

to

The group was founded prior to 2010 by Nicholas Kollerstrom, who has promoted Holocaust denial and other conspiracy theories, and Ian Fantom, who believed that 9/11 truther groups had been "sabotaged from within".

Jontel (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree newer version mostly reads better but Fantom "sabotaged" quote still a little opaque so have edited further for clarity, as per the cited source, to Fantom, who explained that his motivation for launching the group was that previous 9/11 Truth movement groups had been "sabotaged from within".BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Putting speakers together

Selected speakers, a significant element of the article, are spread over two sections and over four of the article’s seven paragraphs. What I suggest doing is grouping them as far as possible with topics in a Speakers and topics section, without losing any significant content. Jontel (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is less clear as what makes this group notable is the types of conspiracy theories they promote, not individual speakers.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I can accept that the topics are more significant than the speakers and so should lead. However, we still have speakers spread out and mixed with other elements, which is what the change was intended to address. I shall come up with a version that leads with topics but still groups speakers. Jontel (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Inconclusive quote

The article includes the following: ’According to Rich and Mulhall, "The deeper we looked into the 'Keep Talking' group, the harder it became to know whether it was far-right, far-left, a mixture of the two, or something else entirely."’ This lack of a conclusion does not seem particularly helpful in the article. I suggest it is deleted or replaced by the following more definite sentence: “The old political labels no longer apply when you have a shared belief in a hidden hand that secretly runs the world.” Jontel (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gill Kaffash - inclusion/ attendance

The only sourced connection of Kaffash with this group seems to be that she attended one of its meetings (p6 of the report). I suggest that this slim connection does not justify her inclusion in the article, particularly as she is not known for her writings or significant roles. Wikipedia generally deprecates publicising little known figures, especially when this includes damaging material. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE Jontel (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Many (if not most) of the people mentioned in this article are not particularly known, and the reason for this is clearly because since this article is to explain and inform about this group, and the Secondary sources brought mention Kaffash (and all the other attendees), seemed to find it significant enough to report. To say there is a "slim connection" using original research does not obey this. And please dont refer to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE to justify removing this name, when 1. It seems that someone such as Kaffash does not fall under this (see also WP:LOWPROFILE ) and 2. the policy is there only in regards to creating a new article just for the person involved. Mrclapper1 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making these points. Taking your second point first, I acknowledge that WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP1E relate to article creation rather than content. However, the underlying principle of these policies and e.g. WP:LPNAME is to respect the privacy of private individuals unless coverage is required for the purposes of Wikipedia.

So, does she play a role in the discussion group, the subject of the article? Based on the report, she is not a founder, speaker, organiser, camera operative or even a regular attendee. She came to one meeting. She is a pro-Palestinian activist and attended a talk by another pro-Palestinian activist, Peter Gregson, about a pro-Palestinian subject – whether claims of antisemitism were obstructing the ability of activists to campaign on Palestine. Her interest is in the particular speaker and topic, not the group, which she did not otherwise participate in. Sources doubtless have their reasons for identifying her in passing when describing a meeting in detail, but the reason does not appear to be that she plays a role in the group. Consequently, her inclusion does not contribute to a description of it. Jontel (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit long winded for me. You didn't seem to notice that Kaffash appears not to be included in the "private individual" /"low profile" label according to all the Secondary sources which mention her. Of course anybody can argue one way or the other but let's not get petty.

Relying on the report to make decisions for Wikipedia is using original research and seems to be tendentious. It makes no difference whether or not she holds any particular role in the group. She is mentioned under 'Attendees' and nothing else. If you want to mention that she only came once (using your original research) then go ahead (it might be objected to on the grounds of original research though).

I also don't understand why we all have to know on this talk page exactly what her activism is and what subject she came to participate in. Each detail alone in every single article on the entire Wikipedia could probably be removed by someone saying that that detail "does not contribute to a description of it" but it's all the bricks together which makes the skyscraper that is Wikipedia. Mrclapper1 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand all the points you make but I am trying to make the article align better with the report as it is the only real source for the group we have, with other sources summarising what the report says. It will make the nature of the group clearer. Jontel (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit seems like a good compromise, incuding her as per reliable sources but not giving her undue prominence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

While I'm not going to edit-war on this one, I believe the way it has been edited now is in violation of Wikipedia's policy of not using primary sources /original research. Mrclapper1 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Making Piers Corbyn’s background more relevant

Piers Corbyn has some very relevant background regarding speaking to a conspiracy theory group: his Wikipedia article says that he 'rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, describes vaccines as dangerous and describes COVID-19 as a "hoax".' He is a leading campaigner in the UK on these issues. By contrast, that he is a sibling of Jeremy Corbyn is not particularly relevant. He certainly does not need that as a 'claim to fame': they each receive around the same number of hits on Google at present. So, with some abbreviation of the foregoing, I suggest we replace ‘Speakers have included...Piers Corbyn, older brother of the former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, on climate change.' with 'Speakers have included ...Piers Corbyn, who rejects the consensus on climate change and considers vaccines dangerous and COVID-19 a "hoax", on "global cooling". Jontel (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. His family is not relevant; his views are. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. Wikipedia policy also does not believe the idea of notability being inherited (see eg [WP:INVALIDBIO] and [WP:NOT INHERITED] ). It may also be construed as unfair on someone to associate them with others when they have not demonstrated that they behave/act in the same way. Mrclapper1 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This revision by Artemis Seeker goes against the consensus here and onus is on those seeking to include contested material (in this case the relationship) so this revert needs to be reversed - preferably by Artemis Seeker to avoid edit warring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Peter Gregson’s views

I presume including background to speakers is intended to convey their standpoint. Gregson’s interest is in Israel/ Palestine. From the sources in the article: his talk to the group relates to Israel; the GMB expulsion was for comments relating to Israel; he founded a group in opposition to Zionism; he is a longstanding supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and he is pictured wearing a Free Palestine t-shirt. His speech title was “The Loss of Freedom of Speech on Israel, thanks to bogus anti-Semitism claims” while his account of his expulsion from the GMB was: “What I actually said was that Israel was a racist endeavour. I also said that Israel tends to exaggerate the importance of the Holocaust for its own political ends.” There has been extensive dispute of the extent to which specific criticisms of Israel are antisemitic: see New antisemitism and the Working Definition of Antisemitism. If we are to include background on his views, it is surely appropriate to present his relevant views clearly, albeit briefly, as per WP:BLPBALANCE. I propose we change:

Speakers have included...Peter Gregson on antisemitism (Gregson was expelled from the GMB trade union after making comments deemed to be antisemitic.

to

Speakers have included...Peter Gregson on freedom of speech on Israel and antisemitism (Gregson was expelled from the GMB trade union for making comments about Israel deemed to be antisemitic. Jontel (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Open to persuasion but I don't see that as an improvement: it adds words without adding any substance, and the shorter version isn't misleading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I accept that the edit adds words but only eight, which is not a great deal. Regarding the difference between the versions, it is because the appropriateness of the IHRA WDA, notably some of the examples referring to Israel, is a matter of interpretation and debate that the two versions carry different implications. I would have preferred to state the specific charges against him, to be even more transparent, so this is a compromise. Alternatively, we could include, as the report does, that he founded Labour Against Zionism and Islamophobic Racism, which also conveys his political views. Several references in the article to other individuals include their links to organizations. Jontel (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Blatant advocacy. The comment were deemed to be simply antisemitic, there is not need to stump for the positions of an antisemite here.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Gregson’s link to an article by Fantom

The current sentence about Gregson and LAW is: “Gregson's use of Keep Talking material and support of Fantom and Kollerstrom caused a rift within Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW), a group opposed to the expulsion of Labour members who made antisemitic comments, leading to the banning of Gregson from LAW's facebook page by LAW's vice-chair Tony Greenstein.“ If we retain this minor incident involving a guest speaker, I suggest that a more accurate, transparent, focused, and shorter rendition, while retaining the sense, from the sources, would be: “Gregson's refusal to delete a link to an article by Fantom referencing a controversial Kollerstrom article led to his removal from Labour Against the Witchhunt’s Facebook page.“ Jontel (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but to keep this even more transparent and as closely related to the article as possible, the description of LAW should not be left out, so to keep the article short, it should be kept as a footnote at least. In addition, to make your suggestion even more succinct (and much clearer), the sentence should begin "Gregson's support of an article by Fantom" etc. Mrclapper1 (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I understand your points. We can include a footnote on LAW. I agree I could have expressed the article point better. Gregson simply mentioned an article which mentioned him, so "Gregson's referencing of an article by Fantom linking to a controversial Kollerstrom article" is probably closer than supported. Jontel (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

More blatant advocacy. The sole point of relevance of LAW is that they are opposed to purging antisemites from Labour.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be even less clear. If he refused to remove the link to the article, then that is the whole point. To say that he 'referenced' it is totally ambiguous - did he reference it to support or oppose? Seems to me the clearest and most direct way possible is to simply state his "support". Mrclapper1 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point: what he actually said, in a short list of articles, was “Also see…” (accessible via link in: [[14]]) so the words I would normally use are 'he suggested people read it', or 'he recommended people read it', or 'he publicised it'. The LAW description I’ve derived from the article on them. Would this do:

“Gregson's recommendation of a Fantom article linked to Kollerstrom led to his banning from Labour Against the Witchhunt’s (FOOTNOTE a group which campaigns on behalf of Labour activists it believes are wrongly accused of antisemitism) Facebook page.“ Jontel (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Why the need to use "recomendation" instead of the current "support" which is more direct and clearer? For the LAW description, I would think its fair to leave it as it is - if one was to start changing it, the article on them gives much material and one could conceivably write all sorts of definitions like "A group which calls allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party a 'witchhunt' " or "A 'far-left' and 'controversial' group" etc etc. Mrclapper1 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be struggling with this. Gregson did not express an opinion on the article, he simply shared a link. It is common to share links to relevant material on an issue one is discussing: it does not necessarily mean that one agrees with all of the material or seeks to promote it. So 'suppport' which is vague in any case, is inaccurate. It is most direct and clear to be precise. He was removed from the Facebook page, which is the point we are discussing, bcause he shared the link. Regarding LAW, the definition in this article is not WP:NPOV; if the group accepted that they had made antisemitic comments, they would not call it a witchhunt. It is easiest if we simply linked to the article on them. The next easiest is to use the definition in the article, which was doubtless arrived at after debate, rather than try to come up with another one. So:

“Gregson's sharing of a link to an article by Fantom and thus to one by Kollerstrom, led to his removal from Labour Against the Witchhunt’s (Footnote: LAW campaigns against what it regards as politically motivated allegations of antisemitism and unfair disciplinary action in the UK Labour Party) Facebook page.“ OK? Jontel (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't have such a compulsion to fix what is arguably not broken. Regardless, I will answer your points: 1. Regarding what Gregson did or didn't do, to remove the word "support" based on your notions, and to propose (amongst others) "refusal to delete", "he suggested people read it", or "he recommended people read it", or "he publicised it" (which are all forms of support) and also to propose saying that he "referenced" it or that he "shared it" is just going rather far and giving the impression of equivocating.

2. Regarding LAW, which we have quality secondary sources, available to all, which describe who they are, and thus to describe them this way is unequivocally NPOV (ESPECIALLY since anybody reading the current description can of their own accord say that LAW surely does not accept that those subject to disciplinary actions ever made antisemitic comments), to try and change their description saying what they themselves "accept", appears to be extremely biased.

In any event I feel all that I am writing is superfluous and I believe we should just rely on the secondary sources and try to leave it at that. Mrclapper1 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned about neutrality; specifically, WP:YESPOV, which says “Avoid stating opinions as facts”, particularly as WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively...This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article." I want the statement to be factual in this controversial area: you want it to comprise interpretations. I want readers to be able to form their own view: you want to put certain views to them. That Gregson shared a link to a Fantom article is a fact; that this constituted support for Fantom and Kollerstrom is an opinion. That it is an article by Fantom is a fact; that it is thereby ‘Keep Talking material’ is an opinion. That LAW describe themselves in a certain way is a fact; that another description is more accurate is an opinion. So, a purely factual expression would be: “Gregson's sharing of a link to an article by Fantom and thus to one by Kollerstrom, led to his removal from Labour Against the Witchhunt’s Facebook page. (Footnote: LAW states that it campaigns against what it asserts are politically motivated allegations of antisemitism and unfair disciplinary action in the UK Labour Party)" You can add attributed opinions to this, if you wish. Do other editors have a view on this, as we have reached something of an impasse? Jontel (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not charge me with "wanting to comprise the article of interpretations" or of "wanting to put certain views" to the readership. It should be obvious that how someone/a group describes themselves is the definition of subjectiveness, to use that as their description in a short note without giving a more objective (based on secondary sources) description can hardly be called neutral. In addition, to say that Gregson simply "shared" the link simply implicates whoever banned him from LAW as being unreasonable without the reader being informed of the full context. (Of course I am not saying we should write something like "Gregson stubbornness in promoting an article by Fantom", I simply think "support" in this context is more neutral than "sharing the link").

In the interest of being factual one can for example say that "A Mr Smith cheers a certain sports team and dons their kit" and avoid saying "supports the sports team", which of course is an extreme example of writing badly for the sake of "being factual", and obviously the line must be drawn somewhere, and I think in our case here "support" is the most neutral and fair to all parties.

In any event as you say, we should wait for other editors to form a consensus in this case. Mrclapper1 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am relieved that consensus has been reached in some areas. I feel constrained to return to this sentence, as I feel it contains inaccuracies. As this seems to me to be relatively minor and peripheral in relation to the group, one option would be simply to delete it. Is that agreeable? If that is not agreed, I would characterise it as a response to the group, so suggest it goes in the Responses section. Is that agreeable? Whether or not that is agreed, there are procedures within Wikipedia intended to aid resolution of disagreements. To save time, before this is commenced, is there anything in the sentence that can be revised or omitted at this point? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with it being put in the Responses section. If there is anything else concerning the points which we disagreed on which you feel strongly enough about, why not "commence with these procedures" (with a dramatic drumroll if you wish). Mrclapper1 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks re the move. Here it is. / \ / \ / \ Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Jontel (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Looking over each of your points and the cited sources, I don't think "support" is the correct word. First, Gregson is specifically quoted as calling Kollerstrom's research toxic and that he disagrees with it, I do not think that can be summarized as "support". Second, "supporting" someone is generally a vague statement, and doesn't explain well what happened. I think the best option is to provide a bit more detail. Here's my suggestion: "In March 2019, Gregson's recommendation of an article by Fantom and defense of Kollerstrom on the grounds of free speech caused a rift within Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW), leading to the banning of Gregson from LAW's facebook page by LAW's vice-chair Tony Greenstein." I think the use of "recommendation" and "defense" both does a better job of describing what happened and avoids issues with POV. What are your thoughts? Sudonymous (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be content with that. Jontel (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes can't say I disagree. Mrclapper1 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. Sudonymous (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to all involved. Jontel (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Source highlighting/ duplication

I think it is not usual to have sources set out in an article, and the details on the Rich/ Mulhall report in its section does not add to its many instances in the references section or which can be easily inferred. The report is mentioned elsewhere in the article, so there is further repetition. Moreover, ‘Investigation’ is most commonly used in relation to illegal or rule-breaking activity, so its use here is somewhat contrary to WP:NPOV. I suggest that the section on the report can safely be deleted unless there are good reasons to retain it. Jontel (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No strong feelings from me. The fact the report itself was reported in secondary sources would be the grounds for arguing noteworthiness, but its significance is as a source on KT rather than in its own right so nothing lost by deletion of section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thring’s comment

A comment by a private individual is not particularly noteworthy. As an audience member commenting during the question and answer segment after a talk by a guest speaker, his comment does not seem to be the responsibility of the group. It is not required to establish his attendance or background, which are mentioned separately. On the basis of neutrality WP:NPOV, lack of strong relevance to the article and the fact that it is really hearsay, I suggest that the comment can be omitted. Jontel (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A bunch of reliable secondary sources consider it worth noting in their articles, so I believe that makes it noteworthy. It does not matter whether his comment was the responsibility of the group, so long as our article doesn't attribute any such responsibility. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Gill Kaffash' views

The assertion that Kaffash is a Holocaust revisionist seems to be based primarily on a brief, contextless, arguable and disputed extract from an old telephone exchange, originating from a blog, which is not a reliable source WP:BLPSPS. Should we limit ourselves to what is incontrovertible i.e. “refused Labour Party membership over alleged promotion of Holocaust revisionism”? Jontel (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

While I think that we should keep original research out of this (there are lots of secondary sources which say Kaffash is a holocaust revisionist), I do agree with you that it might be important to include the fact that she was refused Labour Party membership as a result of this. Mrclapper1 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RSs which mention her attendence also mention her revisionism: Guardian: "Footage taken during the Kentish Town meeting has also identified Gill Kaffash, former secretary of the Camden branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, whose membership application was rejected by the Labour party in 2016 because she had promoted Holocaust revisionism." CST: "The footage also reveals that in the room that evening was Gill Kaffash, former secretary of the Camden Branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, whose membership application was rejected by the Labour Party in 2016 because she had promoted Holocaust revisionism." Additionally, other RSs report on the revisionism: Jewish News: "Labour has blocked the membership of a party activist after she promoted Holocaust revisionism and received praise from self-confessed denier Paul Eisen... Gill Kaffash, registered with the party as ‘Gillian el Kaffash’, has been rejected by the Holborn and St Pancras branch of the party." JPost: "Gill Kaffash, who was also named as a former official of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign by The Jewish News, came under fire for allegedly stating that attempts to ban Holocaust revisionism hamper efforts to determine what really happened during the Second World War." Plus not currently cited: The Telegraph: "A Telegraph investigation shows DYR was riddled with prominent Holocaust deniers that included its founder Paul Eisen as well as Gill Kaffash, a former Labour councillor... Asked about her views of the Holocaust, Mrs Kaffash, who denies being anti-Semitic, said: “I don’t think there is evidence gas chambers were used to exterminate Jews. I don’t think there is evidence of a policy of extermination.”"[15] Or an opinion piece in the Forward, not a good footnote but just to show that this is how she is widely described: "another self-declared Holocaust denier, Gill Kaffash"[16] So I'd argue we go with the RSs not our own original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me take you at your word – I accept your view that we should go with secondary sources. Doesn't “Gill Kaffash, a former Palestine Solidarity Campaign activist who was refused Labour Party membership over alleged promotion of Holocaust revisionism” convey the meaning of the sources in the article you quote? Is it alleged that you dislike? Would you be happier with "on the grounds of"? Jontel (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Secondary sources' meaning is already conveyed in the current wording. Mrclapper1 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The article wording says that she is a Holocaust revisionist. The sources say that she was refused admission by the Labour Party because the Labour Party concluded that she promoted Holocaust revisionism. So, what the sources are reporting are an action by the Labour Party and the reason given by the Labour Party for that. Not the same. 06:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As some sources just mention that she is a holocaust revisionist, and others mention she has been refused the membership as a result, to say that she is a holocaust revisionist alone is fine. Mrclapper1 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I find the Telegraph reference more supportive of her description because it is a reliable source basing its story on a direct interview, rather than a blog, and because she expresses a definite rejection of evidence for the Holocaust rather than simply endorsing historical study as a principle. I have added it as a reference. Jontel (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)