Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Letter critical of the CAA

{link) Published by The Guardian: "We are shocked and alarmed that the home secretary has been swept up in the wave of hysteria deliberately whipped up by the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism ... ."     ←   ZScarpia   01:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not provide a link, but it must be the letter published on 22 January 2015. As the activities of the CAA we outline in the article are entirely domestically based, their argument is not relevant here.[1]
  1. ^ "The only meaningful response to antisemitism is openness". The Guardian. 22 January 2015. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
Philip Cross (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did provide a link, but it was removed, without explanation and marked inappropriately as a minor edit, by Reallyverybrilliantbrian in this edit.     ←   ZScarpia   09:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint against Jeremy Corbyn

The Independent - Jon Vale - Campaign Against Anti-semitism launches official complaint against Jeremy Corbyn, 24 September 2016.     ←   ZScarpia   15:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hate crime figures

Has anyone seen police hate crime figures for antisemitism for 2016? Brian (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

WP:balance to a former advert, I've tagged for neutrality in the mean-time) Widefox; talk 13:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As I said in the summary, Powerbase is a wiki, and thus not a
Kevin B. MacDonald who has frequently being criticised for his Neo-Nazi sympathies and white supremacist ideology. Soon deleted, but not a sign of a reputable source. See for example this Guardian article in 2010 by Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens on SpinProfiles, another Miller website or this or this by Shiraz Maher in Standpoint, also in 2010. Ignore what you might think about these individuals for a moment and consider if Powerbase is still suitable for an article on an organisation campaigning against antisemitism. Philip Cross (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
After reviewing that and
WP:UGC BTW), suggest we put back in Further reading. Widefox; talk 16:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Best to be completely ignored in case the citation resurfaces in the main text. Philip Cross (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Left out for now, as doesn't help with
WP:N. Widefox; talk 01:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Reception

In this edit Philip Cross deleted material critical of the CAA sourced to an Electronic Intifada article by Tony Greenstein, commenting: "not a reliable source, as Greenstein was then suspended from Labour, and has since been expelled for antisemitism/rudeness, the credibility of this source is also in doubt".

The Electronic Intifada is a not-insignificant element of the pro-Palestinian campaign. It is, of course, reliable as a source of its own content.

The most detailed coverage I can find of the expulsion of Greenstein from the Labour Party is in this article: The Jewish Chronicle - Marcus Dysch - Labour activist is expelled for abuse, 23 February 2018. The abuse it chronicles is pretty nasty, however the ruling by the NCC expelling Greenstein merely states without elaboration which rule he breached, so stating that the expulsion was for antisemitism appears to be an interpretation. The claimed antisemitic element appears to be Greenstein's use of the term "Zio" as an epithet, which, even if it is such, is pretty weak stuff. Obviously, Greenstein arouses strong emotions among Israel supporters, but it is the nature of the IP conflict, and, by extension, that part of Wikipedia dealing with it, that many of the commenters supporting a particular side are seen as despicable and unworthy of inclusion by supporters of the opposite side.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

Similar content about me already removed as gross violation of BLP:

BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, and has been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

[2] Furthermore, my trial is still ongoing and, irrespective of moronic mainstream media articles, contempt of court rules also apply. Alison Chabloz (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, do you really not know that you need explicit consensus to restore the name? It might be easier to get this consensus after the verdict, which if I understand correctly is schedule for next week. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alison Chabloz: Please remember to place quoted material in a talk page quote, particularly when you include their timestamp, as otherwise it makes it difficult for editors to follow along with who's saying what in the thread. Thank you .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTCENSORED
. And in fact Ms. Chabloz' chief complaints as articulated are that (a) the sources call her a blogger not a musician and (b) she disputes their characterisation of her speech as anti-semitic.
Freom Adrian Davies,
1. Adrian Davies is representing me (not 'represented' past tense).
2. I am a professionally trained musician, known for my music. Therefore 'blogger' is something of a deliberate insult.
3. 'Holocaust denier' should read 'Holocaust revisionist'.
4. The charges against me use the words 'grossly offensive' but NOT 'anti-Semitic'. Wikipedia is supposedly independent of mainstream media. What's the point of an independent outlet that simply parrots mainstream soundbites?
Per the original complaint she would appear to be quite happy to be named as long as we don't follow the sources in describing the nature of her actions. I have asked for RS to support her preferred version, but she has failed to provide any and I can't find any. I have removed obvious junk sources like the Daily Mail, and obvious partisan sources like Jewish Times. What remains is a brief and neutral summary of what is reported in several news outlets with a very high reputation for fact checking.
One point of probably irresolvable conflict, though:
holocaust denier - our article is a redirect, and describing Auschwitz as a "theme park for fools" and the Holocaust as the "holohoax" is not even vaguely pausible as historical revisionism, it's outright denial. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Daily Mail in one article uses the Press Association report which correctly describes me as a musician [3]: I spoke to the PA journalist outside court last week. I repeat that I also swore under oath that I am a professionally trained musician. The description of me as a 'blogger' was first used by the Jewish Chronicle in December 2016 [4]. Previously, after my Quenelle salute in 2015, the Times of Israel described me as an artist [5]. The BBC is no more or less impartial than any other outlet - indeed it is a state-run broadcasting company therefore serving globalist interests as do all other mainstream outlets. My trial is nothing more than the political persecution of an artist. In 1980, The Sex Pistols published a song entitled 'Belsen is a Gas' - for which there is an entire dedicated WP page [6]! Why wasn't Johnny Rotten brought in front of a court? Why isn't Ricky Gervais being prosecuted for his jokes about Schindler's List? After my first day of trial last January, most of the press used the term
Holocaust denier
is equally a misnomer: weaponised words of ritual defamation used to protect a historical narrative for which there is no forensic evidence. Highly doubtful that any WP editor would like to be accused of mass murder without a forensic investigation and with no evidence of any actual murder weapon - simply on the word of eye-witnesses alone. Indeed, the fact that certain countries need laws to protect the official narrative should alert any thinking person of the highly suspicious nature of the whole story. Yad Vashem and the Auschwitz Museum admitted that the soap, lampshades and shrunken heads were war propaganda tools meant to demonise the losers after WW2. My songs ridicule the likes of Irene Zisblatt, diamond swallower and the fact that the latest edition Anne Frank's diary is now co-authored by her dead father, Otto. No revisionist denies that there were labour camps and deportations. I am the victim of a witch-hunt which, as is clearly visible, is being continued here on Wikipedia. Couldn't all this have waited till my verdict in a week's time?
Most importantly, if I am not important enough for a dedicated WP page, then WHY are BLPCRIME guidelines not being adhered to? Alison Chabloz (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are large numbers of cases where people are named or discussed in Wikipedia articles who do not merit articles of their own. The context here is discussion of the case itself, and whether we should censor the reliable independent coverage of the case.
Wikipedia is not censored is a widely abused guideline, but in this case it appears to apply: I cannot find any mainstream coverage of this case that fails to mention your name. You are asking that Wikipedia lead the way in suppressing the poison that attaches to your name from being exposed as an antisemite and a holocaust denier. I am afraid I don't think that's our job. Even if the court finds you not guilty of the offences under the Communications Decency Act, that will not change the fact that you have been shown to engage in antisemitic behaviour. You've probably discussed this with your counsel and I am sure he has advised you that under the Defamation Act 2013 you have no right of redress against The Times, the BBC and other sources that so characterise you. Despite what you claim, Wikipedia absolutely does follow the mainstream media. That's the definition of mainstream. You were in court when Jeremy Bedford-Turner was convicted and sentenced to prison, based on findings of fact that are exactly reflected in the mainstream media coverage. You'll note that I oppose inclusion of partisan sources. The BBC is not a partisan source. Neither is The Times. I am sorry you do not like the opporpbrium that is heaped on antisemitic speech, but that is a real-world problem, not one we can fix. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, Guy, you are simply exercising the right to express an opinion. Of course both the BBC and the Times are partisan. 'Hate speech' is simply a euphamism for 'Truth'. See George Orwell, whose novel 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. What I have or have not discussed with my barrister is absolutely none of your business and the fact that I attended Bedford-Turner's hearing (straight after my own) is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant - as well as quite laughable - that you cite 'other cases' of people being named on Wikipedia without providing sources. My songs are clearly an effective weapon against the globalist agenda (which relies on the 'Holocaust' narrative to stem 'racism') - hence my prosecution in the courts: the first trial of its kind in modern western history! That is the point here - it matters not whether or not I'm found guilty (for the legal arguments are such that even if I am found guilty, there will be an appeal in a higher court) - the point is that I will make legal history either way, because of my music! You simply wish to censor voices you disagree with, either because of limited reasoning capacity or something more sinister i.e. racial/religious-motived support for the genocidal pariah state of Israel or hatred of white people. If it's the latter, permit me to ask the following: would you be prepared to call a New Zealand Maori a 'racist' because he wishes to protect his own heritage and culture from the influence of mass immigration? Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC and The Times have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They have an editorial line, but they distinguish editorial from hard news reporting, and the sources we cite are hard news reporting. The idea that coverage is motivated by bias is fatally undermined by the fact that Jewish News, The Times, the BBC, the Independent and the Daily Mail all say substantially the same thing. The Daily Mail has a long and inglorious history of antisemitism, the BBC is currently under attack from Momentum for exactly the opposite. There is no plausible scenario in which all these sources could align and all be incorrect due to the same bias. And you don't do yourself any favours by making such self-evidently bogus claims - that's more likely to get your entire argument discounted than to make any actual difference, I'm afraid.
Your reference to Maori is incomprehensible. Are you claiming that Nazis are a historically oppressed group like indigenous peoples? Guy (Help!) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who controls the media, Guy? Do you know how many Zionist Jews occupy top jobs at the BBC? My prosecution is yet another manifestation of the control of our country at the hands of a tiny, powerful minority. Trials such as mine and that of Jez Turner are political. The CPS wasn't interested in prosecuting either of us until a wealthy militant pro-Israel lobbying group pressured the authorities. Is this the kind of democracy you wish to live under? As for the Maoris, let me explain it differently. When the Pilgrim Fathers left for the New World, did they suddenly become American Indians? Are the American Indians treated as racists because they wish to preserve their own heritage and culture? As for WW2, how come no one ever mentions the Holomodor? Reasons for the rise of National Socialism make sense: the Treaty of Versailles being the main one. Germans today - like all Europeans - will eventually become a minority in their own lands. Demographic change is inevitable and Zionist Jews such as Barbara Lerner-Spectre make no bones about the agenda that has been underway for centuries. How will your grandchildren and great-grandchildren feel when they're a minority group - and you can be sure they won't be granted 'protected group' rights. They will live on reservations whilst our towns and cites are completely taken over by non-white immigrants who have no claim to this land, no attachment to this soil and no knowledge of our culture. Soon, every white British family will have one member who's been accused of 'racism' - another misnomer. Do you accuse Israeli Jews of 'racism' for their crimes against the Palestinians or indeed against their fellow black or Arab co-religionists? Finally, do you know what the definition of a 'racist' is, Guy? It's someone who wins an argument over a multiculturalist. Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody controls "the media", the media is not a monolithic entity. Now would be a great time to stop pushing antisemitic conspiracy theories on this page. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can't be 'racist'. Even some areas of WP would agree with that. Ignorance is a choice these days, Guy, think about it [[8]]. Alison Chabloz (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can't be racist, but racists can (and do) lie. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Overwhelming majority of respondents, and our policy and custom, agree on most numbered points. The rest are clarified below. By the numbers: 1. Included? Yes. 2. "blogger"? Yes. 3. "anti-Semitic"? Describing the songs as anti-Semitic seems to suffice. 4. "holocaust denier"? Yes. 5. Named? No, unless she becomes more notable. 6. "sources such as Jewish Times"? ? 7. sub judice? Moot.


Clarifications: 5, naming:

WP:BLP doesn't mean we redact our sources. Point 3 is a similar useful hair-splitting. 6, "sources such as the Jewish Times": at least one respondent, and your humble closer, are not clear on what this meant - Jewish Times
is a red link. We don't exclude sources based on religion. If there are more reliable sources, we certainly use the best we have, though, so this may also be moot.


Ms. Chabloz: If Guy accurately quoted your words, then you are mistaken. Wikipedia is not independent of mainstream media. We're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, summarizing other sources is what we do. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CAA brought a highly unusual private prosecution against Alison Chabloz. Ms Chabloz disputes the inclusion and characterisation of this content, specifically: she disputes that she is accused of antisemitic acts but instead the charges relate to "grossly offensive" words, stating that "Wikipedia is supposedly independent of mainstream media. What's the point of an independent outlet that simply parrots mainstream soundbites?" and denigrating the coverage as moronic mainstream media articles; she asserts that she should be described as a musician not a blogger, and that the term blogger is a deliberate insult; she insists that she should be called a "holocaust revisionist" not a "holocaust denier". The following questions appear to be germane:

  1. Should the private prosecution be included?
  2. Should the target of the prosecution be described as a "blogger" per Blogger claims "no proof" gas chambers killed Jewish people (BBC), Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court (The Times), Blogger 'mocked Anne Frank and Holocaust survivors', court told (ITV)?
  3. Should the target of the prosecution be characterised as antisemitic, per Court News and the other RS listed above?
  4. Should the target of the prosecution be characterised as a
    holocaust denier
    ?
  5. Should the target of the prosecution be named, as per Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court (Times headline), Getty Images caption, and the body of all the mainstream sources?
  6. Should sources such as Jewish Times be included?
  7. Should Wikipedia suppress mention of this case as sub judice? --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

Guy (Help!) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Options

  • I would say: yes it should be mentioned, it is widely covered in the media and is a highly unusual private prosecution, possibly even the first of its kind - the issue of
    WP:WEASEL (and indeed revisionist is a redirect to denier); Yes we should name the target because all the mainstream sources do, sometimes in the headlines, and, more importantly, not only the pro-Jewish sites but also a large number of supportive non-RS sources also use her name, e..g. "The Persecution of Alison Chabloz", "Blood Libel: The Ritual Persecution of Alison Chabloz" and so on - this also extends to several neo-Nazi sites, it's pretty clear that whatever the cause of her name being out there linked to this case, Wikipedia is not part of it, and indeed if we can't mention the name we arguably can't even cite some of the sourcees because it's in (e.g.) The Times article title; No we should not be including sources like the Jewish Times, they have an obvious bias and we have no need of them since we have much better sources for any content we might plausibly include; No Wikipedia can mention the case as long as we stick to what the mainstream media says, because the sources we quote have large legal departments and are quite well aware of what can be reported and what can't, we have no need to second-guess them. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agree entirely with JzG -- what we have here is quite sufficient for "anti-semitic blogger" and it would be inappropriate to present less than a full description of the events and the way they have been described. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify existing text to ‘CAA brought a private prosecution against a holocaust denier who uploaded three YouTube videos characterizing Auschwitz as a "theme park" and the Holocaust as the "Holohoax".[10][11][12][13]’ - Granted, the phrase “criminally offensive” is repellant, and granted, the idea of someone being prosecuted because they said something offensive is an indictment of the sorry state of liberty in Britain. Granted, that prosecution
    WP:LAW } 14:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Is there any particular reason to censor her name here, in your view? It appears prominently in every source. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because "
    WP:LAW } 16:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    In reply to
    Trial by Media and that includes the evidence on these very pages over the past days. Alison Chabloz (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You are charged, according to court reports, under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, with "sending by a public communications network an offensive, indecent or menacing message or material" and, in the alternative, "causing offensive material to be sent by a public communications network". The question at issue in court is whether your antisemitic songs are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". The sources we use do not address that question, they discuss only the matters of fact, namely that you are a holocaust denier (something that's hard to disclaim, given that you stood in the dock and denied the holocaust) who recorded and published antisemitic songs. You could be cleared on the Section 127 charges and that would make no difference at all to the fact that you are, as the sources attest, a holocaust denier who recorded and uploaded antisemitic videos. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that your songs are offensive, and having watched the videos it is hard to see how you would argue that it was not your intention to offend. The only legal question is whether they rise to the level of grossly offensive, a matter of degree. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am by no means pro-Zionist, but I find the present statement in the article to be acceptable in Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly No. The inclusion of allegation violates BLPCRIME and is UNDUE. It is not a major theme of the organization or large proportion of coverage for it. Further, this RFC as worded is asking to not just cite articles but reads as if the article body will include LABEL attacks. It is also factually incorrect to pre-judge the case stating it as if already done, or to phrase the person as if blogging is their career. Finally, beyond this particular case not figuring as much of the CAA story is how unusual is it that someone somewhere is being offensive on the internet ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have failed to note the difference between the alleged offence, and the facts surrounding it. The facts are not in dispute. Chabloz is a holocaust denier who produced antisemitic videos. The only question at law is whether this publication was "grossly offensive" or "menacing" under S127 of the Communications Act. If she is cleared by the court on Friday that will change exactly nothing about the facts of her publishing antisemitic videos, and I think you'll find the sources will reflect that. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Name subject as she has chosen to be a public figure by her wide publishing - pre and all the more during the trial (e.g. singing in court). Yes she is a blogger and antisemitic and is referred to as such. Use Holocaust denier as she is called such, e.g. [9]. Jewish Times is a RS, and am excellent source for coverage of antisemitism - ot is quite offensive we entertaiin the question it is not. UK censorship practices, such as sub judice, are irrelevant to Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not subject to UK law.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly off-topic, but I object to the characterisation of sub judice rules as 'UK censorship'. Sub judice rules aren't very different from WP:BLP and both are formulated on the basis that an individual's entitlement to a properly structured fair trial is more important than a paper's right to print lurid speculation - which may prejudice those tasked with presenting, examining and challenging evidence - or in the case of WP, individual editors implying guilt on the basis of their own reading of the evidence. The rules are formulated on the basis not only that we all may need such impartiallity one day, but also that we are all entitled to know that someone has - as far as possible - been proven guilty, not been subjected to media lynching or won a media beauty contest. Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete: - the motivation of sub judice is not to affect the judge(s) (and jury, when applicable) - in either direction (for or against the defendant) - as well as assuring the "primacy" of the official court over the court of public opinion which is silenced. It has nothing to do with the interests of the BLP - just the court.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that it is predicated on the basis that it serves everyone's interest, including the real interest of the public - which is to know that justice has been done, (as far as possible) - rather than to have its appetite for speculation or vengeance satisfied. But as I said, off-topic, I only objected to calling it 'censorship', which commonly refers to silencing legitimate information. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Alison Chabloz has been found guilty, therefore the 'sub judice' and some BLP:CRIME considerations are now academic. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A question now is, is the case itself notable (whatever it is officially called)? Or Chabloz herself? (I think less likely). Shritwod (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll address each numbered issue:
    1. Should be included?. Yes. This is clearly a noted aspect of the organisation's activities, and should be included in a summary of the ReliableSource coverage of the organisation.
    2. blogger?: It's commonly used in news headlines, so we can. I'm ambivalent on actually doing so.
    3. characterized as antisemitic?: I like how the current article-text does it, describing the content as antisemitic. That clearly communicates all relevant information, and renders moot any concerns about labeling people.
    4. holocaust denier?: Yes. Various sources use denier/denialist and variants, we have a redirect from 'holocaust revisionism' to 'holocaust denial', Google converts "define:holocaust revisionism" into a search for holocaust denialism, and this is how the phrase is commonly used and understood, notwithstanding Ms Chabloz's statement that she did not understand the term 'Holocaust denier'.
    5. Should the target of the prosecution be named?: Meh. The name has been widely reported, and we would certainly include full details in either a bio on her or an article on the case. However this article probably doesn't really need to go into thorough details of the case.
    6. sources such as Jewish Times?: Ping me if this is a misunderstanding, but I assume this refers to excluding any "Jewish-related" source? It is Wikipedia
      NPOV
      Policy that we accurately summarize the weight of Reliable Source coverage. It would be a gross violation of policy to ban sources in that kind of manner. I consider it outside the scope of this RFC to make a detailed and final decision on exactly which sources will be used. Sources should be selected in accordance with normal practice, guidelines, and policies, to best reference and summarize existing coverage of the topic. This may or may-not end up with use of Jewish-related sources, as appropriate.
    7. Should Wikipedia suppress mention of this case as sub judice?: No. The conviction renders this largely moot, but in general Wikipedia does not refrain from summarizing information and topics which have substantial and public coverage in Reliable Sources. If Reliable Sources were to refrain from covering a topic then we would de facto follow suit, as we would have nothing to summarize. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Alsee's example, I'll address each numbered issue:
    1. Should be included?. Yes. This is clearly a noted aspect of the organisation's activities, though the case was taken up by the Crown.
    2. Blogger?: It's the context of her prosecution, posting material on the internet, or allowing such material to be posted. Her own claim to be a 'professionally trained musician' is peacocky and largely meaningless, she paid for lessons - so what?
    3. Characterized as antisemitic?: I would rather be informed of the nature of her comments rather than this 'label', though would have no objection to it being attributed. 'Anti XYZ' is always subjective and depends to a degree on 'motive'. Whilst it would be extremely difficult to defend these comments as anything other than A-S, 99.99% of us holding the same opinion about her views doesn't turn opinion into objective fact.
    4. Holocaust denier?: same opinion as prev., knowing what opinion she expressed is more informative than labelling those opinions. Would the content be somehow less offensive if she simply had a warped sense of humour? The crime she is accused of is posting grossly offensive material, not being a denier, which is not illegal in the UK. On a related matter, it is important that we record the offence she was charged with. Current wording and use of 'denier' might imply that this was the charge against her, it wasn't.
    5. Should she be named?: The name has been widely reported, but what useful purpose is served by recording it here. We aren't here either to 'name and shame', or conversely to give the lady the notoriety she may crave. Her name is almost incidental to any significance the case may have (prosecuting 'hate content' v. freedom of expression).
    6. sources such as Jewish Times?: Why not? Subject to the usual provisoes of distinguishing fact from opinion.
    7. Should Wikipedia suppress mention of this case as sub judice?: No. There may be instances where doing so is apt, but this is not one of them. Broadly speaking BLP CRIME and NPOV provides sufficient protection to the accused, so why would we be posting info that could prejudice a trial anyway? In this particular case, almost all the sources are themselves obeying UK sub judice laws, so the question is moot. Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Ms. Chabloz references
    Criticism of Holocaust denial § Use of gas chambers. So Ms. Chabloz' problem is not with the factual statement that she said these things, something she does not deny, nor with the existence of the case, regardless of its outcome, but with the real-world consensus that the views she openly expresses are antisemitic - a problem we are not going to fix per long-standing consensus, not least around the article on Irving, which has been subject to similar claims from supporters since forever. This is clear from her assertion that we should not follow mainstream media - What's the point of an independent outlet that simply parrots mainstream soundbites? - and from her denigration of reports as "moronic mainstream media articles" above. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is no evidential proof of gas chambers having been used other than to fight typhus lice. If there were evidence showing that Jews and others were gassed with Zyklon B, then there would be no need for laws which suppress
Holocaust revisionism. "moronic mainstream media articles" is a fair description of several alleged 'reliable independent sources' which claimed e.g. that I sang along from inside the dock when my songs were screened in court [10]
.
The main issue here is yet another gross violation of BLP guidelines regards unknown people accused of a crime. If I am not well-known enough for a dedicated page, then these guidelines should be respected. End of. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: If you are here to try to convince us that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews, you are doomed to disappointment. Those claims have been reviewed in the scientific and historical literature and in courts, and are entirely discredited. It is a matter of fact, established by competent courts, that gas chambers were used to kill Jews and there is evidence that gas chambers were used to kill Jews. This is
not up for debate
.
Point 2: As I pointed out, it's nothing to do with the allegation of a crime. See the comparison with R v Peacock above. The question of whether your antisemitic songs contravene the CDA is independent from the question of whether you published antisemitic songs, and the facts clearly show that you did. Please try to understand the difference between these two things, I think my explanation above was clear but do feel free to ask for clarification. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1:
not up for debate
simply proves that Wikipedia is not a credible source of information
Point 2: There is already stark incoherence regards the way I - as a living individual - am subject to double standards, which merely confirms my assertion in point 1, that Wikipedia is not a credible source of information when it comes the so-called 'Holocaust'. See Paul Eisen. The Israeli government FUNDS workshops to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles favourable to Zionism [11] [12]. It's common knowledge. The truth is already out there - it's too late, I'm afraid. You have my pity. Alison Chabloz (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up for debate precisely because Wikipedia is a credible source of information. The balance of your reply merely underscores that you are looking for reasons to get the result most personally convenient to you, rather than engaging with the questions about whether that is right or not. You appear to want us to fix the fact that reliable sources universally characteristic you as an antisemitic blogger - it is not clear to me how we are supposed to fix that, but it is clear to me that we are going to follow the reliable sources despite your apparent disdain for them, because that is our policy. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Guy you are simply expressing your opinion. The pages on the so-called 'Holocaust' speak for themselves. Alison Chabloz (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they really do. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And proven in court with Irving v Penguin books et al. There is no credible evidence to back up claims of holocaust denial, and although historical revisionism is certainly a valid method of testing the truth, it is actually backed up by evidence - you know, survivors, sonderkommando, spies, resistance, intelligence, liberating troops, perpetrators, documents and so on. There are aspects of who knew what (on both the Axis and Allied sides), who did what, who the victims were and how many there were and challenging aspects of that could count as revisionism. However, you seem to be denying the accepted facts which would make it denial. Shritwod (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, the pages on the Holocaust do indeed speak for themselves. No matter how right you think you are, you must realize the almost universal views about this. WP is not a place for advocacy, and of all possible unpopular ideas to advocate for, this is the one that will have the least sympathy. Surely you are aware of how views like yours are used in the world, and the nature of some of the people who use them. We will try to enforce BLP and NPOV even for you, but Guy is right in saying that NPOV as applied to you will inevitably be negative.
But Guy, it will be much easier to deal with this once the current court case is concluded. There's no need to push the issue. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ DGG Thanks for your comment. I disagree with some of the implications made: I am advocating for freedom of expression and open, honourable debate. As to the 'nature' of certain people using 'views like yours' - I suspect here that the hidden message is along the usual lines of 'We all know where racism leads...' Enforcing BLP and NPOV 'even for you' therefore means reverting the edit on Adrian Davies's page which includes my name - as you did yesterday regards this page. Alison Chabloz (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I don't know if it becomes easier or not. As far as I can see the outcome of the case makes no difference, the prosecution itself is notable, and the characterisation of Ms. Chabloz as an antisemite and a holocaust denier is not contingent on the outcome, it is a simple statement of fact. She is not on trial for antisemitism, she is on trial for violating the law by publishing antisemitism. A not guilty verdict will not acquit her of antisemitism, nor of publishing antisemitism, it will address only the question of whether publishing antisemitism in this specific way is legal or not. Same with her friend Jez who was jailed for a year last week. Oh, and I've watched the videos. There is nothing of openness, honour or polite discourse about them. They are simply a torrent of spite directed against people whose very existence appears to cause Ms. Chabloz to experience cognitive dissonance. Also: she needs a piano tuner. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the conclusion of the court case, we might have a detail or two to add -- but as Guy says it won't change the facts that we already know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG The WP Inquisition continues. The incoherence is quite astonishing: not on trial for anti-Semitism, on trial for publishing anti-Semitism! Which is it, DGG? It's NEITHER. There were over 800 comments on my original (((Survivors))) video before YouTube censored it - 90-95% of which were overwhelmingly positive. The same applies to all my other videos of songs. If you like, I can copy and paste them from Creator Studio (where I can still see them) into a PDF document and post them on my user page. Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the question before the court is whether your antisemitic publications rise to the threshold of "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or not, as defined in s.127 of the Communications Act 2003. Your friend Jeremy was jailed for a different offence, under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. It is possible the question at issue was different there, and the court actually examined the question of whether his speech was factually racist. I don't know, I haven't read the judgement, only reports of it. But in your case it is not a matter of did you or did you not publish the works in question, because you have admitted to that, or of whether the material is antisemitic, because 100% of the reliable sources that discuss the case say unambiguously that it is, it is simply a question of whether the publication of those specific antisemitic songs is an offence under the specific Act. A bit like R v Peacock. Nobody disputes that he published gay BDSM porn, the only question was whether that is inherently likely to "deprave or corrupt", and the judgement was that is did not because anyone likely to be depraved or corrupted by it was highly unlikely to encounter it. And I am assuming that if your counsel is competent, he made a similar defence here, but it might be more difficult to prove as I believe you used YouTube, where people might stumble upon the material other than as a result of searching for antisemitic material.
The question for Wikipedia is much simpler. What do the reliable independent sources say? And the answer here is unambiguous: they do not describe the material as allegedly antisemitic, they do not describe you as an alleged holocaust denier. And the sources unanimously state, as fact, that the material is antisemitic and that you deny the holocaust. This is really not our problem to fix, you need to talk to the media, we merely reflect what they say, as per our policies. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur, the reliable sources do paint a very specific picture. Based on those reliable sources, the comments seem reasonable and accurate. Shritwod (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The publishing of my works is one of the legal points in question. The judge will have to first rule on this legal argument as well as the Internet being a public communications network. Even if the judge rules in favour of the Crown for these two legal arguments, I could still be acquitted on the substantive of my case i.e. are my songs GROSSLY offensive. The problem here of course is that one chooses to take offense - it's entirely subjective. There are plenty of YouTube videos which satirise Christianity e.g. 'Jesus was gay, born of a donkey' set to sacred Christian music. If a precedent is set in my case, I see little reason why devout Christians should not use the same Section 127 of the Communications Act to claim gross offence. It's a slippery slope - and Wikipedia has already hit the swamp at the bottom of the slide. Wikipedia is worse than the mainstream, the only difference being that here it's easier to reply directly and immediately. Alison Chabloz (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of publication itself is not at issue, and cannot be, since it is objectively true that these videos were made by you and were published by you or at your instigation. I do understand that there is a technicality to be settled as to whether you published them or caused them to be published, but that is a distinction that we have no need to make, and which the sources we cite also do not need to address, because it is a distinction without a difference.
And now would be a great time to learn the distinction between a belief, such as Christianity, and an objective fact, such as the death of millions, mainly Jews, at the hands of the Nazis, in the gas chambers and elsewhere. It's a bit like the recent furore over a White House staffer mocking John McCain because he is dying. You can mock him for his politics, but to mock him because of the fact that he has terminal cancer is a shitty thing to do. Wikipedia has very little patience with people who deny genocide. We're old-fashioned that way. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the videos of my songs subject to charges was not uploaded to YouTube by me. How do you explain that, Guy? You clearly have no clue about the actual legal points at hand and merely wish to pursue your Inquisition. Oh, and if you did actually have some bonafide verifiable proof that Jews were gassed with Zyklon B at the hands of the Nazis, you would become a very rich man indeed. No one has provided any proof till now and the very fact that this matter is not up for debate on Wikipedia makes a mockery of the online encyclopaedia. The truth does not fear investigation. Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. You made the videos, the videos are antisemitic, ergo you are a maker of antisemitic videos, exactly as the sources say. It's relevant to the prosecution, but as I have pointed out several times, the success or failure of the prosecution is irrelevant to the nature of the material you acknowledge you produced. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the CAA brought a private prosecution against an individual who is not actually named in the article, but is in the sources. The article says that the person prosecuted is a holocaust denier and anti-semite. The court case is a fact, the allegations of anti-semitism are supported by the sources. As it stands that is all the article says. Shritwod (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments about subjects like this always bring out the worst. On the one hand, here is Alison demonstrating her total ignorance of history. On the other hand, here is Guy inventing Wikipedia policy with statements like "Wikipedia has very little patience with people who deny genocide." Handling this situation in line with actual policy is not so difficult. Distinguish statements of fact (she published some videos) from statements of opinion (she is antisemitic). An opinion does not become a fact when it is expressed by multiple sources, it just becomes a widespread opinion. Especially in the case of a negative opinion about a living person, it should be attributed. So, stick to reliable sources, present facts as facts, charges as charges, and attribute opinions. Easy-peasy. Zerotalk 10:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:, that's not "inventing policy", it's a statement of fact. Search the ANI archives. We have a pretty low tolerance for holocaust deniers, and that's perfectly reasonable.
If you read the comments above you'll see that I am advocating precisely as you suggest: facts are represented as facts, opinions are attributed where stated (actually there are no opinions in the proposed or current content, only facts attributed to multiple reliable sources), and open questions as open questions. Ms. Chabloz is a holocaust denier who recorded a number of antisemitic videos, a private prosecution was brought, the court is considering whether her publication of antisemitic videos was a violation of S. 127 of the Communicaitons Act 2003. All that is consensus at this point. The only remaining question is whether to include her name or not. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Chabloz refers to herself as being a
Holocaust denier. But the article is not about Ms Chabloz at all, it's about the actions of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Assuming this organisation is actually notable, then it would seem that this private prosecution is also notable. Shritwod (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Just replying to Zero.

There is no evidential proof of gas chambers having been used other than to fight typhus lice

.
A recalcitrant refusal to read the relevant literature and face up to the obvious is not ‘ignorance’: it is a desire not to look at reality for some recondite reason, one that bridles at the facts because the facts challenge one’s deepest prejudices. The deep prejudice here comes out in the next line:

If there were evidence showing that Jews and others were gassed with Zyklon B, then there would be no need for laws which suppress Holocaust revisionism

This hypothetical /if..then) , apart from the illogicity of the inference, shows the prejudice unequivocally.The underlying premise is (a) there is no evidence that Jews were gassed with Zyklon B (b) precisely because no evidence, in her view, exists, laws are enacted to outlaw Holocaust revisionism. In other words, the function of legislation to suppress Holocaust denialism is to make up for the putative or, better, imagined evidential shortfall in facts by suppressing anyone who challenges the known facts. That reflects a worldview in which both facts and laws against those who challenge facts, result from a conspiracy, a cover-up. To state that it is opinionable that Alison is an antisemite, seems to be stretching it a bit, or be more precise, counterfactual.
That said, I think legislating against opinions, however repulsive, is extremely dangerous, vis Erdogan is doing precisely that, and one of its consequences is to question the Armenian genocide, or even the utterly crass denialism of known facts that led to the 2003 Iraq war, and the massive quasi genocidal (
Porajmos,Circassian genocide,Chechens , the Bengal famine of 1943, a genocidal act knowingly superintended by Winston Churchill, etc.etc. It's the prioritizing of the most egregious case, regarding Jews, and the pressure to pass legislation everywhere forbidding idiots to deny those facts in public, that, alas, that arguably unwittingly plays up to the conspiratorial reading that fuels antisemites.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Nish: If we were having this discussion over a beer (something that would give me great pleasure) I would agree with you on almost every point. However, we are having this discussion in Wikipedia, which is a different universe. Unlike the great bulk of Wikipedia policy, BLP rules are not decided by consensus. They are chiseled in granite by the Wikimedia Foundation on the advice of its lawyers and the only role left to us mortals is to obey. It is not the product of mere sloppiness that "Don't write unattributed negative opinions about living people unless you are really really sure they are correct." is absent from the policy. But that is what you are effectively proposing, and it also appears to be what JzG is effectively proposing. Neither the pox of Holocaust denial nor the pox of antisemitism is an exception, because there are no exceptions. Nor does it make any difference how often the rules were violated in the past, because, as I said, consensus is irrelevant here. Zerotalk 12:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I known little of Wikipedia's finer print and I should certainly have added that attribution is required. So, for the record, I concur with Zero's argument, and apologize if it appeared as though I was supporting the idea that one could write about this as if we were dealing with hard empirical facts.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a danger of falling for Ms. Chabloz' fallacious argument that the court is assessing whether her videos or her holocaust denial were antisemitic. That is not at issue. They are. The question is, was she publishing these videos (or alternatively, causing them to be published), which seems unarguable; and if so, was the material "grossly offensive" or "menacing". Whether or not this should be an offence is not really important. Its also not important what the verdict is. The sources unambiguously establish that she is a holocaust denier who recorded antisemitic songs. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She claims that she is a
holocaust denier. Although those are both the same article, perhaps using the subjects own description of herself would be more appropriate? Shritwod (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No, because it is a euphemism and it is not the term used by reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say, and talk page discussions are expected to reasonably focus on that task. Wikipedia is

cannot and will not be fixed by arguments here. That can only be fixed by dealing with the sources themselves, off-wiki. I strongly advise that any further attempts to debate the holocaust or similar issues be immediately collapsed or deleted without response. Alsee (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Predictably....

So, a rather uncommon case, it seems, of a successful private prosecution under the Telecommunications Act (rather than, as would be more normal, a civil case for a tort related to such conduct). Guy (Help!) 16:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM: though I don't have a problem with your comment itself, I do have a problem with the double standard shown: if you seek to apply a rule to others, apply it to yourself also.     ←   ZScarpia   17:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
NOTFORUM does nto apply. This is coverage of the results of the private prosecution brought by the subject of this article. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTFORUM applies because you've soabboxed your own views about events into your comment.
Presumably, you deleted one of my comments because you didn't like the link it contained. If that's the case, please either remove the link to The Sun that you've posted in your first comment or explain how you justify one but not the other.
    ←   ZScarpia   10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, do you understand the difference between coverage in mainstream but tabloid newspapers and activist blogs as far as Wikipedia's coverage of a subject is concerned? Some people may choose to believe that an antisemite becomes a martyr simply because they are prosecuted by Zionists - that is not, I think, a widely-held view. Chabloz is a holocaust denier and that is, according to UK precedent, illegal hate speech. What we're not going to do is drive traffic to an offsite petition by those people. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to delete or edit my comments, please leave an explanation on the TalkPage or in an edit comment.     ←   ZScarpia   07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I did. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I missed the edit comment you left after your first deletion in this section of the talkpage.     ←   ZScarpia   11:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Yaniv just deleted a new criticism section with the comment "rv POV-pushing, unreliable sources". I haven't restored the material for lack of time to examine it properly, however it is completely ridiculous to call this article in an academic journal unreliable. It is also clear that this editorial by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research is a perfectly acceptable source for attributed opinion by a notable relevant organization. Zerotalk 23:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, squawkbox and JPR clearly are not reliable (think tanks are not neutral sources). The section was crappy, but feel free to rewrite it with the good sources. Incidentally, I agree that the IHRC definition is problematic, it is specifically crafted to insulate Israel from valid criticism . We don't need this definition since nobody was ever in any doubt in the first place. The academic paper, though, does not even mention CAA. That's a big part of the problem witht he section: reliable sources don't seem to mention CAA, and the link between reliable sources and CAA was via unreliable / partisan sources and bordered on
WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Squawkbox is not an acceptable source. Nor is a paper that doesn't mention the subject here at all.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding such sources is severely problematic at the present time, since most mainstream media outlets have a moratorium on authors critical of the antisemitism debate. Whilst we have to be careful of some Internet sources; if they in turn provide viable references to non-opinionated material they should, and need to be used to cover important issues. The
Identifying reliable sources page doesn't exclude such sources specifically, and they are not restricted directly. I have found some alternative references from an award winning author which I will use, but it would have been extremely concerning if this information was censored simply because of opinionated views on the reliability of the source. These 'blogs' are certainly no less reliable than the majority of the mainstream press at the moment.(Andromedean (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC))[reply
]
Mainstream media is wary of publishing antisemitic tracts. If you don't have a published reliable source - it is UNDUE beyond the RS concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is you are deciding what is reliable. At the moment for example the MSM (Guardian/Observer, BBC, Sky) are misleading the public by implying the IHRA examples are part of an 'International standard' (they have only been adopted by 6 countries) and Frank Field's resigned due to AS rather than pressure from his LCP after failing to vote with the whip on Brexit, and other local issues. This is propaganda not quality journalism. Many of the Blogs are more up to speed on this. Moreover, I note that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ now rates the Canary high for accuracy, which is better than any of the the UK tabloids.Are the tabloids bar the Daily Mail still used on Wikipedia? If the material is sourced from a site rated high I can't see why it can't be used for raw facts, if not opinions.(Andromedean (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)).[reply]
Deciding what is reliable is how Wikipedia works. If you dispute the view that these are not reliable sources you can get more input at
WP:RSN, but this really isn't especially controversial, and I have to say that "we need to accept X source because otherwise we can't source Y statement I know to be True and Important" is normally considered POV-pushing and meets a pretty robust response. The solution is to find better sources. I don't think anyone disputes the idea that militant Zionists are not valid arbiters of what constitutes antisemitism, so it should not be hard to do. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Reversion Rules

I received [notice] implying a 24 hr minimum time limit for reversions on this topic,

"The content is clearly within scope of ARBPIA. Per WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."

could someone else other than Icewhiz confirm this is genuine and why people are reverting the article within the hour? (Andromedean (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

History

There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the Israeli conflict was the chief reason for the CAAs formation, even being restricted to material from the MSM. To avoid accusations of POV, I've included exactly the same angle as quoted in the JC source. I'm not convinced Sarah Cardaun's book is unbiased or peer reviewed. However, I've tried to include both POV. If there's further disagreement I suggest we go to Arbitration on this. (Andromedean (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to be confused. An academic book published by Brill is a RS. On the otherhand, a letter to the editor by anti-zionist activists ia not a RS for anything but an attributed stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, it is what Reliable Sources say; if there is overwhelming evidence in RS that the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict was the chief reason, then it will be included. However, a rise in antisemitism in the UK at the time of the Israel–Gaza conflict seems likely, rather than the conflict itself. The Jewish Chroncle article mentions the Tricycle Theatre's boycott as the spur for its demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Nedrutland (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A rise in antisemitism? I think you mean a rise in anti-Zionism. The two are not equivalent, however much the more militant Zionists insist pretend otherwise. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Brill book say antisemitism. We follow sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a single book by a single author with no other books to her name. She's a theologian, according to one press release from UCL. This does not look like the unassailably neutral source you imply it to be. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is not a theologian, she did hold a "Political Science and Religion" position and specialized in antisemitism in the UK.[13] Not that there is a lack of other sources (including Haaretz mentioned below) describing a rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2014.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely she has a biased point of view working in a theological department. I have decided to remove this. In fact all sources inspired by religion must be treated with scepticism if not necessarily ignored. It seems bizarre to me that secular sources with high factual ratings are being excluded in favour of religious ones without any sort of assessment. (Andromedean (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Claiming a PhD / lecturer at King's College London is "inspired by religion" is quite a far out claim. Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not with the theological connection it's not. We need a better source. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's getting a bit long in the tooth, the Powerbase article on the CAA can be a good source of sources for details about such things as how it developed.     ←   ZScarpia   10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think this is a useful source, can we use this directly being accessible to everybody, unlike certain Haaretz articles? If there's any objections to the source I suggest we discuss this before editing, through the reliable sources page if necessary.(Andromedean (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Powerbase, a wiki based project, is not remotely a reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I commended it as a source of sources, not as, itself, a source of fact.     ←   ZScarpia   16:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a serious problem with a couple of people's determination to state as fact in Wikipedia's voice the opinion that CAA was founded in response to a rise in antisemitism, when it is pretty clear that the people making the call as to whether it;s antisemitism or not interpret anti-Zionism as categorical antisemitism. Israel's actions in the West Bank are objectively terrible, but the strong impression in the cited sources and stated text is that opposition to this is 100% down to antisemitism. That is seriously problematic per NPOV. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources cited refer to antisemitism (and do not mention the West Bank, only the Gaza conflict). Nedrutland (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting set of unsourced POV assertions by an editor - however, published RSes present things differently.Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of actual RSes, besides the academic Brill book by an academic expert in antisemitism, it would seem per the Independent that the met police (are they pro-Zionists? I would think not) reported a sharp increase (61%) in antisemitic attacks in Nov 2014 - Nov 2015. According to the Guardian - "Rising anxiety in parts of Britain’s Jewish community comes ahead of figures expected next month that will show antisemitic attacks – mostly non-violent – reached the highest level ever recorded in the UK in 2014, rising above the previous high of 931 attacks in 2009, which included 124 violent attacks, three of which involved a threat to life or grievous bodily harm.". So other sources seem to agree that antisemitic attacks on British Jews rose sharply in 2014. While the attackers, per the sources, may have been motivated by an anti-Zionist agenda or events in Gaza - they chose to attack British Jews who are by no means responsible or connected to events in Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
attributing
this to the various Jewish voices who make the claim, but I have a serious problem with stating as objective fact that this group was founded in response to objective antisemitism. Anti-Zionism, absolutely, that has complete truthiness, but antisemitism is a claim that as far as I can tell rests pretty much exclusively with Jewish voices with at least some history of blurring the line between anti-Zionisma nd antisemitism.
Also any time you want ot stop saying "Brill book" is fine by me. It's a book written by a relatively junior academic and published by Brill, it appears to be her sole book in print, this is not the unassailable source you make it out to be. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A published academic book by an academic whose expertise is antisemitism - a junior academic, perhaps, but still one with expertise in this particular field. As for the Independent - "Anti-Semitic attacks in London have increased by 61 per cent over the course of the last year, according to figures from the Metropolitan Police" their source is the
Metropolitan Police Service
and not the CAA - they flat out say so in the lead. This is indeed SYNTH in relation to a tie-in to CAA's founding (as the subject of the Independent's article is antisemitic attacks in the UK) - however it most certainly verifies that antisemtic attacks increased substantially in London around CAA's founding.
As for "
attributing this to the various Jewish voices who make the claim" - is it your argument that sources with some Jewish connection require attribution? Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Icewhiz, your source the Independent quoting the police claims that "Between November 2014 and November 2015, a total of 483 such crimes were committed, up from 299 during the same period of the previous year". That period is after the CAA was formed so it can't be used as a justification for its formation! (Andromedean (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Try looking at the figures at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. There is a graph there showing "Antisemitic Incidents Figures Since 1997" (to 2014). Also "... the Community Security Trust published a report that indicated a significant increase in antisemitic incidents during 2014 in the United Kingdom. The report said that the number of antisemitic incidents more than doubled in 2014 compared to the previous year, reaching 1,168 hate crimes. Antisemitic reactions in Britain to the conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip was named by CST as the largest contributing factor, with the highest-ever monthly total of 314 antisemitic incidents recorded in July 2014 ..." Nedrutland (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that 'incidents' of some kind increased during the Gaza war in my view, but is there any evidence that the CAA was formed due to a known upsurge in Anti-Semitism as claimed? Wouldn't the 2014 data have been released at the end of 2014? Perhaps it was anticipated? The JPR also state 'there is no way, at this stage, of empirically ascertaining whether the increase shown is real, or whether it is due to a change in reporting habits of Jews in Britain.(Andromedean (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Data is released at different intervals (e.g. the met - runs on a nov-nov window, I think) - not always aligned to a calendar year. But OK - here are more sources. Lets begin with a UK Parliament report (quite obviously, as a British government source, possibly biased - but probably biased in favor of minimization) - rePort oF tHe All-PArty PArliAmentAry inquiry into Antisemitism, Jan 2015 - "However, during the Israel-Gaza war of July and August 2014 we witnessed a surge in incidents which highlighted areas in which more can be done and further steps that must be taken" .... "In London, a report published by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)144 showed that racist and religious hate crime offences were the largest of all hate crime categories with some 890 offences per month in the year to September 2014 subject to relevant caveats. Faith hate crime – and in London where specifically antisemitic and anti-Muslim faith hate data is collected – is on the rise and a record number of offences was recorded in July 2014, “95% of which were antisemitic incidents following the conflict in Gaza” - and so and so forth - figures show a rise in July-August of antisemitic attacks - both according to CST and according to various UK police statistics. In the same report, and in the context of the rise of incident, one also see a mention of CAA's founding - "Outside of the established Jewish community organisations and latterly with their support, a ‘grass roots’ campaign group named the ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ was founded and organised a rally on the 31 August which was held outside the Royal Courts of Justice". It seems British media was reporting this at the time - Guardian. It seems there was a spike in Scotland as well - [14][15]. The Home Secretary saw fit to pen an oped on the matter in Aug 2014 - [16]. Icewhiz (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz

It's pretty clear that you can't use

WP:ATT it or say something else, but this is not a neutral source, they definitely have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Not neutral? A dog in the fight? On what grounds? Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Haaretz. See if you can discern why they might be considered to have a POV when considering questions involving Israel and Palestine. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And in that wiki-page you will read "Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, wrote "I like a lot of the people at Haaretz, and many of its positions, but the cartoonish anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism can be grating""" Please point where on Wikipedia it has been decided that the non-tabloid Haaretz can not be considered a Reliable Source. Nedrutland (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a partisan source in matters involving Israel and palestine. We need substantial non-partisan sources that explicitly link CAA to an objectively identified growth in antisemitism. Or attribute the comment. Either is fine. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A partisan source? On which side, and on what basis? Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It's an Israeli publication. Can you not find a single publication in the country where CAA was formed and operates that makes the claim you are so very determined to include? Incidentally, I have looked and cannot find any. This looks very
WP:UNDUE. Most sources which mention CAA's founding don't mention the supposed trigger. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
So - an academic book by an antisemitism expert based in London is discounted due to being a Jewish voice or is it since she is a "theologian"? (an incorrect label - seems she is a political scientist - but didn't dig into it) And Haaretz (which, incidentally, has a rather vehement anti-Israeli government line) is discounted on account of being based in Israel. And not that either is stating anything extraordinary - merely tying the formation of CAA to the documented (per British RSes, based on British police) increase in antisemitic attacks in the same time period. One would think, if at all, that a British source would be liable for bias in regards to antisemitism within Britain. We don't generally discount well established sources based on editors unsourced assertions on their nationality. Icewhiz (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are very determined to include this as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. It's rather singular that you have to rely on an obscure book by a minor academic with no other published books, and an Israeli newspaper, in order to do so. In all the coverage of the high profile court cases, not one mainstream source made this point, as far as I can see. But I did notice who does: militant Zionists, in blogs and the like. And pro-Palestinian sources say the opposite, that CAA is a Zionist group founded on the basis of fake claims of antisemtism. You want us to come down on one side, in Wikipedia's voice. I think we need evidence that this is the consensus view of independent sources. I have no problem with attributing it or omitting it (it is, after all, fluff, of no actual importance) but I have a big problem with mining the internet looking for obscure or partisan sources to support The Truth™. The idea that any reaction against Israel's atrocities in Gaza is motivated by antisemitism is clearly not something we can endorse, implicitly or otherwise, in Wikipedia's voice. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources to back up these assertions and widedpread labelling of "militant Zionists"? As pointed out above, the UK government has itself said (in 2014-Jan 2015) that there was a rise in antisemitic attacks against British Jews, and it itself claimed a relation between events in Gaza in 2014 and antisemitism in the UK. This was backed up with sources.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, back on topic, we have a statement made in Wikipedia's voice as fact which is mentioned in one obscure source and one with an obvious agenda. Why is this supposed fact, which you defend as if it is of unassailable significance, not mentioned in any of the mainstream UK coverage of CAA? Guy (Help!) 10:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence as it is now is obviously unacceptable and Icewhiz's argument is mostly irrelevant original research. It doesn't matter what the UK government said, unless they explicitly connected it to the founding of CAA. Nor are we here to decide whether certain incidents were antisemitic. The Haaretz article doesn't match the sentence either—it introduces CAA as an example of "grass-roots activism that is challenging the old Jewish establishment". Then Haaretz uses attributed quotation from CAA to report their views, which is what we should do too. This is not CAA's page, but a page about CAA, which should attribute their opinions to them and the views of others about them to those others. It is outrageous to act like we are CAA spokespeople here. Zerotalk 10:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. I've said several times I am happy to
WP:ATT this. The entire problem is stating CAA's claims as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Irrelevant? OR? The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemtism (Jan 2015) - verifies in full the increase of antisemitic attacks against British Jews in 2014 during and after the Gaza war. You could call SYNTH on this - but not OR or irrelevant. The academic source ([17]) - the only one covering CAA in depth I could find - is not repeating CAA and does state antisemitic attacks as a trigger. The coverage of debut rally of CAA in August 2014 - all mention a rise of antisemtic attacks, in the reporting outlet voice: IBTimes, IBTimes2 (and IBTimes also reports on a "Surge in UK Antisemitic Attacks Following Gaza Bloodshed" - a month prior), Huffpost, CNN (opinion -e by an historian/columnist), express, YNET, TOI, and JC. Usually, an academic source would be preferred to digging up media sources. Icewhiz (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Haaretz, which is usually critical of Israeli policies, identifies clear anti-Semitic incidents in the UK: "But in the spike in anti-Semitic incidents..."--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing that editors who have been here for quite a while still don't know what Original Research is. Amazing also that Icewhiz cited the Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism which was actually suspicious of CAA's motives: "it is important that the leadership do not conflate concerns about activity legitimately protesting Israel’s actions with antisemitism, as we have seen has been the case on some occasions" (my emphasis). Zerotalk 00:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, exactly right. Antisemitism exists, but we have compelling evidence that CAA can and does misinterpret anti-Zionism as antisemitism, a very common error among Zionists. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many antisemitsm scholars and organizations (e.g. IHRA) disagree with that assertion (or more precisely, see a significant overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism), however regardless attacks on Jews living in Britain (e.g. - beating up a Jew in London, or vandalizing a synagogue) - are antisemitic actions - and these attacks surged significantly in July 2014 onwards.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, and is both exploited and exacerbated by the pro-Israeli social media operators who deliberately seek to establish that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism in order to water down criticism of Israel, especially in relation tot he occupation of Gaza and the brutal suppression of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories. Which is why we need independent mainstream sources to evaluate the difference between the two: many of those who discuss the difference, have a vested interest one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims and Antisemitism

Asked and answered. Lack of
reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why has the section on CAA's publications on Muslims been deleted? This was a large part of CAA's output until recently when they seem to have removed any links to it from their website. The section can be seen in historical versions of the wiki prior to 3rd September 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:917:5500:1D4:D6BA:13DC:82F6 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken out because it was self published. However, that isn't a valid reason for omission in itself. I'm not sure if a claim is a valid source or not. That they claimed this is a fact of the matter." CAA published a 13-page report which claimed "there is a terrifying level of antisemitism within the British Muslim population" and "antisemitic British Muslims are likely to sympathise with terrorism."[1] (Andromedean (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I took it out because this is supposed to be a page about CAA based on secondary sources. It is not a page for advertising CAA's publications. If you find a reliable secondary source that discusses CAA's opinion of Muslims, that could be considered. Zerotalk 13:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't wish to advertise the CAA, but their reports often betray their true motives. According to Wikipedia rules primary sources are allowed in some circumstances. Personally, I don't feel strongly one way or another in this case. Here's another source to the file if anyone is interested but it's only the same report archived on another site (Andromedean (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Back in 2015 and 2016, it seemed that all the CAA did was talk about Muslims. They've since removed any mention of this from their website and appear to have "rebranded" in a sense. While it is true that this wiki page should not 'advertise' CAA material, it seems utterly bizarre to me that it would be complicit in this rebranding, and not mention anything the CAA would rather we forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:917:5500:1D9C:30E8:91D7:D502 (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recently again, they have been criticised for Islamophobia after implicating Islam in the white supremacist Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.[2] The article should really mention their ongoing anti-Muslim stance.Wikiditm (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A balanced presentation would also mention that in 2014-15 much of the antisemitic incidents in the UK was Islamic and/or related to Islamic related causes (Gaza). The daily dot (RS?) merely rehashes previous criticism from those circles. Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "British Muslims and Antisemitism" (PDF). April 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2018.
  2. ^ "Group behind Facebook filters supporting shooting victims draws criticism for anti-Islam language". October 29 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Secondary source for letter to editor mention removed here

The Independent. 199.247.45.42 (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

Litigation

Tony Greenstein was judged to be anti-Semitic, had lied when he claimed in The Guardian newspaper that the International Definition of Anti-Semitism prevents criticism of Israel, had lied to the Charity Commission when he claimed that the CAA was a right-wing political Zionist organisation that is not concerned with fascist groups who were anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers, and had committed several criminal offences including offences of dishonesty, vandalism and drug possession.

[1] Uptightgroove (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide
the policy on biographies (which applies to biographical information whether the article is a biography or not) and prevents defamatory declarations such as you request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. ^ https://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Greenstein-v-Campaign-Against-Antisemitism-2019-EWHC-281-QB-final.pdf

Ali's complaint

I would suggest that mention of the 2020 complaint by Shahrar Ali is premature. For now, an individual (who has 'history' with the CAA) has made a complaint; there is nothing yet to suggest that the Charity Commission is formally investigating the complaint.

Does the Morning Star count as a Reliable Source? Nedrutland (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a complaint at this stage. However, it is made by a very senior member of the Green Party and is part of a pattern of the CAA being criticised for being party political. For these reasons, I think its inclusion is justified.
The Morning Star is a useful source for stories which are not covered in more conservative publications. The Wikipedia guidance on it is clear that it may be used but with care i.e. that its use is made explicit and that the quote does not come close to breaking any Wikipedia guidelines. Here, they have obtained responses from the complainant and the Charity Commission, so I do not think there can be any doubt about the story's veracity. Jontel (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to wait until the Charity Commission decision whether to investigate the complaint but won't delete for now. I have added context (Ali's 'history' with CAA). Nedrutland (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jontel, I would not single-source controversial content to the Morning Star. We can wait for weightier sources I think. Guy (help!) 12:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG No-one has challeged the existence of the complaint, which I do not think is in dispute, only whether it is sufficiently significant for inclusion. For that very reason, as well as because they are typically unsympathetic to such as the complainant, weightier sources are unlikely to cover this. Jontel (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jontel, existence is not sufficient for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Guy (help!) 12:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

"The CAA had previously described a 2009 speech by Ali as anti-semitic and an "offensive rant" when he said observing the niceties of Holocaust Memorial Day, does not mean that the lessons of history have been learned, and censoring events from your children doesn't stop them killing other children."

The part of this sentence I have italicised is a badly-written paraphrase of what Ali actually said. It should be deleted - the sentence as a whole serves to provide historical context to Ali's complaint to the Charity Commission, but the only part that is necessary for that is the part I have not italicised. 88.105.158.28 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment; I concur. Nedrutland (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Pro-palestine march incident

This section needs updating with reference to the extended footage released by Sky. Firestar47 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campaign_Against_Antisemitism&oldid=1220392556"