This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Keep Talking (group) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 November 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Created by Buidhe ( talk). Self-nominated at 10:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
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)
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)
To do this would be original research. Mrclapper1 ( talk) 22:19, 26 November 2020 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thring's comment seems to be reported twice. This is presumably an error in drafting. Jontel ( talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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, [1] 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". [2]
to
The group was founded prior to 2010 [1] 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". [2]
Jontel ( talk) 12:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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". [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Jontel ( talk) 09:56, 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
guardian
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 [1] (Gregson was expelled from the GMB trade union after making comments deemed to be antisemitic. [2]
to
Speakers have included...Peter Gregson on freedom of speech on Israel and antisemitism [1] (Gregson was expelled from the GMB trade union for making comments about Israel deemed to be antisemitic. [3] Jontel ( talk) 07:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
References
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Keep Talking (group) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 November 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Created by Buidhe ( talk). Self-nominated at 10:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
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)
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)
To do this would be original research. Mrclapper1 ( talk) 22:19, 26 November 2020 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thring's comment seems to be reported twice. This is presumably an error in drafting. Jontel ( talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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, [1] 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". [2]
to
The group was founded prior to 2010 [1] 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". [2]
Jontel ( talk) 12:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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". [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Jontel ( talk) 09:56, 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
guardian
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 [1] (Gregson was expelled from the GMB trade union after making comments deemed to be antisemitic. [2]
to
Speakers have included...Peter Gregson on freedom of speech on Israel and antisemitism [1] (Gregson was expelled from the GMB trade union for making comments about Israel deemed to be antisemitic. [3] Jontel ( talk) 07:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
References
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)
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 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)
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)
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)