Talk:Louise Ellman

qualifications
The "received a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and History in 1967, and went on to study Social Administration at the University of York where she was awarded a Master of Philosophy" makes these pretty conventional degrees sound like Nobel prizes.

Newsnight transcript
Which part of this transcript would best summarise Louise Ellman's appearance and voiced opinion on Newsnight on the 14th February 2011?

Paxman: "It is a terribly depressing situation isn't it?"

Ellman (41:10-41:44): "It is very depressing and certainly the children are the victims of a dreadful war, but I don't think it's possible to understand what's happening here, very tragic as it is, without understanding too the problem is Hamas, who use these children as human shields, who give the children explosives or sometimes force them to have explosive belts and send them to blow up Israeli civilians, and Hamas do have terrible responsibility for this very,very dreadful situation, and that really does have to be faced up to"

Paxman: "And as far as the siege that the Israelis are imposing upon this community?"

Ellman (41:50-42:18): "Well, the siege is about trying to prevent weapons going from Gaza to blow Israeli children up. All of this is a dreadul situation. Situations like this don't exist on the West Bank where Hamas are not ruling the situation and where the Palestinian Authority are in charge there it is very different. And while we stress the human tragedy - that's what must affect all of us - that can't be separated from the ... (unfinished sentence)"

Ellman (43:21-43:52): "There is a dreadful cycle there, but the responsiblity lies with Hamas - it is Hamas who arms those children, who teaches them hate, who uses them as human shields and we've concentrated on the tragedy of the children who are in Gaza - and that is truly dreadful - but there are equivalent tragedies of the children of Israel who have been affected by suicide bombers, some of who have come from Gaza. It is a tragedy for everyone and it will only be resolved when Hamas stop their ... (trails off)"

Paxman "It just seems so short-sighted to say that it is all Hamas's fault, it is all the Israeli's fault and to not be doing something constructive along the lines of Michael and break down the misunderstanding and recognise there are human beings involved"

Ellman (44:00-44:15): "Well ... It is about human beings and if those human beings can meet then perhaps they can get some understanding, but they won't get it ..."

Paxman "... Barrier ..."

Ellman (44:16-44:38): "Well, how can they meet and how can they meet without a barrier when Hamas are sending those very children with their explosive belts across to kill Israeli children and Israeli civilians. All of that has to stop, but no one is entirely innocent here."

Morpurgo "I didn't meet any children with explosive belts on"

Ellman (44:41-45:05): "Well, that has happened and that's why people have been blown up. It would have been nice to have seen in Michael's really very important piece there children being treated in Ashkelon being given good medical treatment there and that is a good side of human nature too ..."

Paxman "You also saw very malnourished children as a consequence of the Israeli siege"

Ellman (45:11-45:30) "As a consequence of what Hamas have done, refusing to negotiate, refusing to recognise Israel, but none of that makes it acceptable to see human beings suffering there, but the way out of that suffering is for human beings to meet, but as you heard those children speak, they're conscious of a political situation too ..."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louise Ellman. 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/20061003035345/http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=37&menu=45&biog=y&id=25701 to http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=37&menu=45&biog=y&id=25701
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621155635/http://www.skemheritage.org.uk/ellman.htm to http://www.skemheritage.org.uk/ellman.htm

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) 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Ellman. 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/20111002075036/http://www.manchesterhigh.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=277 to http://www.manchesterhigh.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=277

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) 10:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Middle East & related issues - sources?
I am a bit confused about this edit & wondered if anyone could clarify? Diff It appears that the reference to Ellmans comments regarding her defense of the assassination of Sheikh Yasin were removed, as they were lacking a "third party source". The source presented was a House of Commons transcript from Hansard. However, contained within the same section is a direct quote and its single source is They Work For You. The quote that was removed is also available in They Work For You. My question is, therefore, why remove a quote on the basis of a lack of sourcing, but allow the other to remain? The sources are either sufficient for inclusion or they're not. It almost looks like the removal of information that could be construed as negative. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted the comments Ellman made re: state sponsored assassination & inc. both sources, assuming that if my edit is reverted the statement that follows it, will also be removed. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerned about POV-pushing
I'm sorry, user:Jontel, but I have been concerned by a great number of your edits on this page. You have removed from this article (over the last 24 hours): Ellman's stated reasons for leaving the party; the timing of the controversial no confidence motion (which was blatantly newsworthy), downplaying the timing of the proposal (without any source to back this claim up) in edit summaries; Ellman's response to the incident on completely frivolous grounds; and any mention of antisemitism from the lead of the article. Additionally, you have argued that an MP that left Labour citing antisemitism (Ivan Lewis) doesn't count, because he gave other reasons; purposefully misinterpreting a CLP response; conflated an official response with an unofficial one; misled readers to believe that other motions of no confidence had already been arranged before the one scheduled for Yom Kippur.

This is not subtle.

I would be interested to hear whether other editors share my assessment, or think I have the complete wrong end of the stick here. Domeditrix (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Domeditrix Although I do try to make my edit summaries clear, perhaps I could do better. I feel bound to respond to your points, because they are not entirely accurate. Before I do, I will say that I do not wish to be the cause of edit warring and am happy to follow best practice and come back on the Talk page on any edits I think are important but appear to be disputed. Please find below your points and my responses. You say:


 * 1. “You have removed from this article (over the last 24 hours): Ellman's stated reasons for leaving the party.” That is not really true. I removed it from the lead and left it in the body of the article. To expand on my edit summary, given that her CLP said she was highly likely to be deselected in the very near future (I appreciate you dispute that interpretation; see point 7), I think she did leave before she was pushed or, at least, it was a bit of both. Consequently, I thought it was misleading to include unprovable and highly inflammatory stated motivations in the lead without the circumstances, which are sourced. One could also question whether motivations should be in the lead, when that it supposed to be a summary.


 * 2. “You have removed from this article the timing of the controversial no confidence motion (which was blatantly newsworthy).” That is not true in terms of absolute timing. I changed the order but the reference to a branch meeting being held on Yom Kippur was retained. Looking at a subsequent edit of yours, you may be referring to apparent relative timing between different events. I do not see that my edit was in any way misleading (See point 9). What your edit does is highlight the Yom Kippur timing rather than the more consequential point that no confidence motions were being proposed. Your approach of discussing one motion in detail, then going on to talk about two other motions subject to the same rules is less clear.


 * 3. “You downplayed the timing of the proposal (without any source to back this claim up) in edit summaries.” This is referring to the removal of the Yom Kippur reference from the lead. What is missing from the sources provided is clarity on the consequences. There is also no information on the branches’ rules and actions in this matter. That is why I question its significance for the lead.


 * 4. “You have removed from this article Ellman's response to the incident on completely frivolous grounds.” That is not entirely true. I retained the point that she had criticised it and only removed the two word quote. I do not think that her casting aspersions on others who are unable to respond is frivolous and neither does Wikipedia. I do not accept your edit summary suggestions that talking about the timing does not reflect on those who set that timing or that naming a branch rather than individuals negates any impact. I do not think the words “particularly insidious” in isolation tell us anything.


 * 5. “You have removed any mention of antisemitism from the lead of the article.” It was mentioned as her expressed reason for resigning. I was happy to include this but think that we should also include that she was likely to be deselected, as per 1. above. The other mention was regarding the departure of three Labour MPs. I think the circumstances were very different and it is misleading to casually link them. So, the removals were for specific reasons.


 * 6. “You have argued that an MP that left Labour citing antisemitism (Ivan Lewis) doesn't count, because he gave other reasons.” Yes, in the sentence ‘She is the third Jewish MP who has left the party giving as THE reason worries over anti-Jewish racism.’ I did so because Lewis referenced multiple matters in his resignation letter, including the handling of his disciplinary case, policy on Israel and Brexit.


 * 7. “You have purposefully misinterpreted a CLP response.” That is not formally true. I simply paraphrased their response. I did associate their pessimism on her reselection with her decision to resign, so implying an association, but I was summarizing it heavily for the lead. To ignore the circumstances is also a misinterpretation.


 * 8. “You have conflated an official response with an unofficial one.” Yes, I did. I was imprecise but, as the official source was better for the rules and the unofficial one was probably better for what was likely to happen on the ground, I don’t think the consequences were particularly negative. The latter was predicting something that was, in any case, overtaken by events.


 * 9. “You have misled readers to believe that other motions of no confidence had already been arranged before the one scheduled for Yom Kippur.” That is formally untrue; you are reading sequencing into my edit that is not there. Moreover, you do not know the sequence: none of us have the dates of it all. Further, I fail to see the significance of this.


 * I hope that these explanations help. As I say, I will bring any further changes which I believe to be controversial to the Talk page. Jontel (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Source: Lee Harpin articles from the Jewish Chronicle
The article relies heavily on citations to Jewish Chronicle articles by Lee Harpin, one of which was in a set by him recently heavily criticised by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Earlier, Harpin was one of the journalists arrested over the phone hacking scandal. Perhaps that mitigates against his articles being used as a reliable source?    ←   ZScarpia  12:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if one can sanction an individual journalist: it is up to the publication's editor to maintain standards. Yes, the JC has been at the losing end of a number of regulatory and legal judgements, according to its Wikipedia article. It is a leading participant in the well resourced campaign to drive Palestinian sympathisers in the UK out of public life, so it is essentially propagandist, as well as performing a community role. You could try raising the issue here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Jontel (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)