User talk:Jontel/Archives/2020/February

Mural

Jontel, I don't know who you are and what your particular axe to grind is, but to completely remove any mention of the mural from that page when it received widespread coverage and comment in the media is clearly biased and unacceptable, therefore I have reverted.

Please bear in mind that because of your edit history in this area, I am following EVERY edit you make. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodericksilly The mural only received widespread coverage and comment in the media years later after Berger, the JC, the JLC and others made it part of their campaign against Corbyn when he became leader. What is noteworthy is not the mural itself or indeed Corbyn's response to a post, but the way it was used. If you are taking the time to follow me, it appears that you are the one with an axe to grind. Jontel (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"What is noteworthy" is obviously your opinion, but that's all, and it obviously comes from a place of political bias. I am taking the time to follow you because of the sheer number of biased edits you have made relating to these matters, which I and others have had to revert. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodericksilly please take note, do not be alarmed, stay in your home, we the .......(insert here your favourite moral/socio-political majority) are watching you, you do not have to do anything. Sorry that was silly but this thread is silly. All editors have some bias, Jontel's contributions are not any different than any other editors, your approach here though does seem extreme. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

BOD, I might take your contribution seriously if you were not quite clearly an ally of Jontel's on the far left. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Shoot you missed the joke, in Wikipedia we are debate the subject not the editor, my political views are irrelevant, what matters is I the quality, accuracy and neutrality of what WE write contribute to wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Your political views do not appear to be irrelevant when you are removing vast swathes of well-sourced information from reputable sources because it doesn't fit a far left agenda. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I believe you are the only editor who is solely demonstrating their own political bias here. Wikipedia is not a political forum among editors waving accusations at each other, what matters is that we maintain and produce articles with a neutral point of view. WP:SIMPLE 'Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner'. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodericksilly, a couple of suggestions:

- Since you've announced that you're going to be following Jontel around Wikipedia, it would be wise to avoid actions which look like harassment. WP:HOUNDING: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

- Re-read the WP:NPA policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia." 'Anywhere' includes Jontel's user talkpage. Personal attacks include: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." From that point of view, making comments associating Jontel with a "far left agenda" and calling BOD "an ally of Jontel's on the far left" don't seem to me to be a great idea.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This user User:Jontel makes repeated, opinionated statements about content without references to sources, including at Mear One. He changed "attracted controversy in the media" to "was criticized after residents complained of its portrayal of Jews." The criticism was not limited to residents, it the subject of international coverage. Source This edit by Jontel is a blatant misrepresentation. In another edit at that page, his diff summary state: The portrayals were not all Jewish and were powerful and influential industrialists and bankers, so the mural was depicting a reality: there were no 'tropes' involved.. Contrast that with the description provided in reliable sources: The mural emblazoned on a wall in east London has long been painted over, but the image remains jarring: a group of caricatured, stereotypically Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of the poor. That's from the NYT. The mural, which was subsequently scrubbed off, pictured several apparently Jewish bankers playing a game of Monopoly, with their tabletop resting on the bowed naked backs of several workers. From The Guardian. I don't like editors using political labels, but agree that this is a problem here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You should be raising this on the article's Talk page. In fact, it is you who fail to follow Wikipedia protocols or to understand what actually happened. The source you use to supposedly demonstrate 'controversy in the media' was six years after the event! There was very little media coverage at the time. The source you quote about the image is simply wrong in its interpretation: the artist has always been clear that he was not depicting solely Jews - he has even named the individuals he was portraying. I would suggest that you carefully stick to what is in sources contemporary to the event; for my part I am happy to add sources as required to anything I put in articles. Jontel (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding, Mear One's mural, given your edit on the 'Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party' article, where you left the comment, "all of the reliable sources provided on this page describe the mural as anti-semitic," perhaps you'd like to return to its talkpage and explain what steps you took to establish that what you claim is true. Have you looked at, for instance, the three books listed right down at the bottom of the page?:

• Philo, Greg; Berry, Mike; Schlosberg, Justin; Lerman, Antony; Miller, David (September 2019). Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief. Pluto Press.
• Sabbagh, Karl (November 2018). The Antisemitism Wars. Skyscraper.
• Stern-Weiner, Jamie (ed) (November 2019). Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party (PDF). Verso.

As far as opinionation goes, I would say that a way it shows in Wikipedia, is to refuse to acknowledge, in controversial topics, that other viewpoints exist or may be valid, pushing one as truth. I don't think that Jontel has that fault.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)