Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Sizer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


POV issues

[edit]

Since the editor of this section that has caused all the dispute, hasnt appeared on the discussion page to discuss it, do I take it that I can remove the offending section now?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Stephen Sizer supports or has ever supported the Ku Klux Clan and this section of the text is in breach of the neutrality policy. It contains a seriously defamatory, possibly libellous statement. Please remove it or I will.Pamela Gardiner (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The section on beliefs includes some seriously POV text, most notably "...led astray by the heretical ideology..." I'll be editing this unless someone beats me to it. Sidefall (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken out of context: It is thought by some that Stephen Sizer's dislike of Israel was exacerbated by an intimate incident at Ben Gurion airport, where he received a full body search as Israeli authorities were not convinced that he was really a Christian minister. 

   They took me into a special room and searched through everything in my luggage. They took my cameras to pieces, even my shaver and torch. They checked my bags for hidden compartments. They even gave me a body search. [4]

If you follow the citation you will see that it is taken out of context. This is the full context: They took me into a special room and searched through everything in my luggage. They took my cameras to pieces, even my shaver and torch. They checked my bags for hidden compartments. They even gave me a body search. When they told me they would be keeping my cameras for a week I didn't react the way they expected. I heard myself say "fine, you keep them, they're insured". That really threw them because they expected me to have a tantrum and demand my rights. I didn't shout or swear, I didn't bang the table and demand to see the British Consulate. [1]98.26.0.230 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cc-vw.org/sermons/sermonacts20.htm

Removal of "Controversy" section

[edit]

I removed the section describing a blog that criticized Sizer. I'm pretty sure a non-notable Blogspot blog doesn't meet our criteria for reliable sources. If the blog in question cited any reliable sources, feel free to include those references directly in the article while omitting the blog as an unnecessary middleman. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection.

[edit]

Following on from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mordechai:

This BLP page is being intensely affected by abusive sock-puppetry, with the aim of inserting information that could probably be considered negative, and may be poorly sourced.

As Im not an expert in this person's bio, and because most edits since Oct 2 have been by sock-puppets of Mordechai, and this includes repeated inserting of BLP concerns, I have reverted to the last untainted (pre-sock) version and protected to give the checkusers time to sort the matter out before editing resumes. Users may wish to review the edits from Oct 2 - Dec 4, for any legitimate non-controversial edits I may have removed, and request their re-addition using the {{editrequested}} template.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of NPOV; compare to David Pawson entry

[edit]

which is hagiography in the extreme.--97.113.214.73 (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have reinstated the list of external links to critical articles. This was recently deleted by an unregistered user. In my view, this article benefits substantially from these links as they make it clear that Sizer's views are opposed by many people. However, in order to present a NPOV, favourable external links should also be included. I have therefore created a subsection heading for these and included an expansion template.

Please don't delete the links without further discussion. Sidefall (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It is possible to furnish the 'supportive links' for the new section on this page, as it is possible to extend the critical links - but surely to do either is madness in the guise of neutrality? The works of many academics provoke critical debate, but if you look at their pages they dont have an 'external critical links' section. Ever wondered why not? For example, look at the Melanie Phillips page..I mention her because she is sited on Stephen Sizer's page as someone who is critical of Sizer. Her page does not have a critical links section. Presumably if it did Stephen Sizer would be in it? Likewise David Pawson's page doesnt have a critical links section and nor do the pages of other leading evangelicals like John Stott, though there are no doubt many websites created by people who have argued for or against his perspective. Indeed if you stop to think about it, anyone who opposes the views of anyone else or indeed who holds 'a different perspective' with anyone else on wiki should be on their page in a critical links section at the bottom of the page ..and now you are suggesting that to make it fair there should be a 'supportive links' section too.

The result of this would be that each biographical entry would have what amounts to a long list of spam at the bottom of it. Surely a biographical article should state the facts that can be verified, about that subject themselves and what they believe and then let the article and the subject speak for itself. If people want to agree or disagree with Sizer's beliefs, that is then up to them. - Unless you want to set a precedent for including links to everyone who disagrees with everyone on every biographical page, it would appear to be one-sided to do so here. NPOV? Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS The second two links you have included here dont appear to link to anything.

I agree that a list of links isn't ideal. In the first instance, I wanted to reinstate them so they were not lost in the edit history. Previously they were under a heading "controversies" which I didn't like so changed it as previously mentioned. However, even before you wrote the above, I realised that this wasn't very good and started moving them into inline references in the "response" section. There were originally 16 points, and now there are 9. I will continue to inline them as time permits, and fix the broken links.
More generally, I think it's fair to say that many biographical articles do include a mention of controversies relating to the subject - eg Billy Graham, Steve Chalke and John Stott (I'll declare an interest in that I contributed to the latter two). Such material is frequently notable and worthy of inclusion. Likewise, if a substantial part of a biographical article is devoted to presenting the subject's views (which this one is), then a degree of balance is given by making it clear that some people disagree with them.
So I think that there is already a precedent and Sizer isn't being treated differently to others, but more editing is still needed. Sidefall (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also just looked at the other articles you mentioned. Melanie Phillips does have responses from people who disagree with her, and John Stott does include controversies. David Pawson's entry is a poor article with no references whatsoever, so isn't really a valid comparison. Sidefall (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have now fixed the broken links. Sidefall (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed 6 more of these external links into inline references, so there are just 3 left. I've also added two references to positive reviews of Sizer's works to improve the overall balance and neutrality. Sidefall (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed all these external links to inline references. My view is that the controversy over Sizer's views on Zionism is notable and therefore should be included in this article. This also helps with the NPOV as previously mentioned. There is plenty of scope for improvement, but in view of the contentious nature of the material, please discuss any major changes first. Sidefall (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt suggesting that controversies shouldnt be aired, personally I believe in free speech..I was only suggesting that since none of these other biographical subjects have a section entirely devoted to external critical links it was hardly neutral to include one here...I agree you should include the links if they are valid to the subject's beliefs and that this therefore should be internal to the text. That's why I've included a few more direct quotes from the people you have described as critical. Nice talking to you. Why dont you update your user page?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for article restructuring

[edit]

I'm not sure how to do this, but given Sizer's controversial views and alleged anti-Semitism appear to be what makes him notable, the article could perhaps be restructured a little to reflect this. Perhaps we could move his 'public positions' section up to just under biography, then have his controversial positions, with subsections on public incidents relating to them, one for the 2009 incident, and one for what's going on now. (So, not changing the text that's there, just the presentation, though clearly the new incident needs to be added, as it's made the respectable citation - BBC, etc. - media) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.45.182 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the current event, or indeed his relevant opinions in general, is so noteworthy then maybe a separate article would be more appropriate.
Focusing this page on one particular and controversial matter would surely be unethical, especially given that it is a essentially a biography.
Mere Mortal (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism allegation

[edit]

Contentious material about living persons that is un-sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. Poorly sourced: the tendentious claim in the lead and the sources adduced are not satisfactory. Sizer has his enemies and friends which was not given equal prominence, neither did the wording reflect the body of the article, which at the least demonstrates that there are two sides to the argument. Given the effect that allegations of antisemitism can have and the promiscuous use of the term as a polemical slur, a casual drive-by edit in the lead must be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again please discuss the allegation of antisemitism here, given the gravity of the allegation and its effects. Please also not that newspaper articles and other ephemera are not always of sufficient reliability and should be used with caution. Please make sure that the lead reflects the article, not drive-by edits. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for information. Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the newspapers being used; your implication that they are "ephemera" ("newspapers and other ephemera") is bizarre. Since the article discusses these issues, the lead should reflect it in that respect. It's really not clear what you're on about here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the point, the lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. Please also remember WP:Civil.Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do you mean by noting "civil"?? That's a very odd post. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about Sizer that would even merit his inclusion in Wikipedia other than his promotion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
There are a huge number of mainstream sources that confirm Sizer's attitude towards Jews including the diametrically political opposites, the Telegraph and the Independent which I added as references. By removing the relevant material it would seem that you are more interested in whitewashing Sizer than seeking veracity. Because, If the later, rather than arbitrarily deleting what is most relevant about Sizer, you would actually be trying to improve the article.
Unless you are able to give a compelling reason as to why neither The Independent nor the Telegraph can be considered reliable sources, I will be re-instating the paragraph within 24 hours.Clivel 0 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The passage I removed was one-sided; are you willing to add the contrary that exists in the article to maintain NPOV, so that there is equal weight to the fact that the claims have been refuted by RS too? I believe in fair play and I suggest that you refresh your memory with WP:Civil and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, it is not a soapbox.
I believe that you are missing the point. There only two things of note about Sizer; his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories which undoubtedly is antisemitic, and his anti-Zionist writings which many notable commentators contend are also antisemitic. So for the lead to describe him as "author, theologian and evangelist" is completely misleading, because he would not even warrant a place in Wikipedia if it was not for his bigotry.
The (possibly out of context) quotes in the "responses" paragraph, purportedly disagree that Sizer's anti-Zionist writings are antisemitic, but the quotations from prominent members of the Jewish community offered in support of Sizer pre-date Sizer being censured by The Church for spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories. So ideally the "responses" paragraph should also be rewritten to more accurately reflect reality.
In conclusion, I intend restoring the lead, but will balance it by including something along the lines of "although a number of commentators disagree that Sizer's anti-Zionist writings are antisemitic".Clivel 0 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's OR, not warranted by the sources and does not assume good faith by earlier editors. The point is that the original lead had an allegation that was potentially libellous and egregiously unfair, since it was not a reflection of the article. A fair solution is to describe the fact that allegations have been made and that they have also been rejected. "although a number of commentators disagree that Sizer's anti-Zionist writings are antisemitic" is not fair or balanced, it's a weasel worded attempt to have it both ways. I suggest that "Allegations have been made that Sizer is an antisemite and allegations have been made that he is being smeared for being an antizionist." I would add that there are well-documented patterns of behaviour by zionist advocates, to lump antizionists in with antisemites, despite them being antithetical, hence the need for caution. I repeat, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I intend to reach consensus so I suggest you don't make any more unilateral edits. Oh and being the author of three books is notable isn't it? Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one, as far as I am aware, disputes the fact the Sizer is an antisemitic bigot for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories - that he promoted these theories is not an allegation, it is a fact!
What however may be in dispute is whether his anti-Zionism is antisemitic. It is well known that not all anti-Zionists are antisemites, nevertheless, given Sizer's already proven problem with Jews, it is highly likely that his anti-Zionism is driven by antisemitism.
I would also like to add that there is a well documented pattern of many antisemites who try to cloak their antisemitism with the pretext that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are antithetical. Something which is completely false. Almost without exception almost all antisemites are anti-Zionist even if the reverse does not necessarily hold true. I also intend reaching consensus, and this does not include whitewashing bigotry. So I suggest that you refrain from deleting facts when they are restored - Sizer does promote antisemitic conspiracy theories; that is a fact. If you would like to promote what you believe is balance by adding facts to the facts, that is your prerogative, but it does NOT give you licence to delete facts that you do not like.Clivel 0 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a fair compromise for the lead would be to refer to the main part of article, with a brief mention of the claims the refutations (to the satisfaction of some and not others) and that the arguments continue. That seems to be a fair summary of the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material which has been removed

[edit]

Per policy requires an actual affirmative consensus for inclusion in any article subject to WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the trouble to clarify that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy WP:BLP only material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" may be removed.
User Keith-264 has removed material from the Sizer page contrary to this policy on the specious grounds that "newspaper articles and other ephemera" are not reliable, despite these being one of the primary sources of the many Wikipedia articles that relate to current affairs. By removing this sourced material it would seem that user Keith-264 is more interested in promoting a political agenda to whitewash Sizer rather than in publishing the facts. I will be restoring the material complete with the appropriate reliable sources, I urge user Keith-264 not to remove it. As I have already stated in the section above, he is free to add additional reliably sourced facts in order to provide what he considers balance, however he is not free to remove reliably sourced material simply because he does not like it. Clivel 0 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the claim that Sizer is as a matter of simple fact an anti-Semite is not borne out by the sources provided at all. And, in fact, one of the sources makes clear that he specifically did not condone claims made in the notorious article which he had linked to. In short - the epitome of a contentious claim which was unsourced and poorly sourced. If you wish Wikipedia to make such claims as This person is an anti-Semite in Wikipedia's voice, you need actual sources making that claim as a matter of simple fact. Else you will need in any case a strong positive consensus here to re-include the claims you wish made. Collect (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple fact according to numerous sources, that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. Both The Telegraph and The Independent, sources now removed by User:Keith-264, and numerous other sources confirm this. The fact that Sizer promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemitic in-itself even though, and it was only after he was censured by The Church, that he later claimed that he did not condone the article's accusations. In 2013, Sizer also saw fit to participate in an antisemitic conference in Iran. Clivel 0 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I draw your attention to Collect's comment that "Per policy requires an actual affirmative consensus for inclusion in any article subject to WP:BLP." and I suggest that you think again, re-read my reasons for removing a potentially-libellous allegation, especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect, who took the trouble to read them. Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clive is correct in noting that a removal of this sort carries weight only if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. Perhaps the issue can be resolved by a bit of re-wording. But in the end, the lead must reflect the article, and so we will be adding something that indicates the nature of Sizer's commentary on these matters and the reactions they have attracted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was justifed on the terms given and Collect's review of the sources demonstrates their partiality, fatuity, malice and lazy journalism. The matter can be simply resolved by referring to the controversy recorded in the body of the article. I commend WP:BLP to your attention. Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collect's opinions, whether biased or not, do not demonstrate that the sources provided exhibit "partiality, fatuity, malice and lazy journalism", neither are Collect's opinions any justification for removing factual material. Countless news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it. Clivel 0 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem WP:VNT Keith-264 (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (lede) paragraph content

[edit]

I have applied for page protection until the content of the lead paragraph can be resolved. Please discuss the content here.
Regrettably my input will have to wait a few hours as I have a work commitment right now.
NOTE: Please do not continue the discussion both on the WP:BLP page and here, as it is unhelpful to try and maintain two parallel conversations. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the wording could be improved, but I agree with the notion that it's inappropriate to exclude discussion of the key elements of the "banned from social media" story -- the elements that brought such widespread attention to that particular aspect of his notability. On the other hand, I'd suggest we use sources other than the Daily Mail... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the lead was nearly all right then I get home and find that it's all in the air again. The bit you mention above is more gossip than biography and if anything like that goes into the lead, the article should have a section on the Propaganda Model so that a reader has some opportunity to critically evaluate sources. I also worry that Clivel is going to be hoist by his own petard. Keith-264 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep -- apropos of which: @Clivel 0: and @Hillbillyholiday: you have both now reached the limit of WP:3RR. Hillbillyholiday: it's a bit rich to say that the material should stay out pending consensus via discussion and then not contribute to the discussion already under way about the material. Once again: the article exists in part because of the attention (in secondary sources) devoted to Sizer's public statements about Israel and Zionism, and the lead therefore must summarise that material. Continued deletion (instead of revision/editing) is not an acceptable path. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True but then there are routine attempts by the corporate press to associate any antizionist comment with antisemitism, despite them being opposites. Much of the sound and fury in the case is hypocrisy on stilts. I don't agree that it's wrong to avoid "discussion" in the lead when the lead should reflect the body of the article. Description is what we need.Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For User:Keith-264 to contend that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are opposites not only goes counter to WP definition Anti-Zionism but indicate a lack of objectivity on his part that disqualifies him from editing this pages as it would make it nigh impossible to achieve any sort of consensus on this topic. Without a doubt anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are tied. It is a given that the majority of anti-Semites are anti-Israel even if the reverse does not necessarily hold true. But, given that nearly all anti-Semites are anti-Zionist, then the reverse must hold true; that some but not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Clivel 0 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::Hypocrite, I predicted you'd hoist yourself with your own petard.Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Comment withdrawn as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks as suggested, since two wrongs don't make a right. Keith-264 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS [1] Wikipedia is not a source.Keith-264 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have been discussing the material via edit summaries, and at the BLP noticeboard where I agreed with Keith and Collect. I reverted my own contribution because, although it was more neutral than Clivel's edit, on reflection I wasn't sure it accurately summarized the source. While the lede needs to reflect the rest of the article -- with material as contentious as this -- it is far more important that what is presented is worded correctly and in a balanced, neutral manner, and I would rather see the introduction left blank than poorly summarized. Frankly, I'm not sure I'm quite up to the (rather delicate) task, but I shall continue reverting Clivel's attempts at POV-pushing. Of those that have contributed so far, I think Collect is best qualified to expand the lede. John is someone I would trust with the job, should they wish to get involved. (Though I wouldn't blame him for refusing!) --Hillbillyholiday talk 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Quite agree with Keith's views on the media coverage of this case.[reply]
I am finding the continual threats, bullying and attempts at intimidation by User:Keith-264, User:Hillbillyholiday and User:Collect to be getting more than a little tiresome. Clearly there is collusion, because without any prior involvement User:Hillbillyholiday wrote on the WP:BLPN:
Totally agree with Collect's analysis and what Keith says above. Should Clivel persist in this blatant and offensive POV pushing, I would support him being banned from editing this, and all related, articles. --Hillbillyholiday talk 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
on the same page, User:Keith-264 posted a number of threats along the lines of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC) and now they have User:John threatening me on my talk page [here] and then to crown it all, User:Hillbillyholiday has the audacity to propose User:John as someone he would trust to edit this topic. It should also be noted that all comments they made about me on WP:BLPN were posted without pings or User: links that would automatically generate a notification to me. I have been trying to get consensus here, but clearly these individuals are more interested in whitewashing Sizer, than establishing the facts.Clivel 0 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem, these aren't threats, they're descriptions of your conduct. As for collusion, I'm far too vain.Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we try and get some consensus as to what should or should not be included in the lead before even trying to work on the wording. The way I see it there are five items that need to be agreed on:

  • Format: From WP:MOS "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and also "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate".
    From this, it would seem to me that there is little precedent for trying to reduce the lead to only a sentence or two or for trying to water down any controversy.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith your impugning of motives is not satisfactory.

  • Source: I am not tied to the Daily Mail as a source, not being UK based to me one British paper is the same as the next. However the Guardian article cited by User:Hillbillyholiday is not suitable either as it omitted a number of pertinent points.
WP:OR It's not for you to dictate the content of sources, reliable or not.
  • Notability: Being a member of the clergy, irrespective of religious denomination, is not sufficiently notable in itself to warrant a page in Wikipedia. Sizer however, achieves notability solely as a result of the following two points:
  • A long history of disputes with the Jewish community regarding his postings on blogs and social media which resulted in accusations of anti-Semitism. Subsequent agreement by the Church when Bishop Watson wrote "material ... some of which is clearly antisemitic" and Sizer's six month social media ban.
WP:NPOV WP:OR Sizer is a published author. There is no monolithic "Jewish community". Who or what was Watson referring to?Keith-264 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • His work in opposing Christian Zionism (including his books) and any controversy that this may have engendered.

Clivel 0 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bishop specifically did not accuse Sizer of anti-Semitism, so we ought not impute such a claim. The agreement was made with a specific named clergyman - the Bishop of Guildford, and we should not impute such to the "Church of England".
Sizer linked to a site which appears to blame "9/11" on Israeli connections, and which Sizer has says he does not agree with. Your view that this is part of a long history for Sizer would require far better sourcing than heretofore provided per WP:BLP.
I note we already have a very long section about folks who disagree with him, and adding more would be Pelion on Ossa at best - in fact, it is likely that we have already exceeded UNDUE for the accusations. Collect (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested basis for consensus. (Is this where we continue to discuss?)

Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for which he apologised. It is believed[by whom?] to be the first ban of its kind issued by the church.Keith-264 (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We certainly cannot use a tabloid source to support anything remotely controversial on a living person. I applaud the idea of discussing here and getting full consensus before adding or restoring anything on this to the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bans on "topics" are certainly not "new" in any hierarchical religion, so that sentence is simply not going to be sourceable as fact. It is too akin to "George Gnarph was the first person to have his pram towed from Hyde Park when he was four years old." Collect (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months, after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the September 11 attacks, for which he apologised.

proposed change

[edit]


The BLP currently says "infused with the neoconservative political ideology" citing https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/guest-writers/6743-christian-zionism-the-new-heresy-that-undermines-middle-east-peace .

That essay does not make the claim it is asserted to support. Proposal is to remove the claim not supported by a reliable source. Collect (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done – wbm1058 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

@Clivel 0: best to propose some wording here. Your attempt was reasonably good, but too wordy, with too much use of quotations. We need a summary, not an exploration. If we do this properly, any attempts to block it can be seen for what they would be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, you could always try to get WP:BLP rewritten to allow such edits. From here, it looks like any attempt to re-add material removed by others as insufficiently sourced runs afoul of the specific rules of that policy. Unless your mileage differs, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like gamesmanship to me but not as pernicious as Nomoskedasticity's comments above. I've sketched a summary of the body of the article and Clivel has ignored it. Is Nomoskedasticity's point of view being seen for what it is?Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there's a problem, happy to see you at ANI. Not sure what the issue is, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what you wrote.Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style for lead

[edit]

Using 70% of the lead for a "summary" of a single section is not "summary style" by any definition.

"Although he did not admit culpability" which is not found in the section being summarized fails NPOV and BLP considerations.

" alleging that he had made anti-Semitic statements and published links to anti-Semitic web sites" is not found in the section being summarized and fails NPOV and BLP considerations.

The entire addition to the lead fails NPOV, BLP and WEIGHT considerations.


For such material to be placed in any article or BLP, a positive consensus is required, and for that I suggest any editor seeking such an addition should initiate an RfC per WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clivel: Pls stop insulting me in edit summaries, it only makes it harder to assume your good faith The Boy Who Cried Wolf.Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect, pretty good summary but does "posting a link accusing Jews and Israel of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks" represent the complaint or the substance of what's in the link? (Apropos, are zionists attempting to establish a canard, that suspicion of zionist involvement in the New York attacks is ipso facto antisemitic?) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Sizer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Stephen Sizer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispooks: '""9-11/Israel did it"'

[edit]

The "antisemitic" article Sizer linked to on Facebook was the Wikispooks one '"9-11/Israel did it"' (hopefully everbody here is adult enough to cope with a link to the article being given).

The Independent - Lizzie Dearden - Vicar investigated over Facebook post linking to 'anti-Semitic' article '9/11 Israel did it' - 30 January 2015: "It linked to an article called “9/11: Israel did it”, adding: “Is this anti-Semitic? If so no doubt I’ll be asked to remove it. It raises so many questions.” ... The article, on the WikiSpooks conspiracy site, claims to present evidence that Israel was behind the attacks that killed 2,996 people in 2001, calling al-Qaeda “Mossad playing dress up”."

The Wikispooks article on Stephen Sizer backs up the Independent's statement: "Dr Sizer was forced into an apology after posting a link on Facebook to a WikiSpooks article entitled "9-11/Israel did it"."

Things to note are the speech quotes in the Wikispooks article title and that the article's stated purpose is to marshall "evidence for the proposition that 'Israel did it'", not, which is different, to state outright that Israel was the perpetrator.[2]

    ←   ZScarpia   13:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSpooks has been deleted, noticed here a few days ago. This may mean that the owner did not pay his bills, but other reasons ..... who knows. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:F9B1:6189:EF95:8A6D (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The article goes far beyond the criticism of Israel and is virulently antisemitic in its content. It fulfils all the tropes of classic antisemitism. Only a comparatively small number of people referred to in the article are Israelis, the great majority are members of the American Jewish community." p141 Tribunal Determination (Sizer) 6 December 2022. Nedrutland (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Sizer&oldid=1195738193"