Talk:Shahrar Ali

Controversy
The suggested COntroversy section as drafted is unsuitable as it is not balanced and fails to take note of more balanced articles in the current press,here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greens-drawn-into-antisemitism-row-over-comments-by-former-deputy-leader-shahrar-ali-3wnpcjc6x or on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/96f6dk/greens_drawn_into_antisemitism_row/ for an encyclopåedia a balance including Dr Ali's objections to the charges as widely reported should be within any section always assuming a complete section is even appropriate? This from the Leadership Article is more the sort of thing which is inkeeping with Wikipoedias Policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018 On the 3 August 2018, Shahrar Ali was accused of anti-semitism by the Campaign Against Antisemitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog after a video resurfaced of a speech by Ali in January 2009 which they labeled an "offensive rant".[15] Shahrar Ali was contacted for comment by Left Foot Forward but declined.[15] However, he responded to the Evening Standard, saying, "The targetting of Green spokespersons with false accusations of anti-Semitism is designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. This form of deceit is especially dangerous as it sets back the cause of tackling all forms of racism and xenophobia, which are regrettably on the rise. It is imperative that the Green Party continue to speak out on behalf of all the oppressed and to challenge the perpetrators."[16] The Green Party said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that they are seeking to revise procedures.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 11 August 2018 (UTC) On the 3 August 2018, Shahrar Ali was accused of anti-semitism by the Campaign Against Antisemitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog criticising a speech by Ali in January 2009 which CAA labeled an "offensive rant".[15] Shahrar Ali was contacted for comment by Left Foot Forward but declined.[15] However, he responded to the Evening Standard, saying, "The targetting of Green spokespersons with false accusations of anti-Semitism is designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. This form of deceit is especially dangerous as it sets back the cause of tackling all forms of racism and xenophobia, which are regrettably on the rise. It is imperative that the Green Party continue to speak out on behalf of all the oppressed and to challenge the perpetrators."[16] The Green Party said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that they are seeking to revise procedures. This as it stands is still I think un encyclopedic. 18:23, 6 August 2018‎ Brianbbrian (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,642 bytes) (+1,142)‎. . (→‎Leadership campaign: Added campaign-allegations against Ali) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) should be asked for consensus and 21:06, 11 August 2018‎ Headhitter (talk | contribs)‎. . (2,234 bytes) (+289)‎. . (→‎Controversy,: Comment unsigned) (undo | thank) should engage with the appropriate wording which should be put in both articles, This is not a news paper.
 * Relevant discussion taking place at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018 Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Para has now been amended as per that discussion. Headhitter (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism passage
, a single-purpose account whose edits over the past five years have all related to Shahrar Ali, has three times removed a section of this article reading On 11 August 2018, The Times reported that on Holocaust Memorial Day, in January 2009, Shahrar Ali had made a speech comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust. In an article published on the Left Foot Forward blog, the Campaign Against Antisemitism described his speech as anti-semitic and an “offensive rant”. Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government". The Green Party said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that it is seeking to revise procedures. The Green Party later clarified that no formal complaint of anti-Semitism was received. (with references). This text was established by consensus at Talk:2018 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election. The material is reliably sourced.

Gravitationpull's justifications for removing the material have been Details of negative campaign during 2018 too much information, Removed negative campaign and This page not for negative campaign. The material's inclusion is based on reliable source coverage of Ali, and its weight is justified by the fact that most reliable source coverage of Ali has been about this incident. The material is strongly-sourced and should be included. Ralbegen (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to collect material on a negative campaign for one of many internal selections Ali must have contested.
This is not the place to collect material on a Party's internal leadership contest. There was a negative campaign against him and it's inappropriate to collect links about that story here. Even if collecting such references were justified they already feature on the leadership contest page so should not simply be reproduced here when a link to that wiki page is supplied for readers who want to read about that contest. Even so the entry is strongly biased. Reporting fake news as news lends unjust credibility. Gravitationpull (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There is no evidence that this is "fake news". The material is well sourced. Articles on politicans often cover internal leadership contests. Some duplication of material is appropriate when it is relevant on multiple articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The majority of edits to Ali's entry probably engineered during the time of the contest in order to propogate negative campaign. A whole paragraph neither justified then nor now - disproportionate attention to what is unquestionably politically motivated attack. Wikipedia editors should not be encouraging this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitationpull (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we have a principle of assuming good faith in our fellow editors. Please do not impugn others in this manner without very good reason. Bondegezou (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Example of fake news
Claim that 2009 speech was given on HMD - no evidence provided by either editor or news source. Claim easily disproved. Gravitationpull (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A citation is given to The Times. If you can disprove this report, please provide evidence. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Date of speech of which antisemitic content alleged = 24 Jan 2009. Date of HMD = 27 Jan 2009. Easily refuted hence fake news. Take the trouble to establish source of Times own source to easily discredit multiple other claims as biased or blatant misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitationpull (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The text can be amended to "close to Holocaust Memorial Day" then. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to do original research: we rely on reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

But why would you want to do that? Unless you were in the business of giving credence to a claim which has just been falsified? How close is close to and why is strictly false not good enough for you? If somebody reports that something happened on Christmas day when it didn't would you want to qualify it as happening three days before (dates are specific like that)?

In this case if a lie gets reported and then repeated better to recognise the material harm that is done by spreading lies about Ali - that somehow he sought to provoke hatred towards Jews on HMD and because it was HMD (when it wasn't). It has been accurately reported as the day of a protest outside BBC about their refusal to broadcast a Gaza DEC appeal.

It's good that you understand the principle of charity - but that shouldn't be confused for naivety. Just as the initiator of this “controversy” sought to cast aspersions about the motives of this particular contributor by stating how often they sought to remove material, at the same time neglecting to mention their own multiple attempts to reverse those changes tit for tat style.

Nor do you speak on behalf of the wiki community. I suggest that you reflect further on the obvious political motivations behind these attacks on Ali and avoid the pretence that the paragraph that was removed was remotely appropriate in the first place.

It was giving disproportionate coverage to fake news in a way which itself gave credibility to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitationpull (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We follow reliable sources, including the Times. Most coverage of Ali is about this incident, so it's due weight to cover it in this article. The coverage should reflect reliable source coverage. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Ralbegen (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly that's not official Wikipedia policy. Secondly you are conflating verifiability with truth and assuming that truth is not what a good article aims at - as opposed to spreading misinformation or lies. Your own reference here makes this abundantly clear. "The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitationpull (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you need to provide evidence for your case, not just constantly repeat allegations. You have not provided a single link to any evidence. That's the key point here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings
We have a heading “Legal case”, and then an immediate but sole sub-heading. This is contrary to the WP:MOS, which we are meant to follow. Sub-headings in a section only make sense when you have at least 2 of them. I see no reason to deviate from standard Wikipedia practice here. Bondegezou (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The material also follows on from his dismissal which is covered in the final paragraph of the section above, and constitutes part of his life in politics. There is no need to give it a separate section at all at the time being, unless there is further sustained coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Legal case
Shahrar Ali's legal case against the Green Party has received secondary source coverage and should be included in the article. There is material about the instigating circumstances in the final paragraph of the section covering his political career. This paragraph would be a good place to include material about it. This material should be a summary of reliable source coverage. @Gravitationpull, a single-purpose account all of whose edit history for the past nine years has related to Shahrar Ali, has repeatedly reverted edits to move material there in a summary style in favour of a section not formatted according to the Manual of Style which copies text from the BBC.

This version of the text repeatedly restored to the article reads: "Ali is suing the Green Party, claiming it discriminated against him on account of his gender critical beliefs, the first time an activist has sued his or her own party over this issue.", the BBC reads: "Dr Shahrar Ali is suing the party, claiming it discriminated against him on account of his beliefs, the first time an activist has sued his or her own party over this issue.". The version of the text added to the article reads: "Lawyers acting for Ali claim that the Greens are legally responsible for comments made by its former co-leader Sian Berry, which, Dr Ali's team say, levelled "unfounded accusations of transphobia" against him", while the BBC reads: "They are also arguing that the party failed to support him and they claim that the Greens are legally responsible for comments made by its former co-leader Sian Berry, which, Dr Ali's team say, levelled "unfounded accusations of transphobia" against him.".

This is not summary style, it does not meet Wikipedia's style guides, and it contains an unnecessary level of detail. A couple of sentences covering the legal case, included next to the context of Ali's dismissal, would be appropriate. Ralbegen (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Some material using this citation is warranted, but is edit warring. I've reverted Gravitationpull a second time and put a warning on their Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)