Jump to content

Talk:Tom Newton Dunn

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


Controversy

[edit]

If you don't want to this page to contain any mention of the page's subject publishing what has been described in various sources as "a far-right conspiracy theory" which included links to antisemitic conspiracy website the Millennium Report and the website Aryan Unity can you clarify whether your objection is based on it not being notable, or it being notable but not being correctly sourced? Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the sourcing, it's that it gives too much weight to one incident that they obviously realised was rubbish fairly quickly. It could be valid content in a longer article that covers his journalistic output as a whole, but on its own it will dominate the article and give an unbalanced account of his work. See WP:CSECTION. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you confirm that you don't think that a journalist publishing a 'far-right' conspiracy theory that included links to the website the Millennium Report and the website Aryan Unity, and that got written about specifically in 2 different sources, is notable. I've read WP:CSECTION and there's nothing in there to say that this shouldn't be on the page, just that instead of "Controversies" the section should be called "Far-Right Conspiracy Incident". Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected the article and reverted it to the last good version before today's editing began. Rather than reaching for the banhammer, I'd prefer consensus to be reached through discussion here. A reminder, WP:BLP applies to this talk page, as well as the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: It was not a BLP violation, so it is unfortunate you've cloaked your dubious action in that cloth. It is well sourced that TND was peddling Ayran Unity talking points. I'm good with the idea of consensus. How would you like this well-sourced information to be presented in the article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: - apologies if I misread that. It's certainly an edit war if nothing else, and BLP is paramount. I appreciate that reliable sources such as The Guardian are being used, rather than TND's employer, The Sun. As I'm only going to be around for the next hour or so, if the issue can be thrashed out here and consensus reached for what is and isn't includable, any admin may remove the protection an allow normal editing to resume. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: - not familiar with the specific details around policy for reliable sources, but wouldn't the webarchive of a Sun article be a reliable source for the claim that that article exists? AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AsmodeanUnderscore: Sorry, but The Sun is not a reliable source. See WP:RS Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Claims being made about the reliability of the content of the article have been sourced to The Guardian, but the the article itself, regardless of the reliability of The Sun, is, according to WP:RS, a reliable source for the claim that the article exists. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only person arguing against it's inclusion on the page is an editor who misunderstood WP:RS and thought that published author statements were not reliable sources for whether an author made the statement, and that seemed to be the entirety of their objection, I think we can agree that a consensus has been formed and the incident should be added to the page 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this needs to be included. Huge incident in TND's career and well-sourced. Let's get it restored, I think consensus has been achieved. Please note as well that it appears, at least by the username used, that it was TND himself who originally deleted the reference to this incident, proving that bias came into its original deletion. Innovative Username (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that accusations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour(both wikis have details about antisemitism) in the 2019 general election, were a significant part of the opposition and media campaigning and so much false information has been spread on the subject, I don't see how this information is not a valid subject of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.187.104 (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main notable point about the article was that it was published during an election campaign. (You may not agree with that, the content in itself is notable, but the timing is part of the notability.) EDITED THIS TO ADD THE BRACKETED SECTION WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.2.236 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the section in question (by undoing this edit), per Mjroots' post above, timestaped 11:10, 20 December 2019. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 December 2019

[edit]

Add the following. It is a legitimate topic for the article and in line with other biographies.

Altered the wording of the original para to reduce POV.

Yes. And I would urge everyone to work constructively on the amendments to the article below, so we can come to a neutral description of events. Even if the article was removed, it did happen and was a controversy. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional refs

[edit]

Controversy

[edit]

In December 2019 Newton Dunn wrote an article for the Sun titled HIJACKED LABOUR, alleging ex-British intelligence officers had accused Jeremy Corbyn of being at the centre of a hard-left extremist network.[1] It was later found that the piece was sourced from far-right websites the Millennium Report and Aryan Unity. The allegations were described by author Daniel Trilling as "a far-right conspiracy theory". [2] Yellowmellow45 (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan

[edit]

Is that really one of his names? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/879840160569012224 209.251.196.62 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far-Right Conspiracy Incident

[edit]

In December 2019, Newton Dunn wrote an article for The Sun titled 'HIJACKED LABOUR', alleging ex-British intelligence officers had accused Jeremy Corbyn of being at the centre of a hard-left extremist network.[3] It was later found that the piece was sourced from the antisemitic far-right websites the Millennium Report and Aryan Unity. The allegations were described by author Daniel Trilling as "a far-right conspiracy theory."[4] The left-wing Tribune Magazine suggested that such articles might get journalists or those on the political left assaulted or even killed.[5] On the same day the article was published, it was also deleted, without comment from the paper, or Newton Dunn.[6][7] Innovative Username (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus has now been achieved. Let's restore it in the above format, I suggest.

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20191207145207/https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10501848/jeremy-corbyn-extremist-network/
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/sun-publish-far-right-conspiracy-theory-labour
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20191207145207/https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10501848/jeremy-corbyn-extremist-network/
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/sun-publish-far-right-conspiracy-theory-labour
  5. ^ https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/12/the-sun-is-going-to-get-people-killed
  6. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/sun-publish-far-right-conspiracy-theory-labour
  7. ^ https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/43kkpq/labour-smear-campaign-the-sun

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked

[edit]

OK, I've removed the protection from the article. Let normal editing resume, and if the subject of the article is really behind the deletions, then we'll have to educate him in Wikipedia's way of doing things. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It appears so. The name used was "Tnewtondunn" - the same as his Twitter username. Innovative Username (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh: section title

[edit]

There's currently a disagreement on the section title: "Far-right conspiracy incident" versus "Reporting of alleged far-left conspiracy". The issue we're reporting on seems to be TND's use of far-right sources to report a far-right conspiracy theory. @Philafrenzy:, busy bowdlerizing the section, insists on "Reporting of alleged far-left conspiracy". That is objectionable framing, and deflects from the key issue: that TND uses Ayran Unity to make unfounded assertions against left wingers.

Which section title do we prefer, & why? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right conspiracy theory, because it literally is one. We should be saying it is one in Wikipedia voice, really - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, what's your support for claiming this is a far-left conspiracy theory? - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article he published was about an alleged far left conspiracy wasn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty darn thin, considering the conspiracy theory was that there was such a theory - and this first-level theory is heavily documented as far-right, and that conspiracy is what Newton Dunn - the topic of this article - was propagating - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was reporting an alleged far left conspiracy that it is said (probably correctly) was developed by the far right. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But he didn't say that - he propagated the actual far-right conspiracy theory unaltered as a journalistic finding, and all the media attention is about Tom Newton Dunn propagating a far-right conspiracy theory - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He propagated it through reporting a far left conspiracy (accidentally or not is not our concern). He didn't "report" a right conspiracy did he? He reported an alleged left conspiracy. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "Propagation of far-right conspiracy theory", that being the thing Newton Dunn did - is that clearer? - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Needs an "alleged". Philafrenzy (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's actually a far-right conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory contains allegations - but it's definitely a conspiracy theory, it's definitely far-right, and he definitely propagated it. You don't need an "alleged" in there at all - the words already there are correct on the status of the claim, and correct on the status of the claim it's about - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He propagated it certainly but we cannot be certain that it was a far right conspiracy. Inferences and likelihoods aren't good enough for a BLP, hence alleged. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article literally contains the references to how it's a far-right conspiracy theory, listing the far-right sources. You haven't impeached those sources. What more are you asking for here? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nodody can know for certain who prepared the chart and what their motives were. It's all just inference, educated guesses and speculation. Our wording should be equally provisional, particularly in a BLP. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's beyond reasonable doubt. We literally have the sources right there in the article, to a BLP-quality RS too - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If so tell me precisely who prepared it and when with RSs to prove it. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see an IP has taken up my point above. (It's not me for the record). Philafrenzy (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have its own section? Shouldn't in just go in the career section? 80.41.36.232 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said above. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm clear, is Philafrenzy asking for evidence that a conspiracy theory that uses a website called "Aryan Unity" as a source is far-right?. Also regarding his desire to describe it as a Far-Left conspiracy, would Philafrenzy describe "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as an antiSemitic conspiracy theory or a Jewish conspiracy? To be consistent with his belief that it should be labelled a Far-Left conspiracy theory he would also have to describe the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a Jewish conspiracy rather than it being an antiSemitic conspiracy theory. 82.36.52.110 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I said or meant. My point was that he reported a far left conspiracy (see the archive.org capture) that has been described by others as an attempt to discredit Corbyn by far right sources and therefore the section should be titled "Reporting of alleged far left conspiracy" or similar because that is what he did. Please don't misrepresent me. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you describe "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a reported Jewish conspiracy or an antiSemitic conspiracy? 82.36.52.110 (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: we could probably do with at least autoconfirmed overnight. (I would, but I'm editing it now.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request posted to WP:AN3 - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Could you revert the full version of the controversy back? Someone has over simplified it, which takes away context and obscures the fact this conspiracy theory related to Aryan Unity and Millennium Report - two key details. Also, could you make this autoconfirmed as I'm sick of people constantly vandalising? Innovative Username (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry chaps, I was asleep. Article now semi-protected in any case. Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, IPs, and consensus

[edit]

Courtesy @Philafrenzy:

We established consensus earier today for a section on TND's dubious story. Philafrenzy has been against any inclusion of this material from the start - diff, diff.

Now, a combination of Philafrenzy and IPs have whittled the section down to an anodyne paragraph, stripping it of its section header, and of two key points: 1) that some elements of the conspiracy theory were sourced to Aryan Unity and Millennium Report, and 2) that the TND story was likely to endanger left-wing MPs.

Whilst consensus does evolve, I don't think the current version respects the consensus established earlier today. The current couple of sentences completely miss what seem to be the salient issues associated with the TND's article.

I'd like to to revert to the consensus version, and thrash out any remaining issues here; or in the alternate, would like to know good reasons why we should not include info on the sourcing (Aryan Unity and Millennium Report) and the feared effect of the story (noted in the Grauniad article and the main subject of the Tribune article, iirc), so that they can be added back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this suggestion completely. Consensus via the talk page should always be the first port of call. So annoying to see all my work constantly undone by people engaging in silly squabbling and reverting when they could just engage in the talk page. So annoyed right now. @David Gerard: - in case you want to help us build consensus here. Innovative Username (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Revert to consenus version. work out further changes here first - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said from the start that it could form a valid part of the article if given the right weight and integrated into the career section. "It could be valid content in a longer article that covers his journalistic output as a whole, but on its own it will dominate the article and give an unbalanced account of his work. See WP:CSECTION." I support the current version that has emerged overnight. It's pleasing to see that things go in the right direction by themselves sometimes. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The consensus should be reverted to and discussion continue on Talk Page. QM123 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the wording of the new paragraph is amateurish. It needs to be edited up to standard, without vernacular. I also feel more care needs to go into NPOV. From some of the conversations here, it seems some of you are children. Please grow up. I argued for the inclusion of this section ealier, but urge you to remember that your politics should stay out of your contributions as much as possible. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think something along the lines of the phrase "sourced from the antisemitic far-right websites the Millennium Report and Aryan Unity" is appropriate. It explains better than only talking about a far right conspiracy theory in vague terms. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add more info to the paragraph in the career section if you want, but the idea this deserves an entire section devoted to it is crazy, completely disproportionate. 80.41.36.232 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - it's making a splash, even more so since someone of coincidentally the same name as the subject tried removing it - it'll be the precise thing the readers are coming here looking for - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we have consensus bar one person. I'd suggest we therefore revert it. Innovative Username (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have not reached consensus. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider the fact that everyone else disagrees strongly with you. We can't be held hostage purely by yourself. If you have any policy-based reason why I can't at this point go ahead and revert, go ahead, otherwise I am reverting it. I don't see anywhere in the documentation that one lone voice is enough to disestablish consensus. Innovative Username (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My policy based reason has been stated repeatedly - it gives undue weight to the matter thus violating NPV. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My policy-based reason, and that of everyone else here, is that it doesn't, and repeating your objection doesn't count as multiple objections. At this point the appropriate essay is WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say @David Gerard:? Revert seems the best course of action, no? Innovative Username (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just added yet another piece of RS coverage, so I'd edit with precision rather than just reverting; but in principle, sure. OTOH, no harm in waiting until tomorrow, it's getting late - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just re. notability, I would have to say that the conspiracy theory incident is probably the most noteworthy thing about TND. It is the only situation in which he is notable in himself, rather than as the individual who brought noteworthy incidents to light. Certainly, he is much more well-known for this incident than anything else he has done. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary autoconfirmed protection

[edit]

There was a massive uptick in hits yesterday - from 51, to 394, to 5,572. Not clear why - so I've put the article on autoconfirmed for a week, under WP:BLP considerations, after the drive-by IPs yesterday (one fan, one non-fan). (Which was then followed by a perfectly ok edit from an IP, so that's why only a week.) If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, feel free to say so, or (if admin) just change it - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun

[edit]

I note that (according to my stats), this is the only BLP on Wikipedia with a direct citation to The Sun, and my attempt to remove it was reverted by Tagishsimon. I note that the revert contains the tag "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" and would be interested in David Gerard's view on this, as he's done a lot of BLP source cleanup recently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is expressed in the edit summary; it seems to be compliant with policy/guidelines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines linked in the edit summary say, verbatim, "There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline linked in the edit summary says, verbatim, "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves". In the section of this article about The Sun using very-far-right sources as the basis of an article with his byline, a reference points to the Wayback Machine (a secondary source) displaying a facsimile of the original Sun article. I'm puzzled both as to why you think that is not an exact fit for the guideline I pointed to, and surprised that you assert that WP:NOTRELIABLE points other than to the Sources that are usually not reliable / Questionable sources subsection from which I took the above quote. For the avoidance of doubt, we are all well aware that The Sun is not a reliable source, but is in this instance a compliant source exactly under the guideline I point to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an archive source for the primary material for the section - which is an event whose notability is clear, and see discussion above. Even if we can't trust The Sun as a source, nor thesun.co.uk as an accurate reflection of the content of The Sun, we can trust the Internet Archive that this is what thesun.co.uk contained on that date. So it serves as a primary source for the material the section is discussing, which some were incredulous as to.
I mean, sure, it's arguable - but I, a notorious Sun-hater, would concede that this usage passes muster. YMMV of course.
This is one of five usages of The Sun in article space - of the others, two are links to official pages (The Sun (United Kingdom), Dear Deidre), one is primary source cites (Striker (comic)) and one is where The Sun seems to have broken an important story (László Csatáry) - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Newton_Dunn&oldid=1206917713"