This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chris Williamson (politician). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
– Greater notability than the skiier. [1] Unreal7 ( talk) 13:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
110.74.199.28 ( talk · contribs)
Dan the Plumber ( talk · contribs)
The paragraph seems to be about the views of Vanessa Beeley rather than Chris Williamson. Going to a talk and thanking the speaker is hardly significant - politicians must do this thousands of times. This behaviour does not tell us anything definite about Williamson's views. There is a high level of character assassination and guilt by association in this subject area. I suggest the paragraph is deleted. Jontel ( talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Great to meet @VanessaBeeley today and a privilege to hear her speak at the #BeautifulDays2018 festival about her experiences of reporting from Syria
'a privilege' is also a lot stronger than 'thanking'. In brief I find your arguments are a bit tricksy and deliberately underplaying things. That you think this tells us nothing 'definite' about his views on Syria is , debatable. Not the open and shut case you are seeking to portray. There should be more on this subject, his views on Syria, but that is an argument for adding, not subtracting an article that does, whatever you protest, say something important, revealing, about this subject.
Dan the Plumber (
talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user.
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Stop trying to bulldoze your preferred version into the article. 110.74.199.28 ( talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Describing Beeley as "pro-assad" is irrelevant and could perhaps mislead the reader into thinking Williamson himself is pro-assad (he is not). 110.74.199.28 ( talk) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
PARTIAL SOURCES: Oz Katerji, who wrote the NS piece, has been called an FSA activist. He has actually been filmed heckling Corbyn. The Times of Israel clearly loathe Beely and Corbyn, looking at their article. They seem to take a pro-Jewish line. So, the fact that they report the events do not make them proportionate in my view, even if they are reporting accurately which, given their political standpoints, they may not be. LACK OF RELEVANCE TO TOPIC: They are also not proprotionate because Williamson has no foreign affairs expertise or responsibility. It literally does not matter what he thinks in that area. LACK OF SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMENTS; Finally, he has not said anything of consequence such as proposing a policy or even a theory. He thanked a speaker and queried the authorship of a chemical weapons attack. No uninvolved commentator would think this of note with regard to the subjects of his comments. ABSENCE OF SIMILAR MATERIAL: Nor do I think it tells us much about Williamson. If someone is seeking to show that he is pro-Assad, I would expect to see a statement from him to that effect. If someone is seeking to show a consistent interest from him in foreign affairs, I would expect to see a series of such comments establishing that. I don’t know what else the comments are meant to show about him. So, happy to hear others put the case for keeping them, but I think they should be removed. Jontel ( talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This text is currently in the antisemitism section: "Jewish Voice for Labour defended Williamson, as did the "Labour Against the Witch-hunt" pressure group and the Sheffield Hallam constituency branch of the Labour Party who voted 40 to 0 in favour of a motion stating Williamson's comments had been taken out of context." There has been a huge amount of comment, supportive and critical, of Williamson's suspension. I think JVL are probably noteworthy here, but are the fringe group LAW or the motion of one CLP? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The article should not include his libellous statement regarding Peter Kyle because this is a serious legal matter. ( 86.132.175.200 ( talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
What is the point of mentioning that Loach has supported Williamson, when he too has made extremely controversial remarks about Jews and the Holocaust? ( 86.156.198.203 ( talk) 02:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
Re this revert by @ Jontel: on the basis that The Canary (website) is more reliable than the Jewish Chronicle. The former has been deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Seeking_acceptance_of_reliability_of_UK_progressive_online_only_news_sites_-_The_Canary,_Evolve_Politics_and_Skwawkbox ) while the latter has not, so I think this is a problematic revert. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User:G-13114 reverted my deletion of the section on the EHRC. Here's why I think it should not stand as it is. The text currently says "In October 2020, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in the Labour Party did not find that Williamson had contributed to ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ in the Labour Party,[83][verify] which Williamson declared as vindication.[84]" That is, the article text as it stands makes it look like the report actively cleared Wiliamson. But the EHRC report didn't make a judgement either way. It also didn't clear Williamson - no more than it found that the moon is or is not made of green cheese. It mentions Williamson several times, but only in case studies, passing no judgement on the consequences of his actions and words. The source used is a gossip columnist reporting on the reactions to and (crucially) interpretations of the EHRC report by prominent Corbyn supporters - it is merely repeating Williamson's claim. It is a stretch, to say the least, to read a gossip column in the way one needs to use it as a source for the claim. The same columnist, by the way, in another article mentions that in his reponse to the EHRC, Williamson used a term considered by the ADL as antisemitic to describe a Jewish Labour MP. If we are to take the gossip columnist as a non-snarky, reliable and noteworthy source, surely that should go in as well...? Or can we agree that perhaps it isn't the best source to use? OsFish ( talk) 01:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a story there to be told so leave the text as it is and expand on it. Williamson was shown a draft report by EHRC and took legal advice using a crowdfunding campaign. Most references to him were then removed in the final report. His view is that "The revised report acknowledges that I ‘successfully challenged’ my unlawful re-suspension from the Labour Party in the High Court last year. The Commission was also compelled to find that the Party’s disciplinary process against me was ‘influenced by external events’ and subject to ‘political interference’ ". [1] [2] Burrobert ( talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I don’t have anything to add to what I have already said. It appears we are not going to agree on this. I suggest waiting to see what other editors think. Burrobert ( talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
References
This is a BLP. See wp:claim. “To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence”. Burrobert ( talk) 18:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
He was married. Why is that not in his personal life? Rustygecko ( talk) 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
"Political party: TUSC"
As of this moment, his Twitter account says "Member Socialist Labour Party", which I take to mean Socialist Labour Party (UK). To the best of my knowledge the Socialist Labour Party is not part of the TUSC. Harfarhs ( talk) 09:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chris Williamson (politician). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
– Greater notability than the skiier. [1] Unreal7 ( talk) 13:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
110.74.199.28 ( talk · contribs)
Dan the Plumber ( talk · contribs)
The paragraph seems to be about the views of Vanessa Beeley rather than Chris Williamson. Going to a talk and thanking the speaker is hardly significant - politicians must do this thousands of times. This behaviour does not tell us anything definite about Williamson's views. There is a high level of character assassination and guilt by association in this subject area. I suggest the paragraph is deleted. Jontel ( talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Great to meet @VanessaBeeley today and a privilege to hear her speak at the #BeautifulDays2018 festival about her experiences of reporting from Syria
'a privilege' is also a lot stronger than 'thanking'. In brief I find your arguments are a bit tricksy and deliberately underplaying things. That you think this tells us nothing 'definite' about his views on Syria is , debatable. Not the open and shut case you are seeking to portray. There should be more on this subject, his views on Syria, but that is an argument for adding, not subtracting an article that does, whatever you protest, say something important, revealing, about this subject.
Dan the Plumber (
talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user.
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Stop trying to bulldoze your preferred version into the article. 110.74.199.28 ( talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Describing Beeley as "pro-assad" is irrelevant and could perhaps mislead the reader into thinking Williamson himself is pro-assad (he is not). 110.74.199.28 ( talk) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
PARTIAL SOURCES: Oz Katerji, who wrote the NS piece, has been called an FSA activist. He has actually been filmed heckling Corbyn. The Times of Israel clearly loathe Beely and Corbyn, looking at their article. They seem to take a pro-Jewish line. So, the fact that they report the events do not make them proportionate in my view, even if they are reporting accurately which, given their political standpoints, they may not be. LACK OF RELEVANCE TO TOPIC: They are also not proprotionate because Williamson has no foreign affairs expertise or responsibility. It literally does not matter what he thinks in that area. LACK OF SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMENTS; Finally, he has not said anything of consequence such as proposing a policy or even a theory. He thanked a speaker and queried the authorship of a chemical weapons attack. No uninvolved commentator would think this of note with regard to the subjects of his comments. ABSENCE OF SIMILAR MATERIAL: Nor do I think it tells us much about Williamson. If someone is seeking to show that he is pro-Assad, I would expect to see a statement from him to that effect. If someone is seeking to show a consistent interest from him in foreign affairs, I would expect to see a series of such comments establishing that. I don’t know what else the comments are meant to show about him. So, happy to hear others put the case for keeping them, but I think they should be removed. Jontel ( talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This text is currently in the antisemitism section: "Jewish Voice for Labour defended Williamson, as did the "Labour Against the Witch-hunt" pressure group and the Sheffield Hallam constituency branch of the Labour Party who voted 40 to 0 in favour of a motion stating Williamson's comments had been taken out of context." There has been a huge amount of comment, supportive and critical, of Williamson's suspension. I think JVL are probably noteworthy here, but are the fringe group LAW or the motion of one CLP? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The article should not include his libellous statement regarding Peter Kyle because this is a serious legal matter. ( 86.132.175.200 ( talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
What is the point of mentioning that Loach has supported Williamson, when he too has made extremely controversial remarks about Jews and the Holocaust? ( 86.156.198.203 ( talk) 02:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
Re this revert by @ Jontel: on the basis that The Canary (website) is more reliable than the Jewish Chronicle. The former has been deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Seeking_acceptance_of_reliability_of_UK_progressive_online_only_news_sites_-_The_Canary,_Evolve_Politics_and_Skwawkbox ) while the latter has not, so I think this is a problematic revert. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User:G-13114 reverted my deletion of the section on the EHRC. Here's why I think it should not stand as it is. The text currently says "In October 2020, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in the Labour Party did not find that Williamson had contributed to ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ in the Labour Party,[83][verify] which Williamson declared as vindication.[84]" That is, the article text as it stands makes it look like the report actively cleared Wiliamson. But the EHRC report didn't make a judgement either way. It also didn't clear Williamson - no more than it found that the moon is or is not made of green cheese. It mentions Williamson several times, but only in case studies, passing no judgement on the consequences of his actions and words. The source used is a gossip columnist reporting on the reactions to and (crucially) interpretations of the EHRC report by prominent Corbyn supporters - it is merely repeating Williamson's claim. It is a stretch, to say the least, to read a gossip column in the way one needs to use it as a source for the claim. The same columnist, by the way, in another article mentions that in his reponse to the EHRC, Williamson used a term considered by the ADL as antisemitic to describe a Jewish Labour MP. If we are to take the gossip columnist as a non-snarky, reliable and noteworthy source, surely that should go in as well...? Or can we agree that perhaps it isn't the best source to use? OsFish ( talk) 01:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a story there to be told so leave the text as it is and expand on it. Williamson was shown a draft report by EHRC and took legal advice using a crowdfunding campaign. Most references to him were then removed in the final report. His view is that "The revised report acknowledges that I ‘successfully challenged’ my unlawful re-suspension from the Labour Party in the High Court last year. The Commission was also compelled to find that the Party’s disciplinary process against me was ‘influenced by external events’ and subject to ‘political interference’ ". [1] [2] Burrobert ( talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I don’t have anything to add to what I have already said. It appears we are not going to agree on this. I suggest waiting to see what other editors think. Burrobert ( talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
References
This is a BLP. See wp:claim. “To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence”. Burrobert ( talk) 18:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
He was married. Why is that not in his personal life? Rustygecko ( talk) 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
"Political party: TUSC"
As of this moment, his Twitter account says "Member Socialist Labour Party", which I take to mean Socialist Labour Party (UK). To the best of my knowledge the Socialist Labour Party is not part of the TUSC. Harfarhs ( talk) 09:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)