Talk:Rachel Riley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Born 1986?

All I can see in that link is that she was 22 at the time of that news item. Maybe she was born in December 1985? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.57.24 (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated to reflect this ambiguity. — SteveRwanda (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Irish descent?

With a name like Riley, she obviously has some, although if it's too far down the line to be worth mentioning...Can we get verification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.29 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

Someone keeps changing her date of birth from 11 March to 11 January. I've no idea which is right, but have restored ot to 11 March since the edits were made anonymously and without explanation. We could do with establishing once and for all what the correct date is. Can anyone help? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the date is 11 January then let's have a reliable reference to clear this matter up once and for all. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Contacted college's alumni office (development trust in this case) asking them if it was 11 January or 11 March as the wiki article was going back and forth, they advised January as correct. So we can either disbelieve them and take out all dates or leave as is until a citeable source comes by.--Alf ^melmac 18:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done. The college would have the right date in their records so I think we can leave it in. This discussion should help anyone who's unsure. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The student might have to provide proof of birth date soit should be certain. I know this is off-topic but why can't some of the people who know tell Wikipedia users whether the Susie Dent birth date is correct or not: she cannot really be a celebrity with a false age like the actresses of yore.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On today's (11th January 2011) Countdown there were several references to it being Rachel's 25th birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.206.106 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess that's another source that proves the date. Not sure if we can use it as a reference though, but at least we can be certain the information we have is right. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another confirmation of Rachel's birthday on today's (11 Jan 2012) Countdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.64.62 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fan base

I added this section. Seems worth a couple of sentences. SmokeyTheCat 20:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Engagement

Rachel Riley announces her engagement on Countdown on 14 Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.34.126 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt the media will pick this up so we can add it with a citation later or tomorrow or whenever it gets reported. One thought though; as the show is recorded in advance it's likely it happened some time ago. Has it been picked up by anyone? Try Googling it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Found one. Evidently she got back together with James Gilbert and he proposed to her on her 25th birthday. I'll add it. Perhaps worth a mention that she announced it on Countdown, but I don't know if it's strictly necessary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarian

On the "8 out of 10 cats does countdown" aired on 13th of september 2013 she mentions she's a vegetarian about 27 minutes in. Is this of any interest? If so: how should it be added? 217.210.141.57 (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism is very widespread. I wouldn't have thought this was notable. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Category atheist?

Why has this been added, I see no evidence for it. She describes herself as a non-religious Jew, non-religious doesn't necessarily mean atheist. Fork me (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

94.212.204.168 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

When she was about to get married to Jamie Gilbert she described herself as a "non-religious Jew" and "pretty atheist".--79.70.150.125 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mathematician?

I would disagree that she is a mathematician since she has no publications nor does she work in a math related field. A math degree does not automatically qualify someone as a mathematician. Perhaps we should change it to math educator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminhungryboy (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

She's neither a mathematician nor a math educator. She just has an undergraduate math degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.153.236 (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A mathematician is someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in his or her work.

I took her out of the category . Silas Stoat (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Charitable efforts?

I removed the following two bits of info, one from Personal Lie and one from Filmography (Video!), as they seem a little out of place, and oddly suggestive that this is all she does for charity (which I sincerely doubt). Perhaps if someone can flesh out more details on other efforts, they can be reinstated.....

---

Riley was one of the celebrities, including Tom Hiddleston, Jo Brand, E. L. James and Benedict Cumberbatch, to design and sign her own card for the UK-based charity Thomas Coram Foundation for Children. The campaign was launched by crafting company Stampin’ Up! UK and the cards were auctioned off on eBay during May 2014.

• You Tube.com – Rachel Riley completing the Ice Bucket Challenge to support the James McCarthy Foundation

---

BorneoFred (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Replacement of Jewish Chronicle source

This source was replaced by Jontel with an Evening Standard source. I re-added it as an additional source, but it was removed by Rodericksilly, who said it had already been removed. I think that having both sources there is helpful, especially for a relatively controversial topic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle has, as might be expected, a pro Jewish focus and bias, particularly relating to discourse around anti-semitism. In this case, they edited two tweets they presented as reporting verbatim, as you can see by comparing the two sources, presumably in order to present the pro-Jewish protagonist in a better light. By all means use it as a source but I would recommend always using a mainstream source alongside or in preference to it. Jontel (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The JC is a mainstream WP:RS. We do not remove sources based on "Jewish bias". Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear as to my rationale, I replaced the JC source here with a source which was more accurate on this occasion. Jontel (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism debate section: rm

I strongly request the the section be deleted (As I just did [1]). RElevance in editsummary: "s also going [! DePiep] to address a conference". Going to, rally, is a notable event? This is just an elborate transcribed exchange, with no actuqal weight or relevance. We a\re not here to reproducewintenet exchanges. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the section should be kept - her interview received coverage in secondary sources and seems to be just as notable as the other content on here, if not more so. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is it WP:NOTABLE? So far, it is only a public discussion about an opinion of her — not even about her. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:IINFO: not passed. Sure other stuff exists, which only supports the need to remove that stuff too. So my question is: why should this exchange be listed in this encyclopedia? -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first comment was so badly written and punctuated that I struggled to understand it. Can you write it again using correct English and then I might understand what you're actually saying. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Basically it says the same as the edistsummary [2] and my second post here you still have not answered. Also, no need to talk down instead of replying. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking down, I'm just stating a fact. It was written dreadfully. You don't need a degree in English to type a few words correctly. I know because I certainly don't have one. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you struggled to understand [my] first comment, why did you not reply to my second post here, or to my editsummary you must have seen even before I posted here? And now again ignoring the question in my previous post? Case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, of wshatever nature. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Rodericksilly WP:BRD: 2nd reversal without engaging in discussion. Even after writing this es yourself. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

On a different point, I suggest that her expressed descriptions of Jeremy Corbyn's behaviour are contentious and potentially libellous, contrary to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and should not be reported here, particularly as she is simply parroting well worn tropes. This effectively 'smuggles in' attacks on Jeremy Corbyn without having to provide any evidence. By all means, include criticisms of him on his own page. Jontel (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If she's libeling him, he would sue her. But he won't because he didn't sue Margaret Hodge, who called him a racist anti-semite to his face. So I don't think that's going to be an issue for Rachel Riley. Many people have said that Corbyn is antisemitic (rightly or wrongly) and I don't believe he's sued any of them. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, not passing WP:BLP as noted. Rodericksilly, if you don't come forward with WP-grade argumentation (both for this whole Corbyn paragraph and the whole section as was asked), you are trespassing serious guidelines. Again, and read this as a warning: this edit is changing disputed content under discussion, so you might want to stop owning the article and start arguing. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Again, and read this as a warning: this edit is changing disputed content under discussion, so you might want to stop owning the article and start arguing." Thank you for at least improving your grammar so that I can understand what you're saying. The edit you mention is a compromise done to placate your very self - the previous quote - not originally added by myself but by Absolutelypuremilk I might add - was rather long and unnecessary. However, the Riley comments are well documented and nothing new against Corbyn, therefore they are hardly very contentious, and represent the way she obviously feels. Why should that not be addressed in the article, unless you are yourself biased? Rodericksilly (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My point about other stuff was a reference to undue weight. If she was notable for lots of other things, and the article was becoming too long, then we would have to consider whether too much weight was placed on this section, but we are very far from that point. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Corbyn is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE - there's no basis to censor Riley's well sourced statements. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Attacks on Corbyn should be on the page about him, not copied into the page of anyone who criticises him, particularly as such attacks are contested by many others. It is sufficient here to say that she is vocal about alleged antisemitism in the Labour party, which activity she shares with a multitude of others in this highly orchestrated campaign. Jontel (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Riley's views on antisemitism are clearly WP:DUE for Riley's page. They may or may not be DUE for Corbyn's page. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. Riley's comments are for her page, not for Corbyn's. We can't add every single person's accusation of antisemitism (or associating/legitimising antisemitism) to the Corbyn page, we'd never have the space and there's plenty about it already on his page. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not actually mean that her comments should be added to Corbyn's page. She is simply repeating what she has read/ been told in the Jewish Chronicle and elsewhere, after all. I am relaxed about the current "compromise" text on this page, subject to the views of others. Jontel (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Repeating what she's been told?" Any source for your assertions on this BLP? Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I just meant that, if you Google what she said, you will find similar statements made by a number of other people previously. Moreover, her expertise is in placing tiles and arithmetic rather than current affairs. Jontel (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well - WP:RSes covering Riley's statements view things differently - and give weight to her statements on antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree: I see in WP:RS 'Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.' She is issuing unsourced material about Jeremy Corbyn, so I do not think we should be repeating that, otherwise the policy is effectively being broken, using her as a proxy. And, from the same policy: 'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: (...) It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).' It is fine, though, to include a reference to her opposition to antisemitism. Jontel (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Our sources, such as the Telegraph, are WP:RSes for Riley's views on antisemitism and Corbyn - no sourcing issue here. WP:IJDLI is not a reason for removal, nor is it our purview as editors to whitewash questionable public figures.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"She is issuing unsourced material about Jeremy Corbyn" Nothing she's saying about Corbyn is not well documented elsewhere, and has been stated by, among others, organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews. She's not saying he's a Holocaust denier, which would be libelous, she's saying he's shared platforms with those people and therefore "given a voice to them" in her opinion, which is an accusation many have made already. Rodericksilly (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

She's certainly not saying anything extraordinary - the Holocaust Educational Trust has said Corbyn engaged in "denial and distortion".[3] Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion of attacks on Riley are appropriate. She has simply made comments on well-supported information about the antisemitism of certain British political figures, and has been attacked for it. A brief section on this is appropriate because it has been written up in reputable media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

hi. why have i been restricted from editing by the pro-israeli campaigner icewhiz? nothing i have written has been untrue or irrelevant. i merely seek to interject truth and balance into the right wing propaganda. Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think icewhiz should be banned from wikipedia. you cannot go around quoting right wing israeli-lobby funded groups and media as if they were balanced. Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

he hasn't sued anyone? are you serious? why are you using a fallatious rgument? that is not evidence of an admission. it is for the person making rhe libellous CLAIM to provide evidence, the burden of proof does not lie with the victim. Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

icewhiz you describe corbyn as a questionable public figure. <redacted> stay out of our politics. corbyn is the leader of the biggest left wing organisation in europe. i cannot believe wikipedia allows someone with this appalling level of bias to operate as an editor. at my newspaper you would have been given short shrift. wikipedia content is for CONTENT not for your political opinions. good journalism tells both sides. the truth has a power all its own. you discredit journalism and wikipedia. i can't see me hanging round here much longer... the standards are a joke. Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

sharing platforms with someone with appalling views is another fallacious argument... 'guilt by association' the whole page reads as if chomsky and corbyn are virulent anti semites. it doesn't mention the ongoing orchestrated smear campaign against corbyn and the left. anyway... smear mongers are losing the battle labour are up in the polls ahead of the tories and people tuned out from the 'corbyn is antisemitic' narrative, well, about three years ago. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. lol. laters xx Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There may be a case to reconsider this section in light of recent events. Daily Mail 15th April 2024 HuttonIT (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

DM is not a reliable source. Do you have another? Lard Almighty (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Protect page

Given the recent spike of activity and many malicious edits would it not be appropriate to protect the page from vandalism?

She is in the media a lot on a very divisive topic and leaving the page to anyone is causing more harm than it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextiffin88 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support protection of this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm rather new so if someone could do it if there's a consensus it'd be helpful. I may not agree with her but it's ridiculous the amount of warring edits Alex Tiffin (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You asked on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if this page could be fully protected. Note that means that only admins can edit the page, whereas I have asked for semi-protection for the page, which means that logged-in users can edit the page, but IPs cannot. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok that's better. Thanks Alex Tiffin (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I wasn't sure as it seemed that there's three users reverting each other often. I thought a short full protection might be best until it died down but the consensus is semi so I'm happy to go with the pack. Alex Tiffin (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Misspelling of Chomsky

I'm not sure her misspelling Chomsky as Chomsky is relevant - I propose rewriting that paragraph as

In January 2019 on Twitter, Riley accused the prominent American Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky, English film director Ken Loach and Aaron Bastani (of Novara Media) of "promoting anti-semitism", sharing screenshots of an excerpt from a 1980 article on free speech in which Chomsky stated he had not seen any 'credible proof' of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's anti-semitism, and that even if Faurisson had denied the Holocaust, then that would not prove he was an anti-semite. Chomsky has stated his views on the subject are "diametrically opposed" to those of Faurisson. This was followed by an online exchange with left-wing politician George Galloway, who tweeted in Chomsky's defence: "Dumbfounding. She calls Chomsky ... an anti-Semite and slanders half the Labour Party as the same."

i.e. removing the references to the typo. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, the misspelling is arguably pertinent to the criticism of her as being "thick and brainwashed" in it could be inferred as suggesting that she has no deep understanding of the issues and is perhaps repeating the attacks on various parties which have been made all year in the UK by others. Jontel (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for her misspelling showing that she is thick and brainwashed? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to give examples of her assertions because they then have to be explained and contextualised which rather takes the article away from the subject. Moreover, any selection inevitably misrepresents her position. These are twitter exchanges which do not put her in a good light. Criticism of her is a consequence of what she has been saying. Neither is listing her supporters necessary. Perhaps it is better to simply say that she has been campaigning against perceived antisemitism in the Labour Party and leave it at that. Jontel (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Absent secondary reliable sources asserting relevance - it is not relevant. WP:OR on Riley's tweets is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think the mention of Chomsky's name being misspelled is made relevant by Galloway's comment pointing it out. Whatever you think of Galloway, he had a point there. If she was going to launch an attack on someone using Twitter, she could have at least bothered to spell their name correctly. It's particularly poor coming from such a highly educated woman, as is her language telling people to "fuck off". Where has civil discourse gone recently??? Rodericksilly (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Blown out of proportion. Chomsky and Chomski are both spelling variants of the same surname.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If I was going to attack someone like Chomsky on Twitter, I reckon I'd bother to at least do a Google to check I'd got the name right, if only to save myself from being ridiculed. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that 2a00:23c4:6b1b:a600:f8ab:9185:6961:b33 removed the reference to the misspelling, so presumably should be added to the votes in favour of removal. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about that. We don't know who that IP is and whether it's one of the users on here. I've come across plenty of IP vandalism on this site where it's clear that edits are being made by the same user, once with a logged in name, then again as an IP. Hence why I agree with the campaign that all Wiki users should have to log in to edit. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Section on antisemitism in the lead

I have added the following to the lead as a description of the antisemitism section. I am currently undecided as to whether it should be covered in the lede, but leaning towards include.

In late 2018 and early 2019, Riley campaigned on ongoing allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party, saying that leader Jeremy Corbyn had shared a platform with "Holocaust deniers and virulent anti-semites". Riley accused Noam Chomsky of "promoting anti-semitism", because of his comments about Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.

Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

yes the lede looks better like this... apologies to all for my unfamiliarity with wiki convention. i am concerned about the defaming of both corbyn and child and suggest riley's 'arguments' are removed. a repeated libel is a libel. there is zero evidence that chomsky promotes anti-semitism nor that corbyn associates with racists. the page doesn't reflect the facts. it comes across as northern-korea level propaganda. does wikipedia have a system for dealing with political propagandists editing pages and removing factual content? like philip cross! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjenniferjames (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I keep reverting it back as an anonymous user keeps removing it. I'm firmly in the lead position as it has gained her significant publicity due to it. If it had only been twitter I'd say no but she's been on three TV shows now a days had countless news articles on it Alex Tiffin (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

After the IP removed your addition, I replaced it with a longer, (in my opinion more neutral) summary but later on in the lede as I don't think it is the thing she is most notable for and therefore should be lower down. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

OK for balance (and much better than diff - "who stepped into the political arena in 2019 to accuse Noam Chomsky of 'promoting anti-semitism" - which is factually incorrect). Borderline for lede inclusion - as she's not primarily involved in this area - we would have to keep it short.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been removed again but I got a warning thing to say usectalj page so I'm not changing it again. Alex Tiffin (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, it's generally better to discuss on the talk page once you have been reverted. What did you think about my proposed version above? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say let's briefly mention it, particularly as the section on it is quite significant now at three paragraphs. This is Paul (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, does my proposed paragraph above look ok? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to me. It covers everything and is probably about the length we want. This is Paul (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if this is repetition but, for the record, I do not think we should set out her specific attacks on leading politicians and intellectuals if she is just retweeting or repeating material from elsewhere. Simply mentioning that she is campaigning on the issue and perhaps that she has attracted abuse for doing so is, in my view, sufficient. One can always link to the relevant pages where such attacks are detailed Jontel (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think your proposed paragraph was perfect puremilk.

Thanks for guidance. Alex Tiffin (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have looked again at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. I particularly note the following:

“The lead should

• serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
• give the basics in a nutshell
• be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
• stand on its own as a concise overview
• …summarize the most important points”

The following paragraph is not a concise overview or summary. Rather it simply duplicates detailed material further down the page.

Also, stating such allegations of others in the lead without including any rebuttal means arguably that it does not have a neutral point of view as recommended above i.e. “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”

Can I make a suggestion: change the paragraph in the lead from:

In late 2018 and early 2019, Riley spoke about allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party, saying that leader Jeremy Corbyn had shared a platform with "Holocaust deniers and virulent anti-semites".[3][4][5] Riley described Noam Chomsky as being "known to promote anti-semitism",[6] based on his 1981 comments about Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.[7][8][9]

to:

In late 2018 and early 2019, Riley spoke about allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party and elsewhere, including commenting critically on leader Jeremy Corbyn, Noam Chomsky and others, attracting both criticism and expressions of support.

Jontel (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

False balance. She's only really faced criticism from the fringes of the far left of which several are accused of antisemitism themselves. We really don't need a criticism/support in the lede. I would go with - In late 2018 and early 2019, Riley spoke against antisemitism in the UK. Short, simple, and to the point. Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with that. Jontel (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

'Stepped into the political arena'

on what basis do you say the phrase 'stepped into the political arena...' is incorrect. also who is icewhiz... seems like an israeli propagandist acting in bad faith, imo. claims chomsky is anti semitic. he has just restricted me i've only been on here one day. nice welcome!! i am a former news editor and i may be a bit rusty but hot that bad i hi ope! how does wiki ensure content is not removed for propaganda purposes. who do i complain to about icewhizz factional behaviour. Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

also attacking other political parties on spurious grounds is not 'campaigning'. it's smear campaigning! or at least specify who riley is campaigning for? Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources say that Riley was talking about Labour in a factional way? If not, then we shouldn't include it. I suggest you also bear in mind WP:GOODFAITH when talking about other editors and engage with their arguments rather than calling them names. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Tweet box

Rachel Riley Twitter @RachelRileyRR

To all messaging outrage after recent thread re Antisemitism, not because of the AS I highlighted, but because I said one of their heroes (Chomsky) promoted Antisemitism.
Here he is, supporting a Holocaust denier.
If that doesn’t promote Antisemitism, I don’t know what does.

Jan 8, 2019

Do people think we need this in the antisemitism section or can it be removed? Rodericksilly (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable use of the Tweet box. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do people think we need this in the antisemitism section or can it be removed? Rodericksilly (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think remove. We have a TV presenter tweeting a 40 year old accusation of someone with over fifty honorary degrees and it is mentioned three times on her page as if it is significant to her or anything else? Applying some sense of proportion would be good. Jontel (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please strike your assertion that this is "slander", unless you can back this up with a source. Riley is not saying anything extraordinary here. Chomsky's support of the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson is well covered in sources in the past year - e.g. The Grand Theorist of Holocaust Denial, Robert Faurisson, Tablet, 25 April 2018, or Robert Faurisson, Holocaust Denier Prosecuted by French, Dies at 89, New York Times, 22 October 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Tweet in the Tweet box, Riley appears to have circled some text of Faurisson included in the Tablet source. This does not, on the face of it,support her assertion that this is evidence of Chomsky's support. So, she has tweeted it but, if she is wrong in her assertion, should we not exclude it as unreliable or provide background on what it is? We have a WP:BLP responsibility to Chomsky,too. Jontel (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your wider point, Chomsky was arguing in defence of Faurisson's civil rights. I think calling that "promoting anti-semitism", whether or not Faurisson was himself anti-semitic, as Riley did without qualification or explanation, is misleading. Jontel (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What we think of Chomsky's actions is irrelevant. The question is the tweet box. Let's be straight: way more people will read Chomsky's page than her page. If anyone is forming an opinion about Chomsky, it will be elsewhere. People who come here are coming specifically to read about Rachel Riley. --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Chomsky article in 1981

@Rodericksilly: do you have a source for the quote from Chomsky being from 1981? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It is in Reference 46, the article she mentioned. Jontel (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

for which Chomsky wrote a preface?

In Faurisson_affair, it is stated that “Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. Serge Thion and Pierre Guillaume then used it in 1980 as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge.” So, I feel that “for which Chomsky wrote a preface” gives a false impression. Moreover, this assertion that Chomsky wrote a preface for the book is used to imply specific knowledge on his part which he has reportedly denied. I propose that the following is omitted: (despite the fact that in the blurb of Faurisson's book for which Chomsky wrote a preface, Faurisson calls the Holocaust "a Zionist lie"). Jontel (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What's lacking here in my mind is WP:SECONDARY sources (not tweets) discussing Chomsky+Faurisson+Riley at all - absent secondary RSes discussing this - we should avoid use of WP:PRIMARY tweets (who tie in Faurisson) and furthermore we should avoid WP:SYNTH on Faurisson/Chomsky. If I were to summarize Faurisson/Chomsky, I would use a source such as this - and stick to a high-level summary ("a number of interventions into the affair, oddly and insistently sympathetic to Faurisson") - however at this point this is WP:SYNTH regardless of how we frame it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oz Katerji

Can we remove this tweet making a specific attack on Noam Chomsky on the basis of WP:Sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Also Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."

The writer and filmmaker Oz Katerji said that 'the most important thing @RachelRileyRR has done is to finally break the mainstream silence on Noam Chomsky, a man who has never met a conspiracy theorist he hasn’t promoted the work of. The bile & outraged reactions from activists expose their ignorance of his work.'[53]

Thanks, Jontel (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Including background on commentators

What is the policy or best practice on this? Do we include or exclude background on commentators which may or may not influence their view on Riley’s engagement with and experience of a discussion of aspects of antisemitism in the UK?

For example:

• Nick Hewer is a colleague of Riley
• Stephen Fry is Jewish by descent
• Emily Thornberry is a member of Labour Friends of Israel
• Karl Hansen is critical of Israel

We might consistently exclude all, include all or is there another policy?

Thanks Jontel (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should consistently exclude background items unless they are mentioned in the source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk: It is explicitly stated in the source: Last year, Mr Hansen was criticised for describing Israel as an “apartheid state.” I.e. he's a partisan on the issue.

Jontel current version is fine by me.--Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case we should include it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

We should avoid Jew marking or labeling members of Labour Friends of Israel. I am removing Hansen - who seems to have received some flak for his closed group tweet, but is just an aide, and his tweets garnered attention only for being extreme.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Linking to Israel as apartheid analogy

User:Calthinus has added to the page a characterization of Israel as an apartheid state.

I thought it helpful to readers who may not have studied the question a link that phrase to the Wikipedia page on the subject i.e. Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy so that they can understand it further.

However, User:Calthinus has deleted the link on the vague basis that it is "not necessary".

Wikipedia says: "In general, links should be created for relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully." (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_be_linked)

Can we agree that this policy applies in in this case? Jontel (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Riley, not Hansen and his unorthodox views.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The point was not to discuss rather Israel is an apartheid state but to not hide from the reader the fact that Hansen's commentary comes with context. However Icewhiz raises a good point - he probably shouldn't be here at all.--Calthinus (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Recentism?

Having just come across this article, I think it's arguably giving too much weight to recent controversies as of January 2019; the current 'Antisemitism debate' section seems a bit excessive. To the general public, Riley is far better known as a TV presenter than for things she may have said on Twitter, and this article ought to reflect that. The lead simply states: 'Riley has spoken out against antisemitism on the left wing of politics and publicly criticised Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn regarding the antisemitism controversy in his party.' Does this article really need to say any more than that? Are the views of George Galloway/Nick Hewer/Stephen Fry/Emily Thornberry really relevant? Perhaps some of the content should be moved to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, because it feels like undue weight here. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I support a trim (and I cut the lede content here quite a bit). We should have some content in the body (detailing her activities in this regard in the last year) but it should be one to two paragraphs at most - and focus on Riley herself, and not on what others say of her.Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree regarding undue weight. The actual activity is one of unsophisticated twitter exchanges, generally repeating existing material from others which is covered more fully on other Wikipedia pages; these play a limited role in Riley's life and do not advance the issues concerned. A summary in the lead and relevant section is sufficient. Jontel (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the material making up the current paragraphs 3 and 4 of that section should be in the article. Trim away. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest this, plus references. Othwerwise, one is over analysing individual tweets.

Lede

In late 2018 and early 2019, Riley spoke out against antisemitism in the UK.

SECTION Antisemitism

In late 2018 and early 2019, Riley spoke out on Twitter and in interviews against antisemitism in the UK, specifically referencing allegations of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. She also expressed concern about the amount and nature of criticism on social media which she received as a result. Jontel (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to removing para 4 & 5 in that section, and trimming para 3. However, I disagree that the weight should reflect what Riley is known for - they should reflect reliable sources, which have probably written more about her with respect to antisemitism than her work on Countdown. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing in much of this section is terrible. The only parts of paragraph 3 which are at all well sourced are the support from Hewer and Fry. Most of the coverage of this issue in reliable sources is about the threats she has been receiving rather than the spat itself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The anti-Semitic threats directed at Riley are indeed what received the most media (of the RS kind) attention here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I thinks Jontel's version is a reasonable start, though I might change the second sentence slightly. Personally I would then merge the section back into "Personal life". We could use her Spectator article [4] as a reference for the first sentence and this new Guardian article [5] for the second? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's now May and the "undue" tag remained. I axed a lot of it and got rid of the section header, so it's now under "Personal life" since this has to do with her personal opinions and statements, nothing to do with her career. A BLP on a TV presenter should not have six paragraphs about "comments" - we know the excessive coverage is it because it involves basically the two most controversial subjects in the world: politics and Israel. Unless she gets embroiled in a major lawsuit or loses her job or something, I don't see why it should have its own section. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tory, brainwashed and thick?

The above comment is WP:SELFPUB i.e. she said this herself and we only have her word for it. She denies that she is a Tory, and the statement is unevidenced, so it is unfair to her. If it is included to show that social media critics are unfair to her, one comment is not representative, so it is unfair to her critics. On another matter, her campaign and its critics are not related to the Holocaust, so reference to the Holocaust Educational Trust is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading.

I propose that we replace:

She said she had been called "Tory, brainwashed and thick" in response, but stated she did not have "any party loyalties". In January 2019, Riley made a speech at a Westminster reception for the Holocaust Educational Trust and addressed what she described as the "hideous abuse" she had received. In February 2019, she and fellow campaigner Tracy Ann Oberman instructed a lawyer to take action against 70 individuals.

with

She has said that she received "hideous abuse" in consequence and, in February 2019, she and fellow campaigner Tracy Ann Oberman instructed a lawyer to take action against 70 individuals.

What do you think? Jontel (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

It's not SELFPUB - it has been published by the Telegraph - a NEWSORG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a good source, the accusation that she is politically motivated and her denial of that is relevant, her decision to speak at a reception for the Holocaust Educational Trust about her experience is relevant to antisemitism. It's worth noting (and I haven't forgotten) that one of Jontel's early edits was to accuse Riley of being part of a "well orchestrated campaign" against Corbyn and Labour, so he's not exactly even attempted to observe impartiality on this topic before. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Telegraph is merely quoting her, so is not an independent source of fact, obviously. Her harassment of Labour Party activists is nothing to do with the Holocaust. Referencing the Tory party is a clear red herring: she is entirely motivated by pro-Israeli sympathies, as she has herself made clear. She is obviously part of a well-orchestrated campaign, and regularly name checks her associates. I do not have to be impartial, but the article should present an accurate picture, or at least both sides. My proposed amendment provides a neutral 'enclycopaedia-style' solution. Jontel (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jontel: - please read WP:BLPTALK and then either provide a source for your assertions or strike them. As for "two sides" - we follow RSes and weight therein.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is controversial. On her being motivated to speak out by her Israeli sympathies: "I finally broke my silence when a number of bus stops in London, the city where I live, were plastered with “Israel is a Racist Endeavour” posters" [[6]]. On her name checking her associates: e.g. "Big thanks @GnasherJew volunteers who put SO much time & effort into compiling this evidence." [[7]]. Jontel (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You should strike the assertions above forthwith.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)