Talk:David Miller (sociologist)

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media

Should this also cover his involvement with the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, which Amnesty & others have criticised as a channel for pro-Assad and pro-Russian disinformation re Syria? Huff Post Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dingley: Absolutely it should. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

use of sources for the "open letter"

The policy on this point is clear: we should prefer secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue?

"Miller has attended and spoken at multiple events headed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission,[26] which organised the annual Quds Day march in London. Prior to 2015, some of these marches featured flags of the Lebanese political party and militant group Hezbollah,[27] which was added to the UK's list of terror groups in February 2019.[28]

Attended events of IHRC (who organized marches, did Miller attend?). At some marches before 2015, sometimes a Hezbollah flag was displayed. What is this, long distance guilt by association? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s the “long bow” school of Wikipediaism. It is also synthesis as the second sentence is sourced to articles which don’t mention Miller. The first sentence is not well sourced as it is a list of articles on the Islamic HumanRights Commission website that mention the term “David Miller”. It would be appropriate to mention Miller’s support or connection to the IHRC if we could find proper references. Burrobert (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it for now. Miller was present at the launch of the IHRC report into Islamophobia in 2015 (so was Peter Oborne) and he was a keynote speaker at a IHRC conference in 2016, along with dozens of others, including Yvonne Ridley. I'll have a look for further coverage of any association he may have/have had with IHRC, if it's notable it'll be there. As for the Quds march, unless he organised it what's the relevance? None. :) --DSQ (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've found a list on Millers' website Lectures, Papers And Talksand the only other ref I can find to the IHRC is a seminar he attended in 2007. I've been unable to find any other coverage which mentions his keynote appearance or his attendance at the Islamophobia report launch. I've also added an undue weight tag to the article - the majority of this BLP covers a three week period of his life and, whilst the events are notable, the coverage is far too detailed imo. --DSQ (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal of the sentence "Miller has attended and spoken at multiple events headed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission" until we can find a suitable source. You are also correct about the coverage of that short period being undue because of its "depth of detail" and "quantity of text". We can either trim that section or try to expand the rest of the bio. Burrobert (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Burrobert. I'm still looking for sources that cover Millers' ties with IHRC but so far I've come up with his own website, the IHRC website, and their YouTube channel - nothing else. I guess we could use those sources to support a brief mention? Having said that, he's spoken at dozens of events over the years around radicalisation, terrorism, Islamophobia, lobbying, media spin, etc - so I'm pondering why the IHRC was singled out for mention. Odd. :) With regards to the undue coverage of recent events, I was thinking we could trim it down a bit, I personally think there's an overuse of both quotes and detail and the entire section could certainly be more succinct. I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to chime in before I do a "bold" on it. --DSQ (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated agreement with DSQ & Burrobert for removing the IHRC stuff which involves synthesis and reliance on primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I could support some trimming -- especially of statements by individuals (as against group efforts). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree there might be excessive opinions of individuals, e.g. Kamm, York, Bouattia, "Media Guido", unless secondary sources refer to these. (York reporting is RS for fact, but his opinion is not really due.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd remove the "Syrian Civil War" section completely. His links to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media can be adequately covered in the "Career Section" and the opinions of Kamm and York should be in the article about the group - not in a BLP. If readers want to know more about the group, they can click on the wikilink and go there. :) I'd trim the second paragraph in the "Statements and activities" section slightly and remove the third paragraph in its entirety. I'm sure Finkelstein, Young & Guido Fawkes will offer further musings if/when the case actually goes anywhere. The opinion of his peers and colleagues is relevant, random journalists not so much. I'm not too sure about the final paragraph - the letter was signed by less than one-tenth of MP's and Peers. As for expanding on his career, there's lots of info that might be useful, but it'll take me some time to collate it and look for sources to back it up. If we trim down the sections as I've suggested and expand the career section, it'll appear more balanced and more like an actual BLP. Let me know what you think. --DSQ (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Syrian stuff is one of main grounds for his noteworthiness, but might not require own section. However, not sure it's relevant to his academic career as it is activism that spills past border of his area of expertise. "Statements and activities" is an odd title. Agree second para could be shorter. Third (& 4th/5th) para also probably trimmable. Secondary source debate (start of 3rd para) may be due. View of individual local MP (para.3) and of APPG (para.6) view seems noteworthy as reported in independent secondary RSs (respnse may not be - see WP:MANDY), but APPG para might include overlong verbatim quotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We should remove anything expect basic information that is not sourced to reliable secondary sources and anything whose source doesn't mention Miller. TFD (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to pick this up after a delay. I agree that this is a very odd page, and also with lots of the specifics here. So that would mean deleting a) the third and fifth paragraphs in full (the Bouattia opinion piece not being a RS); b) presumably anything from the Electronic Intifada (as per [1] (I gather from this TheJC is considered legit? [2]; c) presumably the block quote from the "Support David Miller" campaign which has been hyperlinked in (6th paragraph). What proportion of the block quotes in the 4th paragraph should stay? Finally, what is the view on the value of the Bristol Uni paper, The Tab, as a source of factual information? Thanks for the constructive work on what is definitely a delicate topic Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not having heard much here, I had a go at bringing the page back into line. What do people think? Obviously very happy to discuss further and make consensus-driven amendments, emendations, or other alterations etc. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, here are the items which have been removed in the recent edit:

• In February 2021, Miller was reported as saying at an online campaign event: "It’s a question of how we defeat the ideology of Zionism in practice. How do we make sure Zionism is ended essentially. There’s no other way of saying that. It’s not enough to say Zionism is racism, Israel is a settler colonial society… The aim of this is not only to say things but to end settler colonialism in Palestine, to end Zionism as a functioning ideology of the world."
• He has said that his university's Jewish Society has mounted a campaign of censorship that made some students feel unsafe. Miller discussed recent attacks on him and others in an op-ed in The Electronic Intifada: "The Israel lobby's attack on me lays bare what is actually going on – a weaponization of bogus anti-Semitism claims to shut down and manipulate discussion of Islamophobia".
• In The Times, journalist and Conservative peer, Daniel Finkelstein, argued that Miller should be sacked for his "attack" on the Bristol University Jewish Society.
• In response to Finkelstein, Toby Young, co-founder of the Free Speech Union, wrote an article in The Critic defending Miller on free speech grounds. Young said that he had "little sympathy" for Miller but that he "would stop short of calling for him to be fired". Young also said that: "Grossly offensive speech is unlawful, but nothing Miller has said meets that threshold".
• Miller was also defended in a tweet from the Media Guido Twitter account of the right-wing political website Guido Fawkes, saying: "Personal statement: I don't think David Miller or Roy Greenslade should lose their jobs for disagreeing with me."
• Later in February, Miller was defended in an open letter by over 315 academics and others, including Noam Chomsky, Ahdaf Soueif, Norman Finkelstein, Judith Butler, Ilan Pappé, John Pilger and Deepa Kumar. The signatories said that there had been "unrelenting and concerted efforts to publicly vilify" Miller, praised him as an "eminent scholar" and said that the "impact of his research on the manipulation of narratives by lobby groups has been crucial to deepening public knowledge and discourse in this area".
• Miller has also been supported by Malia Bouattia, a former president of the National Union of Students. "The attacks against Miller are part of a chilling wave of intimidation sweeping across British universities, targeting critics of Israel", she wrote in a piece for Al Jazeera. "Years of onslaughts by the British government and the Israel lobby on Palestine solidarity movements in UK universities have led us to this point."
• In response, the Support David Miller campaign commented: "It is reprehensible but unsurprising that campus lobby groups for Israel which have organised this letter ... are attempting to suppress and censor criticism of Zionism. In their bid to silence Professor Miller, they are attempting to whitewash apartheid; the daily demolition of Palestinian homes; and the racism at the heart of Zionist ideology."

Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the undue template should now be removed. The issue(s) discussed in the "Statements, activities and responses" section are the main reasons for Professor Miller to have a Wikipedia article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The tag was added because the article has "way too much detail on events that effectively cover a three-week period of his life/career". That reason still holds. The page has existed since 2018. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue goes back many years. Professor Miller's periodic interventions relating to Zionism have gained media attention for more than a decade. His comments and history in this area isn't restricted to February and March 2021. Philip Cross (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that being anti-Zionist, anti-racist and concerned with fighting Islamophobia is an "issue". Miller's views have presumably been long-held. Hopefully we can document them in a neutral way with sources going back earlier than this year. Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

What is this "three-week" period you think is getting too much focus in the article? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The tag was added by DSQ who has provided some comments above. One of our editors suggested inclusion of material from earlier in Miller's career as a way of dealing with this. A full exploration of Miller's views on Zionism, racism and Islamophobia would be useful. You should refrain from editing this article until you become qualified. Burrobert (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronizing commentary. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I am as qualified as you. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone excepting users banned from editing, of courese. nableezy - 16:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It was not meant to be patronising. There are restrictions for new editors. There is a notice at the top of this page and I have posted a standard notice on your talk page. There is no expectation that you would have been aware of these restrictions until advised. Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I was not aware of this restriction. I find it odd that Miller's investigation for a possible hate crime is considered part of the the Arab–Israeli conflict, but so be it. I'll limit my contributions to this talk page, for the time being. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries. You can still make comments on the talk page and make edit requests here in the meantime. Burrobert (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Morning. Just to clarify, this is what the article looked like when I came along. [3]. It had a standalone section on the newly commenced police investigation and this had been prominently inserted right under the career section. I removed it. It has some original research about Miller's links to IHRC - also removed. Para 2 onwards of the "Statements and activities" section covered the period February/March and took up practically two-thirds of the article. Clearly undue. I added the tag for this reason. I see it's been trimmed right down - I'm not a fan of the inclusion of the opinion of random journalists - facts, yes; opinion, not so much, so I don't think the opinion of both The Times & Finkelstein are necessary, one or the other. I do think the opinion of Jewish students from Bristol Uni are relevant and they're not included. Clearly, the section will be expanded when the Uni investigation & police investigation are completed, until then I personally think the section is still undue. Side issue: I also still think that the Syrian Civil War section should be expanded upon or removed. A standalone section that effectively just tells us that he's a member of a group? The section is puffed out with irrelevant detail and the opinion of Chris York, both of which belong in the article about the group, if they belong anywhere. :) --DSQ (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)\

I disagree with removing that entire section and replacing it with just a sentence saying he's a member of the "Working Group on Syria", As you note, the material you removed also includes criticism of him, personally, due to the group's activities. This is relevant and sourced. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I would mention that the opinion of all students should be included not just the Jewish students.Selfstudier (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

DSQ, I refer you to my comments opening the section below. Without Finkelstein's article and the response from the Board of Deputies, there is no response from the Jewish community to Professor Miller in the article. So these additions are not exactly random. I am sure you care a great dal about the Jewish community, and no one has directly responded to the comments I made yesterday. You might as well be the first.

Selfstudier, without reports of current Bristol University students being polled on this issue, I do not see how that community can be fairly represented in this article. Philip Cross (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am simply making it clear that all sides need representing, there is a student petition supporting Miller for instance but as I have made plain I am not in favor of introducing every bit of tittle tattle that comes out.Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. While it true primary sources are not outright banned when cited alone, this section begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." So it is desirable to include a secondary source at when Spinwatch is mentioned in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are making here? Selfstudier (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your removal of the Standpoint citation in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean in the lead? I explained why in my edit summary. If you are complaining about the self ref in the lead for spinpoint, that's fine by virtue of aboutself but you can delete if you want.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no desire to remove the mention of Spinwatch from the lead since there is a significant detail below which Miller took seriously enough to apologise for. Double sourced as well. Philip Cross (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)~

I already removed it, not necessary there anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip, to be honest I haven't read that section, I was responding to a ping and wasn't intending on sticking around right now. :) I'll read it later and comment. Ta. --DSQ (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Jewish responses to David Miller

Leading figures in the Jewish community, regardless of political affiliation have been calling for Miller to be removed from his post for some time. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, it is not difficult to think of reasons to respect responses from the Jewish community and as to why they should be included in the Wikipedia article on Miller. This Times article has been removed in the recent past, one assumes by a defender of Miller, but Daniel Finkelstein (who identifies himself as Jewish in the article) expresses himself very subtly and sensitivity in article as I have tried to suggest, if my extended summary seems undue. I consider it fundamentally regrettable, regardless as to whether his article remains in the text, that no member of the (British) Jewish community or a community organisation has been allowed to have their responses included in this article. I regard it as indefensible and unforgivable.

The issue of including Daniel Finkelstein's Times article is thus quite minor in comparison. A certain detail is likely to be restored quite quickly, but I think Daniel Finkelstein is better known as a journalist and thus his peerage is irrelevant in this context, as is the question as to whether or he is a cross-bench peer (ie, formally non-political). I have to express the issue in such an imprecise manner as a means of self-protection because of a topic ban on contemporary UK politics. The immediate issue, and my edits, relate to the article subject's attitude towards Israel. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are editing purely on a POV basis, looking up every half baked source you can find, including one from 2010! The only real facts are that there are two outstanding investigations, neither of which has reported yet, all this stuff is just yada yada until they do. (and don't put sources in the article before you put the content in). Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I on the other hand think that adding Finkelstein's view is a pretty good edit. In general I find him quite loathsome -- but I agree with Philip Cross that this perspective on Miller is quite relevant. (And since it wasn't published in 2010, I'm not sure what the previous response is getting at.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Look closer "ref name="Spoint2010">Maher, Shiraz (13 July 2010). "Questions David Miller must answer". Standpoint. Retrieved 13 August 2021.- crud.Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The issues around Miller have been around a long time, in fact since before 2010. I wouldn't describe reliable sources as half-baked. You can of course suggest how The Times and Standpoint should be treated as sources elsewhere, but for now I do not see reasons to not use them. The details in the summary needed confirming by a third-party source (primary sources directly connected with the subject of an article are not considered ideal), so it was quite legitimate to split my additions. I fixed the citation error, User:Selfstudier. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

They may have been around a long time but they weren't in the article because they are undue and not news. Where is the university statement ( a week or so ago, not in 2010) that its freedom of speech policy and its commitment for the right of staff and students.. to speak openly without fear of censorship or limitation, as long as it’s within the law. That count for anything? Or just your one sided view of the situation?Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The defence of academic freedom argument has already been included in the article, but citing a further, more recent, response from the University of Bristol would be worth including. Miller's websites did gain quite a bit of attention in reliable sources a decade ago, so it is part of the long-term ongoing issue about Professor Miller. Philip Cross (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A "long term ongoing issue", cute, there is an ongoing issue, 2 cases pending a result, the two cases have nothing to do with any prior issues which are undue and not news, I suspect some NPOV editors will come along here and undo some of this rubbish, I am not going to edit war.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There are now two good sources from 2010 in the article concerning Miller's websites. Probably many more if anyone thinks all this is unimportant. Philip Cross (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier, the Bristol University statement you mention, which is included here, does not substantially develop beyond their earlier statement in March and reiterates it. Philip Cross (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion, mine is that they are reiterating it while under pressure re the ongoing investigation and could indicate that it is a factor in their current thinking (not that one would expect Algemeiner to emphasize that).Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is my opinion, I don't have any other. You are free to expand the passage on the original statement, if you wish, but merely restating a five-month statement fails on notability grounds. Philip Cross (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeating myself, I don't introduce every bit of title tattle into the article and I haven't, my antenna get tripped when people do.Selfstudier (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, after a bit of research I now know what the "2010" stuff is about. It's about a case dating from 20 years ago in which Miller wasn't even involved, duh, and because DM hosted on a website dubious material from 2 people who were involved (which he removed and apologized for), we have to have all this undue stuff in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It was an incident on a website he took responsibility for, chose the people involved and went to the trouble to apologise for his website formerly hosting material by Kevin MacDonald. The article now indicates Miller's connection very well. Looks as though his Neocon Europe is being revived after being in abeyance for some years. Other Standpoint articles from a decade ago refer to as being defunct. Philip Cross (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to take it out as dated, undue and only tangentially relevant (it has nothing really to do with his "Career", the section title) but I will wait and see what others have to say about it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So "dated" when it's old, and "not news" when it's recent? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

What material are you referring to? The dated stuff is undue AND not news.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier, coming back to the beginning of this section, do you have any specific objections to Jewish responses to Professor Miller being included in this article? Philip Cross (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit abstract, you put them in, I'll tell you what I think of them (like anything sourced to the JC will get short shrift, for example).Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Too much source material critical of Professor Miller to exclude, I am afraid. Astonishingly little from reliable sources defending him comes up in Google searches, and the weight of evidence in RS seems to be against him, "Jewish press" or non-Jewish press alike. Philip Cross (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea, we know your opinion, I want to hear from other editors. He's still at the Uni, right? There are 2 investigations pending, right? Apparently there may also be some sort of legal proceeding against the university as well. It's still all heat and little light, considering that according to you he has been a problem for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is reverting back into a hatchet job. We have two negative, accusatory opinion pieces in the "Other affiliations" section. Why is it not possible to simply explain what the websites and wiki cover? Why are those opinions relevant? They're not imo. Not too sure about the paragraph on Neocon Europe either - seems a bit dated and both links provided to the site/database are effectively redundant. So what's the point? Re: "Statements, activities...." and the Jewish response - I'd suggest that van der Zyl covers that. No need for Finkelstein too - if you put his opinion in, then we should put Young & Guido's counter opinions back in - then we're getting into undue territory again. (Having said that, & I reiterate, I'd include something from the Jewish students at the Uni who were directly involved). As it stands Miller is still employed & is, in fact, listed to teach this coming term & he hasn't been charged with anything - unless that changes imo the section should be kept as succinct as possible. Finally, I agree with User:Selfstudier re the JC as a source - as a result of the recent history of IPSO decisions and libel cases, I don't think we should rely on anything they publish on left-wing figures and certainly not in a BLP.--DSQ (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So let's see if I've got this straight. We don't need Finkelstein because we already have van der Zyl. But we don't want van der Zyl because that's the JC, and something something libel. And we could use something from the Jewish students at Bristol directly affected -- but it seems there isn't anything (sadly). Do I have it right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a "hatchet job" (that's what all the recent editing looks like to me as well) when the guy is still in post and nothing of any of these allegations has been proven. What we ought to be doing is reporting the allegations tersely, a list of them with refs will do, a sentence or two, they are all the same thing anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If Bristol University eventually finds Miller has broken his contract of employment in his behaviour towards Jewish students, I imagine Miller's defenders on Twitter will transfer there allegedly conspiratorial thinking to the institution itself. Wikipedia editors write articles based on reliable sources, the balance being strongly against Miller. Articles about the letter defending him signed by Noam Chomsky are the main ones in his defence. Bristol University has distanced themselves from his opinions.

The claims against Miller are not "all the same thing anyway." Miller's academic work about the treatment of Muslims in the UK is arguably flawed as well. The term antisemitism applies to supposed Jewish/Zionist threats to World peace, claims Miller has made, so it legitimate to use reliable sources describing the accusations in this way. As antisemitism is not itself a criminal offence in the UK, the police or university investigation of Miller do not change the fact such allegations have been made against the professor in the mainstream media or by reputable organisations. "I don't like it", the shortest phrase to describe comments opposing the article's correct form, is not a good enough reason to remove content from this article. Philip Cross (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing BLPs in particular and on the subject of anti-Semitism requires NPOV and for myself I see your editing as anything but, including and up to the inserting of a false statement that the Times had accused Miller of anti-Semitism and then attempting to maintain this untruth in the face of two editors asking for clarification and only finally withdrawing that when presented with irrefutable evidence of inauthenticity. As I said before but will repeat, I think we are well aware by now of your position, let's see what others have to say as well.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

And, btw, editing comments that have already been replied to is not done. I want it to be clear what I am replying to, not your ex post facto version.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip - "I don't like him", the shortest phrase to describe the comments of those attempting to fill the article with anything negative they can find, is not a good enough reason for a hatchet job. I don't see your editing on this article as neutral either. --DSQ (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Those comments outline personal views about the subject matter of the article and, as such, likely contravene a policy and a guideline:

• WP:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM: "However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)."
• WP:Talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

Addressing two of your comments:

• "The term antisemitism applies to supposed Jewish/Zionist threats to World peace, claims Miller has made ... ." Any comments about threats to world peace made by Miller solely concerned the actions of Israel and its supporters. By itself, that no more indicates that Miller is antisemitic than, say, comments about Chinese threats to world peace would have indicated that he was an anti-Chinese bigot.
• "As antisemitism is not itself a criminal offence in the UK, the police or university investigation of Miller do not change the fact such allegations have been made against the professor in the mainstream media or by reputable organisations." England has hate crime laws[4][5][6] which, if my understanding is correct, makes it a crime to demonstrate hostility based on race or religion, or to carry out acts which been motivated by hostility based on race or religion. That would cover antisemitism based on Jewishness as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion. As part of Bristol University's investigation, a QC "found that the comments Miller is alleged to have made 'did not constitute unlawful speech'."[7] I should think that it can be taken as read that whether the alleged comments constituted unlawful speech is likely to have taken into account the hate crime laws. As you probably know, it is being claimed that the investigation report was leaked to Electronic Intifada and that it specifically looked into the question of whether anything antisemitic had occurred.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No need for the snark Nomoskedasticity, ta! No, we don't need Finkelstein at this stage, unless the counter-arguments go back in; van der Zyl's reaction, as a community representative, are important & her comments/letter can be found here & here. No need for the JC. Comments from students, UJS, and Bristol J-Soc can be found here, here, here and I don't doubt other sources can be found if these aren't good enough. So, no you don't have it right. Hope that helps! --DSQ (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

So you'd be in favour of using the usable sources? (i.e., not the primary ones) If so, why not proceed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't have the time or patience right now to get embroiled in a bun fight over an article that doesn't particularly interest me. I don't have it watchlisted, I did a couple of drive-by edits a while back & added the tag. I may return to it if/when something notable happens; meanwhile if Philip wants to turn it into a roll call of those who've linked Miller to antisemitism, insists that he is creating a neutral BLP and that his edits comply with the spirit of the policies he quotes, so be it! I'd personally add a POV template, but I don't have the time to debate that either at the moment. --DSQ (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking about that as well. A large number of edits devoted mainly to allegations of anti-Semitism by one editor certainly appears as POV editing.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, the editor is trying to remedy the POV editing of other editors. Context matters -- in fact, it's pretty much the only thing that matters here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the allegations would be POV if they were original research. They are not. Nomoskedasticity, thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It turns out on inspection that all the guff about spinprofiles is also dated (defunct since 2010). The POV of the editor becomes more obvious with every examination of the editing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It is still part of Professor Miller's history with proper third-party citations for its inclusion and you have indicated via a citation that is defunct. Philip Cross (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:INDENT (reminder about your random placement of responses)Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the indentation. Philip Cross (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for verification

Would someone who has access to the Murdoch Times please verify the statement "In February 2021, Miller was accused of antisemitism by The Times newspaper after calling for the "end of Zionism," and saying Israel is "trying to exert its will all over the world"? Specifically, did Murdoch accuse Miller of antisemitism or did the accusation come from someone or some group that is being quoted in the article? The small snippet that is visible to me says "Miller was accused of antisemitism after calling Zionism “the enemy” ...". This suggests that it is not Murdoch who is accusing him of antisemitism. However, there may be another accusation later in the article. Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you don't wish to, but someone might take up the suggestion I am about to make. It is possible to sign up to The Times for free and access a handful of articles each month. That is probably the best solution. Philip Cross (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you able to provide the verification? Burrobert (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio rules probably mean it would unwise for me to add a more substantial slab of the article. I added the citation to The Times yesterday and tried to explain the context in the hidden message. Philip Cross (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

From the article - "In February 2021, Miller was accused of antisemitism by The Times newspaper in about Miller below, so the above is from that letter" <- This is not even English, duh. Are we talking about https://archive.ph/20210304171933/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-and-peers-call-on-bristol-university-to-condemn-academic-in-antisemitism-row-qkpgzphzw ? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the article. Just added the archive-url/date. Philip Cross (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh, show me the accusation by the Times, I can't see it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's see, you appear to have added a false statement into WP and when it was queried you have removed the tag and left the false statement in, am I right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for rectifying that. Please take care when editing a BLP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The section "Statements, activities and responses" appears to be about little else except accusations of anti-Semitism so maybe we should call it that instead? Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

By way of contrast to the views espoused by The Times:

- The Electronic Intifada's archive on David Miller: <<<REDACTED>>

- Tony Greenstein (the anti-KammFinkelstein): <<<REDACTED>>

    ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

EI is considered "generally unreliable" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Electronic Intifada (EI). The other source is a self-published blog, which cannot be used for that reason. There was a recent libel case (which he lost) suggesting Tony Greenstein is not an ideal defender of Professor Miller. Unfortunately, when I looked a few weeks ago, I found no usable source citing Ken Loach's high opinion of Professor Miller. Wikipedia policies say nothing about adding comments from individuals who are not an "ideal defender" of another person's position and it is to hoped Loach's positive opinion of Miller will be reported by a reliable source in due course. Philip Cross (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for interest I tried to track down where this Ken Loach quote originated. At a 4 March online meeting, it was read out and claimed as a message from Ken Loach by Dr. Nariman Massoumi, a Bristol Uni lecturer. (https://twitter.com/hurryupharry/status/1367864628777222146?s=20 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhfg2M9Dsw). perhaps only of academic interest at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The quote from Ken Loach I found was in an article on The Canary website, but it may originate from the Support David Miller website where I have also seen it. Philip Cross (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I saw those (and freespeechonIsrael) but those seem to be dated after March 4, so I think that video could be the original source of it. So we don't actually see the man himself saying it, just a statement to the effect that it is from him and it being read out.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Still undue?

I put all the criticism/controversy material together in one section and now it is very easy to see that way over half the article is about that. Miller is a controversial figure and that should be addressed but this seems ott for someone who has not as yet been found guilty of anything.Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest making edits intended to improve the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the article was better before your edit. Wikipedia does not separate content into controversy and criticism in this way. The controversy is the main reason for his notability. I tried to explain above that he cannot be found guilty of the main allegations made against him over many years because antisemitism is not formally illegal, but the existence of the controversy certainly remains verifiable. Philip Cross (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes we do, all the time. It looked like a substantive improvement to me, much more logical layout and what was described as pointy remains true, well over half of the article is given over to the afore mentioned "hatchet job". Allegation does not equal guilt where I come from. The sheer quantity is completely undue.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens in other articles, this is the policy on Wikipedia:POVNAMING: "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed 'Societal views on X'). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." (Minor fmt edit only.) This is about article titles, but a section titled "Criticism" is thus clearly invalid also, as for any article section regardless of the content. Philip Cross (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not only irrelevant, it is completely and hopelessly wrong in nearly every respect. The problem with this article is the same now as it has been for a while, the amount of undue material in it being created by non-NPOV editing first raised as an issue by myself in March at the top of this talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing balance with the weight of reliable source material which takes Professor Miller to task, NPOV does not work in that way. Philip Cross (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDHT -> WP:UNDUESelfstudier (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Enough, ffs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now an editor, by way of edit summary asks whether "I have an aversion to constructive editing" Apparently because I had the temerity to tag for citation of an uncited quote, a quote which was in fact wrong per the cite now given. The POV here is once again obvious.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I continue to wonder whether you are here to improve the encyclopedia, or perhaps for some other reason. It took all of 30 seconds to identify a suitable source, and to make the minor change that was needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC) A second personal attack. One more and we will visit the boards. You have been warned.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Please, do it now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I have made the warning "official" at your talk page, your blanking of it won't help you at all as I have kept a record of it for future reference.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Yes, of course you have -- and I now give you leave to avoid my talk-page in the future, just assume I know all about the policies and the warnings, and make your way to the noticeboards where I'll be pleased to respond to your childish behaviour. This entire section is a mistake on your part, an abuse of article talk-pages, where contributions must be geared towards edits of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Stick to discussing content and we won't have a problem.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I have every intention of continuing to call out shitty editing. Count on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Then best not complain when I do the same? Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather embarrassing, isn't it? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight/crystal ball?

Hi Selfstudier, could you please kindly spell out your rationale for adding the undue weight tag? From my perspective, I added a sentence and a half that state in neutral terms basic facts that have been amply reported by reliable sources. Furthermore, these facts provide crucial context without which the university's statement is vague and unclear (perhaps deliberately so, but it isn't my place to speculate on the motivations of the Bristol VC or legal team). If you'd like, we could even add the Bristol newspaper (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-university-professor-david-miller-5999798), which in general has been quite solid in reporting on the Miller affair (and cannot be credibly claimed to be pro-Israel or the like), to provide extra depth and demonstrate significance.

I am further perplexed by your remarks concerning a crystal ball. Might I kindly ask what part of the following sentence and a half I added anything concerning what results of any legal process might have been:

the university statement cited its "duty of care to all students and the wider University community" and observed the need to "apply its own codes of conduct." At the time Miller's sacking was announced, the University faced the threat of legal action for breaching its legal obligation to provide a duty of care to its students; in addition to potential violations of the Equality Act, the case against the University of Bristol centered on Miller's comments that "Zionists are the enemy of world peace...and must be directly targeted" and his singling out of a specific student at Bristol, who was subsequently the target of abuse, as being a Zionist.

(Parenthetically, it struck me as a bit peculiar that these 1.5 sentences should be considered UNDUE in a section that subsequently devotes several a couple of sentences to advancing a particular POV - one sentence from Miller would, I think, certainly be fair - and relies on a second-hand claim sourced solely to an notably tendentious source....)

I would of course be happy to negotiate any specific points of language in the text above, or elsewhere on the page. Looking forward to a calm and well-reasoned discussion of these points. With best wishes --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"the threat of legal action for breaching its legal obligation to provide a duty of care to its students" , the threat of a legal action means precisely nothing unless it is executed. Then speculation based on this threat is just that, speculation. "potential violations" are not violations, "the case against the University of Bristol centered on Miller's comments", what case? There is no case. Do I really have to spell this out? I thought I made it quite plain in the edit summary. I understand that there are those of a certain POV that want to pin the anti-Semitism tag on Miller, in fact the entire article is laid out with a view to doing just that and why virtually the entire article is tagged as UNDUE for a while now so your addition being tagged is the rule not the exception. The facts are that the Bristol statement makes no mention of antisemitism and Miller says that the university QC confirmed that. So who is it exactly that knows different? At best there are allegations of antisemitism which are currently unproven, rather like the police case that has never been reported on since it was filed. This is a blp and I don't propose to engage in any kind of fight with anyone so I am stepping away from this page and you can write up as much unproven innuendo as you care to.Selfstudier (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Selfstudier. I appreciate that editing Wikipedia can be litigious and time-consuming in a way that is helpful neither to one's life and career nor to Wikipedia. I wish you the very best, and only ask that any tag that can no longer be justified be removed in a speedy fashion so that readers of Wikipedia can be best; anything else would, I think, be an abuse of this tagging system, which I am sure is not your intention. Finally, let me please be clear that I am only talking here about tags related to the "Sacked" section; that I think other sections of this BLP should look quite different will be evident, I hope, from my past edits to this page, where I tried to trim the material down substantially. (The editing history of the page suggests that you and other editors take a different view, and it was not clear I could intervene in a constructive way in those debates.)

Regarding the point about whether any legal action had been taken: in one of the articles I cited one finds it written that of Miller’s sacking that The announcement came a month after a lawsuit filed by lawyers working on behalf of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and Jewish students at the university. In the Bristol Post piece one also finds a CAA representative who says on 1 Oct Following the launch of our lawsuit, it was clear to the University that it would be held to account in court and had to act to protect Jewish students in accordance with the law. According to these RS, by 1 October a lawsuit had been “filed” or “launched”, in which case the claim that "there is no case" would be factually incorrect. I appreciate that these legal issues can be complex, and if anyone has either a) information published in a reliable source to the effect that in fact no lawsuit had been filed or launched, or b) expert knowledge of the relevant aspects of the British legal process and its nuances, this could change the story in some ways. But barring either of those contingencies, as per the reporting cited above, the stated basis for the UNDUE tag has collapsed (incidentally, I think Burrobert’s constructive editing circumvented the concern even had no lawsuit yet been “launched” or “filed”). In this case, the tag should be removed as swiftly as possible.

Finally, thanks Burrobert for your helpful changes. In addition to clarifying that the legal process had already begun, I have added back in material addressing members of Bristol’s JSoc. First, this is what the reporting says. In the first article cited above one finds: According to the CAA, Miller also asserted that supporters of Zionism, including members of the Jewish Student Union at Bristol University, are "the enemy of world peace" who "must be directly targeted." This can also be found in the CAA's own press release The lawsuit related to Prof. Miller’s speech on a Zoom webinar in February this year in which he said that the “Zionist Movement” is “the enemy” that must be engaged, that it is “the enemy of world peace,” and that those associated with Zionism, including Jewish students on Bristol campus, “must be directly targeted” - obviously the CAA statement is not a RS, but it confirms that there is no misunderstanding in the reporting just cited). Much more importantly, it provides crucial context for understanding Bristol University’s statements. The general arguments behind this line of thinking (at both the legal and moral levels) are explained at some length here and here . But in short, there are many reasons a university employee can be fired, and these are spelled out in publicly available university HR documents and university statues and codes of conduct. These might include behavior that discriminates against a designated minority group (e.g. violating the Equality Act of 2010); this can also potentially include a range of other forms of gross misconduct, such as, for example (having just had a quick google of the University of Bristol’s code of conduct for staff ", bullying or abusive or threatening or offensive behaviour towards people or property or all manner of other things that employees of Bristol University are contractually forbidden from doing (particularly as these pertain to the University’s own legal obligations vis-à-vis students regarding its “duty of care” to them). According to the CAA’s statement (cited above) Our legal case against the University concerned alleged unlawful harassment on the basis of Jewish ethnicity and Judaism, amounting to breaches of the Equality Act 2010, as well as breaches of contract. The key bit is the as well as breaches of contract. Thus it is notable that University statement on 1 October says both that their counsel advised that Professor Miller’s comments did not constitute unlawful speech (i.e. a violation of the Equality Act), but that it also cited its duty of care to all students and the wider University community, in addition to a need to apply our own codes of conduct consistently and with integrity. Without understanding that a legal case had been put forward that a specific group of students at the University of Bristol had been singled out by one of the University's employees as people who should be “directly targeted”, and that these were potential violations of a Bristol university employee’s contract and the University’s code of conduct, the university’s statement simply does not make sense (especially when we take into account the statement by The Guardian – hardly any great friend of Zionists or foe of Miller’s – that the reasons behind Bristol’s decision are understood not to cover the lecture content).

I apologize for the long message. I hope this clears things up; my gamble in writing this long explanation was that clearing matters up now will forestall confusions or angry back and forths later. As always, happy to tweak or negotiate specific language Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Research work.

Perhaps at some stage it may be considered worthwhile to detail some of Miller's research work. He provides a summary on this webpage. From 2013 to 2016, he was an ESRC Global Uncertainties Leadership Fellow.[8][9]     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a lack of third-party sources on Google discussing Dr David Miller's work on terrorism (the subject of the research project you mention), regardless of any potential citation's reliability. Adding the term "terrorism" on Google Scholar results in many papers authored/co-authored by Miller over the last thirty years being listed. The only third-party source I spotted mentioning this David Miller cited a handful of these sources, but mentioned nothing directly about Miller. Philip Cross (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook article: "After success against Corbyn, Israel lobby ousts UK scholar."

Opinions from various individuals have been presented in the article. Jonathan Cook, whom some editors may consider to be a writer whose views are significant,[10] has just published an article about the sacking of David Miller which appears on his own website and Mondoweiss. It may be worth citing: "After success against Corbyn, Israel lobby ousts UK scholar."     ←   ZScarpia   12:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It is already cited at the end of the article. Philip Cross (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Added in these edits. Such blindness on my part!     ←   ZScarpia   15:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Statements and responses (2019–2021)

I was browsing the article and had some questions about the first paragraph in the section "Statements and responses (2019–2021)".

Do we know that Sabrina Miller, The Telegraph and the New Statesman are talking about the same lecture?

"students said they felt that, taken as a whole, his lecture ["Harms of the Powerful"][24] was reminiscent … “

• "Harms of the Powerful" appears to be a module rather than a lecture, according to Sabrina Miller.
• The full quote is " While there is no suggestion of anti-Semitism, students said they felt that … “
• The source for this is the Telegraph article which is not mentioned until the end of the paragraph.

"The lecture featured a Powerpoint slide created by Miller in 2013, which aimed to show a Zionist network in Britain, but Keith Kahn-Harris and Dave Rich observed that individuals included had either changed posts or died in the intervening period".

• The use of the conjunction "but" suggests that there is a contradiction between the first and second part of the sentence. There appears to be no contradiction. Why is the second part of the sentence relevant to the first part?

Burrobert (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing and Sources

I've made some changes to the lead section to make it more balanced and career focussed. I've also corrected an inaccuracy regarding claims of David Miller 'targeting individuals'. The reference only refers to a group. Are editors aware that the Jewish Chronicle was deemed unsuitable for political material? It really shouldn't be used at all given its poor record for accuracy resuting in complaints and lawsuits against the paper, many of which were lost. Also I understand that [Philip Cross was indefinitely topic banned] from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed, yet continues to edit this article about a Professor of Political Sociology, his views regarding Zionism a political ideology, and the political actors waged against him. Could he please refrain and abide with the adjudication committee's decision please? Andromedean (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"more balanced and career focused" -- hmm, not sure I see your edit that way. Anti-Semitism is a core angle of the way Miller has been covered in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources User:Andromedean has added, such as 5pillars and the Islamic Human Rights Commission, are not reliable and should not be used. A least one source is misapplied, the New Statesman article by Dave Rich from last March, is erroneously cited for the end of Miller's employment by Bristol University at the beginning of October. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Jewish Chronicle (The JC), where you find The Jewish Chronicle is considered "generally reliable".

Since February, I have made 184 of my 190 edits to this article without any warnings from administrators that I am straying into the area of my topic ban. Philip Cross (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a rough consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is biased for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; so technically in-text can be used, however if view of their recent record I think this needs to be reviewed, and we should refrain from any reference. The Independent Press Standards Organisation has been asked to use its powers to launch a standards investigation into the Jewish Chronicle, a stage it has never reached in its history. Nine people who won libel or IPSO complaints against the Jewish Chronicle in the past three years have written to the regulator asking it to consider taking the action to tackle what they allege are “systemic” issues. Between July 2018 and July 2021 the Jewish Chronicle paid out and apologised in four libel cases. Many other complaints were resolved between the parties. IPSO did carry out training for Jewish Chronicle staff on compliance with the Editors’ Code of Practice last month.Andromedean (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to discuss your concerns about The Jewish Chronicle. Philip Cross (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There was an extensive RfC on the RSN about the JC's reliability re the left. It was closed as follows: As for content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians: the consensus is weaker and it's somewhere between a weak consensus that it's generally reliable and no consensus. However, I don't get the impression that participating editors were particularly convinced by the evidence presented in the discussion against the source's reliability. I don't think we should re-litigate that here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be 4 issues here, 2 of which I'll leave for the time being so we can focus on the others. My understanding is that editors who reverted my edits, consider that two sources are unreliable 1) The Islamic Rights Council website an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and 2) 5Pillars, a source regulated by the tough IMPRESS regulator, and never to breach its Code. Both are referencing the same letter. We must bear in mind equivalent organisations for different religions, and breaches of regulators from other sources used in this article for comparison and balance.--Andromedean (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is shameful. A lengthy academic career completely overridden by a recent controversy, it's so unbalanced it'd be laughable if it wasn't a BLP. Anyway, I'm unable to find anything which states that 5Pillars can't be used as a source. It may be biased, but so's the Jewish Chronicle. I'd include the information about the threatened boycott using that source. There's also a 5Pillars interview with David Miller which could be included - I can't see any legitimate reason for excluding it and it gives more information about the QC's investigation undertaken on behalf of the University; i.e the QC's view that Miller's comments were not anti-Semitic or a breach of the Equality Act. There's a Lowkey interview with David Miller too. I realize that Mint Press is deprecated as a source, but this is a video interview so there can be no concerns about published "false or fabricated information". They are his own words & this is his BLP. There's an article in Mondoweiss which includes quotes from Miller & can be used with attribution. Electronic Intifada claims to be in receipt of a leaked copy of the QC's investigation report. Again, the contents could be included with attribution. Looking at the section "Employment Termination", I note that around a third of the section is about the CAA, which isn't really relevant to his dismissal. They are supposedly taking legal action against the University, not Miller, so if it belongs anywhere it would be the CAA or Bristol Uni article, not in this BLP. I intend removing that paragraph on that basis. Any comments? :) --DSQ (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've made some changes to the lead section as I found it was misleading. I've also removed the para about the CAA on the basis that the legal case is not against Miller, but the university. I intend adding to the section about his dismissal to include the findings of the leaked investigation report & Miller's own comments about the content of that report. I still believe that the section on "Comments and responses in 2021" is unduly long & needs trimming, ditto the section "Spinwatch and other websites". New baby, so a bit pushed for time :) I'll get around to it though. --DSQ (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

5Pillars: We could always take it to the RSN. Some things that might be taken into consideration: regulation by Impress since 2018,[11] upheld and non-upheld complaints,[12] a grant from the Public Interest News Fund which was then withdrawn,[13][14] Facebook suspension of accounts of its editors Dilly Hussein and Roshan Salih,[15] its editor Salih banned from broadcasting in the UK,[16] broadcasting antisemitism [17] (see p.38), broadcasting homophobia[18][19] (see p.28 "The Salafi-Islamist propaganda “news” site 5Pillars sought to capitalise and stoke tensions with inflammatory articles and a video"), antisemitic language,[20] advocacy of boycotting mosques which participate in Holocaust memorialisation.[21][22][23]

MintPress via YouTube: WP:RSP: Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability... MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Would really need a very pressing reason to override that.

MondoWeiss: WP:RSP: Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. So, usable if there is a reasonble rationale.

EI: WP:RSP: There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. This particular article also purports to reveal the names of the students who complained, so would be a massive BLP red flag.

CAA: I support the removal of the irrelevant text about CAA, although I think that the large number of RSs removed would be worth double checking.

"cleared": I strongly object to this edit which says he was "cleared" of initial allegations, which appears to be based only on MondoWeiss and is not mentioned, far as I can see, by the BBC, so could only be mentioned with attribution to MondoWeiss and quotation marks at best, but appears to contradict more reliable sources so should just go IMHO.

"about Israel": The same edit introduces the phrase "about Israel" in quote marks. This is in the lede of the BBC local news report,[24] but that isn't substantiated in the article's body, and contradicts other reliable sources which report that he was sacked for "not meet[ing] the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff" and that the complaints were about antisemitism not "comments about Israel".[25][26][27] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

bobfrombrockley regarding 5pillars, I examined the list of IMPRESS complaint decisions here and could only find one, which was dismissed anyway, so I'm not sure why they didn't include the one you found. Perhaps they define the breach as something else? Do you know where I can find a complete list of IMPRESS decisions? It would be useful for future reference. It would certainly be interesting to compare this with the list of breaches the Jewish Chronicle has made with a much weaker regulator, which is widely referenced in the article, and judged acceptable.

Do any of the issues on your list regarding 5pillars and IHRC question the reliability of the letter? Surely validity of it alone should be the focus here, not the views expressed in the letter, or the claims and counterclaims regarding controversies of the organisations themselves. That the letter as shown exists is a fact of the matter beyond reasonable doubt. Also by ignoring it, we are simply generating irrelevant excuses to reject the concerns and complaints of one community to focus on the other. This would certainly open Wikipedia to claims of bias beyond that of the article. --Andromedean (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that I definitely think 5pillars is not RS. It's definitely not a strong source, but we could see what RSN thinks. The links are the result of couple of minutes digging, the sort of thing RSN might want to take into account. Most would see regulation as a plus point; some would see regulation by IMPRESS as a bigger plus point; others see regulation by IMPRESS as actually a minus point. The number of complaints and how they respond would be useful data. I'm a bit unclear, though, what anyone wants to use 5pillars as a source for. The letter defending Miller? If there's no better source for it, it's hard to see it as DUE; if there's better sources use them? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Idk what you mean by "better", you mean according to you? What about https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/religion-news-12-october-2021/ ? They reference the letter as well as linking to IHRCSelfstudier (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Piers Robinson writes, "an independent report from a QC, commissioned by the University of Bristol, concluded that Professor Miller’s comments did not constitute unlawful speech and had also explicitly determined his remarks were not anti-Semitic." Ref The barrister opinion could theoretically be a hoax, I suppose, but what with pictures of the relevant content posted online and comments everywhere about it, it does seem a bit strange to pretend it doesn't exist. The objection I have had for a while about this article (and why I tagged it) is that it just read like one long anti-Semitism allegation minus any evidence for that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would we care what a 9/11 truther and chemical weaponry usage in Syria denier writes? Inf-in MD (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

He is notable, why he has a page in WP, more notable than a random WP editor at any rate.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

He is notable as a conspiracy theorist, not as an authority on what constitutes anti-Semitism. Also a clear conflict of interest as a colleague of Miller. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's just an opinion (of a random WP editor), in any event this is not in the article and is not germane to the point I am making which remains the same, the article is non-stop allegation and zero evidence. Also doesn't matter, Miller has decided to give a more open interview than previously below, maybe read that.Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

no, that's what his Wikipedia article you cited says about him. If this is not in the article and not germane to your point, then stop using this talk page as a forum. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As per usual, we're done. Ttfn.Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"But the university would not publish that finding, or the report. It was confidential. I wasn’t allowed to mention that I had been entirely cleared of complaints of anti-Semitism." Ref Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to understand that Wikipedia sourcing needs to be from credible people publishing in reliable sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with aboutself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a few more sources which have been recently published on the Miller case. There is a letter by Rebecca Ruth Gould called 'Free speech and Double Standards' in the London Book Review, an article called 'Freedom of speech should not be restricted' lightly by Alison Assiter and Miriam David in World University Rankings, and an interview by David Miller on Politics Today. It may be worthwhile examining these to see if it clarifies or refutes anything in the article.

Do we have a definitive reason why he was sacked yet? Was it comments in this interview back in February of this year? I also think the article implies that Bristol University students played a significant role in complaining. Yet no complaint was ever made to the University by a student of Professor Miller’s. Should we make this clear?--Andromedean (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlikely that we will get a specific reason beyond what was said in the official uni statement and which will end up being discussed at a tribunal by the looks of it, what concerns me more given the state of the article is that we now have evidence that a legal view was given to Bristol that cleared him of the antisemitism charge specifically, regardless of anything else he might be considered guilty of. The Politics Today interview is the aboutself I quoted above.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suspect we don't have a definitive reason because of a combination of the ongoing/potential legal action & the fact that disciplinary processes are still ongoing and are generally confidential. The Uni will say nothing more than "didn't meet the standards of behavior" & Miller's hands are tied until his Appeal is heard & any potential complaint goes through the Tribunal. Until then all we have are Miller's own words from the interviews he's given - anything else is media supposition. The problem we have is that some editors will vociferously oppose the inclusion of Miller's own words on the pretext of the sources. In the interests of fairness, I believe we should either include his words or remove any media speculation & supposition.--DSQ (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Morning Bob. Of course you can take it to the RSN, it's not something I've ever done before and I honestly don't have the time to figure it out. I've had a quick look at the sources you provided, again I don't have the time to read them all, but they look pretty partisan to me and I'm really not sure what any of that has to do with the publication of a letter.

The YouTube video I used isn't "anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable" as it's uploaded to the Mint Press account. As noted, I'm aware the source is deprecated but in this instance it's the article subject talking directly to the interviewer, so there can be no argument about the source publishing "false or fabricated information". The info comes directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak; Miller talks about the TWO separate investigations undertaken by Bristol Uni, the first exonerated him & it's important that we note that. Miller's own version of events should be included in his own BLP, regardless of where that is published. Ditto the 5Pillars interview.

As noted, MondoWeiss can be used with attribution - agreed.

I'm in two minds about your rationale for excluding EI. I understand the point you're making, but as far as I am aware the complainants have been very vocal on social media about their part in the process. I personally think it's important to include it, but I'll leave it to other editors to comment.

I'll check the sources which I removed when deleting the inappropriate text.

I note your objections, but he WAS cleared following the first investigation, which was brought by the CST. He covers this himself in the Mint Press interview & I've explained above why that should be included. The original text implied that he was dismissed due to his "teaching" and that simply isn't accurate. I acknowledge that I should have attributed the info & will correct that. I will also add the Mint Press interview as a further source - rationale explained above.

Hands up, I didn't read the BBC article in its entirety & that was a shoddy edit. Can you suggest a way of rewording it, making sure we include the fact the investigation found that his comments were neither unlawful nor antisemitic?

Hope I've covered all your points. :) --DSQ (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also please see the interview with Miller provided by Andromedean which appeared in Politics today. --DSQ (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually Bob, I've revisited the EI article. The only information I would've taken from that article is that the investigation report stated that his comments were not unlawful, not antisemitic and didn't breach the Equality Act. That information can be gleaned from other sources now & I recognize that naming complainants wasn't helpful --DSQ (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So, if there ever is a Wikipedia article about me, and I am accused of something, all I have to do is claim that I have been cleared, and the article with say I have been cleared, sourced to me? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ummm we'll cross that bridge should we ever come to it eh? I'm sure Miller knows better than anyone whether he was cleared at the end of the initial investigation, or not. Why would he claim to have been cleared in multiple interviews if that was not the case? If you can find sources that dispute that, bring them. --DSQ (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would he claim to have been cleared in multiple interviews if that was not the case? -- good lord, that question answers itself, for anyone capable of seeing this situation from a disinterested perspective. Secondary sources, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you, I'm not a fan of David Miller and I have no special interest in this article. I do have an interest in BLP's though and an aversion to smear jobs, whoever the article subject might be. If you think that Miller has lied about the outcome of the prior investigation in multiple interviews, with a Tribunal & potential legal action on the horizon, revert my edits. Revert to the implication that he was dismissed for his "teaching", that would be inaccurate, but be my guest. --DSQ (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have to think he lied to offer the view I posted -- I just want to recommend that we stick to secondary sources & not overlook the "unduly self-serving" passage in WP:ABOUTSELF. I too have an interest in BLPs, so I have no intention of reverting to an "inaccurate" version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are in fact slightly different petitions supporting David Miller which are tailored to each community: Educators & Researchers, Jewish Supporters, Student Supporters and Muslim Supporters. Perhaps the latter might cover a more representative cross section of the community than the 5pillars version? --Andromedean (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm very confused about what all these sources are proposed as citations for. A letter to the LRB by an academic which doesn't include any facts about the case is just one of many opinion pieces and definitely not due. Petitions would need to be reported in RSs for us to see them as noteworthy. Politics Today seems like a pretty fringe publication and might be used as a source for DM's own comments (e.g. he seems to be saying the QC's report was not about the later public comments he made which he says were what he was sacked for? It's pretty confusing). The "World University Rankings" piece is actually the Times Higher, which would be a reliable source except this is an op ed which doesn't include any facts, so just another arbitrary non-noteworthy opinion piece. I think it would be helpful to propose edits if we are to discuss sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It would have indicated support across a range of communities other than just academics, but as you say it would be difficult to include due to [this rule]. There's another petition here from the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, which they claim is the largest national academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa. That might be significant, but technically it needs a secondary source for reference. --Andromedean (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Bob I've checked the sources that were removed when I deleted the paragraph about CAA and all but two are cited elsewhere within the article. This article from the Jewish News, which pretty much rehashes what the BBC & JC sources say and a blog post from TOI Jewish News. I've also slightly changed the wording in the lead section that you objected to.--DSQ (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my concerns on board. Definitely a big improvement. I still think the "cleared" description is a little misleading: it appears a QC "cleared" him, as in advised the university there was no case to answer re whatever bit of the complaint the QC examined, but we don't know whether the university considered him "cleared", so the passive voice is problematic. Also important that anything from DM's words needs to be attributed to him rather than reported as fact in our voice. And I am still unconvinced that there is sufficient justification for using the deprecated MintPress. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Miller revealed the existence of two DSMA-notices related to the Skripal poisoning

In May 2018, Spinwatch reported that the British government had issued two DSMA-notices after the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. The notices instructed the British media not to report that Pablo Miller, a retired MI6 agent had recruited Sergei Skripal to MI6. SpinWatch said that representatives from The Guardian and the BBC sit on the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee, which oversees the issuing of DSMA-notices.

The articles were published by our hero David Miller on his website SpinWatch.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Burrobert (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a source saying DM published it?, because this source (is The American Spectator a reliable source?) doesn't name him and seems to mention Spinwatch just in passing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If the Spectator source doesn't say anything about Miller, then it can't be used here. Which leaves a primary source. And yet this material was simply reverted back into the article... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/skri-m21.html "The Spinwatch web site revealed the content of both D-Notices over two articles published on May 8 and 10." Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That one also doesn't mention him by name, if that is a criteria for inclusion, though WSWS is listed as generally unreliable here (It maybe especially biased here given the topic). Tried to find another source about the notices they reported on, though only thing a quick search led me to which didn't just reference back to spinwatch was this twitter post. https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/973125120414928897 . Maybe it would be best to summarize or reword it to them claiming or similar rather than reporting it to make it clear.Øln (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/here-are-the-official-state-censorship-documents-relating-to-the-skripal-affair/ is another option, does miller need to be mentioned by name?, they mention the publication by spinwatch and the spinwatch publication itself is attributed to Miller.Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WSWS is considered generally unreliable. This was confirmed by a recent RSN discussion. I've never heard of TruePublica but it doesn't look impressive. All of these sources mention SpinWatch only in passing. None of these sources mention DM. It's hard to see how this is noteworthy here. If there was an article on SpinWatch maybe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Truepublica is decent, expecting major RS to cover things that they have been served D-notices about is a bit ambitious. Even WSWS is not awful just for that snippet I gave, which is easily verified. I tend to agree with reverter, if we can include Rich and all that, then we can include this (or remove both).20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• The reason given for the original reversion of the content was that it had nothing to do with Miller. The argument appears to be that, despite the section heading, SpinWatch has nothing to do with Miller???

• Is there a source saying DM published it?: The American Spectator article links to the Spinwatch page where “David Miller” appears as the author. The text that was added says “In May 2018, Spinwatch reported …” so it does not say Miller was the author. However, editors can easily verify that he was the author by following the link provided by the American Spectator. I would be happy to change the text to something like “In May 2018, Miller wrote on Spinwatch that … “

• Is The American Spectator a reliable source? It has been used over 700 times with Wikipedia. Its reliability has never been discussed or questioned. Given that it links directly to the SpinWatch article, the accuracy of its statement on this occasion seems clear.

• If the Spectator source doesn't say anything about Miller, then it can't be used here.: The section heading is “Spinwatch and other websites” . We have included other comments about SpinWatch/SpinProfiles within the section:

In 2010, Shiraz Maher wrote in Standpoint that SpinProfiles lacked entries on the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and IEngage (the name under which MEND was then known).

In a 2021 article in the New Statesman, Dave Rich Head of Policy at the Community Security Trust, wrote that Spinwatch "echoes certain facets of anti-Semitic conspiracism."

• The function of Miller's bio is not only to pass on to readers all the nasty things people have said about him. It also should be to inform readers about his work.

Burrobert (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"The function of Miller's bio is not only to pass on to readers all the nasty things people have said about him. It also should be to inform readers about his work." Agreed 100%. This shouldn't really need to be said, should it? As we speak this BLP is chock with opinions, many of which are unnecessary. There's way too much focus on very recent events, notable as they are. I also note that the editor responsible for 43% of the edits to this BLP has been blocked for one month, as editing this article was a breach of his topic ban. His edits should probably be reviewed.--DSQ (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Does the article provide sufficient background as to the reasons for his dismissal?

The article could benefit from an initial explanation of why there's a conflict of views on this subject, beyond that of 'free speech'. Something like, the sacking of David Miller is just one of the most recent of a long list of dismissals of Left leaning academics and activists in the UK, due to pressure from pro-Israel advocates, who wish to define certain criticisms of Israel and characterisation of its political support network as antisemitism. Adoption of the examples of the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, by some institutions, has given them greater scope in this regard.

Jonathan Cook puts this more directly here "The [Israel] lobby’s own highly partisan, politicised campaigns against the left can – perversely but all too often effectively – be disguised as anti-racism or the promotion of human rights...A report by the UCL board in December had warned that the IHRA definition [of antisemitism, which the University of Bristol adopted] conflated prejudice against Jews with political debate about Israel and Palestine.....That is exactly what the Israel lobby, and its activists in the Union of Jewish Students that targeted Miller, will hope for."

We could also add this statement from Rebecca Gould which tries to explain the irony of the controversy: "When a university academic, who was hired to pursue his research and to articulate, publicly and without fear, the consequences of his research, is fired for doing precisely what he was hired to do, everyone suffers a blow." Andromedean (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The link to the LRB article is not working. Try this one. Rebecca Gould presents an interesting contrast to David Miller. She also worked at Bristol Uni where she was accused by a student and others of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial after writing an article for CounterPunch. The Jewish Chronicle became involved and the Campaign Against Antisemitism said Gould should be dismissed “and her dismissal should be made public so as to clearly signal the University of Bristol’s values”. I think I recall reading somewhere (forget where) that she was protected to some extent from the accusations by the fact that she was Jewish. None of this is mentioned in her Wikipedia bio, which is focussed on her academic work. Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the link, here it is again. In addition, Gould wrote the first extended scholarly treatment of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance 'definition' of antisemitism which is available here.--Andromedean (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Reliable Sources

It seems quite bizarre that we can't summarise a report written by a QC, simply because it's printed verbatim in the Electronic Intifada. Surely, we would expect it to be more 'reliable' than any secondary source interpretation? If we still can't agree then perhaps the Palestine Chronicle is suitable here. The Palestine Chronicle is classed as 'reliable' on Media bias/factcheck here --Andromedean (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In my view, in this particular instance, there is a case, WP:COMMON, to be made for referencing, not summarizing, the report and the fact that is available for download even though that download comes from an unreliable source. I can see why some editors might not want this material in but fact is it's out in the wild and not in WP. If people like Dave Rich and Yair Wallach (no WP article but an expert of sorts) are tweeting about this (and the unreliable source), I think it ought to be in WP.Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike & Nomoskedasticity edits. I think WP:RSP is clear: There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. This is a BLP so a high standard should be maintained. We can't be completely certain the leaked document is authentic, and we definitely can't be certain it has not been redacted in some way for partisan reasons (note the previous document they leaked published only screenshots). Additionally, the EI blogpost where the leak is embedded purports to name student complainants so puts us in legal risk (and contains other inaccurate or misleading claims so should not be linked to). Ephemeral mentions on Twitter don't make it noteworthy. (Plus Rich and Wallach's tweets were not about the subject of this article, but part of an argument about competing antisemitism definitions.) If it is noteworthy, reliable secondary sources will cover it. We also need secondary sources to avoid a POV representation of the primary source. I am not familiar with Palestine Chronicle but it looks like a fringe source to me and not a reliable one, and it appears to misrepresent the primary source embedded in the EI blogpost. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Palestine Chronicle is no worse than the JC for this but for secondary source commentary this source with attribution will suffice (still no link to the primary material being discussed though). Btw, the cited tweet from Rich, which I have self reverted because of a 1R claim, not because there is anything wrong with it per se, specifically references the report and Miller ("a second report has been leaked and that it "exonerates Miller just like the first one did: nothing he said was antisemitic.") so it is not correct to say that it was only about AS definitions.Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore WP:TWITTER ("Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves") I will revert it and raise it at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." also applies if it is about something other than a BLP (a report for instance) WP:SPS. Here is a respected WP admin doing just that, is he wrong? When it was queried, the response was "They meet the criterion in WP:SPS of being by an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2021"(UTC)Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You're wasting time here. Do you genuinely expect that other editors can't/won't read the rest of WP:SPS? "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I said "about a report". I assume you think Eppstein is wrong as well? Maybe we should enquire at RSN whether using a tweet in this way is permissible (and we can ask about the example I just gave at the same time).Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

We should all be trying to find a way of referencing the QCs report instead of finding ways to exclude it. Doing so could fall foul of "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" WP:WL. The Palestinian Chronicle and EI might be biased but neither have ever failed a fact check on Mediabias/factcheck. I disagree with the cases raised at WP:RSP but I don't think this is the place.--Andromedean (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This will all be in the article eventually, attempts to keep it out by any and all means notwithstanding. It is quite ridiculous that "everyone else" is freely discussing this but WP can't, for the moment at least. In the meantime, there is the source I just provided and there will soon be others even if the dl link for the leaked report is not permitted.Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I see you have edited with EI as source (the last couple sentence need a cite btw). I think you can expect some resistance to that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

We should all be trying to find a way of referencing the QCs report. No: we are not a newspaper and don't need to immediately report on all the latest developments; we should wait until reliable third parties have reported and then judiciously summarise what the balance of RSs say. The Palestinian Chronicle and EI might be biased but neither have ever failed a fact check on Mediabias/factcheck. But see WP:MBFC which says There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. Could the reason that neither site has failed a formal fact check by a major factchecker is that both are obscure, more or less self-published fringe sites that won't come to the attention of major factchecker? It is quite ridiculous that "everyone else" is freely discussing this but WP can't. If indeed everyone else is freely discussing it, then reliable sources will soon emerge that can be cited; it doesn't hurt to wait until then. [Middle East Eye] with attribution will suffice. Middle East Eye is definitely better than EI, but is it considered reliable? It's not listed at RSP, but a glance at the RSN noticeboard suggests at best no consensus, which should ring alarm bells in a BLP. MEE reports that Miller has been "exonerated" in the leak, but looking at the opening pages of the leak it is clear that the QC opinion addresses just one of five parts of the university's investigation, so these partisan sources appear to be misrepresenting it. What's the harm of waiting a while before leaping in with weak sourcing? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (PS I have listed this article at both the RS and BLP noticeboards to get extra eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC))

Source I gave above was MEMO not Middle East Eye but both these are OK with attribution. And I note with interest that you are yourself "freely discussing it", which I have refrained from doing myself. At some point we will need to see about uprating EI, if "everyone else" can cite them, I fail to see why WP can't (I do see why but will refrain from commenting).Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Could the reason that neither site has failed a formal fact check by a major factchecker is that both are obscure, more or less self-published fringe sites that won't come to the attention of major factchecker? The EI had the rare privilege as being quoted for correcting a factcheck. It's also one of the few serious investigative sources which provide any sort of balance in these type of issues. By refusing to quote these sources, the MSM can paint just one side of the story. The Guardian and BBC don't provide balance, they are just as problematic as the tabloid press, as shown here misreporting the IHRA 'definition' for example. The Jewish Chronicle and perhaps other similar titles serving the same audience, are deemed far to obscure to be rated at all by Media-bias/factcheck, yet they are widely referenced on here. Clearly there is a wider issue to be addressed in the way we assess reliable sources on Wikipedia. --Andromedean (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it helps, but the entire QCs report is also embedded on this page of the Jewish Voice for Labour site with commentary. I don't think any MSM will report any 'exoneration', unless he is reinstated after a lengthy legal process. As with the Labour leaks report, they will try to avoid any commentary or delay until interest has waned--Andromedean (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me look into that, it might be OK as an attributed secondary source for the download.Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reported to the BLP board that these sources have been used and unless challenged, the issue is settled for now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness and the avoiding of confusion the two discussions initiated by Bob are at RSN and at BLP. Editors unfamiliar with this article may wish to review these discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As SelfStudier notes in the section below, Dave Rich of the CST has now written two pieces for the Jewish Chronicle which relate to Miller. One refers to the leak, but is an opinion piece and is more about competing definitions of antisemitism than Miller himself, so I would avoid using it. The other is classed as "analysis" rather than opinion and does not refer to the leak, but may be more useful, with attribution, for other parts of the article.

The Rich opinion is only relevant here in that he speaks as an antisemitism expert about the second leaked report and treats it as a reality. There were some doubts expressed about the authenticity of this report due to it having being leaked and only available via EI. Now it has also been made available by JVL. Provided this objection is not raised again then we do not the Rich opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Some comments on the article

• We currently have seven references to Jewish Chronicle articles, some of which are not properly attributed as required by Perennial Sources.
• At one point we say Miller "told The Jewish Chronicle in March 2021 that the work of the SPM had been "fully, totally vindicated" by subsequent revelations, but the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has dismissed the veracity of the SPM's work ". The JC article actually says: “Many of SMP’s claims that the Syrian regime was innocent of using chemical weapons were based on testimony from two former employees of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an independent international watchdog. Their credibility was dismissed by the organisation itself. But Prof Miller told the JC: “Our work has thus far been fully, totally vindicated by the subsequent information released into the public domain ”.
• When quoting from JC articles we have not always used useful responses from David Miller to the allegations. E.g. the following quote provides some context for an abbreviated quote that we do include: "The ‘Jewish student groups’ […] are political lobby groups overseen by the Union of Jewish Students, which is constitutionally bound to promoting Israel. There is a real question of abuse here — of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing. The UJS’ lobbying for Israel is a threat to the safety of Arab and Muslim students as well as of Jewish students and indeed of all critics of Israel".
• We say: “Iranian backed Press TV also defended Miller in late February”. The article in JC has more interesting information: “Press TV claimed the backlash provoked by Prof Miller’s views was actually the “intense pressure” of a “Zionist lobby in the UK which appears to be intent on destroying his career. The concerted campaign against Professor David Miller is widely seen as the latest sign of the Zionist lobby’s relentless political, ideological and cultural offensive in Britain".
• We currently cite three articles written by Sabrina Miller, a student and Campaigns Officer and committee member of the Jewish Society at Bristol Uni, who was directly involved in the issue. E.g. apart from writing the various articles she was interviewed in other articles that we cite. We don't mention her direct connection to the issue anywhere.
• Citing two articles by Sabrina Miller, we say: “According to the Jewish Chronicle, around the same time in an interview with the Electronic Intifada, Miller claimed the university's UJS and JSoc had created a "charade of false antisemitism allegations" ". In the article which Sabrina Miller refers to, David Miller says “But the UJS appears to have been concerned that if it was discovered to have led the campaign to have me sacked, the charade of false anti-Semitism allegations could possibly be found out”.

Burrobert (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me to removal of JC as unattributed source for facts, but preferably with check of Times/HuffPo/Jewish News/BBC sources already used to check if they can be replaced, rather than immediate removal of the facts. Not sure what expanding non-RS PressTV thought via more quotation from JC. OPCW stuff seems convoluted, should be trimmed back. Re Sabrina Miller, need to be careful about BLP policy in relation to her. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have amended the OPCW section to give attribution and agree with the source.
• I don't think there are policies against quoting a non-RS when the quote appears in an RS. We have already mentioned the non-RS' opinion, although we have abbreviated it to the point where it is meaningless.
• Re Sabrina Miller, any statements that are sourced to her should be attributed to her and we should make clear what her role was in the issue. The information about her is available from the sources that we are already using in the article.

Burrobert (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need anything in the article which mentions the academic freedoms enshrined into law? The Times Higher Education has published this piece by Jonathan Rosenhead, emeritus professor of operational research at the London School of Economics. He points out the key freedoms incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Hillhead agreement in the 1988 Education Reform Bill, which he thinks extends to extra mural utterance and action as well. I think the other issues he mentions are probably included in other RS, but it's an extra source if needed.--Andromedean (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave Rich (my deleted tweet cite refers) has now written about the leaked report but has unfortunately decided to do it in the JC which I can't bring myself to cite even with attribution. So there is now a "reliable" source talking about the report.Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh diddums... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh. I changed his name, it's Dave not Mark, I just keep doing that, idk why, must have commodities on the brain or something.Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

At first blush, a balanced, up to date report (finally) Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The article contains some interesting information. As we mention, Dave Rich is the director of policy at Community Security Trust. What we don't mention is that the CST was one of the complainants against Miller. We refer to Rich's article six times and quote him as an impartial witness. We need to specify Dave Rich and Community Security Trusts' role in the complaints. Other points of interest:

• A separate letter, signed by hundreds of Jewish supporters, stated that “Jewish opinion on Zionism has always been diverse” and that the attacks on Prof Miller will “chill free speech on Israel if left unchallenged”.
• [Miller] is a specialist in Islamophobia but has come under heavy criticism for naming the Zionist movement as one of the "five tenets of Islamophobia."
• He also founded the organisation Spinwatch, the UK’s lobbying watchdog that has investigated various UK lobby groups.
• "It’s not been a decision based on any rationality, it’s been based on pressure. The Palestinians are really the emblem of all of this. They are under occupation, they are under a process of ethnic cleansing and it’s because I have spoken up for that, I’ve been sacked. My position [against the settlements] is a very widely respected international position".

Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Selfstudier and Burrobert. I think I understand Selfstudier to be saying that now we have Bristol Post as a RS we can remove the citations of MEMO and JVL? Re Burrobert, I agree that if we cite Rich (I've argued on this page that we shouldn't mention his recent JC piece, but I do think we should continue to cite - with attribution - his New Statesman piece) we should mention his CST affiliation and make it clear CST complained about Miller's antisemitism. This makes his views more noteworthy, even if not "neutral". Re quoting the "It’s not been a decision based on any rationality" passage, that seems to me to fall under the WP:MANDY principle; it doesn't add anything informative. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait a little before we remove sourcing, there's no hurry to do that now that there is less concern about reliable sources/potential blp issues. EI is gone and that was the only clearly unreliable (per RSN). MEMO and JVL are biased but not really unreliable with attribution for the material being discussed. If MEMO went, the exact same material is in JVL which we are only relying on for a download atm. Since I put the question about these two at RSN, there has been very little feedback, if people were saying hoaxers or crap fact checking, stuff like that, I would be more worried but they aren't saying that. Now that second tier mainstream has put a foot in the water, we might well get some further sourcing and then we can revisit this. It's more important that we get the article right at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article in Murdoch's TLS, so can't comment on its suitability. We have quoted Daniel Finkelstein at length from an article in Murdoch's Times so it may be worth looking at. Burrobert (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this, "the article in Murdoch's TLS"? Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert If you are referring to the '[Times Higher Education]', it has changed ownership and name several times. I registered for free a week ago and haven't received any spam from them.Andromedean (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier "the article in Murdoch's TLS" refers to the article by Jonathan Rosenhead mentioned by Andromedean above. I would be interested in knowing what it contains. Burrobert (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This one? I had no trouble accessing it, it's a blog post though (opinion), anyway, there's the archive link.Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks. I couldn't access it directly and am not interested in boosting Murdoch's viewers by registering. It was thoughtful of someone to archive it. Burrobert (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw my aspersion against the "Times Higher Education". It appears to be Murdoch-free and is not the "Times Literary Supplement". Burrobert (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments about Jewish students and Zionism in 2021 (section)

Maybe we should split this in two (students, Zionism) since it appears to indicate a different pattern in 2021 from that in the prior 2 years.

I haven't dug into it much, are there actual comments from students reported in rs?

Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We have cited three articles written by Sabrina Miller. We haven't mentioned that she was a student and Campaigns Officer and committee member of the Jewish Society at Bristol Uni. Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a grass roots student led protest as some publications seem to imply. In this Facebook video at around 9 minutes, Sabrina Miller publicly credits Edward Isaacs, AJ Solomon and Nina Freedman who have “led this campaign far more than I have” –. Everybody involved seems to have held prominent positions in the Bristol Jewish Society. Isaacs and Solomon are president and vice-president, whilst Nina Freedman is a past president, and now president-elect of the Union of Jewish Students. I'm a bit confused how the Jewish Society links in with the Union of Jewish Students, since I think it's on campus. Andromedean (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me have a go at splitting the section and just see how much there is in there re actual students (or even students indirectly).Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Made a first cut now, do some more a bit later on.Selfstudier (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Further comments after the latest changes

• We say in the lead: Miller’s "research and publications focus on terrorism and propaganda". However, Terrorism is only mentioned once in the body: "he led a project examining the function of expertise in the area of terrorism". This does not suggest that terrorism is a major focus of his work. On the other hand, Islamophobia is mentioned a few times in the body and Yvonne Deeney in the Bristol Post says "[Miller] is a specialist in Islamophobia". I suggest replacing "terrorism" with "Islamophobia" in the first sentence.

• The second sentence in the lead ("From 2018, he was professor ... and the spreading of conspiracy theories") is awkward and should be rewritten.

• I suggest that the sentence "He is the co-founder and co-director of the non-profit company Public Interest Investigations (PII), which runs two projects, Spinwatch and Powerbase" be moved up the batting order to become the second sentence in the lead. It should come before we mention the recent events.

• There is a "better source needed" tag against the Skripal story. What is the point of it? The two sentences are obviously accurate since both sentences are attributed to Spinwatch and we link to the actual article in Spinwatch where the claim appears. What would a "better source" provide?

• We are still quoting Dave Rich as a neutral observer without explaining his (and the Community Security Trust's) role in the complaints against Miller.

• We say: "Students were quoted by The Telegraph the following September as saying his lecture reminded them of "anti-Semitic language, tropes and conspiracy theories" ". The source says: " While there is no suggestion of anti-Semitism, students said they felt that, taken as a whole, his lecture was reminiscent of “anti-Semitic language, tropes and conspiracy theories". We have left out the first part of the sentence.

• What is the point of this sentence: "Keith Kahn-Harris and Dave Rich said that individuals included had either changed posts or died in the intervening period"?

• We say based on an opinion piece: "In the same month, in an online meeting Miller expressed a belief that an interfaith gathering at the East London Mosque between Muslims and Jews involving the preparation of chicken soup for the homeless as a "trojan horse" for "normalising" the Zionist movement in the Muslim community". What Miller actually said (the video is linked in the article) was that Israel was using interfaith work as a trojan horse to normalise Zionism in the Muslim community. He said one example of this was the interfaith gathering to make chicken soup.

• The following sentence, which seems to be an attempt at guilt by association, is meaningless and should be either removed or expanded to include what Press TV said: "Iranian backed Press TV also, according to the Jewish Chronicle, defended Miller in late February".

• We say: "In March 2021, Avon and Somerset Police said that it had opened a hate crime investigation". The source says: "A British university professor may have committed a hate crime when he labeled Jewish students “pawns” of Israel during a lecture, a police spokesperson said. Avon and Somerset Police made the statement on Thursday". There appears to have been no further mention of what we call an “investigation” so it seems unlikely the "investigation" ever happened.

• Relevant parts of the TLS article by Jonathan Rosenhead should be included to balance opinion from Dave Rich, Shiraz Maher, Sabrina Miller, Daniel Finkelstein, Marie van der Zyl and David Feldman.

Burrobert (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert These changes should help to improve the articles balance. Regarding the CST we could mention Miller's opinion of them before they launched the complaint against him, and the CSTs response. Andromedean (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Rightho thanks. I will start implementing the programme soon. Burrobert (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Skripal, the sources are a mess: opinion pieces, a primary source, fringe sites, a generally unreliable source.

Re * What is the point of this sentence: "Keith Kahn-Harris and Dave Rich said that individuals included had either changed posts or died in the intervening period"? I think the point is they are saying the analysis he presented in his teaching did not fit the reality. I guess that sentence should have Kahn-Harris' piece as a citation as well as Rich's New Statesman piece.[28]

The chicken soup piece cites two opinion pieces (it could equally cite a third, in the Times by Danny Finkelstein, who mentions Miller's "characterisation, last summer, of a mosque’s interfaith chicken soup cookery class as an attempt to normalise Zionism among Muslims."); using these opinion pieces would require attribution. However, the incident is covered by reliable sources too, and we should re-write based on them. Jewish News says "At that event, he suggested that British Jews were using interfaith events with Muslims, including a chicken soup cookout, to increase the acceptance of Zionism among Muslims...." and gives the whole quote ("“The Israelis have sent people in,” Miller said, “particularly through interfaith work… pretending Jews and Muslims working together will be an apolitical way of countering racism. No, it’s a Trojan horse for normalizing Zionism in the Muslim community. We saw it in East London Mosque for example, where East London Mosque unknowingly held this project of making chicken soup with Jewish and Muslim communities coming together. This is an Israeli-backed project to normalize Zionism within the Muslim community and they were doing that at the same time they were doing the attack on [Jeremy] Corbyn,”") and more succinctly in another article "In 2019, Miller suggested that British Jews were using interfaith events with Muslims, including a chicken soup cookout, to increase the acceptance of Zionism among Muslims." I'd use a version of that last sentence.

Re Avon police, Jewish News quote them saying "“Our investigation is at an early stage and enquiries are ongoing to establish if any offences have been committed" nine months ago; are you saying they were lying?

Re Rosenhead, this seems like false balance, unless he says something substantive that makes the article actually better. We could instead consider removing Maher and Finkelstein, to make our article more factual and less opiniony. (Rich, S Miller and van der Zyl are all noteworthy as they are players in the story, so should definitely stay.)

I agree with the other proposed edits, and also with Andromedean that the CST issue should be spelled out more carefully. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• “I think the point is they are saying the analysis he presented in his teaching did not fit the reality”. I don’t think the sentence tells us anything about Miller. It appears he created a course in 2013 and still uses the same material.

• The “chicken soup” quotes that you have provided do a better job of summarising Miller’s video.

• “Our investigation is at an early stage … “. Not sure where that comes from. It is not in the source we are using on the page.

• “Rosenhead, this seems like false balance”: Regarding Rich being an actor in the drama, we haven’t mentioned that yet. We also have not fully explained Sabrina Miller's role in the affair. She was Campaigns Officer and committee member of the Jewish Society at Bristol Uni. She has written articles for the JC asking for Bristol Uni to sack David Miller (we cite one). She said she "posted a video mocking Miller’s conspiracy theories". She said "Electronic Intifada and David Miller supporters have subjected me to a painful tirade of abuse. ... People have accused me of weaponising antisemitism and using the Holocaust to “play the victim”. Unbelievably, I have even been told that I am an agent of “another country” ". Her article in The Tab is a request for David Miller to be sacked ("I’ll make one final plea to Bristol: Get David Miller off of my campus".) She set up a change.org petition in early 2021 to have David Miller removed from Bristol Uni. Describing her as "of Bristol's Jewish student society" does not adequately describe her role. I am suggesting we add Rosenhead’s comments to what is already in the article. Rosenhead says that Miller was attacked “because his academic field includes the analysis of how powerful networks can influence media representations and, hence, public beliefs – and because one focus of this research has been the projection of narratives favourable to Israel. Perhaps Miller should be grateful for this vivid public validation of his academic analysis ”. Afaict, no one has raised an issue with the inclusion of the opinions of Dave Rich, Shiraz Maher, Sabrina Miller, Daniel Finkelstein, Marie van der Zyl and David Feldman until now, so there is no reason why their opinions should suddenly become an issue when a proposal is put forward to add Rosenhead's opinion. Burrobert (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Bob actively disapproves of Rosenhead for some reason :)Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: "“Our investigation is at an early stage..." I've added the Jewish News source above. It's also in the Bristol Post. Re detailing Rich/S Miller as players in the drama: I've agreed this should be spelled out. Re no one has raised an issue with the inclusion of the opinions of Dave Rich, Shiraz Maher, Sabrina Miller, Daniel Finkelstein, Marie van der Zyl and David Feldman until now: Maher's inclusion has been raised: this is one of the sources mentioned by ScottishFinnishRadish listing excessive opinion pieces and week sources used in this article at the BLP noticeboard. I don't see what Finkelstein and Rosenhead's opinions add. I'm not questioning the others you list. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the previous source from the page and added the source which does say that an investigation was being conducted. We can't use the Bristol Post article for this because it does not mention David Miller's name. The statement from the police in the JewishNews does not mention Miller by name so we are relying on the JewishNews for the information that the investigation was related in some way to Miller. I wonder when we can expect to hear a result from the local police? Burrobert (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubling up. The opinion of the APPGAA from March 2021 is quoted twice in separate places. Also, presumably the following content is from the same speech. Does it need to be mentioned twice, one after the other?

• Miller had previously told The Jewish Chronicle that: “There is a real question of abuse here — of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”.
• He called members of the University of Bristol Jewish Society "pawns ... [of] a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing".

Burrobert (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thx Burrobert - edits so far definitely improve article. You're right about the pawns; the second time ref (Times of Israel) better than first one imho as it avoids opinion source. APPGAA is there twice because "students" and "Israel/Zionism" are now in separate sections - not sure how best to deal with that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's OK for them to be in twice, it shows that group as concerned over two separate issues.Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinion within the article

This is a follow up from the previous section. I thought it would be easier to follow if it was contained in a separate section. I have listed below the opinions that currently appear in the article. :

• In 2010, Shiraz Maher wrote in Standpoint that SpinProfiles lacked entries on the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and IEngage (the name under which MEND was then known).

• (The following opinion is from Dave Rich. However, is not related to the complaint that he and his organisation lodged against Miller.) In a 2021 article in the New Statesman, Dave Rich Head of Policy at the Community Security Trust, wrote that Spinwatch "echoes certain facets of anti-Semitic conspiracism." and criticises a booklet co-authored by Miller in 2011, The Cold War on British Muslims[30] that claims to reveal "pro-Israel trusts and foundations" and "networks of money or power" which attempt to "marginalise British Muslims.”

• According to the Sabrina Miller of Bristol's Jewish student society, in 2019 Jewish students and Bristol's Jewish Society (JSoc) at Bristol made a complaint to Bristol University about Miller's “Harms of the Powerful” lecture module.

• On 23 February, Daniel Finkelstein, in a column in The Times, wrote that ...

• In a 19 February letter, Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies said Miller's "increasingly ...

• On 28 February, Malia Bouattia, former president of the UK National Union of Students, defended Miller in an opinion piece for Aljazeera: "the accusations ...

• Iranian backed Press TV also, according to the Jewish Chronicle, defended Miller in late February.

• On 4 March 2021, historian David Feldman wrote that Miller's work on Israel and Zionism was in the tradition of "conspiracy theorists [who] have pointed to Jews as the malign force driving the modern world".

• The opinion of the APPGAA is quoted twice.

• In April 2021, 550 academics, including Simon Schama and Simon Sebag Montefiore, signed a letter condemning Miller's statements ...

• Thangam Debbonaire, whose constituency includes the University of Bristol, also denounced the comments Miller made.

• ... a Change petition was also set up, gaining almost 40,000 signatures in support of Prof Miller and an open letter to the University was signed by hundreds of public intellectuals and academics, ...

• A separate letter, signed by hundreds of Jewish supporters, stated that "Jewish opinion on Zionism has always been diverse" ...

Which of these opinions should be retained and which discarded? And should Rosenhead's opinion be added to the mix? My view is that we should

• add Rosenhead (there is some reluctance to do that)
• expand or remove PressTV's opinion (no one else has commented on this)
• Explain Dave Rich and Sabrina Miller's roles in the events (there appears to be agreement on this)
• Amalgamate the two mentions of APPGAA
• Otherwise retain what we have.

Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between opinions cited in reliable sources (e.g. Debbonaire, van der Zyl, the APPGAA, Schama, the petition and letter, and opinion pieces that we quote directly and which are not mentioned in secondary sources (e.g. Maher, Finkelstein, Bouattia, Feldman, also Rosenhead). Generally, in my view, the former category are more likely to be DUE as they are considered noteworthy by RSs, and there aren't a huge number of RSs reporting about our subject. The latter category are less likely to be DUE: we need a very good reason to include them, e.g. significant expertise or relevance or because other RSs considered these opinion pieces noteworthy. Therefore, I'd suggest leaving the former category in place unless there is a specific problem, but that those who think any of the latter should stay in need to give good reasons. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia admits to a [potential cultural bias], and encourages a wider viewpoint. I don't think there are many widely cited sources which cover Muslim, Middle East, non-Zionist and free speech views. For this reason I think we should use Bouattia & Rosenhead for balance. --Andromedean (talk)20:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

category

An editor has repeatedly deleted the "British conspiracy theorists" category, claiming that it is unsourced. This is exceedingly odd, given the way the article itself covers his engagement with conspiracy theories. I invite other editors to consider this issue. I note that the editor in question is engaged in a large-scale effort to depopulate this category, so it probably requires broader attention (e.g. ANI), but let's try to fix the article issue as well.

As a reminder (in part to myself): the article has a 1RR restriction. I've reverted twice myself (having forgotten about the 1RR), so I have no intention of taking action -- again, only a reminder. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You can resolve this easily by pasting here on article talk the various sources from scholarship or mainstream news organisations which characterise the article subject as a conspiracy theorist in authorial voice. Not opinion pieces, nor articles saying some students who disliked what he taught said he discussed conspiracy, but those which actually characterise him as a conspiracy theorist directly: i.e. the standard needed on this website for obviously derogatory content. We ought also to establish whether the breadth of this coverage (if any exists) constitutes due weight and balance to use this term. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was this removed from the last section?

The tribunal found that his conduct was 'culpable and blameworthy', a finding that would reduce any compensation by half. The judgement also said that there was a thirty percent chance that he would have been sacked for additional social media comments he made two months later, if he had still been employed. Miller said he would seek "maximum compensation". However, the tribunal said any award would be reduced by half "because the claimant’s dismissal was caused or contributed to by his own actions".

BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed some of that text. Reasons below:

• The phrase 'culpable and blameworthy' does not appear in the Guardian article that was being used as a source.[29]
• David's wikibio mentions a 50% reduction in the compensation later in the same paragraph: "The tribunal said any award would be reduced by half "because the claimant’s dismissal was caused or contributed to by his own actions". This version uses text that is contained in the Guardian source.
• The word "however" is a word to watch.
• The text about there being a thirty percent chance that he would have been sacked later is still in the article. Burrobert (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Legal precedent

Please add to the paragraph "Employment tribunal" after the sentence "This judgement establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.":

This ruling set a legal precedent, as it firmly establishes legal precedent that anti-Zionism – the criticism of the racist setter-colonial ideology behind the oppression of the Palestinians – is a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 that anyone expressing anti-Zionist beliefs is legally protected. Employers can no longer use opposition to Zionism as a pretext to discriminate, dismiss, or destroy people's careers. 93.211.221.18 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It will be a cold day in hell before we use a speech by Mr Galloway as a source on Wikipedia. You might want to consult WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Employment Tribunal found that David Miller went beyond anti-Zionism (against the right for Jews to self-determine). See the Judgement Summary note to press and public:

"The Tribunal also concluded that what the claimant said and wrote about students and the University’s student societies contributed to and played a material part in his dismissal. This was determined to be culpable and blameworthy because, among other things, the Tribunal found it is not appropriate for Professors publicly to aim aggressive discourse at students or student groups. Because of this the losses attributable to the unfair dismissal element of the claim were reduced by 50%.

After his dismissal the claimant posted comments on social media in August 2023 saying that “Jews are not discriminated against”, they are “overrepresented” and that “Judeophobia barely exists these days”. Because of this the tribunal further found that, had the claimant still been employed at this time, there is a 30% chance that he would have been dismissed shortly after these further comments. This affects the level of damages occasioned by the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. Other claims brought by the claimant for direct discrimination and harassment relating to matters such as failing to publish the first internal complaint report, making adverse public comments, failing to defend the claimant and subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings did not succeed and were dismissed."

Many British Jews and mainstream British Jewish groups also consider David Miller to be antisemitic

Colt .55 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, we will see whether or not it is a legal precedent, but the guy was improperly dismissed and is going to be compensated for that and has been cleared of the antisemitism allegation twice regardless. That says it all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I don't think it "says it all" -- because Colt.55 has found some other things that were said (specifically about Jews, and about the way the court saw those statements). On a totally separate topic, I find myself wondering whether he is currently employed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not new though, we knew that already. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)