Talk:Marc Wadsworth

Momentum Black ConneXions
Hi Proscribe, could you clarify the basis for this bracketing out from the article and where did you see that info about an alternative steering committee of MBC? (I've no idea what happened, I can only see what is claimed at the top of the statement on what appears to be the MBC website) Eversync (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Eversync — it was bracketed out (in accordance with my interpretation of BLP and RS policy) because there is nothing anywhere else to corroborate the claim of his having been dismissed in April; indeed, many independent references post-April clearly seem to accept Wadsworth as representing MBC. The sentence about the alternative steering committee was not added by me, but as a comment on the bracketed-out sentence becomes redundant. Proscribe (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry didn't notice the IP address had added that. If you are here 109.145.252.35, could you clarify about the alternative steering committee? Very confusing because the apparent MBC (associated with Marlene Ellis?) website and Facebook (and Twitter as I recall) have stated Wadsworth was dismissed in April. But Kevin Schofield, former Sun editor who seems to be the person sat near Smeeth who first called Wadsworth's comments anti-semitic, says on his Twitter on July 5th "Momentum Black Connexions back Marc Wadsworth: "As a seasoned politician .. Smeeth should have been well able to handle a robust challenge." (no source) but an Asa Winstanley said on Jul 4 "Momentum Black Connexions says Marc Wadsworth, who criticised Ruth Smeeth is not one of their members" (source as above) Eversync (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-Racism Activist"
Is it valid to describe someone who is a known public figure solely for being a racist against Jews as an "anti-racist activist" just because he self-identifies as such? Reliable sources would seem to indicate he is much more of a pro-racism activist. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems clear from the other reliable sources in the article that Wadsworth has been involved in some fairly high-profile anti-racism and pro-black-and-other-ethnic-minority activities for decades. It is the above comment that seems contentious/libelous potentially needing removal per BLP guidelines, because afaik there have been accusations of an antisemitic intent behind his comment but they have been denied with a plausible alternative (she'd obtained his leaflet from the right-wing journalist in front him without acknowledging him). Eversync (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

MPs report misquoting Wadsworth
Absolutelypuremilk, I appreciate that the source is an opinion piece but it wasn't being cited for its general opinion, but one factual claim. To say only ambiguously 'According to a labour activist' the report misquoted Wadsworth, doesn't seem ideal for readers, I wonder if you have tried to collaboratively help find better sourcing? Need to avoid Original Research of course but for the record there is media of the event showing exactly what Wadsworth said (e.g. and  "“I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP, so you can see who’s working hand in hand.”). Yet both Smeeth's subsequent media release misquoted him (as if he'd said "media conspiracy"), and then the Committee report put the comment in quotes as reportedly ""Ruth Smeeth is working hand-in-hand with the right-wing media to attack Jeremy”". Eversync (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece by a Labour activist. I agree that he said “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP, so you can see who’s working hand in hand.” but I can't find either the Select Committee report or anything that reports it as saying that he said something different. If you can find a (relatively neutral) secondary source which says that he was misquoted then feel free to put it in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The select committee report PDF is included in the citation I added, I can only assume you didn't notice: " " I will look when I can for other sources but I understand if you are editing a part of the article related to sources it is also something you are committing to doing given the guidelines on collaborative editing. Eversync (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The report says that Wadsworth said “Ruth Smeeth is working hand-in-hand with the right-wing media to attack Jeremy”. While the report should have made clear that this was not the exact quote, it seems to me a fair paraphrasing of what Wadsworth was saying. If you can find a secondary source which says that it isn't then again feel free to put it in, but otherwise we should make clear that this is an opinion not a fact. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "it seems to me a fair paraphrasing of what Wadsworth was saying" - could you clarify what your opinion has got to do with it? Eversync (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have a reliable secondary source saying that Wadsworth was misquoted. If we could see from the Independent ref and the report that he had obviously been misquoted then I would consider putting something in, but as it is not obvious (to me at least) then I don't think we should put this in as if it was a fact. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The report's text is literally a Labour activist reportedly said: “........." - even if speculate that they are quoting what someone else submitted to the committee, they are factually stating that's what Wadsworth said, not how they or someone else paraphrase it, so it is a fact that as written it is a misquote of Wadsworth. I do acknowledge it would be best to attribute the overall point though (that the difference in wording is significant as to what Wadsworth may have meant) since it is in the opinion section of the reliable source; I will just amend the wording to reflect that source's description of the author, a Deputy Editor. Eversync (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Identification as Anti-Racist based on an article he wrote
As the title says, it seems a bit that wikipedia is using articles written by Marc Wadsworth as justification for the labelling of him as an "anti-racist". Brough87 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have changed it to "describes himself as an anti-racist". Especially given the accusations of antisemitism, this is too strong a label to be said objectively. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

covering the political/racial context
Hi Nedrutland, I appreciate your checking and revising of my recent edits. However couldn't the paragraph you removed today have been reworded instead since the source from a Jewish author who was at the Inquiry, and cites a Rabbi who was, is directly on topic? https://nyebevannews.co.uk/i-was-proud-to-be-one-of-the-witnesses-marc-called-to-try-to-prevent-this-injustice-and-i-was-motivated-to-do-so-above-all-because-i-detest-dishonesty-and-manipulation/

Btw the intro seems to have been split in half by the infobox by the paragraph break you put in, and does it have to say "launch of the publication of the report on the inquiry into....", though you've removed reference to the journalists Wadsworth was responding to, and in the older Johnson incident to African-Caribbean people, due to need for brevity? Swishoo (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The para I removed as off-topic could be re-worded to make it relevant to Wadsworth or could be added to the page on the Chakrabarti Inquiry.
 * As suggested, I have altered the lede (intro) to "at the launch of the Chakrabarti Inquiry report into ...". The para break does not upset formatting on the two machines I have edited. The lede should be a summary of info in the body of the article so. yes, I trimmed for brevity. Nedrutland (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)