Talk:2018 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election

Candidates' campaign websites

I've removed the list of candidates' campaign websites external links again. I can't see how this is appropriate and it surely contravenes WP:ELNO. For other political party election campaigns, even the major ones, I can't see evidence we do anything similar. And while an election is ongoing, Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for candidates to conduct their campaign. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

'Twas I who reverted Sionk's initial removal, which s/he has now repeated.

I see no problem with an election article pointing to campaign websites. We don't want Wikipedia to be a platform for candidates to conduct their campaigns, which is why we carefully police the article with respect to WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:COI etc., but we do want to inform readers and external links to relevant, official websites seems fine for that purpose.

I note United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#External_links contains links to the main parties' manifestos. United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#External_links has an even longer list. That, it seems to me, supports including campaign website links here. You see the same with some non-UK articles, like Austrian legislative election, 2017, although not others, like Greek legislative election, September 2015 or French presidential election, 2017.

That said, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016, UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017, Welsh Labour Party leadership election, 2018 etc. don't have external links. Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership campaign, 2015 does link to the official campaign website, while Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 just links to the Labour Party's official website.

I don't see how this contravenes WP:ELNO. WP:EL says, "Some acceptable links include those that contain [...] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Each candidate's campaign page contains much detail that cannot be added for reasons of length and copyright. WP:ELOFFICIAL supports linking to official sites. WP:ELMIN does say we normally only link to one article, but "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." That would be the case here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:ELOFFICIAL would support linking to an official Green Party webpage about the election, because the election is the subject of the article rather than any of the particular candidates. I actually think that the strongest WP:ELNO argument is 16: Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time, because these websites are unlikely to outlive the election. I don't think that the Corbyn campaign article is an analogue, because the campaign is the subject of the article there.

Overall I'd lean against including links to campaign websites on this page. (I think it's a slightly different point when it comes to including links to manifestos in general elections, which I'd probably argue in favour of.) Ralbegen (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Photos

Can somebody properly crop the images used in the article? The CSS image crop text is very unusual, we generally don't directly edit the photos using CSS, we just use cropped images from Wikimedia. I don't know what the copyright situation is with cropping the images in the way that has been done on this article and it's not very accessible to users who don't have a detailed grasp of CSS. Can we get some standard cropped images and go back to normal? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo suggestions

Here are two photos of Andrew Cooper. I'm not experienced with uploading photos to Wikipedia so I'm not sure of all the rules or how to go about it, so if anyone would like to add either of these to the deputy leadership section, here they are. They both need cropping. They are both listed as public photos, with only some rights reserved, so I think they are fine to add to a non-commercial website like Wikipedia as long as credit is given and a link to the source on Flickr from which they were retrieved. Here they are:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cor-photos/38361483201/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cor-photos/43211973071/

Helper201 (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither would be suitable for Wikipedia because they have a 'non-commercial' licence, which means they aren't free-use. Sionk (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Allegations against Ali of Anti Semitism

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] Dr Ali responding to the Evening Standard, said, "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] Added this wording also at Shahrar Ali article.

@RogerGLewis: your allegations of edit-warring and vandalism against Headhitter do not appear to be appropriate to me. I would remind you to follow WP:AGF. I'd also ask that you learn to sign your posts on the Talk page. You haven't given any sensible explanation for your objections to the article additions made. I think possibly Headhitter's expansion of the section is longer than appropriate, but we can discuss that. I would ask both of you to bring your discussion here and to hold back from further editing until agreement can be reached.

Also @Timrollpickering: as RogerGLewis mentioned him. Bondegezou (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello The entry is over long the original entry here seemed fine , shorter than Head hitters essay and also a little long I think. I have explained previous edits both on this page and the Shahrar Ali Page can you institute a process to get consensus Bondegezou RogerGLewis (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your message, RogerGLewis. I think the best first step to reaching consensus would be for you to apologise for falsely accusing Headhitter of vandalism. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou|Bondegezou thankyou for referring the Shahrar Ali page discussion here as well, Articles have appeared in several newspapers and Dr Ali has made several statements rebutting accusations of Anti Semitism. There has been a Claim and a counterclaim/rebuttal, people can read the arguments from the link to the original Left Foot forward Blog Post. I dispute the need to be any more detail than a very short mention HeadhitterHeadhitter is seeking to Make the case of CAAS, this is not the appropriate platform to do that it is an encyclopedia my proposed draft is at the beginning of this section RogerGLewis (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Bondegezou. Happy to engage on this talk page but I think the onus is on RogerGLewis to explain why he is accusing me of WP:VANDALISM. Yes, what I've said could probaby be shortened but I'm not happy to have my citations removed without explanation or suitable replacement, and for my corrections of spelling and style errors to be reverted. User:RogerGLewis is doing exactly the same to my edits on the Shahrar Ali page and I feel he is not following WP:AGF or WP:CIVILITY. Incidentally, the original article critical of Ali (which I cited) was in The National Student newspaper in April, not the Left Foot Forward blog in August. Headhitter (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

|Bondegezou]] I apologise for falsely accusing Headhitter of Vandalism, my criticism of the copious detail of Headhitter's drafted reportage are though quite sincere, as was of course my mistaken belief that Headhitter was vandalising my efforts to get consistency between the Leadership and Shahrar Ali Articles.RogerGLewis (talk) 13:32, 12 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 they labeled an "offensive rant". Shahrar Ali 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." 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. is a s long as it could possibly need to be. could we get Brianbbrian (talk | contribs) to comment further as well please. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Brianbbrian: as per above.

RogerGLewis, I see no need for this and the Shahrar Ali articles to have the same text. It would seem appropriate to me for the Shahrar Ali article to go into more depth than the article here as the issue is more specifically about Ali than about the leadership election. Also, inserting typos/formatting errors is never very helpful, as you did in several edits.

There hasn't been a huge amount of reporting in major publications about these events, but then there hasn't been a huge amount of reporting about the leadership election or Shahrar Ali in general, so it can be difficult to determine an appropriate WP:BALANCE. Below I've pasted Headhitter's expanded version of the text:

On 3 August 2018, an article on the Left Foot Forward blog criticised a speech Ali had made in January 2009 during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, in which he referenced the Holocaust when criticising Israel's actions in Gaza; the Campaign Against Antisemitism called the speech anti-semitic and an "offensive rant". Writing in The National Student, Gursimran Hans at City University, London, said that Ali should not have prefaced his anti-Israel comments with "Just because you observe the niceties of Holocaust Memorial Day...". "In what way" Hans asked "can something so vile, so traumatic have any 'niceties'?" Ali responded in the Evening Standard to these criticisms, 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."

I don't particularly see the need for the Gursimram quote, but otherwise the paragraph describes events clearly, with an accusation and a response quoted. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted, RogerGLewis. I'm happy with your "mid-length" edit on the Shahrar Ali page, Bondegezou – thank you – and with your suggestion re the text on the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election page. The current version on the latter page is very unsatisfactory – it includes a spelling mistake and a stylistic error and the citations are only bare urls. Headhitter (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be relevant to the topic, because LFF have been dredging back through years of things Ali has said, because of his raised profile in the leadership campaign. Other reputable news sources have eagerly jumped on board, making it more of a widespread story. But I agree a more brief summary is preferable, until we know the outcome of this event. Sionk (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::::: I don't particularly see the need for the Gursimram quote, agreed it should be removed. "mid-length" edit on the Shahrar Ali

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[7] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog regarding a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[8][9] Ali 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."[10] The Green Party of England and Wales are still formulating a formal response

This is a better amended mid-length version, the Video did not re-surface and the GP are yet to make a formal response to the amendment is properly neutral.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You have no citation for the claim that the Green Party are still formulating a formal response, so we can't say that. I don't see why you wish to excluded the detail Headhitter added explaining when Ali was speaking and what he said. That appears useful to me. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou Jewish Chronicle article says " The party added that it had “reached out” to the Campaign Against Antisemitism group to “ensure we fully understand their concerns and to respond accordingly.” last para. A link to the video is in the Left Foot Forward Blog and also the context of what is said in the speech is better reported here. "A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.” , clearly the statement "That conversation is still ongoing", confirms a formal response is yet to be made. My point is that if people want detail they can find it in context at other sources which are not tainted by a conflict of interest/Bias/etc. In a relatively short Leadership article and Biography article, the amount of detail and opinion offered by Headhitter is inappropriate in my opinion. RogerGLewis (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou (Restoring to a mid-length description of events as a possible compromise between RogerGLewis and Headhitter: let's discuss on Talk) my objections to this reversion are set out above, I do not think there is a consensus for the reversion and I have shown it to be inaccurate factually in the immediately preceding reference to the Times. Please change the factually incorrect statement "The Green Party said that it's initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that they are seeking to revise procedures."[18] to "The Green Party of England and Wales are still formulating a formal response" Thank you. RogerGLewis (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand what could be factually inaccurate about the statement you’ve quoted there. It’s reliably sourced, and not contradicted by anything you’ve linked to. Ralbegen (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the current version on the page is appropriate, though the long Ali quote seems a little undue to me. The only thing I’d change would be to replace it with a summary, which would also resolve any issue of length, as the quote currently takes up about half the length of the paragraph. Ralbegen (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ralbegen These are unsubstantiated allegations of a very serious nature and It is clear from the sources quoted that the Green Party is yet to make a formal response, That Dr Ali has clearly and strongly rebutted the Allegations. The original LFF article is riddled with poorly sourced speculation and Wikipedia should not be a forum for idle gossip and wild assertions. If the factual inaccuracies are cleared up then a reduction in Dr Alis Quote would I think, be appropriate, can you suggest some wording? RogerGLewis (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The standard we go by is verifiability, not truth. Material shouldn’t be removed because another editor believes it to be untrue—WP:TRUTH is an essay that’s worth reading on the subject. The material is verifiable through references to reliable sources, including the Green Party's comments to the Jewish Chronicle.

I might suggest that an appropriate way to phrase Ali's response could be Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government". Ralbegen (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ralbegen That sounds fine to me no objections from me with that as an edit. I do think that the Fact that other sources clearly state the Green Party is yet to formally respond to the allegations should be made clear at this stage, leaving an impression that the case is otherwise is I think falling short of acceptable standards. Also, the suggestion that this video re-emerged is very odd, the video has been online in various edits since the original speech, I watched it in 2016 during the Leadership hustings that summer. Could you work your magic with the rest of the paragraph? Ralbegen Thanks RogerGLewis (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit lost in the discussion above. So, I've created some specific subsections to discuss specifics below. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Intro of paragraph

The paragraph currently begins, "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 they labeled an “offensive rant”."

Headhitter changed this to, "On 3 August 2018, an article on the Left Foot Forward blog criticised a speech Ali had made in January 2009 during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, in which he referenced the Holocaust when criticising Israel's actions in Gaza; the Campaign Against Antisemitism called the speech anti-semitic and an "offensive rant"." That packs in a lot of detail efficiently, I think. It explains the context (what was happening in Jan 2009) and spells out the meat of the complaint (referencing the Holocaust while criticising Israel's actions in Gaza). It also switches to the active tense, which I think is a good thing. I and Headhitter prefer this version, but RogerGLewis opposes. Shall we switch to this newer version? Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

One mans "packing in a lot of detail" is obviously another persons adding a Slant to what is being referenced. If itis agreed that the Paragraph should be kept snappy and to the point this addition is unnecessary.RogerGLewis (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, in what sense have I added a slant? Is there anything inaccurate in my text? If so, which parts are factually incorrect? Headhitter (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, I also fail to see how any slant is added by these details. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The JC Article is clearly very much part of the current Labour Anti-Semitism Row, of course, its article has a particular slant, The LFF article is also partisan to a Green Party Faction, its Author is not above reproach in this respect sadly, Headhitter The part of the quote chosen gives a distinct impression to the extent I would say it is badly chosen, the Times quote is much more objective , it makes the point succinctly and fulfills the purpose of keeping the Article on point , There is an Accusation, There has been a counter argument(rebuttal) and The Green Party has still not made a formal response. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, all news sources are partisan. You've said that the JC quote is badly chosen but you haven't explained why or offered an alternative quote from the JC news piece. Headhitter (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, your answer above doesn't address the particular point here. Where is the slant in linking to Operation Cast Lead or in explaining that Ali reference the Holocaust? And if we are going to talk about slant, you have throughout appeared keen to minimise this entire issue and to protect the Green Party from embarrassment. Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

BondegezouThat is a very unfair accusation, please withdraw it. I am not making any claims other than that the Allegation, The rebuttal and the Green Party position are all on record and as yet allegations are all that remain some of which are clearly falsified if you read the Times Article of the 11th August. I along with everyone else here and Dr Ali, clearly abhor Anti-Semitism or any Form of Prejudice or Racism, this is though an encyclopedia and not a soap box or News Paper.It Seems 3 people think the article as already on the Leadership election Page is fine as it is. And I am asking for the Shahrar Ali Paragraph to be reverted to that which is on this page when a more balance but perhaps longer paragraph is agrred on by a consensus process. I hope we can do that, without further silly jibes, I am not a Green Party Member and whats more have absolutely no political party affiliations and my Religous convictions lie in Orthodox Judaism. Given that is the case I trust we can move on the getting these articles up to snuff.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, in his 2009 speech, Ali linked Operation Cast Lead with Holocaust Memorial Day. That's a matter of public record, and mentioning that in Wikipedia is to record a fact, not to promote a slant. The motives of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, Left Foot Forward or anyone else in making their comments are not relevant: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for debate. Please restrict your comments to the Wikipedia article – see WP:NOT. Headhitter (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter Is it not somewhat odd that the CAA do not have a mention of these allegations on its own, very professional and informative web site. The LFF article is a confection of considerable bile and journalistic failure. A controversy exists but the Allegations from CAA are not of Anti Semitism they concern what is considered by their Anonymous spokesperson to be " an Offensive rant". To quote Gertrude Stein, "There is no there-there". The Page on the leadership article should stand as it is, there seems to be consensus for that. On the Shahrar Ali page, I have asked for a Consensus procedure to be put in place, My strong view is that the Two paragraphs should be the same as the current shorter paragraph here which already has 3 votes. RogerGLewis (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Gursimran Hans quotation

Headhitter added this. I think this is more than is needed and is a bit tangential: why does this person's opinion in particular matter? RogerGLewis appears to object to it too. So, shall we keep that out? Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes: I'm happy to concede on that. Headhitter (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Following on from the bottom of the discussion Headhitter

Currently we have ,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog after a video resurfaced of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali 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."[11] The Green Party of England and Wales said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that it is seeking to revise procedures.[10]

I propose this,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog regarding a heavily edited video of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali 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."[11] A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.” LFF understands that the party executive will be debating whether to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the coming weeks. RogerGLewis (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis, I don't accept your proposal. I've accepted the deletion of the Gursimran Hans quotation. You've objected to my (and User:Hopeandreason's) inclusion of Ali's reference to the Holocaust. But you haven't deleted anything; indeed you're seeking to expand the coverage given to the Green Party's response. Not good enough, I'm afraid! Headhitter (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitterwell I suggest we seek consensus for our two proposals then , Also @@Timrollpickering: & @@Bondegezou: &@@Brianbbrian: & @@Ralbegen: could add contribs and refer to general editor page.

I would say the current (top) version is adequate, it states the accusation and gives Ali and the Green Party a right of reply. I doubt LFF describeds the video as heavily edited. Facebook isn't an adequate source for a lengthy Green party quote. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, you haven't made any concessions at all. Do you have any understanding of what consensus on Wikipedia means? Headhitter (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter Yes I know rather a lot about consensus, I have made concessions in that I think the entry on the Shahrah Ali Page should be the same as on the Leadership Page. Can we do the process please rather than just making silly accusations? RogerGLewis (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, in what sense is my statement a "silly accusation"? You say you "have made concessions". How many and what are they, please? Headhitter (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter This is a consensus process not an Interogation on Me by you. Please can you just vote on the two options, or a third which is to add the short version adopted here which already has a Consensus.

Third Option.* On 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 they labelled an “offensive rant”.[14] Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government".[15] 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.[16] This paragraph or one of the two above. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Due to an ongoing dispute (see [[@@Bondegezou: can you do the necessary please ]]), I am holding off myself from editing this article and would like to request the following edit be made to the "Shahrar Ali Article per discussions." Controversy Anti – Semitism.section of the article:

Currently we have ,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog after a video resurfaced of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali 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."[11] The Green Party of England and Wales said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that it is seeking to revise procedures.[10]

I propose this,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog regarding a heavily edited video of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali 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."[11] A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.” LFF understands that the party executive will be debating whether to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the coming weeks. RogerGLewis (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This is just timewasting. What have you changed from the previous suggestion above? Why not continue the discussion above rather than repeat your request? Sionk (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sionk talk Concensus on Wikipedia is a process, This is how the process works it takes time. I placed the Present part of the discussion here as this is where Headhitter's last comment directed my attention.

RogerGLewis, I've said (see the Gursimran Hans quotation section above) that I'm prepared to concede on the Gursimran Hans quotation and to leave it out altogether. What are you offering? Headhitter (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You have simply repeated your request which is already being discussed above. Sionk (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ali's response

Ralbegen has suggested a shorter version. RogerGLewis agrees. I do too. Make it so. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Are we awaiting a formal response from the Party?

RogerGLewis wants to add, "The Green Party of England and Wales are still formulating a formal response". I find the claims that sources support that to be weak. I say we leave it out. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou I object to the characterisation of the JC and Times quotes as weak, the LFF article and allegations are very weak and yet that is the basis of the whole paragraph. Please institute a formal adjudication or delineate how the matter is to be put to a vote. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I might add the same JC article is the basis for the existing statement which you find perfectly acceptable Bondegezou The Times article backs up the key part of the JC Green Party Quote and that is that the matter is yet to be formally responded to. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying the sources are weak. I'm saying your interpretation of the sources as supporting your wording is weak. They do not. Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou The article says what it says why is it quoted selectively? The paragraph from the times seems to me to cover all the bases "A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.” RogerGLewis (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dr Ali has quoted the Times article in full He ( Dr Ali ) Says "Yesterday the Times ran a piece on my 2009 speech, which I reproduce in full below simply because the journalist is to be commended for providing context for quoted matter almost at every turn and states an accusation without necessarily giving credence to it."

That a conversation is ongoing (or was ongoing at the time of that article), which is what the article says, does not mean that the party are still formulating a formal response, which is your interpretation. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou The article says what it says The times wording is objective, the JC article particularly the selective quotation in the proposed wording of Headhitter, leaves a subjective slant. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis: In what way have I quoted "selectively" from the JC? Please explain how else you think I should have quoted. Headhitter (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

HeadhitterYou selected parts of what was quoted that is quoting selectively. The Times Quote covers all the basis in a NPOV way that is why I prefer it.

This,"On 3 August 2018, "an article on the Left Foot Forward blog criticised a speech Ali had made in January 2009 during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, in which he referenced the Holocaust when criticising Israel's actions in Gaza; the Campaign Against Antisemitism called the speech anti-semitic and an "offensive rant" Or This, "On 3 August 2018, an article on the Left Foot Forward blog criticised a speech Ali had made in January 2009,Dr Ali denies the accusations referring his own followers on Social Media to the Article in the Times on 11 August. "A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.” With the links and so forth people can view the Video, and consider the whole episode in context without selective quotes privelidging one viewpoint or another. RogerGLewis (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to keep the existing phrasing as is. It seems a good summary of what all the various sources include. Ralbegen (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The 'elephant in the room' question is, does it matter what the Green Party response to anti-semitism is? The article here is about the leadership campaign, and the paragraph is about accusations levelled at Ali. By far the most important response should be the one from Ali himself. Sionk (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sionk agreed Ralbegen agreed although tempered by what Sionk says RogerGLewis (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ralbegen, for clarity, you concur then with omitting RogerGLewis' "still formulating" sentence?

Sionk, as I've said before, it makes sense for me for this issue to get more coverage at the Shahrar Ali article than here, but it does matter what the Green Party's response to the allegations against Ali is. It clearly impacts the leadership campaign if the Party formally admonishes one of the candidates, should they do that. Ali's response should be covered, but is obviously what he would say. What the Green Party says (or doesn't say) about the matter is more significant. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ralbegen I accept the Semantic point that still formulating is an interpretation, "Ongoing conversation" is what it says. The Quote from the GP is anonymous or unattributed, Ameilia Womack is Spokesperson for Culture and Media and The appropriate Green spokes person. I prefer the Times article to the others cited but the short existiing entry on the page now is I think adequate. The Shahrar Ali entry needs a lot of work, as drafted it is Biased and requires more discussion in my opinion.FOr now I think it should be limited to what is on the Leadership page until a consensus process is properly initiated and resolved. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou see repsponse to Ralbegen above. Please could you set up a consensus procedure for the Shahrar Ali Page, The present entry is very unsatisfactory and I think should be replaced by what is in the Leadership Article until the consensus procedure is resolved. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou, yes, I agree with omission of the "still formulating" sentence. If the party hadn't made a response, the articles would say "the party was contacted for comment, but provided no response" or something like that. The fact that the party has entered into a conversation with the CAA supports the existing phrasing that the party is seeking to update its procedures. Ralbegen (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Pippa Bartolotti Deputy leader of the Wales Green Party has spoken out about the likliehood/suspicion that Dr Alis opponents were seeking to make political Capital by encouraging these allegations against him. From this it should not escape our attention that the Green party will likely be having enquiries ither than those about who and who is not Anti-Semetic.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's speculation on your part, User:RogerGLewis, and is not relevant to the discussion. Please focus on what should be included in the Wikipedia article. Headhitter (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

See above "To quote Gertrude Stein, "There is no there-there". The Page on the leadership article should stand as it is, there seems to be consensus for that. On the Shahrar Ali page, I have asked for a Consensus procedure to be put in place, My strong view is that the Two paragraphs should be the same as the current shorter paragraph here which already has 3 votes. RogerGLewis (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss Shahrar Ali's article. You can link to this discussion there, but I don't think that there're any remaining areas of contention for this section of this article. Ralbegen (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ralbegen, Bondegezou asked for both discussions to be carried out here,( Relevant discussion taking place at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Allegations_against_Ali_of_Anti_Semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)).

I have asked for the consensus process to be instituted for that poage now.Mean while I have read all the comments on The LFF Blog This one is actually quite correct and perhaps that is why Dr Ali's Offensive Rant, Has not been featured either in the news feed or special section on actual Green Party Anti-semitism or indeed in their Twitter feed.

  El Dee  Gav Electrofried • 10 days ago

I agree, kinda. Firstly, the article is incorrect in it's assertion. The speaker make NO COMPARISON OF ISRAEL TO NAZISM. You need to actively listen to what is being said, context is everything and it is not given in the article. So even under the most stringent of definitions the speaker says nothing anti-Semitic. Whilst agreeing that there is not mention of Israel's activities, please don't make this about that. That is a TRAP. It is entirely possible to criticise Israeli Government action without criticising Jewish people and even Israeli citizens (indeed the speaker praises those Israeli 'Refusnik's' who disagree with their government's actions. If you allow your response to be purely a criticism of Israeli policy then you allow those who write these articles to frame you as an anti-Semite. Don't fall for it. As I have said, the speaker say nothing anti-Semitic under the most stringent definitions – either both the author and the complainants are INCREDIBLY sloppy or this is an attempt to smear him and prevent genuine, open and honest debate & criticism of a country's political policies.. refComment is by El Dee , linking not allowed by wikipedia Bots. ref RogerGLewis (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bondegezou, but I'm fairly certain that they're linking to a related discussion for people to refer to on the Shahrar Ali talk page rather than asking for discussion of the contents of a different page to be discussed here. Ralbegen (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Bondegezou can clarify, both Headhitter and I complied with the last request on that Talk Page, hence the continued discussion here. RogerGLewis (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis, please explain why you have deleted the Jewish Chronicle reference and replaced it witn a bare url: this is bizarre and is not a step forward! Headhitter (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

talk I undid that if you look at history you will need to ask 20:44, 14 August 2018‎ Hopeandreason (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,908 bytes) (+185)‎ . . (Inserted full reference in place of bare url) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs)

Headhitter sorry that last edit was in reply to you also forgot to sign RogerGLewis (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, I'm assuming that Hopeandreason was unaware of our discussion on this Talk page when they made their edit, buit you still haven't explained why you prefer having a bare url to having a full reference. No Wikipedia article should have bare urls – it's poor editing. Headhitter (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter yes it seems Hopeandreason must have been unaware of this discussion. On the bare URL soryy about bare url, I mistook what had been replaced by what, I am very pleased to learn and stick by the Wikipedia rules by all means put it back, how it got there I do not know, if it was me it was a mistake. Can we move to a consensus process on the Dr Ali article now, here or there as you prefer. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new version

I'm happy with what Bondegezou is proposing as a way forward – and I'm grateful to Bondegezou for devoting so much time and bringing such clear thinking to this issue. Headhitter (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, I've said (see the Gursimran Hans quotation section above) that I'm prepared to concede on the Gursimran Hans quotation and to leave it out altogether. What are you offering? Headhitter (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording: "In 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 in the Gaza to the Holocaust. In an article published on the Left Foot Forward blog, the Campaign Against Antisemitism described Ali's 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 had been inadequate and that the Party is seeking to revise procedures. Hopeandreason (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis and Bondegezou, I'd be happy to support this formulation from Hopeandreason. Headhitter (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly off the 'Net for a couple of weeks, so don't expect more input from me, but am happy with this formulation too. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You can add me to the editors happy with Hope..'s proposed revision. It gives an explanation as to what the offending comments were, helping the reader, as well as referencing the Times, which in the case of an allegation such as this is helpful as indicating a reliable source. MapReader (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is for what is already on the page for the leadership article and 3 proposals are on the table for replacing the current entry on the Shahriar Ali Article.I do not support the Hopeandreason formulation on either page it is only telling half the story of the GP response which is much better reported ion the article of 11th August in the times. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, how do you come to the conclusion that "The consensus is for what is already on the page"? User:Hopeandreason's formulation has the support of myself, Bondegezou and, of course, User:Hopeandreason. I think that indicates a clear way forward. Headhitter (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter see this above.

  I'd be very happy to keep the existing phrasing as is. It seems a good summary of what all the various sources include. Ralbegen (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The 'elephant in the room' question is, does it matter what the Green Party response to anti-semitism is? The article here is about the leadership campaign, and the paragraph is about accusations levelled at Ali. By far the most important response should be the one from Ali himself. Sionk (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Sionk agreed Ralbegen agreed although tempered by what Sionk says RogerGLewis (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Ralbegen, for clarity, you concur then with omitting RogerGLewis' "still formulating" sentence? Sionk, as I've said before, it makes sense for me for this issue to get more coverage at the Shahrar Ali article than here, but it does matter what the Green Party's response to the allegations against Ali is. It clearly impacts the leadership campaign if the Party formally admonishes one of the candidates, should they do that. Ali's response should be covered, but is obviously what he would say. What the Green Party says (or doesn't say) about the matter is more significant. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, there are now four editors on this Talk page who think that we should adopt Hopeandreason's wording at 21:41 on 18 August above – Headhitter, Hopeandreason, Mapreader (see posting today at 07:59) and Bondegezou (who said at 13:01 yesterday that they were happy with Hopeandreason's formulation: this, their latest, comment overrides what they said on 14 August). I have conceded on the Gursimran Hans quotation but you seem unwilling to make any concessions at all. As the majority of editors are supporting Hopeandreason's version, I therefore intend to revert the text to Hopeandreason's version. Headhitter (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter I am afraid you are confusing the issues and conflating discussions. This page the consensus is as I sate and the Position as to the Shahrar Ali Article is as per the options on the table in the paragraph above. Please stop straw-manning my position which has been very accommodating but does insist on balance in the article. Your not getting your own way does not constitute a lack of any compromise on the part of others. Please address the consensus process which I have initiated above add the Hope and Reason paragraph if you wish to the list and we can proceed to a formal vote to take effect when all editors have a chance to contribute. DO not revert anything at this stage that would be premature and an abuse of the process.RogerGLewis (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, it is established practice on Wikipedia to place Talk page comments at the bottom of the page. Other editors won't have a chance to contribute if you are expecting them to scroll through elsewhere to find out what it is you are proposing. Headhitter (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

New Section Move

Gursimran Hans quotation Headhitter added this. I think this is more than is needed and is a bit tangential: why does this person's opinion in particular matter? RogerGLewis appears to object to it too. So, shall we keep that out? Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes: I'm happy to concede on that. Headhitter (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Following on from the bottom of the discussion Headhitter Currently we have ,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog after a video resurfaced of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali 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."[11] The Green Party of England and Wales said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that it is seeking to revise procedures.[10]

I propose this,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog regarding a heavily edited video of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali 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."[11] A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.”[12] [13] [14] LFF understands that the party executive will be debating whether to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the coming weeks.[15] RogerGLewis (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis, I don't accept your proposal. I've accepted the deletion of the Gursimran Hans quotation. You've objected to my (and User:Hopeandreason's) inclusion of Ali's reference to the Holocaust. But you haven't deleted anything; indeed you're seeking to expand the coverage given to the Green Party's response. Not good enough, I'm afraid! Headhitter (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Headhitterwell I suggest we seek consensus for our two proposals then , Also @@Timrollpickering: & @@Bondegezou: &@@Brianbbrian: & @@Ralbegen: could add contribs and refer to general editor page. I would say the current (top) version is adequate, it states the accusation and gives Ali and the Green Party a right of reply. I doubt LFF describeds the video as heavily edited. Facebook isn't an adequate source for a lengthy Green party quote. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis, you haven't made any concessions at all. Do you have any understanding of what consensus on Wikipedia means? Headhitter (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Headhitter Yes I know rather a lot about consensus, I have made concessions in that I think the entry on the Shahrah Ali Page should be the same as on the Leadership Page. Can we do the process please rather than just making silly accusations? RogerGLewis (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis, in what sense is my statement a "silly accusation"? You say you "have made concessions". How many and what are they, please? Headhitter (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Headhitter This is a consensus process not an Interogation on Me by you. Please can you just vote on the two options, or a third which is to add the short version adopted here which already has a Consensus. Third Option.* On 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 they labelled an “offensive rant”.[14] Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government".[15] 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.[16] This paragraph or one of the two above. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I put this at that part of the section to distinguish between this page and the Shahrar Ali Page. This will have to go to a formal vote, please engage in the consensus process Headhitter, your discourse is bordering on disruptive and certainly is rude. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis (talk), I'm not prepared to engage further unless and until you apologise to me for ignoring WP:AGF. Headhitter (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter I will assume good faith if you apologise for your accusations and rudeness, Assuming good faith in the face of someone acting in bad faith seem rather in opposition to each other. Please, can we get on with the consensus process and put this matter to a formal vote. RogerGLewis (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, you are now accusing me of acting in bad faith. Please provide evidence for this accusation and explain what I have said or done that can reasonably be construed as being rude. Headhitter (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If you say you are acting in good faith and I am Mistaken That is good enough for me and I accept you at your word and Apologise for having mistaken a certain brusqueness for Rudeness and A slowness to acknowledge and participate in the consensus process as Bad faith. Can we now please get a sensible vote and schedule of that vote put in train? RogerGLewis (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that isn't an apology and this is no longer a discussion to achieve concensus. RogerGLewis is simply repeating the same proposal which several editors (including me) think is excessive. What is it going to achieve to repeat this all? We surely already have consensus to keep the existing shorter paragraph. Sionk (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sionk (talk), we don't have consensus for keeping the existing paragraph: please see my comment at 08:41, today's date, above. There are now four editors on this Talk page – Headhitter, Hopeandreason, Mapreader and Bondegezou – who think that we should adopt Hopeandreason's wording at 21:41 on 18 August above, which reads:

"In 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 in the Gaza to the Holocaust. In an article published on the Left Foot Forward blog, the Campaign Against Antisemitism described Ali's 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 had been inadequate and that the Party is seeking to revise procedures."

Headhitter (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So there is a proposal to include The Times as a source? Seems eminently sensible, The Times is a generally respectable, mainstream, non-tabloid source (though behind a paywall). Sionk (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Sionk, and also for helpfully adding the reflist-talk template. I don't think we'll be able to achieve consensus, but if you're prepared to support Hopeandreason's proposed version, then we now have a clear majority view. Headhitter (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also be happy with Hopeandreason's proposed version. It seems a constructive improvement on the status quo, adding more relevant and verifiable information. Ralbegen (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sionk This is a very long discussion and contrary to what you say this is a process trying to gain consensus. I prefer the shorter version already on the page and the Hope and reason paragraph seems to have some support. I certainly have no objection to the Hope and reason paragraph for inclusion on both the leadership page and the Shahrar Ali article. The discussion for both articles was directed here by Bondegezou.I think the Hope and Reason paragraph is innacurate in giving emphasis to the Green Party procedures of 2009, GP policy has been revised since 2009 and the CAA own web site has instances of similar accusations against GP candidates after the 2009 speech which was well known beofre the LFF article.When the Green party do or if they do respond officially then of course the Paragraphs can be updated accordingly as of now Could I suggest that the Hope and Reason wording is added to both pages as the Paragraph on the Shahrar Ali page does not have a consensus and no one else has been engaging in that discussion appart from Headhitter and I. RogerGLewis (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As it appears that there's now unanimous support for the Hopeandreason wording, or at least a strong consensus, I've gone ahead and implemented it. Ralbegen (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

References