Talk:Aaron Porter

Uncited additions

Recently a fair bit of uncited content has been added, this material may well be correct and doesn't look contensius but it does still require supporting WP:RS as soon as possible or it is in danger of being removed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

'significant impact'? This seems subjective and should be supported properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsur (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

x

Removal of criticism

I'd like to challenge the user who has repeatedly removed any referenced criticism of Porter from within the student and union movement. Understandably, the user does not believe that such criticisms are notable enough for inclusion, but I would have to respectfully disagree. It comes across that any criticism of Porter is simply being instantaneously removed, thereby portraying him in an excessively positive light. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

Ah you found the talkpage, great. Not notable criticism is just that, Jonny student didn't want this and some other not notable studant didn't like that, its not worth reporting, it is coatracking and belongs on another article not this one, the subject was not at millbank and the detail from there should not be coatracked here. This subject was involved in a peaceful demo and the other stuff belomngds elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But what these "non notable students" - and I would contest this, for they are writing for published sources - is doing is criticising Porter's attitude to the whole situation. The NUS president has made his condemnation of the Millbank situation quite clear, and it is only fair to display criticism of his public statements by others. Besides, this article is hardly long, and this small addition of information will not make it in any way excessively so. Porter is a public figure involved in politics, it is downright POV and biased to keep removing criticism of him. It could make people suspect that you are Porter hismelf or a big fan of his, wanting to portray him in the best possible light (I'm not accusing you of this, but surely you can see how this could be construed). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

I don't care about the subject just the content, Millbank is nothing to do with him and undue commentary about it and such does not belong here. Some opinionated not notable students editorial is also not a quality citation for this BLP. Jonny student said he wanted more militancy and that Porter was a government lackey is worthless unnoticeable criticism of a living person, keep it in the demo article, not here. Who is the most notable person that has criticized Porter and in the strongest source, we can add that and the reasons they criticized Porter.Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But the criticism is not just about his attitude to the Millbank situation, it is about Porter directly. Therefore it should belong on this page, and not on that regarding the protest (where, if it was added, it would surely be removed as not directly relevant). Besides, your claims that "Millbank is nothing to do with him" displays a failure to acknowledge his role in the demonstration as a whole. As the NUS president, he was directly responsible for much of the protest. When a large group of protestors proceeded to occupy the Millbank Tower, he was very vocal in denouncing them, and because of this, was criticised by various other figures within the student-union movement. This is worth noting. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

He is not responsible for any of the millbank issue at all. Any one would be critical of the violence and thousands of notable people have also as Porter did criticized the violence.Critism of Porter himself, really, its all related to Millbank and the violence, Porter is uninvolved apart from denouncing it. Who is the most notable person that is critical of Porter and why are they critical of him and is it is a strong widely published citation? Post it here and we have a look at it and can discuss it. I see you have put it in the demo article, great, at least it is not here in his WP:BLP, thanksOff2riorob (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll try and find a more notable critic of Porter. And regarding your assertion that "Any one would be critical of the violence" - well, just look at much of the evidence on the 2010 student protest in London page and you’ll see how many are actually supportive of it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

Cool, I am not a fan of porter and if there is some noteworthy criticism of him I will also be looking to add it. I think the demo article is getting out of control and I likely wouldn't get past the first paragraph, such is the trouble with such articles when they are fresh users come along randomly sticking all sorts in it is as I have seen better to let them get on with it and when the dist has settled, go back and clean it up. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I was listening to a future MP there!

I do not see the merit of Andrew Neil's off-hand quote being included; it has an unhealthy whiff of bias. It is sufficient in the article to state that Porter has been relatively visible on national television, in interviews and so on. Not to indicate the favourable opinion of a sole newscaster after just such an appearance has taken place stating that he could, indeed, become a future MP. The article, with the inclusion of this quote, is then implicitly portraying Porter as capable on television when, in actuality, it should not make a value judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.157.67 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just a simple quote from Andrew , I don't see any problem with it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A simple quote, yes, but one that portrays Porter in a favourable light - indicating that he is sufficiently media-savvy to be considered future MP material. That is not pertinent to this article, it is bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.157.67 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn'yt want to portray him in a negative light would we. It is a notable comment. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, that's for himself to do, but the removal of the comment wouldn't therefore render the article negative. It'd render it neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.157.67 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I just get from you that you don't like him and you don't like this quote, wiki isn't for such opinionated edits to remove content that you feel might reflect positively on the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am striving for a semblance of neutrality - that is what Wiki is for - my opinions are an irrelevancy, as are those of Andrew Neil, which serve as a virtual endorsement. The quote very definitely reflects positively on Porter. I invite other users to echo this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.157.67 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Distortion of discussions?

The article reads: "that the distortion of the discussions was 'political desperation from a coalition government losing the arguments on its own policies'" with reference to the leaked emails between Porter and the Business Secretary and his response. In this case the article is conceding the NUS's point that the discussions were indeed distorted, a biased position because it reflects wholeheartedly that which is taken by the NUS. Again, the article should not seek to make a value judgement. Whether the discussion was distorted or not is a debate to be held elsewhere, or if not elsewhere, then, at the very least in the article, cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.157.67 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the content is now quite balanced. The actual issue is clearly a political attempt to make Porter appear a liar, using unnamed spokesperson and such weak claims. So it is important to state Porters response. Its like this, the print supporter of the government reported the evening before the vote thart they had some leaked mails that Porter was a liar and that Porter supported the government according to an unnamed government insider, its rubbish really, partisan rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the quote was direct from a published source, I would argue that the content was balanced before the edits. I note that you have deleted specifically the subsection titled "Criticisms" and instead included the paragraph in the sub-section on Aaron Porter's presidency. Not only does the language in your specific comments highlight that you have a vested interest in maintaining Mr Porter's record, it suggests that you cannot yourself determine what is balanced and what is not balanced. The Telegraph has criticised the government previously for its decisions and will do so in future. Partisan, it is not.83.100.157.67 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about Porter, I am totally not involved at all. I am a wiki editor roaming around willy nilly , I have been editing this article and helping to keep the standards up since its creation. I have no vested interest in the subject at all, I am the personification of neutrality. As for the press, we can agree to differ on the partisan nature of their neutrality. As for the content in its own controversy section was totally undue, actually it is so typical partisan attack with no depth in factuality that it has no long term encyclopedic value in his life story at all and in the coming days I will look to remove it altogether.Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of racist abuse

The suggestion of racist abuse in Manchester, is sourced from the Daily Mail article, which in turn states that this is uncorrborated allegation from a single individual. I don't know the rules for wikipedia well enough. Can someone who does look at this? I think that this is contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russet apples (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's for the best that we omit the reference to alleged racism until somebody can confirm that it did happen. Wikipedia is supposed to give people facts, not rumours. Richard A - 04:05 30 January 2011 (UTC)

every other press agency said the crowd was chanting "you're a tory too" only the daily mail which by the way is a tory paper reported that the croud chanted "fucking tory jew" he is a dispicable scab but that is because of his politics not his liniageJessicaevens (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the cited source (and thus the Wikipedia article), his mother is from Trinidad and his father a London-raised policeman. Is there even any evidence that he's Jewish? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. according to the British Birth Records, his mother's maiden name is "Hosein", which does not exactly inspire thoughts of Judaism, to put it one way. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, she is cited also as from Trinidad - not a place with a large population of Jews By the mid 1950s the Jewish community reached its peak at around 700 people - today between 25-67 - Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This Union of Jewish Students news item does imply Porter is Jewish: "[UJS is] delighted to report another successful NUS conference for Jewish students. ... UJS was especially pleased to see the re-elections of ... Aaron Porter to the full-time executive".[1] Also the UJS funded Porter a 2007 visit to Israel.[2] Not sure this is notable or certain enough for the article though - except maybe as background to the already cited Jewish Chronicle article that sources the UJS for condemning the claimed anti-semitic abuse. Rwendland (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

i do believe he is jewish, if you read his twitter he mentions going to Holocaust Rememberance Event's check http://twitter.com/aaronporter Jessicaevens (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The source for "Tory Jew" was the Daily Telegraph not the Mail. The Mail reports both "Tory Too" and "Tory Jew". These would be considered reliable sources. NBeale (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tory too, tory jew, lets just keep it simple and keep the anti semetic add ons out of the report, basically some students want to be more militant and that the story, silly name calling and egg throwing is now the main event. We actually don't have any details of Arron's alleged Jewishness - in the article his mother and father are mentioned but no mention of Jew, his Mother was from Trinidad. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jessica, one can commemmorate the victims of the holocaust without being oneself a jew... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I do agree that we don't have a WP:RS that he is Jewish (though most people in the UK would guess that someone called Aaron Porter was Jewish in the same way that they would guess someone called Hamish Brown was scottish) but his actual ethnic origin is beside the point. Some, but not all, of his opponents made an issue of it in Manchester, and at least 2 WP:RSs picked this up as headline news. NBeale (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sky News also reports that he was subjected to "anti-Semitic insults". Though this article, the only one in the Jewish Chronicle that refers to Porter, implies suggests {see below} that he is "someone from outside our community" NBeale (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that in reference to Wes Streeting? "As conference closed, it was with sadness that I listened to my friend and colleague Wes Streeting's leaving speech. It has been a long time since we have seen someone from outside our community take such personal responsibility for the welfare of Jewish students." Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I meant "implies" in the non-mathematical sense of "suggests". Amended accordingly. NBeale (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is not in reference to Porter at all—it is in reference to Streeting. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

< The FT [reports http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18b1b5b6-2bdf-11e0-a14f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CcYqFJh9] that 'Mr Porter told NUS members in an e-mail: “Just before the march started, I was surrounded by a particularly vicious minority of protesters more intent on shouting threatening and racist abuse at me rather than focusing on the issues'. NBeale (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like he has said that although, he appears to be on a sinking ship and there are reports that he is using the mis representation of the issue in an attempt to gain support though the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What reports? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there are quite a few expounding that opinion - this one alleges that the two men chanting this were two men of Asian descent and were immediately surrounded by students chanting no no to racists. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/473091.html

No reliable sources then? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can google and read what is going on in the involved discussion field and reliable citations will likely follow as tweets and reporters pick up and report the story. Personally I don't accept an unconfirmed claim in a daily mail article that some unnamed photographer thought he heard tory jew as a reliable source at all either. Porters opponent Clare Solomon the self appointed leader of the activism fraction has in our BLP about her, a previous history of cited anti semitic statements. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttals etc.

We can't have stuff like "according to one un-named photographer" and "but other reports don't mention X". On the first point, there are multiple WP:RS reports and they don't say that their source is "one un-named photographer". Porter himself is also reported in a [[WP:RS as saying he had "racist abuse" (see above). On the second, we never can expect everting in every report. NBeale (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole story goes back to the daily mail claim clearly attributed in their article to an unnamed photographer. Also please don't remove it was a small section of the crowd - there were an estimated 3000 people there and an estimated 100 that surrounded him. You also removed the reason they have issues with him regarding the more militant group of students, if you dispute that is true please say so on the talkpage and or add a cite required tag. if you think it is unsupported in the current cites and I will add more cites as they are not chanting at him for nothing or even if it is true it wasn't just un provoked anti semitic behavior was it.Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Off2riorob you must stop this reverting. Rightly or wrongly there are 4 WP:RS reports of anti-semitic abuse. Because you are up in arms about this they need to be in. I know that some people on the blogosphere dispute this - for all I know they may be right - but in WP we deal in what RSs say not in what we think might/must have happened. Wage your student politics campaign elsewhere NBeale (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

They are not even sources, they are all re-reporting what the daily mail reported which makes the daily mail the source not them and the daily mail sites an un named photographer as there source so there is only 1 true source and that is an unnamed photographer, there are many videos available of what happened on youtube and not one shows any evidence of any anti semetic abuse94.168.210.8 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mail, the Telegraph and the Guardian are reliable sources in the context of what is reported here. They are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as WP:RS requires. So no amount of amateur analysis on the part of a Wikipedia editor in an attempt to discredit them is going to make any difference to that. Why you assume that two out those three papers had no reporters at the rally, or that their reporters couldn't hear what was clear enough to anyone there, is baffling. If you're not satisfied with that, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Should an equally reliable source be found which directly tells us that nobody was chanting "Tory Jew", then we get to report both sides by attributing them to their sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#A simple formulation if you don't understand the difference between facts that are undisputed among reliable sources, and opinions. In the meanwhile, I'd ask responsible editors to remove on sight any unsourced speculation, synthesis, and pov-pushing based on blogs or other non-reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable or non-reliable source?

International Business Times. I'm being reverted here with the edit summary comment: "not a reliable enough source for such a claim". Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• - The article - http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/106692/20110130/uk-students-tuition-rally.htm

An unnamed article in a minor reliable source is not a strong enough source for a ethnic or religious claim. :As is under discussion above - the minor chanting of either tory to or tory jew is unworthy of our reporting, it is enough to report he was heckled by a few students. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it a "minor" reliable source? It is simply a reliable source. From where do you derive the special treatment you are according "ethnic or religious claim[s]"? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Any addition of personal claims such as race or ethnicity or religion should be sourced to the highest quality support. Its not a high quality source of the type that I personally would like to see for such a claim - the writer is not even named and the source although used about 150 times on the wiki, that is not a reflection of a quality source. In fact if you read the report, they are just commenting on the other reports and I imagine everyone is assuming he is jewish, with a name like arron and with this chanting story. Porter never mentions he is jewish in any of his bios? Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said somewhere before, I seriously doubt that he is Jewish. His mother's maiden name is "Hosein"! The writer of that article is probably just assuming. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith—The sentence in the IBTimes reads "A rally by British students against tuition hikes degenerated into an anti-Semitic affair when Jewish student leader Aaron Porter was verbally abused by a group of enraged student protesters." That news story goes on to say, "According to UK press reports in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, witnesses said Porter was deluged with chants like "------- Tory Jew" and “Aaron Porter we know you, you’re a f******* Tory too’." Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but anti-Semitic protestors (nor anti-Semites in general) aren't exactly known for their love of factual accuracy. If the protestors said he's Jewish, that doesn't mean he is. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The reliable source is saying that he is Jewish. The reliable source refers to "...Jewish student leader Aaron Porter..." If another source served to cast doubt on this reliable source we would have to weigh the two sources against one another, but so far no other source is serving to question this source. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Because its not been questioned it must be true. An unnamed writer in a pretty weak citation claimed he was a jew, they didn't explain how he was a jew or if his parents were jews. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—why do you think a source should "explain how he was a jew or if his parents were jews"? We are not asserting in our article "how he was a jew or if his parents were jews." Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I like such personal claims to be well cited as WP:BLP requests - He might be jewish, he might not, but lets have strong WP:RS that supports the claim - I have worked on this article and never seen in any of his bios that he has said he is jewish. - Perhaps he will make a statement now after this kerfuffle. I also notice the mail article only mentions jew once - "A photographer said he also heard cries of ‘Tory Jew scum’." - that is a bit weak isn't it, an unnamed photographer said he heard... Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And to quote nigel woodcock from the comments -- "I was at this demo. The suggestion that anti-Semitic comments were made is a shameful lie. What is worrying is that the Daily Mail and Telegraph would be willing to publish such nonsense. In fact I'm disgusted. It perhaps indicates that the establishment is genuinely worried about the radicalism of the protesters that they should wish to distort the truth like this. Truly shameful."- Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—do you consider the "Comments" section to be a reliable source? Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? Of course not - but don't believe all you read in the article either. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going of line but if you like I will open a thread at the BLPN to discuss your desired addition as you seem to still assert the cite is good enough to support your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—no source is saying that he is not Jewish. In the absence of a source saying that he is not Jewish we should be following what the sources are saying in this regard. They are saying that he is Jewish and equally importantly they are saying that he was the target of antisemitic remarks. Whether he is Jewish or not, it is reportable in our article that he was targeted by antisemitic remarks. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

- I have said I don't support that source as a rs for him being Jewish, I won't change my mind, if you disagree, you should ask at the BLPN, I imagine there are going to be more reports about this and I imagine he will say something him self in an interview - he has tweeted , Will not back down to intimidation, and certainly not to racial abuse. We need unity to win for students. - as for the anti semetic chants - lets wait a bit to see some more reports come out - it is a pretty weak and disputed claim and if correct by a few people out of over three thousand, at worst

a minor issue inflated in the press. http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/01/30/was-aaron-porter-racially-abused - This is an interesting read. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We definitely need a stronger source than a random comment by a random article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith—have you listened to this video? It of course would not be a reliable source for our purposes, but it conveys the nature of the negative comments aimed at Porter. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have and I didn't hear any anti semitic chanting - "your a Tory too" is what I hear. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—are you listening to this video? Chanting is sometimes "Aaron Porter, we know you, you're a filthy Tory too". At other times the chanting is "Aaron Porter, we know you, you're a filthy Tory Jew." And at 3:35 is heard, "You're a Jew, Aaron Porter, get out now." Do you hear something different said at 3:35? In any case, a YouTube video would not be a reliable source for our purposes. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I will listen at 3 35 but I didn't here it at first listen, are you English? as perhaps it takes a colloquial ear to get it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pareidolia - You'll hear what you think you want to hear. 87.252.60.26 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about that phenomenon, but my ears can't deceive me so much , the emphasis is clearly not on anti semitic chanting, at least not according to my straining ears . Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

At 3 35 the male on the megaphone says "You're a joke, Aaron Porter, get out now. Stand down."- I was near Porter at this point, trying to take photos (I took the photo of Porter that is used in this article) - I'm also English if you needed my colloquial ear (and I'm listening with a rather nice set of headphones)! I heard no anti-semitism on the day, so have been pretty stunned by allegations. --Mikejamesshaw (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not send him an e-mail and ask him what he heard, and if he's Jewish. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Because if he replied by email, you still wouldn't be able to use it as a reliable source, unless you could persuade him to email our OTRS service, and even then you probably couldn't guarantee it would meet RS standards. Our job is to report what reliable sources say; best to leave research to the investigative journalists. --RexxS (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I just listened to the jewish chronicle video and I have no doubt the man is saying "you're a fucking Tory Jew". It starts out as tory too and then the speaker gets more and more filled with hate. Its pretty disturbing. I am English BTW, but I may ask for some second opinions. Telaviv1 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

additional reports

In this report from the independant from Monday there is no mention of the jew allegations, only the "your a tory too"" chants. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/student-civil-war-after-leaders-pelted-with-eggs-2199001.html - Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added this citation to the article, to support the point that the claims of antisemitic abuse have been disputed: [3]. It's from the website Liberal Conspiracy, which seems reliable enough at least for this purpose. If the claims of antisemitic abuse are included, I think it's only justified that the fact they have been disputed should be as well. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A blog post on Liberal Conspiracy is not remotely a WP:RS. Please read the policy. And the fact that one RS does not report X does not mean that if other RS's do report it it is "disputed". If you can find a genuine RS that this abuse is disputed we should go with the Telegraph, Mail, SkyNews and the FT. NBeale (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you stopped removing simple facts, like it was a small section of the crowd that barracked the subject and the reason that their is a split in the union so on...if you dispute they are cited then please add templates and interested editors can find others. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to this, he is not Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like he is not Jewish: "Aaron Porter, who is not Jewish, was escorted away from the demonstration in Manchester last Saturday as protesters chanted “Tory Jew scum”." Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm , interesting,

I am reminded of User:Bus stop's desired addition that I had to revert at least once yesterday, prolly twice ...."Porter is Jewish" ..... that is a good explanation of why it is good to wait for real clear sources to support such things - He (Porter) is off to Israel though and although that cite is apparently quite clear, the JC are usually informed on such issues, they still don't let on any detail which is a bit annoying.Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Porter has some quite strong connections to Israel as In 2007 Porter was selected for a paid trip to Israel, funded by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/student-union-news/2000-2009/2007/11/nparticle.2007-11-18.6008804122 this used to be in the article but got removed in the last few months. Off2riorob (talk)

Yes, this proves that even I can be wrong sometimes, where's the humble pie? Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I am also sometimes wrong, well perhaps not wrong but at least mistaken - don't get fat eating that pie.Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

After reading through the three reliable sources (Guardian, Telegraph, Mail), I've revised the text of this section to reflect what the sources say. The exact wording of what the insults may have been is immaterial, and viewers can read the sources if they want that level of detail. I've removed the non-RS blog post and tidied the refs to use an appropriate template with dates in the recommended style. I'm afraid that "although this claim of anti-semitic abuse was unreported in some media reports and disputed by some sources" is WP:OR and not supported by the reliable sources, so I've removed it. The onus is on those wishing to insert text to provide reliable sources when challenged – so the fact that something was 'unreported in some media reports' will need a RS that makes that point; otherwise it's original research at worst and synthesis at best. --RexxS (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Text not perfect but I can live with it. I've added the FT ref though. NBeale (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I will let the situation calm downn and tweak it up in a few days, although, clearly two lines of text is overcited and doesn't require five externals. Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the principle is that we should only use enough sources to ensure that the main points are verifiable. Editors will want to read as many sources as possible, of course, but usually some selection will take place before placing the citations. The current paragraph has three sentences, and it certainly seems to me that each of the main points made can be verified by the two citations there at present. Current events normally have multiple, often duplicative, sometimes contradictory, sources and I'd agree with Rob that it would be sensible to revisit the paragraph after the dust has settled. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to dispute a sources reliabillity? Especially in a case like this where it seems everyone is re-reporting what the Dail Mail reported and the Daily Mail cite an un-named photographer as their source. Also with the Daily Mail being a tory newspaper and porter coming under anti tory comments it would be in the Daily Mail's best intreast to paint the crowd in the most negative light they can and by throwing around claims of anti semetic abuse that is exactly what they have done. They cannot be considered reliable in any sense of the word in this case and I think there should be someway for us to object to their reliabillity, everyone else who re-reported what the Daily Mail reported should not be considered a source at all because they are not94.168.210.8 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Go to the Reliable sources noticeboard, read the instructions, and ask the question (as neutrally as possible) whether the Mail, Telegraph, Guardian, FT, and Jewish Chronicle articles can be considered reliable sources for the "anti-semitic abuse" statement in this article. I don't expect you'll like the answers you'll get, but it may save me from requesting page protection here.

(Aside: I understand that you are concerned that the Tory press may be trying to paint the students in a negative light. If it's any comfort to you, the "Tory Jew" chanting came from a small group of over-excited yobs, and many more students countered with "No to Racism", but naturally you haven't seen that reported. Unfortunately I'm not a WP:RS, so that won't be any help to you in trying to alter what the papers reported.) edit: apologies, the Telegraph actually did report the "No to racism"!

As Wikipedia editors, we have to put aside what we know, or what we think we know, and concentrate on what reliable sources say. The alternative would be to substitute each editor's own individual judgement for the editorial oversight involved in the publication process of a newspaper. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite. And according to the FT, Porter himself says he was subject to "racist abuse". NBeale (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the re-insertion of inaccuracies from Azmd23 (talk · contribs) for these reasons:

• The text although the Daily Telegraph which ran this story later changed this article claiming the chants were "tory too", rather then the alleged "tory jew" chants is not supported by the source given, which is time-stamped 4:11PM GMT 29 Jan 2011. The version headlining "anti-Semitic insults" is time-stamped 9:00PM GMT 29 Jan 2011, so it was not "later changed".
• The anti-Semitic insults are reported by at least three reliable sources, and are contradicted by none – unless you can find a reliable source which states that "Tory Jew scum" was heard while what was actually shouted was "Tory too scum". Therefore the anti-Semitic insults are undisputed among reliable sources. It is pov-pushing to dilute facts by using the word "alleged". For the same reason, the text does not need attribution as if it were only opinion (see WP:NPOVFAQ#A simple formulation for guidance).
• Both "Tory too" and "Tory Jew" are variously reported. I see nothing to suggest that both of these were not used in various chants, although the response "No to racism" seems rather incongruous as a response to the former.
• Similarly, it is undisputed that the words "Tory too" were also chanted, so it is wrong to attribute it as if the Guardian were giving an opinion.

It is quite possible that editors may reach a consensus to quote the totality of the verbiage aimed at Porter, but at present the paragraph covers three comments directed at him: anti-Semitic insults; the "Tory" epithet; and the call for resignation. When this has faded from the news, I suspect it will be viewed as a minor part of the overall picture to be presented in this article, so I'd recommend keeping it concise and dispassionate. Please feel free to disagree. --RexxS (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As above, the heckling / anti-semitism allegations will certainly be something which will need to become more concise in weeks to come - albeit not by being completely removed, as has recently been attempted. However, to take issue with some of the points above - the allegations have not been "reported by at least three reliable sources" - they've been reported by OUTLETS. Despite the amount of filming going on, no record proving the case exists, and the primary source is still that it was something a Daily Mail photographer "overheard". Marty jar (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)#

I looked at that last edit and could easily support it, its coat racking of anti Semitic that never happened and it is not actually about Porter, as a long term noteworthy thing in his life those false claims are not noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would trim the false reporting and leave the detail ...

In January 2011 at an anti-cuts march and rally in Manchester, Porter was escorted away by police from a small section of the crowd of student protesters who were heckling and shouting "you're a Tory too" - a chant commonly used against Liberal Democrats during the student fees protests. The barracking of Porter and calls for his resignation reflected a current split in the students' union with a section supporting more militant action.[1][2][3]

Upcoming elections

This is being added - its related to this coming April and part of the normal process of election and reelection - in April Porter will bee up for some re confirmation and dispute is pretty normal but this is being added from the university of the person that is named there - imo its not notable in this persons life story, its just not notable if it is in some more quality and national reports then we can look again but currently imo its of no note here.

Leadership challenge

In early 2011 it was confirmed that NUS National Executive Council member and Socialist Workers Party activist Mark Bergfeld would be challenging Porter for the NUS Presidency as part of a united Left slate.

• - http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=415057&c=1

comments

• Mark Bergfeld goes to Essex, not Sussex. --139.184.30.134 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction - it still doesn't make his political ambitions notable here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that's only one opinion isn't it, let's see what others have to say. --139.184.30.134 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no worries - I would say the desired addition has perhaps more focus at the National Union of Students (United Kingdom) article, I notice its not mentioned there as yet - here its enough to say - there are requests to stand down... this is Porters BLP not a campaign promo blog. If this guy is elected then we can add it in April - if not - then .... If the issue is individually noteworthy perhaps create an article - the 2011 student union election. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)