Talk:John Mann, Baron Mann

Has he died?
I thought he was alive and then I read "John Mann (born 10 January 1960) was a British Labour Party politician ...."

If he has died, then the date of death should be included. If he has not died, probably the entry should read "John Mann (born 10 January 1960) is a former British Labour Party politician ...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Photo
This page could do with a photo Matthewfelgate 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Updates
I work for John Mann and removed the following passage that appeared in jan 2009 under the heading "Treasury Select Committee":

"John Mann has been criticised for being populist and uninformed, most notably through his crass 'Mann of the People' column in the Worksop Guardian newspaper."

This item was (a) placed outside the structure of the article, (b) unsourced, (c) incorrect and (d) contravenes wiki policy on articles on biographies of living person:

"They must be rigorously balanced, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing. Information that is not evidenced, or only evidenced from poor quality sources may be deleted by anyone, as may material that is unreasonable for a biography. (See the policy: "biographies of living persons")" And also I believe stands against wiki guidelines on criticism: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." John Mann aims to keep information available about him factual and correct. Criticism that follows the wiki guidelines is of course acceptable, but would urge that if constituents have criticisms they contact him first - information on contacting John Mann can be found on http://www.johnmannmp.com/contact_me/

Spam and miscellaneous links
I have removed a bunch of spam links in the References section (linking to such sites as sagewisdom.org), but this leaves a lot of floating miscellaneous links here, in the so-called "News references" section that follows, and in the External links section that follows that. These are essentially a directory of links targeting material related to John Mann – this is rather against the recommendations of External_links. I propose removing all of the bullet-points links in References/"News references" and slimming down the External links, unless anybody has any better ideas.  Alexbrn 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection, I have now done this.  Alexbrn 16:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

John Mann & Paedophilia
John Mann is notable for his paedophilia work and has been doing alot recently to work hand in hand with convicted paedophiles[] This should definitely be added to the article, I'd suggest changing John Mann's profession per reference given above. He's exposing the westminster paedophile ring.


 * Since Operation Midland has been wound up without finding corroborative evidence, that is not appropriate. Philip Cross (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Combating antisemitism
When this page talks about the incident with Ken Livingstone why can we not have the Haavara Agreement referenced where the Nazis and the Zionists were in business together as this is what Ken was referring to and what offended John? It proves John was wrong. I am guessing it cant be referenced as John Manns staff work on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.120.167 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * See The Independent this morning: "The Haavara Agreement, signed by Nazi Germany in 1933 did, arrange for the voluntary emigration of German Jews to the Middle East, but temporarily effectively stripped many émigrés of their property. At the same time Nazi authorities persecuted Jews in Germany through other legal and violent means, adding an element of coercion to the policy." Not exactly philo-semitic, or a means of protecting Jews. Philip Cross (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of if it was forced on certain people or not it still shows a business relationship between the Nazis and the Zionists. You also had Leopold von Mildenstein who was the SS Officer who is remembered as a leader of the Nazi Party's support during the 1930s for the aims of Zionism. So it can be said that Hitler supported the aims of the Zionists and the creation of the state of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.120.167 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * They also werent stripped of their property. The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was agreed to by the German government in 1933 to allow German Jews to transfer property from Germany to Palestine, for the purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany. The Haavara company operated under a similar plan as the earlier Hanotea company. The Haavara Company required immigrants to pay at least 1000 pounds sterling into the banking company. This money would then be used to buy German exports for import to Palestine. For German Jews, the Agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.120.167 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What do historical facts have to do with any of this?
 * A simpler, and more currently accurate, view of this would be that John Mann, Blairite Labour and strongly anti-Corbyn, was so quick to react aggressively to the mere existence of Ken Livingstone that considering the historical context of anything he'd said was very far from his thoughts.
 * Livingstone was an idiot, per Godwin's Law, in using the name Hitler anywhere near partisan UK media.
 * Mann was so quick to fight a battle over Labour internal leadership that he would give Jeremy Hunt the gift of a media smokescreen days after a doctors' strike, just to do so.
 * If there is any substantial encyclopedic story to this, it is merely that the right of the Labour party is still active, even if rather far from the front bench. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned this on the Livingstone talk page, but it is applicable here Timothy Snyder of Yale University has dismissed Livingstone's historical account, see here. Antony Beevor also rejected Livingstone's account on Channel 4 News yesterday. Hitler also opposed Zionism in Mein Kampf. Beevor, in the Michael Crick interview (just after the Facebook clip) said Livingstone's suggestion that Hitler was a a Zionist is "preposterous". Philip Cross (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Livingstone never said that Hitler was a Zionist, he said that he "was supporting Zionism". Now this is splitting hairs, but that's why a competent politician simply never uses the name "Hitler" in front of British media. Hair-splitting subtleties do not survive the crass misinterpretation and bias of the UK press. Of course Livingstone was correct, as far as he meant the statement to be interpreted: for one brief period, Hitler's wish to remove Jews from Germany coincided with some aspects of the Zionist movement of the day and he was happy to go along with it. That's a long way from the still-ludicrous and unmade claim that "Hitler was a Zionist". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct. Livingstone has not once said that "Hitler was a Zionist". He said that Hitler was supporting Zionism. And there is ample documentary evidence for this. Even Israeli PM Netanyahu has said this. It is important to mention the Haavara Agreement here, because it is a factual truth. John Mann said that Livingstone should "check the history", during his tirade. This quote should also be mentioned. This is a fairly historical moment in the Labour party. One of the oldest and most respected members is being suspended and a whole can of worms is being opened up here, which could have massive consequences for the party and leadership. And it is all based on John Mann's interpretation of history...which is factually wrong. It is worth documenting this fact. The fact that Mann is wrong, and his lack of historical knowledge can lose a man his job, and possibly damage the party.

It doesn't matter if the Nazi/Zionist agreement is "tasteful" or if it was done for pro-Jewish reasons (which it absolutely wasn't). It IS a historical fact, and SHOULD be refereed to in this context. History is rarely tasteful.


 * Seem's like Mann's staff are going into damage limitation mode. It's funny...he fan's the flames of dischord within the party BY HIS OWN CHOICE and has his little gnomes come and clear up his Wiki page for him. For a man who barks so loudly about other people revising history...he seems to be very much in favour of revising his own public history. Livingstone was correct. Haavara Agreement155.69.179.103 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

155.69.179.103 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Apart from a desperate reference to The Independent article, which contains a passing mention by one of their journalists, an authoritative source by a respected historian defending Livingstone's account does not seem to exist. I mention two historians above, who reject Livingstone's claims. Yet the passage from Jon Stone's Independent article is related at inordinate length both here and in the Livingstone article. Livingstone has a history of toxic comments to and about Jews, much of which is contained in his article. This "most respected" member even has at least one public critic from within Corbyn's circle, Jon Lansman, who tweeted yesterday that Livingstone should leave politics. The added passage on Havaara has at best a marginal or fringe adherence, and editors' are not obliged to reflect it. Philip Cross (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly you did not look very far. I suspect that you found what you wanted to believe and then stopped looking. I am curious, what is your definition of a "respected historian"?  Do YOU set the benchmark for who is to be respected?  How about Israeli Professor Barry Rubin? He was director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and professor at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. Is that respectable enough by your standards?  He confirms exactly what Livingstone has said in his book "Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale UP 2014)."  Or how about Dr Wolfgang_G._Schwanitz, history researcher at Princeton Univeristy (and many others)? He authored the biography of the Grand Mufti of Palestine, and also confirms exactly what Livingstone had said. How about a ghuy named Benjamin Netanyahu? He may not be a historian, but he has also confirmed that Hitler wanted to relocate the Jews from Germany (which is verbatim what Livingstone had said).  Seems that you need to define your concept of what a "respected historian" is, open your eyes and look a little deeper, rather than stopping your internet "research" whenever you get bored of looking.  155.69.179.103 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you check the policies on sourcing you will find that they need to made directly in connection with Livingstone's comments. The examples you give pre-date Livingstone's comments, and if used in the article would count as WP:SYNTHESIS (part of the article on original research), which is inadmissible. Philip Cross (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Manns staff are protecting this and covering up anything negative. They are now making sure the petition for him to be disciplined is not mentioned even though it featured in the Mirror. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-sign-petition-demanding-john-7857921 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.120.167 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just emailed in to a few newspapers to say that the removal of negative but factual news from this page is happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.120.167 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As a a tabloid, the Mirror is not a reliable source. In the article Potentially unreliable sources is the following: "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used." Philip Cross (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a tool for Ken Livingstone fans to fight political battles, and references to the Haavara Agreement to add unnecessary and highly questionable context to claim his statement that "Hitler was supporting Zionism" in 1932 was factually accurate simply don't belong here. For a start, it shows that the people introducing the reference haven't even read the Wikipedia article itself, which quite clearly states Hitler was highly critical of the policy when it was introduced in 1933, and overlooks the decidedly non-supportive things Hitler had been saying about Zionism for rather a long time prior to that. Similarly, a petition conceived by someone so far removed from political reality they think Mann "singlehandedly" brought Labour into disrepute and that Ken Livingstone is an MPris simply not Wikipedia-worthy on the basis of a few thousand votes, even if it gets cited in a news source deemed not suitable for Wikipedia citations. Nor is the similarly non-noteworthy petition in support of John Mann or the petitions against Ken Livingstone. The insistence on the part of anonymous editors that people who disagree with their "reasoning" on this is that named regular Wikipedia editors must be members of John Mann's staff is... amusing. Dtellett (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Transfer Agreement" / "Heskem Haavara" is well documented https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE_daetNn8s but I am guessing that all the little Zionist tools are on a mission to make sure it remains buried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.120.167 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't quite know why I'm getting involved in this (my interest in Mann having only been sparked by his prior denunciation of Livingstone's unpleasant psychiatric slurs against Jones, who it turned out had done a similar thing himself in the past without apparently being denounced by ally Mann, and then seeing Mann's office's attempted control freakery on this very talk page in the 'Update' section above), but here's an article today, quoted in the Guardian, by Norman_Finkelstein that seems to put Livingstone's comments about early zionism and nazi policies in some more context and thus justifying inclusion in the article https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda [Question: "John Mann MP has compared her to Eichmann." Answer: Frankly, I find that obscene.] [These certifiable creeps who went after Naz Shah got under his skin, and so he wanted to get under their skin. That’s how we used to fight this political battle: by dredging up those sordid chapters in Zionist history.....the fact of the matter is, when Brenner’s book was published, it garnered positive reviews in the respectable British press. The Times, which is today leading the charge against Livingstone and the elected Labour leadership, back then published a review praising Brenner’s book as ‘crisp and carefully documented’.] Eversync (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As you have demonstrated, Finkelstein's comments in the Open Democracy interview, are not themselves mind mannered. Referring to the life history of the then Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir, Edward Mortimer wrote in early 1984, that it gives Brenner's book an "extra edge of topicality to what would in any case be a highly controversial study". Mortimer does not really develop this point, but its enough to suggest Finkelstein is not being wholly accurate in his comments. In any case, there are many more reviews from this time which find Brenner's work deeply flawed, and it has been rejected as a polemical work rather than serious history. Philip Cross (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC) [correction made Philip Cross (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC) ]


 * Finkelstein himself also alludes to the polemical nature of Brenner's book? But this is irrelevant to the point of this talk page comment I made which is regarding a source on John Mann and this controversy; points of view are not of course required to be mild to qualify for inclusion. Eversync (talk)


 * Whether Brenner's points of view are WP:FRINGE or not are pretty irrelevant to an article which is about John Mann, not Ken Livingstone. John Mann publicly shouting at a colleague of his over a controversial remarks Mann (and many other people) adjudged to be racially charged is relevant to an article on John Mann. Which academic's work Livingstone uses to justify his controversial remarks and whether Livingstone's words were an appropriate and accurate commentary based on that work is not (it's relevant to Livingstone's biography of course, where both Brenner and the Haavara agreement are mentioned). Similarly, the article on Dennis Skinner does not attempt to discuss whether "Dodgy Dave's" tax affairs were in fact dodgy, whether there was in fact any substance to the allegations of cocaine use by "boy George and the rest of the Tories" or whether John Gummer was in fact a "wart" and a "little squirt" in noting comments he was censured for. Dtellett (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's the exact point I just made about irrelevance. As to the rest, your first comment expressed 'for a start' a view on the wider political context and criticism of Mann's use of Nazi slurs, so there's a source partly contradicting that view anyway. Eversync (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

==

Should anyone want a well sourced article try the pages of

http://www.edlis.org/ken/

==

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/09/08/mann-resigns-for-role-as-tories-tsar-in-2016-police-interviewed-him-over-anti-gypsy-hate-incident/

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2018/04/john-mann-mp-race-hate-shame.html?m=1

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/08/28/double-standards-mp-who-speaks-out-against-anti-semitism-accused-of-hate-crime-against-travellers/

==

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Mann (British politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201014214/http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/john-mann/25485 to http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/john-mann/25485

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Allegation of racism
"During his time in Labour, he put out a racist booklet in his constituentcy, demonising travellers."

No sources backing that statement, what is "racist", to whom? For others its just the truth and travellers have nothing to do with race.

62.226.74.15 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This Travellers' Times article discusses the booklet. The article >could< serve as a source for an opinion. Note the statement: "Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised ethnic minorities in the UK and are protected by Equalities laws from discrimination." A copy of the booklet is online here. Page 23 is the one which caused the controversy.
 * I suppose that another "biased left-wing smear" (as your section title originally read) centres on Mann's support for "his best friend, best man and political ally", Phil Woolas, after the latter was stripped of his parliamentary seat by s specially convened electoral court and suspended from the Labour party.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Change to section heading: Let's use neutral expressions as per WP:NPOV Jontel (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits by DaisyRabbit14
Recently, DaisyRabbit14 [ contributions ], who has declared himself or herself a "close relative to John Mann", has made a series of edits to the article, some of which look valid, some less so. I recommend discussing them on the talkpage.    ←   ZScarpia  14:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)   (Just after posting my comment, Roxy-the-dog carried out a mass reversion, including two edits made by Jontel)
 * I would have no objection to Jontel or anybody, re-instating their edits. I didn't see the second one, though reverted by me. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. On reflection, I should probably await the conclusion of the discussion before making significant edits on the activities under discussion. Jontel (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding these two edits, and, which removed material cited to this source, it does appear that Mann is still sitting as a Labour MP, but intends to not stand at the next general election, which he anticipates being held soon. See:, and.    ←   ZScarpia  23:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

2012-13 Employment Tribunal: R Fraser (Claimant); University and College Union (Respondents).
John Mann, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and fellow MP Dennis McShane, former chairman of the Group, appeared as witnesses for Ronnie Fraser, claimant in an employment tribunal where the UCU was the respondent. The tribunal report had the following to say about the two MPs (see page 37 of the report):


 * "We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is ...” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking."

   ←   ZScarpia  22:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)