Talk:Lisa Forbes (politician)

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


Untitled[edit]

Can someone try to get a grip with the neutrality here. The page was edited at about 5am with a one-sided malicious edit just a couple of hours after her election. Later there was an edit accusing of her being an 'open-antisemite' I've spent time trying to correct it to make it less misleading, only for this to be reversed.

Look at the screenshot in the tweet that's in the Jewish Chronicle and use your brain. Ignore the journalistic spin, It can all be worked out from the screenshot. It was one allegation based on a like of a video in April and a comment made in 2014. It's _not_ two separate controversies, it's one controversy based on someone trawling 5 years of her facebook history.

I know the subject very well but there's not point me trying to correct stuff if it's just going to be reversed. I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I don't think Wikipedia should be used as an attack tool to give people a misleading impression of politicians. The BBC aren't featuring the antisemitism allegations hardly in it's coverage today, so why is her Wikipedia page 90% about them.77.103.105.67 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think starting a talk post with "get a grip" is hardly in the spirit of talk pages in the first place, neither is "use your brain" and "journalist spin". Ambitus (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Evening Standard is certainly covering the story today: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-party-backlash-after-peterborough-byelection-winner-lisa-forbes-liked-antisemitic-posts-on-a4161821.html and https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-labour-s-mixed-feelings-over-win-a4162101.html Headhitter (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought WIkipedia would need to report based on facts, rather than just echoing Journalistic spin, even if several papers take the same political line?77.103.105.67 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have though contributing to a talk page on Wikipedia using facts rather than emotive terms like 'use your brain' and 'get a grip' might be a better approach. Ambitus (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In another comment she said she had “enjoyed reading” a thread claiming Islamic extremism was created “by the CIA and Mossad.”" is libellous, the thread wasn't shown, it was the original post that said that.77.103.105.67 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The facts that are being included are that allegations of antisemitism have been made in the media. The article doesn't take a view on the veracity of the allegations: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a media outlet. Headhitter (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable assumption that she was liking a video expressing solidarity with victims of a terrorist attack, and either didn't read the antisemitic phrase, or at worse read the phrase without it occurring to her it was antisemitic. Of course someone could argue that that she knew full well it was antisemitic (if so, why was not more evidence against her available from trawling 5 years of social media history), but Wikipedia shouldn't present the facts in such a way as to mislead people to only this conclusion.

When she said she enjoyed the thread, that means a thread of comments, not the original post. The thread of comments was not shown in the screenshot, and obviously could have contained anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.105.67 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not acting as an encyclopedia, this page is supposed to be about the MP, not the campaigning stance of various newspapers or certain groups of politicians.77.103.105.67 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undue[edit]

There is a serious problem here WP:UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail..."...Now not suggesting we trim all scandle stuff...but add to the rest of the article to make a balanced approach. As of now the article looks like its been written by haters neglecting other basic coverage that a normal bio written by the community would have. So lets get some source and see what we can add. --Moxy 🍁 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The social media posts can't possibly qualify as AS, less still just liking statements, of which the criticisms of Israel was but a small part, we need to have a rational assessment of this. It's essential we have something from the JVL statement alongside the false claims of AS. Wikipedia has a responsibility to be factual, and the inclusion of unqualified claims of AS (which are clearly bogus) has to be justified, irrespective of how much its reported --Andromedean (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andromedean (talk), Wikipedia editors also have a responsibility to be WP:NPOV in their postings. Your own statement above clearly isn't. Headhitter (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Various users keep added Jewish Voice for Labour statements to this, which are sourced to JVL's website. Due weight's not established for this through reliable source coverage. The material as stands reflects the weight of reliable source coverage as things stand now, and it'd be good for more to be written about other aspects of Forbes. Ralbegen (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, WP:NPOV is a major aspect of Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV includes WP:DUE, telling us to reflect significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. A primary sourced statement from an advocacy group shouldn't be included on the basis that it disagrees with reliable source coverage; that's surely not how neutrality works... Ralbegen (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we shouldn't be picking up statements from relatively fringe groups which don't have a secondary source just to introduce false balance. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Jewish Voice for Labour has twenty blue-linked names – including several academics – supporting it, their significance has clearly been established. I have added a reference from Rebecca Filer, Campaigns Officer for the Union of Jewish Students. As with the Board of Deputies, the press statement has also been cited as a source. Leutha (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having notable members does not mean that a group is not fringe, and the fact that someone has commented on a statement on Twitter does not make that statement notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Twitter post doesn't establish due weight. Having supporters with encyclopedia entries doesn't establish due weight. A lack of reliable source coverage also makes producing a summary quote some level of original research. The current summary is particularly odd; I don't see what it adds to the article to include this? Forbes apologised and distanced herself from the text; the fact that a fringe group might imply that the text wasn't antisemitic doesn't really figure. Including it ties Forbes to views she hasn't expressed or endorsed, without any justification from reliable source coverage. I don't think that's okay. Ralbegen (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the assumed reliable sources (BBC, Guardian) on this subject have been exposed by academics as providing an extremely inaccurate, biased and political viewpoint and can't simply be assumed.

With regard to the JVL, members have to be Jewish but are not necessarily Zionist (unlike the JLM which fail on both counts). This group is therefore ideally placed to objectively assess what is AS without conflating Zionism with AS.

In view of the unreliability of the MSM on this subject, there's a particular burden on Wikipedia editors to show any claims have some substance. For a statement to be judged as AS it has to pass several hurdles.

First of all, this accusation isn't about writing a social media post, most of which is uncontroversial anyway, but in liking it. Would liking a post count as AS even if a small part of the post clearly was AS?

One of the most draconian interpretations of AS is the controversial IHRA code, so if a statement fails this it is very unlikely to be AS. So we need to identify which examples have been breached, and why.

Thirdly, even if any of the IHRA examples have been breached, these aren't in themselves definitive proof of AS intent. Breaching an example is only to be used as justification for looking further into a persons behaviour to identify if there's more objective AS evidence. Where is this proof? --Andromedean (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS, which should answer your questions. Ralbegen (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the facebook posts in question[edit]

September 2014 one: https://www.facebook.com/ishy.qureshi/posts/10203585228006160 April 2019 one: https://www.facebook.com/ishy.qureshi/posts/10216106110860406 77.103.105.67 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the WP: BPL Noticeboard, this constitutes a violation of WP:No original research. It is not up to editors to do their own research into whether or not reliable sources are correct. We can only include in the article what reliable sources have said about the subject. We cannot investigate and make our own assessments for inclusion in the article. This is one of the primary rules of Wikipedia editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no rule which says Wikipedia editors shouldn't knowingly propagate an obvious falsehood against a living person. Namely that she enjoyed a discussion about Mossad conspiracies, when in actual fact she was referring to a completely different conversation, as is absolutely clear in the primary source in the link above? It is bordering on the libellous.77.103.105.67 (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that none of the secondary sources say what you believe to be the truth, but there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that. Wikipedia rules are clear: we edit using reliable secondary sources. We cannot use original research, no matter how wrong we think all the RSSs are. No, it is not 'libelous' to reference RSS even if you find them to be wrong. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting all reference to the September 2014 facebook comment issue would also help with the undue weight problem. It would have a neutral effect regarding 'NPOV' as including such a weak allegation possibly harms the case against her as much as it helps, to anyone that's really looking closely at this.77.103.105.67 (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know what would help a whole lot more with the article's undue weight problem than deleting reliably sourced information? If people stopped putting all their time and energy into reverting each other's edits in that one section and instead spent it actually adding other information about the subject to the article. Surely Lisa Forbes has done more and had more written about her than this one thing. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any edits or reverts for days, it's pointless when there's an obvious NPOV problem with the people editing the page. I notice today all reference to the fact she liked a non-antisemitic video has gone. There's a blatant NPOV problem here. It's clear that wikipedia is being used as a political attack tool. The fact editors are adding the antisemitism stuff before anything else about her is further evidence of that.77.103.105.67 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid Original Research and Synthesis[edit]

Bearing in mind recent edit warring, perhaps contributors could check Wikipedia:Synthesis and Wikipedia:No original research before altering statements which are supported by the references to ones which are not. Leutha (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Supporters of the proposed title believe that Lisa Forbes (politician) is more popular than Lisa Forbes (beauty queen), while opposers note that Lisa Forbes (politician) had only recently become notable. Consider resubmitting this request in several months if the politican maintains sustained popularity. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 06:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Forbes (politician) → Lisa Forbes – The beauty queen was never attracting any traffic in the 4 years prior to the MP getting elected.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the move as the politician has a lot of country level references and the beauty queen does not. I do not think Recentism is relevant in that the politician is already more notable than the beauty queen even if we do not hear from the politician again and and I do not see the retired for ten years beauty queen, now running a shop, doing anything to change that. Jontel (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - beauty queen's notability seems fairly marginal, with references mostly to local newspapers. Member of Parliament seems clearly more prominent. Google hits, at least from the UK, are all for the MP over the first two pages. TSP (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The politician has been notable for all of two months so this seems premature. The current set up is fine. PC78 (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - as above, beauty queen doesn't seem notable and Forbes seems likely to continue for another few months at the very least (if she loses her seat in a snap October/November election then maybe we can reconsider). Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per PC78. See Recentism. Leutha (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per PC78. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PC78, Leutha and Aoba47. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lisa_Forbes_(politician)&oldid=1207264231"