Talk:Chris Williamson (politician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chris Williamson (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120306092325/http://ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk/Derby+North/Chris+Williamson to http://ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk/Derby+North/Chris+Williamson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2018

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

– Greater notability than the skiier.|Chris_Williamson_(politician)|Chris_Williamson_(alpine_skier) Unreal7 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Chris Williamson (politician) → Chris Williamson
 * Chris Williamson → Chris Williamson (disambiguation)
 * Oppose. Political figure with with no international renown. Not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vanessa Beeley paragraph
The paragraph seems to be about the views of Vanessa Beeley rather than Chris Williamson. Going to a talk and thanking the speaker is hardly significant - politicians must do this thousands of times. This behaviour does not tell us anything definite about Williamson's views. There is a high level of character assassination and guilt by association in this subject area. I suggest the paragraph is deleted. Jontel (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment reveals how little you know of Williamsons politics. Are you aware at all of his position on Syria, on chemical weapons attacks in Syria? The piece is about Williamson and Beeleys politics. I have seen this man speak on Syria on Channel 4 News many times ( too many bloody times). He has been vocal on Venezuela too. The article needs more on this, on his politics, he is a politician and his views need to be included in the article. How is there high level of 'character assassination' in reporting who he admires? Rather there would be  a degree of whitewashing if his views on Syria etc were buried. He himself as Ive said, doesn't hide his views on Syria , he's often on the BBC and Channel 4, hectoring, with his conspiracist take. Anyhow he is obviously not ashamed of feeling honoured to listen to beeley , or he wouldn't have said what he did. Are you ashamed on his behalf?  Dan the Plumber (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the article again, and its headline features Chris Williamson MP , so your idea that the point of the article is not him, but Beeley, won't wash.     The man tweets , gushing,

Great to meet @VanessaBeeley today and a privilege to hear her speak at the #BeautifulDays2018 festival about her experiences of reporting from Syria

'a privilege' is also a lot stronger than 'thanking'. In brief I find your arguments are a bit tricksy and deliberately underplaying things. That you think this tells us nothing 'definite' about his views on Syria is, debatable. Not the open and shut case you are seeking to portray. There should be more on this subject, his views on Syria, but that is an argument for adding, not subtracting an article that does, whatever you protest, say something important, revealing,  about this subject. Dan the Plumber (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop trying to bulldoze your preferred version into the article.110.74.199.28 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Dan, It’s fine to include examples of his views, where they are substantive, of course. I don’t think that including a tweet of someone he heard speak, even if he enjoyed their talk, is really an effective criticism. He may have been unaware of the tweet or felt that enjoying her talk did not mean that he was endorsing her politics. You will make your point better if you can find more examples of him expressing personal views you do not agree with. Also, condemning Beeley on the basis of a tweet is not a fair reflection of her views. Can we reach a compromise by leaving the sentence up to Beeley but omitting the Jo Cox tweet? Jontel (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan here, Beeley is notable because of her tweet and it is notable that Williamson praised her (enough for an article to be written about it). Further articles can be found at the NS and Times of Israel. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't. A couple of selected tweets from Beeley bear no demonstrable relationship with the talk praised by CW.Jontel (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Its desperately naive to think Chris Williamson is ignorant of her views on Jo Cox and on who rules France etc. Ive heard him speak about Syria on Channel 4 and he parrots pro Assad regime views so in saying it was a'privilege' to listen to this offscouring Beeley he knew exactly what he was saying and signalling. But, I guess we won't agree  and I see that 'Beeley had previously tweeted ...' drifts from Williamson himself to a degree that means your compromise is o.k. Dan the Plumber (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Describing Beeley as "pro-assad" is irrelevant and could perhaps mislead the reader into thinking Williamson himself is pro-assad (he is not).110.74.199.28 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that it is in the title, subtitle or first paragraph of the three sources, it clearly isn't irrelevant. Also given Jontel's previous comment "Can we reach a compromise by leaving the sentence up to Beeley but omitting the Jo Cox tweet?" it would seem consensus is to at least include "pro-Assad". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutelypuremilk seems to have put things accurately, clearly and concisely. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jontel, your one man crusade against this material being included is not convincing. If three RS are cited commenting on his foreign policy attitudes, or attitudinising, then you should at least seek consensus for removing it . It is just IDONTLIKEIT so far. 78.144.90.7 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’m happy to put the case for removal at greater length if it is an issue. It is based on WP:PROPRTION. An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

PARTIAL SOURCES: Oz Katerji, who wrote the NS piece, has been called an FSA activist. He has actually been filmed heckling Corbyn. The Times of Israel clearly loathe Beely and Corbyn, looking at their article. They seem to take a pro-Jewish line. So, the fact that they report the events do not make them proportionate in my view, even if they are reporting accurately which, given their political standpoints, they may not be. LACK OF RELEVANCE TO TOPIC: They are also not proprotionate because Williamson has no foreign affairs expertise or responsibility. It literally does not matter what he thinks in that area. LACK OF SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMENTS; Finally, he has not said anything of consequence such as proposing a policy or even a theory. He thanked a speaker and queried the authorship of a chemical weapons attack. No uninvolved commentator would think this of note with regard to the subjects of his comments. ABSENCE OF SIMILAR MATERIAL: Nor do I think it tells us much about Williamson. If someone is seeking to show that he is pro-Assad, I would expect to see a statement from him to that effect. If someone is seeking to show a consistent interest from him in foreign affairs, I would expect to see a series of such comments establishing that. I don’t know what else the comments are meant to show about him. So, happy to hear others put the case for keeping them, but I think they should be removed. Jontel (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'A pro-Jewish line' ? Is there a 'jewish' pov ? Anyhow, whilst I agree that he has no expertise, indeed he is a kind of useful idiot for the pro Assad lot who rely on his ignorance, it is not true that his views on foreign affairs  are of no interest to an article that seeks to portray a political figure in all his philosophical richness, or, as here, poverty. Channel Four News, ( a generally good news programme) quite often asks him for his take on 'foreign affairs' as  may be seen here for example, . That he has no 'expertise' or 'responsibility' doesn't mean there is nothing to say about his (often rancidly stupid) views, if these views are sought, offered, commented on, in RS. 78.144.90.7 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can discount some of these negative reasons. Katerji "has been called an FSA activist"? The fact some unnamed source has apparently smeared Katerji is irrelevant. (He obviously isn't an FSA activist, although he is clearly pro-FSA, which doesn't invalidate his commentary.) Filmed "heckling Corbyn" is a very slanted description of something that again doesn't invalidate his commentary: like Williamson, he has been filmed expressing an opinion about Syria at a meeting Corbyn (who is not the subject of this article) was speaking. The idea that the ToI, considered a RS by WP, is "pro-Jewish" is both bizarre and disturbing. There is no "pro-Jewish" line on Beeley or Assad, and if there was how would it be a bad thing? The ToI is not an opinion piece but a news article, and everything in it is verifiably true. Second, it does matter what Williamson thinks on these matters if his thoughts have led to newsworthy controversies, which they appear to have. What makes his comments consequent is the controversy. The absence of similar material point may be a bit more substantive, but it is to some extent refuted by the preceding sentence in the article which is about something else of a similar nature, his questioning of the widely accepted account of the Douma attack. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Labour Against the Witchhunt and Hallam CLP?
This text is currently in the antisemitism section: "Jewish Voice for Labour defended Williamson, as did the "Labour Against the Witch-hunt" pressure group and the Sheffield Hallam constituency branch of the Labour Party who voted 40 to 0 in favour of a motion stating Williamson's comments had been taken out of context." There has been a huge amount of comment, supportive and critical, of Williamson's suspension. I think JVL are probably noteworthy here, but are the fringe group LAW or the motion of one CLP? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, LAW are small but highly relevant to this and could easily be included in the first para e.g. "Jewish Voice for Labour" and "Labour Against the Witch-hunt" defended Williamson. The relevance of the CLP vote is that this is the audience he was speaking to, so they are witnesses to the event. Jontel (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The audience point makes sense - wonder if we need to say that explicitly? Although if the source doesn't say it might be OR. I also see the motion has had some coverage, so that makes it noteworthy, so agree it should stay in. Still not sure about LAW. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, LAW won't get a lot of coverage for this. They're sort of part of the story because they were set up to oppose what they see as false allegations of AS, but they aren't influential, I don't think. Jontel (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Libel
The article should not include his libellous statement regarding Peter Kyle because this is a serious legal matter. (86.132.175.200 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
 * I presume your objection is to the first sentence of Williamson's quote, so I have reinstated the rest. I suppose it could be omitted. Jontel (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense from ip user with evidently little to no understanding of BLP policy or libel law. The question as to whether a statement that an individual made was or was not libellous is for a court to decide, if and when it is brought to them, not random WP ip user with obvious POV to push. Furthermore, Wikipedia reports facts: the only fact in question here is "Did Williamson make this statement?" and there is no serious dispute that he did. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be removed because it is just anti-Semitic defamatory hate speech, and libellous. (86.156.198.203 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
 * In fact, Williamson is accusing Kyle and others of slurring him! No mention of Jews, either. So, what exactly is defamatory or libellous? What is antisemitic or hate speech? If you are serious, you can take it to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Jontel (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotation is a hateful attack on Peter Kyle and should be removed immediately. We should not allow hate speech and personal attacks on this site. In any case the quotation is overly long and trivial. (86.140.123.98 (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
 * All the article says is that Williamson alleges that Kyle slurred him. That Kyle has personally attacked Williamson, including trying to stop him speaking, is a matter of public record e.g. {https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17792339.chris-williamson-event-cancelled-venue-mp-39-s-intervention/}. Kyle's attacks on Williamson are arguably slurs i.e. 'an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.' Regarding length, the quote is only three sentences and it is hardly trivial for Williamson to seek to defend himself from serious charges which effectively accuse him of political hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Those are extremely damaging charges for a left-wing conviction politician. Let's see whether others will make the same points you do. Jontel (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ken Loach?
What is the point of mentioning that Loach has supported Williamson, when he too has made extremely controversial remarks about Jews and the Holocaust? (86.156.198.203 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
 * He is a distinguished and prominent film-maker. He clarified his allegedly controversial remarks to make it clear that he did not dispute the occurrence of the Holocaust. In saying 'too', you are asserting that Williamson has made extremely controversial remarks about Jews and the Holocaust, which I am sure you do not mean to do. Jontel (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Loach is mostly known for one film that was released 50 years ago. Williamson has certainly made controversial remarks regarding Jews and anti-Semitism, that is why he is suspended from the Labour Party. I just think it would be much better not to list people who have been accused of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial as his defenders. (86.140.123.98 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
 * Well, Loach has directed over fifty movies and documentaries. I am not aware that Williamson has said anything critical about Jews. Accusations are being made with very little basis. It is important that we do not let this New McCarthyism stifle voices, particularly on Wikipedia. Jontel (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you are not neutral here. Is Chris Williamson a friend of yours? (86.140.123.98 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC))
 * No. Jontel (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Canary vs Jewish Chronicle
Re this revert by on the basis that The Canary (website) is more reliable than the Jewish Chronicle. The former has been deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Seeking_acceptance_of_reliability_of_UK_progressive_online_only_news_sites_-_The_Canary,_Evolve_Politics_and_Skwawkbox ) while the latter has not, so I think this is a problematic revert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not so. There was a discussion without structure or evidence covering several media outlets. Editors' views differed. I did not present it as a formal proposal following Wikipedia guidelines and there was no consensus. The discussion is not a justification for you to delete all material sourced to The Canary. My revert was on the basis that it is sufficiently reliable to be used: attribute material to it if you wish. Jontel (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the RSN discussion was clear that the Canary was not an RS, as that was the view of about 75% of participating editors, so did remove or add better source tags to some material citing it, including this article. I have put that on hold as there is a new RSN discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

EHRC report
User:G-13114 reverted my deletion of the section on the EHRC. Here's why I think it should not stand as it is. The text currently says "In October 2020, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in the Labour Party did not find that Williamson had contributed to ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ in the Labour Party,[83][verify] which Williamson declared as vindication.[84]" That is, the article text as it stands makes it look like the report actively cleared Wiliamson. But the EHRC report didn't make a judgement either way. It also didn't clear Williamson - no more than it found that the moon is or is not made of green cheese. It mentions Williamson several times, but only in case studies, passing no judgement on the consequences of his actions and words. The source used is a gossip columnist reporting on the reactions to and (crucially) interpretations of the EHRC report by prominent Corbyn supporters - it is merely repeating Williamson's claim. It is a stretch, to say the least, to read a gossip column in the way one needs to use it as a source for the claim. The same columnist, by the way, in another article mentions that in his reponse to the EHRC, Williamson used a term considered by the ADL as antisemitic to describe a Jewish Labour MP. If we are to take the gossip columnist as a non-snarky, reliable and noteworthy source, surely that should go in as well...? Or can we agree that perhaps it isn't the best source to use? OsFish (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to in the end part starting "The same columnist ... "? Burrobert (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Spectator's "Steerpike". I don't know if it's precisely the same individual, but it's the same column. Link is here.OsFish (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note 83 is the Steerpike column in the Spectator, which says "Former Labour MP Chris Williamson was also cheered by the contents of the EHRC investigation, as it did not find he had personally contributed to ‘unlawful harassment’ in the Labour Party. Williamson’s response, that he’d been vindicated ‘despite the best efforts of the Israel lobby’ suggests that some lessons have not been learned though…" RSP says "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG." I'm not sure if Steerpike counts as opinion or newsblog; if the former we need to attribute. Either way, a better source would be highly desirable. I'm also unconvinved that "did not find" is useful. It's obviously different from the more definitive "found he did not". Note 84 is the "Left Legal Fighting Fund", which I doubt is a reliable source for a BLP unless it is actually Williamson's own site, in which case it would be OK based on WP:BLPSELFPUB. Unless we can find reliable sources, I'd leave it out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Bob. According to its own site, the Left Legal Fighting Fund was founded by Williamson, so it would be self-published. In any case, it would be a comment on a claim of fact for which we don't have a reliable source at the moment, so currently it's a moot point.OsFish (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, what the article says is correct, it didn't find him guilty of any wrongdoing. And it seems appropriate to add his response to it. If there are better sources/and or other opinions which can be reliably sourced then by all means add them. But I don't see a justification for deleting the whole section. G-13114 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's correct, can you point me to where in the report it states that it does not find that Williamson had contributed to ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’? That seems to be the crux of the disagreement here. I think Williamson's interpretation ("spin" if you like) is being reported by Steerpike, whereas you think Steerpike wrote it as an independent (secondary source) description of the EHRC contents.OsFish (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bumping this discussion just in case there is a response to my suggestion on how to resolve this. As it stands, it looks like more editors !support the removal than oppose it. OsFish (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a story there to be told so leave the text as it is and expand on it. Williamson was shown a draft report by EHRC and took legal advice using a crowdfunding campaign. Most references to him were then removed in the final report. His view is that "The revised report acknowledges that I ‘successfully challenged’ my unlawful re-suspension from the Labour Party in the High Court last year. The Commission was also compelled to find that the Party’s disciplinary process against me was ‘influenced by external events’ and subject to ‘political interference’ ". Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see much of that in the Morning Star source, so we are reallying on the Fighting Fund as a source, which appear to count as WP:BLPSELFPUB, i.e. is a source for Williamson's response to and intepretation of the EHRC. It doesn't seem to me like we have a source for references to him being removed. His words ("the EHRC has determined that I did not contribute towards ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ by the Labour Party") seem to contradict the primary source on the report's content, i.e. the report itself, and not be substantiated by any independent sources that anyone has cited so far, even Steerpike, which is not a great source. Unless I'm missing something, I think we need better sourcing to unpack this, so my vote would be to remove pending better sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Relevant quotes from the Morning Star article that is not currently covered by our article:
 * "The draft report, which is subject to change before the final version is published later this year, was circulated to people it had named earlier this month".
 * "CHRIS WILLIAMSON is taking legal action against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) after he was named in its confidential draft report".
 * "Mr Williamson launched a crowdfund to cover legal fees” which “surpassed its target of £10,000 within “nine hours of its launch".
 * Relevant quotes from Williamson's statement that would of course need to be reworded and attributed to him:
 * "Thanks to the incredible support of our grassroots movement, I was able to assemble a top legal team, which exposed the draft report’s monumental flaws".
 * "The revised report acknowledges that I ‘successfully challenged’ my unlawful re-suspension from the Labour Party in the High Court last year. The Commission was also compelled to find that the Party’s disciplinary process against me was ‘influenced by external events’ and subject to ‘political interference’ ".
 * "The EHRC has determined that I did not contribute towards ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ by the Labour Party".
 * Burrobert (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem I see with using material from Williamson's statement on his own website is that Wikipedia would be publishing factual claims flattering to the subject but negative about the work of others that are not thus far sourced to an independent third party source, nor which find support in the primary source he's talking about. This seems to be directly in conflict with the first two bullet points at WP:BLPSELFPUB.OsFish (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Morning Star article provides a good background to the release of the report. The details it provides are relevant to Williamson’s bio.
 * I don’t see a problem using Williamson’s statements when they are accurate and don’t involve claims about third parties. Some of the quotes from him above are self-aggrandising and should not be included. However others are an accurate description of the report.
 * In any case the Spectator article accurately describes the report’s outcome so there is no problem using it. The article isn’t only repeating Williamson’s view. Attributing the statement to the article’s writer or providing a direct quote from the article is sufficient.
 * Jonathan Cook wrote an article in the Middle East Eye in which he stated “it is worth noting that the most high-profile case of former Labour MP Chris Williamson is absent from the report’s major criticisms”. This shouldn’t be a controversial position and is easily checked by reading the report itself.
 * Burrobert (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have an objection to the first three bullets, from the Morning Star, being added to our article. Very unsure about the four related to CW's own statements. The legal team quote doesn't seem to add much except puff. The second bullet point feels problematic: CW's quotation from the report here is selective as this is a secondary source on the report I don't think it is reliable. It is not controversial that CW successfully challenged the decision to reopen the complaint in the High Court, but our article already says this, citing the same primary sources as the EHRC report plus a BBC news item. The "compelled" bit is his interpretation of what they say which seems unwarranted, and it seems undue to note his use of the word "compelled" (it also relates to third parties who are doing the compelling and being compelled). It is true the report found political interference, but this is not the best secondary source for that. The unlawful harassment quote is not in the primary source that I can see, and here he is an unreliable secondary source for the report or an undue primary source for his summary of it. I don't think any of that should go in. I'm still against the Spectator as a source because of the issues raised. Not sure about Middle East Eye, which I believe is a weak opinion source and I'm not clear what Cook's comment adds or why it would be DUE. My current position, then, is add the Morning Star stuff if you think it adds something but wait for the case to develop and more reliable sources to emerge for the rest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that we are going to agree on this point. The EHRC report was a major event and at the outset Williamson was considered one of the most likely to be mentioned unfavourably in the report. We have two people (excluding Williamson himself) who have provided their opinion on how the report dealt with Williamson. They both agree that the report did not make any major criticisms of Williamson. Their opinions are also easily verified by reading the report. Including some version of their opinion seems justified. The opinion can be attributed if editors are squeamish about the Spectator source. In addition, if the Morning Star material is included, it would bee odd not to mention what the report actually ended up saying about Williamson. Burrobert (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to follow policy, and I think if we examine the sourcing, it's possible to agree that there's a problem having an expanded section rather than a reduced or deleted one. We're talking about the significance AND meaning of Williamson not being named (and thus found guilty) in the way that Livingstone and Bromley were. What are the sources?
 * Mainstream British news reports (rather than gossip columns) on the EHRC publication don't seem to discuss what is or isn't said about him, and there's nothing about him being cleared. It's not been a "thing" to mention. Even the partisan Middle East Eye piece attaches the word "apparently" to Williamson's claim that he got himself out of being named through legal pressure - it does not confirm it. So there does seem an issue of whether it is WP:DUE or in WP:PROPORTION. If it isn't covered in the kinds of secondary sources we should expect it to be covered, and if MEE is wary of it, is it worthy of inclusion?
 * In terms of widespread anticipation beforehand that Williamson would be named in the manner that Livingstone and Bromley were, I can't find much evidence in mainstream news sources. One Guardian article so far, and it's a single sentence. Is there more?
 * In terms of reading the report to verify CW's reported claim: there is nothing as far as I can see in the Report about whether the EHRC considered Williamson's case in the same way it considered Livingstone and Bromley. This is also why I challenge the interpretation of the Spectator gossip columnist that suggests it *independently* assessed the meaning of the contents, rather than reproduced Williamson's tweet as an example of Corbyn-supporter reaction (the focus of the piece). There's nothing there in the Report for the columnist to interpret or misinterpret. It's not simply a matter of being queasy about Steerpike as a source, although that's also an issue in BLP.
 * On the other hand, the Report cites (pp77-78) the Party failure to sanction Williamson for having, according to the disputes panel, "'engaged in conduct online and offline that, due to its reckless and needlessly provocative nature, was grossly detrimental to the Party’ and ‘may reasonably be seen to involve antisemitic sentiments, stereotypes and actions’" as an example of unexplained, undue leniency by the Party. At no point does it examine, let alone contradict, those NEC findings about Williamson's behaviour. Thus, reading the report does not verify claims that it cleared him in the way that the current text presents. No "vindication" exists in the Report on the substantive issue. That matters in terms of WP:BLPSELFPUB because claims of vindication are self-serving and about a third party, the first two points of that policy.
 * As for Middle East Eye, its reference to Williamson's court victory ("Williamson challenged his treatment by Labour in the high court last year and won") is actually to a case about procedure, not the substantive findings of the NEC - ie it was about whether it was lawful to reopen the case after complaints about the leniency of the original disciplinary decision. That's the same decision the Report cites as an example of undue, unexplained leniency towards someone found guilty of misconduct. That skewed presentation makes me uneasy using the MEE opinion article as a reliable source for what is essentially a claim of fact, especially as it distances itself from confirming a central aspect of the claim: that the EHRC withdrew findings of guilt against Williamson after he made legal threats.
 * In conclusion, although of course the EHRC was a big story, and of course Williamson as a high level party figure was a big part of the Labour antisemitism story, perhaps surprisingly, there's not a great deal to go on to connect the two issues in this BLP article other than that "Chris Williamson made legal threats to the EHRC after he was named in the draft report". As far as I know, we don't even have any independent evidence that legal action was taken. The thing is, he was named in the final report too.OsFish (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with OsFish. If there were sources saying something like "It was expected he would be criticised in the report" I wouldn't object to that, but it seems a bit flimsy. I agree it's surprising there isn't more coverage about this, but perhaps it will come in due course and we can revisit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have anything to add to what I have already said. It appears we are not going to agree on this. I suggest waiting to see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Burrobert. G-13114 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Claims to be vegan???
This is a BLP. See wp:claim. “To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence”. Burrobert (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've added a source for good measure giving the year he became vegan, and removed the "claimed" reference.OsFish (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal life
He was married. Why is that not in his personal life? Rustygecko (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Political affiliation
"Political party: TUSC"

As of this moment, his Twitter account says "Member Socialist Labour Party", which I take to mean Socialist Labour Party (UK). To the best of my knowledge the Socialist Labour Party is not part of the TUSC. Harfarhs (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)