Talk:Michèle Renouf

Griaznoff
Daniel Griaznoff - a descendant of Russian aristocracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.101.233 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/02/1038712882022.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.101.233 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. First, third opinions are usually only used after there has been discussion between two editors. Since there's been no discussion, I can't really give an opinion here. I will however speak on the topic at hand. Both of you right now have violated WP:3RR, which states that you should not revert a page more than three times in one day. You've both been reminded of it on your talk pages, and any further reversions may result in you being blocked.

Having said that, I tend to believe that this page is pushing a little POV towards her being a Holocaust denier. I've gone ahead and added sections to this page, which I think make it look a little better. In order to balance this page out a little more, I'd say the best thing would be to start with adding more information about her career, her life, whatever - but keep the denial section down to what it is. If she really did get famous from sitting with David Irving, then certainly that should be mentioned, but this page should not be solely about that.

This is just a start, and I'd like to get some dialogue going. What are your thoughts on this? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After repeated communication via email, including being told by info-en-q@wikimedia.org that POV edits and editorial commentary are against policy, there are still edits being made that are blatently POV. The edits add no new information about Renouf.  They serve the sole purpose of an attack against her.  Byafet has stated himself that this is his purpose here; to paint Holocaust revisionists according to his view points.  He has stated that he believes Wikipedia should reflect a point of view; his point of view.  He has been told that this is not what Wikipedia is about but even so, continues to make POV edits.


 * I know, I should assume good faith. But here is an editor who categorically states that he is acting in bad faith, deliberately making edits against Wikipedia policy.  Contrary to your warning, I have not broken [WP:3RR].  There is not an edit war going on; there is essentially a vandal who is repeatedly making bad faith edits, with EronMain and myself trying to clean up the mess.


 * You've come in late to the party and assumed that the talk page is the only place that communication might have taken place. It isn't; Byafet's editing has been discussed and condemned by others already.  I'm simply trying to keep the page neutral in the face of a continued barrage of hate.   Robert Ham (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies on the 3RR thing; in retrospect, I didn't read everything as well as I should have. I think the page is fine in its current state, if still a bit heavy on the denial POV. Are you okay with the page as is, or would you keep removing the denial stuff? I guess I don't know enough about Renouf to really be able to gauge that. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes to the bits I think are phrased inappropriately and cleaned it up a bit. I've probably missed bits; it's obviously an on-going process, as with all Wikipedia pages.  One thing I want to be clear of: I don't believe the page shouldn't describe Renouf's actions and interests with regard to the holocaust; I simply think it has to be done very carefully, paying particular attention to WP:POV and WP:BLP.  One has to remember that wikipedia is not about painting people in one particular light, even if that light is how most people view them.  Wikipedia is about conveying information without painting people in any particular light at all.


 * I'm also a bit concerned about the references. One, which is used twice, is from an exceptionally biased newspaper hit-piece.  The other is from the ADL, an organisation which is open about, and proud of, its own bias.  Robert Ham (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial commentary in text
I came to this page after seeing this request for editorial assistance. In my opinion, the edits that are the subject of the ongoing back-and-forth are pretty clear examples of POV commentary (they are unsourced as well) and as such do not belong in a Wikipedia article. I would add also that there is no need for them. The unadorned and undisputed facts quite sufficiently describe the views and character of Michele Renouf. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I should add that I removed those comments, and the diff can be found here - diff JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Low-grade edit warring
This constant back-and-forth cycle is tiresome. I have added back in the reference to "Lady Renouf" for the reason that it is accurate. I am removing the editorial aside about the Iranian conference being "mostly attended by Holocaust deniers" as, well, an editorial aside. Its inclusion is not to inform, but instead to cast the conference in a certain light. (I have no quarrel with the characterization, merely with the tangential nature of the characterization *here*.) I am changing the verb "accused" to back to "described" for the reasons set forth in my prior edit summary, namely, that "accused" not only results in bad English, but the more neutral "described" is just as accurate. I have not restored the portions concerning Renouf's education and training, because it was unsourced.

The edits I've removed are all generally POV edits and the article is better without them. Indeed as I said several weeks ago when removing several similar edits, "the unadorned and undisputed facts quite sufficiently describe the views and character of Michele Renouf".

Please discuss further changes here in the Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, it's not much of an edit war. It is more a case of one user, Byafet - who only edits this one article - seeming to bear some personal grudge towards Ms Renouf combined with an inability to understand that her being an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier does not mean policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view do not apply. This user has never responded to warnings or other comments on his or her talk page and seems completely unwillingly to engage in any sort of discussion on the topic.
 * Byafet's talk page consists of a string of warnings going back over six months regarding contentious and POV edits to this page. I really think that the response to this conduct needs to be taken to the next level. - EronTalk 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know; and I don't disagree with anything you've said. I just came to realize that for those 6 months, whatever talk there *has* been about the article has been taking place away from this page, and that someone coming here cold might not appreciate the efforts that have been made by various editors to bring this under control.  If User:Byafet is going to ignore entreaties to stop - or at least to engage - well, it's more useful for "the next level" if he ignores them here!


 * Nice cleanup, BTW. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And re the next level, I have reported Byafet's edits at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. - EronTalk 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Tendentious". Yes, that captures it pretty well.  We'll see what happens next, then.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been a problem recently with someone at the IP address 195.158.93.188 conducting a mini-campaign of vandalism and insults. (For example this user has twice attempted to add the word 'Bimbo' to the Radio 2HD Miss Beach Girl title and made unsourced insulting comments about the Renouf divorce case.) Not that I'd take this person too seriously, but it does look as though his/her only Wikipedia contibutions have been inappropriate edits to this entry.Oafc1990 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP/N response': Lady Renouf would need to be added later in the article, if appropriate. Per MoS, it shouldn't be at the beginning like it was before I edited it.  I also added back in the information about the conference, but in a neutral fashion, including 5 of the many RS sources for reference from the main article for the conference (there are many more listed there, but I thought 5 was sufficient). --Faith (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work, thanks Faith. - EronTalk 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've put this on my watchlist. --Faith (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lady Renouf
Please note that "lady" should not be at the beginning of the article per Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 --Faith (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been restored (and yet again removed) per MoS, namely, "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics ... Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/ 'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria." Note Lady receives specific mention. The restoring editor will need to show why the MoS should be ignored. --Faith (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MoS clearly allows for the inclusion of "Lady", as occurs in every other relevant bio. I have seen here. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Particular interpretations of the MoS notwithstanding, in my view the current manner of introduction ("Michele Renouf, Lady Renouf") is kind of awkward. I preferred it with just her name, introducing "Lady" further down in the article text.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is the correct style and is consistent with other articles. It is PoV to remove it. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's not so long as one is unaware of those other articles. Instead it's just a matter of style.  Can you give a couple of examples of other articles?  JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head: Ann Winterton and Sylvia Hermon. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Helpful, thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect usage in other articles does not mean that it's supposed to be that way. I quoted the MoS above where it specifies that Lady is an honorific that is not to be used inline like that. It's tenatious to keep adding it against the MoS. Please stop. --Faith (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. The MoS states this is the correct usage actually. Have you read it? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The MoS allows the use of title, but does not allow honourifics. A title is Sir or Lady, an honourific would be The Hon., The Rt. Hon., His Grace &c.  What do you find confusing?Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Norma Major, I think you're very much going against all consensus here, which is never good! Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The relevant passage from the MoS, in all its wondrous clarity, is as follows:
 * "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics. Honorific titles (e.g. "Sir"/"Dame" prenominals used by some knights), not to be confused with honorary titles, simultaneously possess properties of both honorifics and titles. Because of this, their use inline has been controversial. This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria. Consensus has not yet rejected any honorific titles; if/when they do so, they will be listed here. Open a discussion on the MoS Bio talk page if there is an honorific title that needs consensus."

So, titles are okay, honorifics are not, and honorific titles - such as "Lady" may or may not be. But I think this says th inline use of "Lady" is fine, and other articles seem to reflect this also. But I can certainly see how other interpretations would be possible. - EronTalk 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria" - Quite clear. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's states it is controversal, but I'm tired of beating the point as I have no interest in the article. --Faith (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on the plus side, if we've managed to reduce the problems with the article to an MoS disagreement, it's progress. JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I have removed the Categories Australian White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis from this article. There is no evidence in the article that she falls into these categories or that she has specifically engaged in such activities. She seems to focus on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. If there is clear evidence that she does belong to these groups, it should be included in the article before the categories are restored. - EronTalk 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Michele vs. Michèle
Is there any reason, other than a presumed attempt to conform to proper French spelling, for retitling this page "Michèle Renouf" from "Michele Renouf"? Renouf is Australian, not French, and I have never seen her name spelled with the accent grave. JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why this page was moved. It certainly should not have been - as you say, there are no references whatsoever that have her name spelled with the accent. It should be moved back. I'll see if I can do that. - EronTalk 15:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * She uses the accent on her own website, which suggests it is certainly her name. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm not sure her web site is a reliable source. We do use it as a reference, but only to reference the fact that she has published some DVDs and that she has expressed support for certain individuals. All the reliable sources in the article - primarily newspapers that have published profiles of her - don't use the accent. I know it may seem a bit odd to argue that we shouldn't take her own word for how her name is spelled (it seems odd to me, and I'm the one arguing it) but we are talking about someone who has - according to reliable sources - been a bit creative in embellishing her personal profile in the past. ("Countess Griaznoff", anyone?) I think erring on the side of caution - and of newspaper fact checkers - is in order. - EronTalk 16:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A name (like sexuality, as I've argued on Wiki in the past) is up to the individual themselves to declare. That's my view. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with French nationality, the accent is commonly used in England whenever Michele is spelled with a single 'l'. This is partly to avoid confusion with the Italian male name Michele. As the previous post pointed out, a person's own site is surely the most reliable source for the spelling of that person's name!Oafc1990 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Borderline at best. Berks911 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Involvement with Press TV
This section was removed by Causteau with an edit summary that I do not find convincing at all: "rm POV section supported by link to an opinion piece and a primary source; see Press TV talk page for full discussion". I think the section is not particularly POV, and the sources seem fine for the statements which they support. (For the unsupported statements there are better sources at Press TV.) User:RCS reverted the removal.

However, I don't understand what the section is doing in this article. What is so notable about a Holocaust denier (or "supporter of prominent Holocaust deniers") publishing in media that publish Holocaust deniers? It seems to go without saying. The section as such looks like a coatrack for criticism of Press TV. That Press TV is funded by the Iranian government, while true, does not seem to be particularly relevant to the person. The association is, however, a potentially negative one. As much as I hate Holocaust deniers, I think we should still stick to the (BLP) rules.

It's absolutely fine with me (really!) if someone can invalidate these arguments so I don't feel compelled to remove the section again in a couple of minutes. (Currently I can't watch the last source, so there might be something helpful there.) Or perhaps we can replace the section by a single sentence that is more relevant to the person. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. That she appeared on Press TV is not notable in the context of her article, as it provides the reader with no additional insight into her beliefs/activities. However it may be notable in the context of the article on Press TV, as it is noteworthy for a holocaust denier to appear on broadcast media. LeContexte (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over 'National Art School' references
while she claims to have graduated from Sydney’s prestigious National Art School, I understand that she studied in Newcastle. She says she did some classes in Newcastle but that she definitely graduated from the NAS. The NAS has no record of her studying there, but other archives show that in 1968 she graduated under her maiden name, Michele Suzanne Mainwaring, with a Diploma in Art (Education) from Newcastle Technical College.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25048913-5012694,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.191.123 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the source above to the article. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only someone desperate to search for an obscure slur (whether a journalist or a Wikipedia contributor) would see this as a misrepresentation on Lady Renouf's part.


 * Over the decades these colleges have been reorganised several times. The Sydney school, for example, was originally the Sydney Mechanics School of Arts, then Sydney Technical College. According to its website http://www.cofa.unsw.edu.au/about/history.html
 * In 1958 the New South Wales government decided to combine all of the Technical Colleges under the one name: The National Art School.  With another incarnation taking place in 1970 when The National Art School was amalgamated with the Alexander Mackie Teachers College.


 * Since Lady Renouf studied for four years in Newcastle, NSW, with summer schools at Sydney, and since in the mid-1960s, according to its own website, the New South Wales colleges were referred to by the umbrella term "National Art School", it seems perfectly reasonable for Lady Renouf to say she attended the National Art School! Or as it is put by the authors of the Jailing Opinions site:
 * Having studied Fine Art at the National Art School, she also obtained Diplomas in Art and Education and became a lecturer in Fine Art and Media Studies at Queensland University of Technology.
 * http://www.jailingopinions.com


 * Since Wikipedia's entry on this topic has been edited to push a grotesquely distorted point of view, I've re-edited it.


 * Incidentally, had this been an issue of self-aggrandisement, as Peter Wilson and some of the obsessive anti-Renouf contributors to Wikipedia seem to imply, then surely Wilson should have been investigating Lady Renouf's studies at London's Royal Academy of Dancing (as it was then called), a rather grander institution. But he failed to find even the remotest excuse for a cheap shot, so it didn't fit his brief from Mr Murdoch's Australian. Oafc1990 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, a very passionate defence you take here of Mrs. Renouf. To each his idols, i say. But surely you could provide a better source than jailingopinions.com (Renouf's own website) and aaargh.codoh.info (a website to which access is forbidden in France and other countries) ?--RCS (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the particular context, I can't see anything wrong with the sources. The latter is providing the text of Lady Renouf's Tehran speech which someone else had mentioned, so it's a normal Wikipedia issue of giving a reference. French censorship is their problem not Wikipedia's. The former is related to the question of precisely what Lady Renouf or her supporters have claimed about her education. Given that the Jailing Opinions site is produced by a supporter of Lady Renouf (though not by Lady Renouf herself) it seems sensible to quote it - in this particular context. Other than sneering, I don't see your point? Oafc1990 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Griaznoff or Daniel Ivan-Zadeh?
The article long asserted that her first marriage was to Daniel Griaznoff, with source. See here. A later article reports his name as Daniel Ivan-Zadeh. Here. I Googled both names and the sole hit for the latter name was that article, whereas the former showed up a few more times (though probably all derivative from a single article). Based on that simple numerical comparison, I reverted the text to Griaznoff. Anyone who knows a better way to break the tie is welcome to do so. JohnInDC (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Australian is the more thoroughly researched and more recent source. His name is his name. Please move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.75 (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merely asserting the superiority of one source over another does not strike me as any "better" or more satisfying way of resolving the dilemma - what's your basis for claiming that this more recent article was better researched, versus simply wrong?  Other that your say-so, there's no reason to believe one over the other.  I don't care one way or the other - as you say, his name is his name - but the question remains open, precisely what his name *is*.   If you want to change an apparent fact that's 1) sourced 2) from more than one place and 3) been sitting in the article undisturbed for quite some time through *many* revisions, you really need to do better than offering up a contradictory source and simply saying it's a better one.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to shed light (or add to the confusion) regarding the correct name for Lady Renouf's former husband. Her previous title, Countess Griaznoff, reminded me of a documentary programme I saw a few years ago, titled Regency House. The programme featured a woman called Larushka Ivan-Zadeh, who was also known as Countess Griaznov. Before anyone questions the "different" surname, the alternate spelling of Griaznov is merely the way the name has been transliterated from the Russian & is not a different surname. Please refer to Larushka's biographyfrom the Regency House programme. It mentions that her father is a psychiatrist & her mother is a former model & can trace her family back to the Doomsday Book. If you read The Australian article, Lady Renouf is quoted as saying she can trace her family back to the Domesday Book & that she has two adult daughters. Therefore, it appears that Larushka Ivan-Zadeh is the daughter of Lady Renouf & Daniel Griaznoff. I wonder whether the discrepancy over the surname is similar to, for example, Viscount Linley, whose "real" name is David Armstrong-Jones. In this case "Count Griaznoff" is the title and "Ivan-Zadeh" is the family surname. Thoughts? Hagi2000 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A second source in The Times gives Renouf's first husband's name as Daniel Ivan-Zadeh. You would really would need to demonstrate Peter Wilson's reference to the standard sources was wrong for your transliteration theory to be sustainable or relevant. Those articles which give Griaznoff appear to be dependent on Renouf herself as a source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture update
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/hermes/cme1,260720.html - --RCS (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth this wiki article has such a poor and blurry picture of the woman? She is obviously attractive and stylish based on a google picture search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.40.160 (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just undid a revision adding a new picture - it's a screen capture from a YouTube video that was in turn recorded directly from a television showing what I presume to have been a commercial broadcast. I confess to a near-perfect inability to understand what images may or may not be properly uploaded to and used on Wikipedia, and perhaps this one fits into one or another fair use category; but as a general matter, a photograph of a likely copyrighted TV interview would seem to present a problem.  Pending resolution of this matter by the uploader I think it's best if the image not be linked.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

aaargh
AAARGH (Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste) is not a reliable source; please do not use it in this or any article. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

False information
I have removed false material where I can find support to do so from reputable sources. In addition, I should point out that the source for some of what I have removed appears to be from a self-published page on a website based on Niue in the Pacific Ocean (mainly in Danish) which is dedicated to historical revisionism (Google translation of main page). Philip Cross (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident
The Conservative Association's Group, where Renouf is supposed to have shown her film, certainly exists, but no connection to Renouf is online. Given the BNP chose to rescind an invitation for her to speak at one of its meetings, it is likely any invitation from a mainstream organisation would have been reported and be on the web. On the grounds of potential libel, I have removed this passage.

Renouf's film on the USS Liberty incident has not received media coverage either, so I have considered it non-notable and not retained a mention of it in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits of early August 2009
As much of the material I have removed in recent days has reappeared in the past, it seems appropriate to go into this in more detail. "'with a thirty year membership of British Actors Equity'" Membership of Equity will be true of virtually everyone who appears in a commercial, a closed shop still operates in this area. "Thirty year membership" is not ununusual either. "'Arthur Mainwaring, who was a Korean War reconnaissance aerial photographer.'"Even Lady Renouf's own self-published writings do not claim this, so it has to be considered WP:OR.

The passage on her academic background is disputed in The Australian article, so I have modified it.

Previously the article claimed, her first husband was a"'descendant of Russian nobility whose family had fled from the collapsing Russian Empire during the Bolshevik October Revolution in 1917'."The Telegraph does indeed make this claim about her first husband, but its relevance is questionable since this is article about Lady Renouf, and other sources query his aristocratic credentials. The Telegraph quote about him is "descended from the Russian aristocrats who fled the Russian Empire during the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917". So how close, given it implies Daniel Ivan-Zadeh/Griaznoff was at some remove from being a Russian aristocrat, yet he still had a title which Lady Renouf was apparently able to use? So my addition "she has claimed him to be of Russian nobility" is a reasonable attemopt of clarity, given unclear accounts. Incidentally, the Telegraph article does assert that Lady Renouf is the daughter of a truck driver.

"'Arthur Mainwaring, whose parents owned a hotel by the ocean at The Entrance'"This does not even match Lady Renouf's own account given to The Australian's Peter Wilson: "Renouf says her grandparents owned a country pub in NSW [New South Wales]".

I removed the references to the documentaries on the grounds of non-notability; they are not reviewed anywhere which can be cited within WP rules and imdb does not list their creator under any of her names, nor with a second 'l' in Michele. I retained reference to the Palestine films on the grounds that the screenings at the Houses of Parliament might be significant: the citation needed tag was added because no allowable source refers to the screenings taking place. Insufficient proof is not prove of inaccuracy, but the existing citation is solely to the film's presence on YouTube.

"'Her views are considered so extreme that the controversial far-right British National Party, once prevented her from addressing one of its meetings on the grounds 'her presence would put the BNP in a bad light' due to her links to Muslim historians and politicians.'"This is not supported by the sources; the connection to Irving was presumably the reason. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Johann Hari article
I have referenced a Johann Hari article in the passage on the Reform Club in the Holocaust denial section, in addition to the article by The Independent's Ian Burrell where it is cited.

The Burrell article of 23 April 2003 refers to Hari’s piece being published earlier in the month, whereas the reprint on his website dates it from 1 July 2003, and he refers to the event taking place on “21-23 June this year". A citation on the Institute for Historical Review page gives a hard copy reference: "The Independent, January 7, 2003, page 18", but Hari does not use the American date format on his website, so it might be an error too, if one assumes the date on his website is correct. An entry on the SourceWatch wiki dates the article from 13 April 2003 - or 2002. But this source does not meet the usual WP criteria for citation. If 13 April is correct, "this year" must be 2002. Incidentally, Hari’s article is not currently on the Independent or Find Articles websites.

The confusion over the correct date thus remains. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights?
I changed the header of that section. "Controversial" is still a bit euphemistic when you think that she's being active on behalf of people like Ernst Zundel who love Hitler for what he has done to the Jews and bitterly regret he didn't manage to fully carry it out. But at least it doesn't have this whiff of Martin Luther King the section header had before.--Insert coins (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is Horst Mahler quoted as saying "In der Vernichtung der Juden waltet Vernunft...Milliarden Menschen wären bereit, Hitler zu verzeihen, wenn er nur den Judenmord begangen hätte", i. e. "the destruction of Jews is an act of reason... Billions of people would be ready to forgive Hitler if only he had committed the murder of the Jews". Phrases like this are what has gotten Mahler into prison, and what Renouf is defending him for. It is definitely not a matter of civil rights. --Insert coins (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Renouf was defending Irving, not Mahler. Mahler was a Nazi, who advocated the killing of jews. Irving is neither a nazi nor the supporter of the killing of jews. Renouf defends Iring right to free speech - this is not the same as supporting Mahler's comments on jews. Unfortunately this entire article reeks of hostility to Renouf.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Michèle Renouf. 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/20080714091538/http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-502609/Labour-donor-David-Abrahams-banned-taking-beauty-queen-club--views-Holocaust.html to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502609/Labour-donor-David-Abrahams-banned-taking-beauty-queen-club--views-Holocaust.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015223141/http://www.presstv.com:80/pop/wmp.aspx?id=55153 to http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=55153

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 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michèle Renouf. 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/20071030213703/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=194 to http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=194

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) 13:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michèle Renouf. 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/20081231154423/http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/9/15/not-so-bright.html to http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/9/15/not-so-bright.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515120720/http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/White_Supremacy/new_orleans_052005.htm to http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/White_Supremacy/new_orleans_052005.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120804190835/http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=645 to http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=645
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603211728/http://www.nikolairomanov.com/doc/iv1pre/index.html to http://www.nikolairomanov.com/doc/iv1pre/index.html

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) 22:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michèle Renouf. 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/20081015192444/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4939_83.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4939_83.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413214816/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/mckinney_israel_2009.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/mckinney_israel_2009.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) 03:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Early life and education
What's meant by 'a review of Renouf'? Can anyone clarify? Notreallydavid (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * One has to laugh at Wikipedia's editors' comment about the "media circus" around her fairly ordinary and normal circumstances in Australia. There is as much a circus here. At least her father was permanently employed. It is clear that her only claim to "nobility" was through marriage so I for one cannot see what the fuss is about. It seems Wikipedia wish to denigrate her as much as anyone else. Not very "encyclopaedic" in the least. Bob.2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:B01A:1173:CFE2:2986 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote
"Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article or section of an article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates, and maintenance templates (such as the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)." Does this not apply here?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Whoever wrote that was apparently making rules for the sake of making rules, since it makes little sense.
 * (2) MOS is a guideline, and is not mandatory.
 * (3) As much as possible, the position of text in the non-rendered page should closely represent the position of text on the rendered page
 * (4) Clean up tags are not part of the article, hatnotes -- in so far as they direct the reader as to where to go -- are
 * (5) Since clean up tags -- presumably -- temporary, they should go at the very top, where they can be removed more easily, just as AfD, Prod, and CSD notices do
 * (6) It looks better.
 * (7) WP:IAR
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Is category "Late modern Christian antisemitism" really applicable here?
The same category says Renouf is an atheist, which seems rather at odds with the category I have mentioned in this section title. Please let me know if I'm right or wrong.--Thylacine24 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)