Talk:Pete Newbon

Discussions of Suicide
Samaritans Guidelines when reporting or discussing suicide https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/10-top-tips-reporting-suicide/

"Avoid reporting methods of suicide"

"Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life."

Those editing this page should not therefore be speculating or hinting about what they consider to be the cause or causes of Dr Newbon's suicide, Neverseek (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023
Insert the words 'the title of an infamous antisemitic forgery, the' before the words 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' DeJellyby (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Campaigner against anti-Semitism"
This claim could do with a factual link rather than just opinion. Ostercy (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be removed as unsourced and dubious. Someone who's only notability stems from tweeting a defamatory image involving the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is taking a very strange view of "campaigning against anti-Semitism". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable?
Any views on whether Newbon is notable & on what basis? I can find one book that he wrote & very little else. The vast majority of coverage came after his death and relates to his death, not to his academic career. I also note that a large chunk of the article is focused on a dispute he had with Michael Rosen. As there was no connection between the dispute & Newbon taking his own life - the dispute wasn't even mentioned by the Coroner, so clearly wasn't deemed relevant - the dispute and his death should be separated within the article. As it stands it's quite misleading. I intend to make some changes and re-adding information that was recently removed, including Wilson v Mendelsohn & Ors. Thanks DSQ (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And then there was silence...... Ok, so I've gone through the refs & merged the duplicates, leaving us with 16 citations.


 * 10 of these were written after his death, and consist predominantly of tributes by colleagues and info about his Inquest.
 * 2 of the refs are passing mentions in articles about the libel case Wilson v Mendelsohn & Ors.
 * 4 refs were written before his death & relate directly to the Twitter dispute with Michael Rosen, including 2 opinion pieces from The Spectator. (one written by the "Gossip Columnist)
 * There's a link to his Phd thesis & a link to a condolence book.
 * This informs me that Newbon's potential notability arises from a Twitter dispute & the unrelated fact that he took his own life. I don't think he meets notability as per the Wikipedia definition; he doesn't meet notability as an academic and I can find no coverage of his role "fighting antisemitism" before his death. Any input before I nominate it for deletion? --DSQ (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Why mention his religion
Why is he described as "was a British Jewish academic and campaigner", we don't describe other campaigners by their religion. His took part in campaigns against antisemitism, but his own personal religion is irrelevant.

For example, Richard Dawkins isn't introduced as "an atheist British evolutionary biologist and author" or Blaise Pascal as "was a French Cristian mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and Catholic writer" John arneVN (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Defamation Ruling
Has there been any coverage of the ruling in Wilson v Mendelsohn, Newbon and Cantor? The full ruling is here https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/821.html. Newbon is mentioned over 200 times in it:

"It is established that the Facebook Post, which (in its Screenshot form) was published by Dr Newbon and by Mr Cantor, was defamatory of Mr Wilson at common law. That issue, together with the meaning of the Facebook Post and whether it consists of fact of opinion, was determined by Mr Richard Spearman KC sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court on 30 March 2022."

"The effect on Mr Wilson of the publication of the Facebook Post, and (twenty months later) of the Screenshot, was primarily on his reputation, and he has made a claim in respect of that damage; although I quite accept that the re-appearance of the Post in Screenshot form in August 2020 will have been an unpleasant surprise. But in so far as he would have found the re-publication of the Facebook Post in Screenshot form unpleasant and offensive, especially given the unattractive way in which Dr Newbon gloated over it"

78.146.225.153 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested deletion
This page largely reads like an article in a newspaper and isn't very informative of the person it's centered on, I'd suggest this article is deleted for the following:

- There's essentially no information on Newbon's studies

- There's less information on his "anti-racism activism"

- Most of the page reads like an article (it's mostly sourced from newspapers)

- The origins of the page appear largely as a stab at Jeremy Corbyn rather than a sincere attempt at describing Newbon's person

- Even in the notes of the legal case the Defendant Mr Wilson mentions he doesn't want to defame Newbon, natrually given the information available to us this article will mostly devolve into how he harassed people on Twitter as that's how the bulk of this story went and I'm not so sure this should be anything more than a footnote in online harassment.

Thoughts? Galdrack (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)