David Collier (political activist)

David Collier (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails our notability guidelines, as of yet. The sole claim to fame is authoring some reports on alleged antisemitism which, as Selfstudier says, is not significantly covered outside of the usual suspects [in Israeli media] that habitually round robin [such] news between them. NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as evidenced by the sources in the article. Notability is determined by the amount of 3rd party coverage, not by his "qualifications" or by being an expert, and there is tons of such non-trivial coverage, in high quality publications such as The Guardian, The BBC, ,The Times, The Jerusalem Post and others. This is not some "random blogger", but an independent researcher whose work has ben used by the British Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue a scathing report on antisemitism in the Labour party which resulted in high ranking members being suspended or leaving the party, it has been featured in several UK parliamentary discussions, and cited by the US Dept. of State in a report on religious freedom in the UK. The sources listed cover a period of more than 3 years, and include peer-reviewed academic papers which cite his research favorably. This is a clear indication that WP:NEWS does not apply Inf-in MD (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTNEWS apply to events not people Shrike (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThis person is a non expert and non notable blogger (see self description here), not a political activist (the page should have been disambiguated at David Collier). Article has 2 incoming links, one from a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard initiated by the article creator (the article appears to have been created merely in order to support a content dispute at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign article) and the other from Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party where the article creator added material that probably has zero weight. Reliable independent sources do not cite this person for his views, his principal claim to fame, afaics, is for attacks on Wikipedia itself (as well as some of its editors).Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply false: [1] Inf-in MD (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blog as well. The usual crowd (4 of the articles 8 refs are the Jewish Chronicle) flogging the antisemitism horse to death. Here he is, at http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11737.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:NEWSBLOG, written by a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. And there are many other sources in the article, including the BBC and the Guardian, all of them about his anti-Semitism reports, none about his criticism of Wikipedia. You have clearly not read the article before commenting here.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cited a blog, not an expert Here's a different blog with the other side of this not news story (this one is at least semi reliable per RSN)Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a WP:NEWSBLOG. And there are a dozen of other, non blog sources, read the article before commenting here Inf-in MD (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All discussed at the NPOV noticeboard where there is a virtual consensus that this person is non notable, bring your views there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ToI blog is not a NEWSBLOG as we define it. It's hosted by the paper, but anyone can apply to have a ToI blog and the paper has no editorial control. I think therefore it counts as an SPS, although possibly written by an expert (not sure about the relevance of his expertise). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could be (though I wonder, if a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is not a notable expert on anti-semitism, who is?) , but is a side issue, really. There are nearly 2 dozen other high quality sources in the article with significant coverage. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single source that provides any amount of coverage of the subject of the article. There is coverage of some of his blog posts and the reaction to them. Nothing about the subject of the article. You may not use a supposed biography of a living person as a WP:COATRACK for his opinions. nableezy - 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, ToI very specifically disclaims any responsibility or editorial control over the blogs, making them not WP:NEWSBLOG but WP:SPS, and making moot that entire bit of handwaving. See their terms where it says Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. nableezy - 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obviously. And possibly block creator per WP:POINT. But to the point of the AFD, we have a biography with no biographical details of the person. We dont have a birth date, we dont have if he went to school, where he went to school, we dont have info on any personal details. We have an editor who wishes to use a random blogger as a source so made this WP:POINT and BLP violating article. Collier himself is not covered anywhere, a couple of his blog posts have been covered. If any of those posts reach our GNG there can be an article on them, but on the person there is quite literally no substantive coverage on him anywhere. Delete, and sanction the creator. nableezy - 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do we make articles about non-notable bloggers now? The only thing that this article can ever be is a platform for promoting Collier and his opinions. Bob drobbs created this article with the comment "David Collier is notable now" when faced with multiple opinions at NPOVN that he isn't notable. Bob drobbs needs to learn that notability leads to articles, not the other way around. Zero^talk 14:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meet WP:GNG per sources presented here and article. WP:NEWS doesn't apply as it not event Shrike (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial mentions in a dozen publications do not GNG make. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not trivial mentions, but full-length stories covering his reporting, in depth [2] [3] [4]. Take the time to read before posting obviously false information. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Jewish Chronicle" is not considered to be reliable for post-2010 reporting and on issues concerned with Left and Palestine. Lines like [t]he research, by prominent research David Collier, [...] speaks volumes about the journalistic quality of the outlet.
  Algemeiner Journal Top 100 Jews of 2017 - Seriously, that is among your three best sources?
  A blog on Times of Israel is not reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Algemeiner is neither a trivial mention , nor is it an unreliable source. I don't know if it is the best soruce among the more than two dozen in the article, but it clearly disproves you claim that all mentions are "Trivial mentions" or from unreliable sources. This would be a trivial mention (not used in the article). This is not. I think the difference is clear. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you. One of his reports was the focus of a Jerusalem Post article. That's clearly not a "trivial mention". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: And please do not misrepresent what is said in the list of perennial sources. Nowhere does it say that Jewish Chronicle is not considered reliable post 2010. The text is: "There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting.. It also says that there's general consensus that it's biased on topics like this one, and that in line attribution is recommended, but it doesn't call for exclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Nableezy said, they do not speak about him at all. Do we know any damn thing about the subject? Any random report on antisemitism has its usual coverage in Israeli media. What is special about this case?

Nobody is misrepresenting anything. Is this news pre-2010? In-line attribution is as good as exclusion, as practice goes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not reliable" is strictly correct if one needs to attribute. Is there an Irish report about the Irish report? Or a report from anywhere apart from the usual suspects that habitually round robin the news between them.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the process of researching a related topic, I encountered info about someone who did not have a page. It was my opinion that coverage about him and his research collectively passed the bar for notability so I created the page. That case has been reinforced by other editors adding sources. Regarding the claim that his "sole claim to fame is authoring some reports on alleged antisemitism", how is that relevant? If an author's work, on any topic, gets widespread international coverage that can pass the bar for notability.

As for the idea that he should be deleted because he's a "random blogger" or "non-notable blogger", RS determine notability and "blogger" is not how they generally describe him: JP: "journalist", Guardian: "pro-Israel campaigner", JC: "antisemitism researcher", HeraldScotland: "blogger and activist", IsraelHayom: "investigative journalist", TOI: "journalist", JewishJournal: "investigative journalist", Algemeiner: "pro-Israel activist" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That there are so many descriptions ought to tell you something. And none of those match your OR "political activist". Reports by experts are one thing (for example, Mark Rich is considered an antisemitism expert) but reports by an "antisemitism researcher" don't carry the same weight.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source offers any coverage of David Collier at all. What's his birthday? Did he go to college? Does he have brothers or sisters? Where was he born? Where does he live? What does he do for a living? There is literally zero information about David Collier in the article or in any of the sources. This is just silly, and even if he were "notable", he still is not a reliable source and this is not going to change if his blog gets covered in any of the places you want it covered. A WP:POINT violation and an utter abject waste of time. You did not "encounter info" about any person, because there is literally no information about the person on that page besides he has a blog. You dont even have a source saying that this is his real name. nableezy - 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that seems relevant to me here is to what degree RS speak about him and his work. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They do not speak about him at all is the point. Do you think this is actually a biography? When you have zero biographical material other than him saying he was born sometime in the 60s? nableezy - 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Collier is tight-lipped about his own life. But, as one of the few critics who have analysed his modus operandi noted, he is known to make profiles of human rights activists present at conferences where Israel and Palestine are discussed by raking up 'info', quoted out of context, that casts them all as anti-Israel ergo anti-Zionist ergo anti-Semitic. These 'proscriptive lists' then spread through the internet, poisoning the well of rational analysis. Of course he would be delighted to have a page on wiki to attest his notability, despite the fact that he despises it as full of anti-Semitic types. One of his criteria for defining an anti-Semite is, apparently, the use of the word 'apartheid' in the context in which Israel is discussed. By that criterion, the three major NGOs, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tselem are, as of 2020, anti-Semitic. When a blogger defines anti-Semitism that narrowly, everyone comes under suspicion as a potential 'Jew hater' simply for worrying about things like the demolition of 50,000 Palestinian homes over the last decades, while immigrant settlements on stolen land flourish.Let him blog away, but his views are not notable, at least to serious scholarship of the kind an encyclopedia covers. There are a million frenetic and frantic conspiratorial thesis pushers blogging out there, seeing bad faith and evil under every suburban rug. This junk posturing has a polemic function, but has no durability, unlike the work of people like Daniel Staetsky ('Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel,' Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2017, who, unlike the Colliers of this world, found no significant correlation between concern for human rights in Israel and anti-Semitism. Staetsky is a sociologist, not someone who blogs 'indefatigably' and asks for funding. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously. Besides being non-notable, the article is horribly unbalanced. Lol: "has been described as an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner" ...he has been described in many, many other ways, too, "somewhat" less flattering. Alas, I cannot repeat many of them here, as I risk violating our BLP-rules. (Can I mention the word "toxic"?) The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those descriptions come from RS: The Jerusalem Post called him a "investigative journalist", Algemeir called him a "pro-Israel activist", and op-ed in the Middle East Eye called him a "citizen journalist". If any RS spoke about him in "less flattering" terms, then it seems those could and probably should be included too. I don't understand your claims of bias when the article seems to accurately reflect how RS are describing him. Your complaint seems rooted in the idea that criticism from completely non-reliable sources isn't included, and thus this article is unbalanced?? If you have any RS that speak about Collier in less flattering terms, please share. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you used Middle East Eye, now. It contains the following remark:

"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018

The word 'Palestinianism' has since Edward Said's day been used to describe the Palestinian struggle to have their national identity recognized, and their rights to their land accepted (as they are in international law). Collier describes that national desire, perfectly mirroring the Zionist aspiration for the recognition of Jewish rights in IsraelPalestine, 'a disease that is anathema to freedom one that 'infects' people with anti-Semitism. I see your paraphrase totally ignores this extraordinary absurd statement. In Collier's words above, it is normal for Jews to desire to have a national home: it is pathological for Palestinians, who existed there prior to Zionism, to have the same feeling. That statement is notable for its asinine failure to reason logically. This is the intellectual level of the blogger we are asserting is notable. For whom? Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: What does any of that have to do with this AFD? if you prefer to word "disease" instead of "cult" and "ponzi scheme" as currently written in the article, then take it to the talk page for the article or just edit the article. Don't drag these sorts of squabbles in here!

And it is 110% inappropriate for us to make judgments about deleting a page based on our interpretations of a living person's "intellectual level" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about the British Parliament? This official report reject most of what Collier claimed about a so-called "an anti-Semitic event in Parliament", Huldra (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize, that whether the British Parliament accepted or rejected most of his claims the very fact that they were the subject of an official report is evidence of his notability. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was only because the Israeli ambassador Mark Regev accepted the Collier rubbish, that the British Parliament took it seriously, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, ad argummentum, that you are correct, that only further establishes his notability - So notable that the Israeli ambassador took his report seriously, and took it to the UK parliament which also took it seriously, and got them to investigate it. Not exactly "some random blogger'. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to assume, you can read the report. The UK parliament is obliged to take seriously any rubbish that an ambassador to St James's spreads; that doesn't make the rubbish (or the rubbish-maker) notable. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt what determines notability. Notability is significant coverage of the topic of the article in reliable sources. Is the topic of the article Collier? What sources provide any significant coverage of him? Would be great if you could quote one giving for instance where he went to school. Or his birth year. nableezy - 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the topic of this article, and I created it, it's David Collier, his activism, and his writing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So youre admitting to making a supposed biography of a living person as a coatrack for his political activism in his blog? Exactly why you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE. nableezy - 22:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]