Talk:Dan Carden

Unemployed for Seven Years

"was left unemployed for seven years after being sacked for refusing to cross a picket line." - Biased and political weasel words. It is ludicrous to suggest that a degree-deucated man cannot find any sort of employment for seven years as a direct result of this. He may have been sacked from one job, but that did not leave him unemployed for seven years. He did that himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycigarettes (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Potentially libellous edit keeps being re-applied. It needs to stop.

Attempts to remove vexatious and evidently politically-motivated text regarding allegations against Carden have been repeatedly undone, in spite of the obvious fact that they violate the biographies of living persons policy. Unsubstantiated allegations are not 'sources' just because a supposedly mainstream rag makes them, particularly when they have been denied by the subject and refuted by others who were present.

In addition, the allegations quoted on the page include one that even those rags made against someone other than the page subject, which about sums up how shoddy athe edit has been.

They should be removed from the pages entirely and any attempt to re-include them should be prohibited. Whoever last put them back said consensus needs to be obtained here first. Let's get it done quickly, as Carden is potentially being libelled by their inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.251.117 (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to unsigned comment

I agree. The original edit was certainly libellous. It attributed an allegation made about an entirely different person to Carden. This remained in place for several days and was even restored after it was correctly removed in line with the living persons policy. The original edit also gave disproportionate space and even its own heading to an unsubstantiated allegation, with heavy use of editorialising. While the most clearly libellous parts of this edit have now been moderated, I believe that the edit in its current form is still a clear breach of the living persons policy and potentially libellous.

First, the source is biased. Alex Wickham is a political and ideological opponent of Carden. He is the godfather of Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s child. Prior to working at Buzzfeed, Wickham worked at right-wing blog Guido Fawkes and was a regular contributor to the far-right Breitbart News.(which I am unable to reference because the website is on Wikipedia's blacklist) The timing of the allegation – on the cusp of a General Election, 20 months after the incident was supposed to have taken place – clearly suggests political motivation.

Second, the source is notoriously unreliable. To take one example, Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads released audio of a Hacked Off rally showing that Wickham, who was in attendance live-tweeting for Guido Fawkes, had misrepresented events. When Wickham joined Buzzfeed, the Editor of Byline Times Peter Jukes said: “Wickham has spent years in the sewer of Guido Fawkes, and I've seen setting up targets with kompromat, twisting words, misrepresenting the truth. He's not a journalist, he's a barbed ideologue.” Journalist and author Dan Waddell called Wickham a “proven fabricator”.

The fact that more reliable publications reported on the allegation second hand does not make its source any more reliable.

Third, the allegation is unsubstantiated. To my knowledge no one has ever publicly corroborated the allegation, never mind produced any evidence. However, other passengers on the bus have refuted the allegation. The Guardian reported that Mark Taimi and another passenger refuted the allegations. Sky correspondent Rob Powell reported that another eyewitness within Labour who was on the bus also refuted the allegations. Journalist Dan Hodges wrote that he had checked the story with a number of passengers on the bus and “no-one corroborated it”.

In this context, the inclusion of an unsubstantiated allegation from an unreliable source with clear political motivation is clearly unfair, regardless of whether the denial is given due weight. It is highly unusual for unsubstantiated allegations to appear on a living person’s Wikipedia page, due to the living person's policy. For example, the similar allegation made by Wickham about Conor McGinn doesn’t appear on his page, because it is an unevidenced claim by an unreliable source that has never been publicly corroborated by anyone despite allegedly taking place on a bus full of journalists and MPs. Once the claim was refuted by other passengers, Wickham quietly dropped it and it was never mentioned again, which strongly suggests his motivation was to use a bogus claim to cause political damage during an election campaign. As well as being potentially libellous, the inclusion of this edit encourages a culture of using Wikipedia to amplify spurious attacks on political opponents. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate Wickham’s allegation, I think the entry is clearly in breach of the living person's policy, potentially libellous and should be removed.

Regards, Forest Barista 16:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to unsigned comment

Hello, I have not restored today the allegation that Carden made homophobic remarks, because it was reported in other sources that it was allegedly Labour MP Conor McGinn who made those anti-gay comments, not Carden.

However, regarding the allegation of Carden singing an anti-Semitic lyric, I respectfully disagree. I feel this is acceptable to include. As Blablubbs stated in the edit summary on 22 October 2020 (UK time) – The content is reliably sourced and contains a denial from Carden. CLCStudent also restored content on 15 October 2020 that had been deleted. Dweller (an administrator on Wikipedia) included the content on 15 October 2020.

The content regarding allegations of Carden singing anti-Semitic lyrics states: The Sunday Times investigated the Buzzfeed allegations and found contemporaneous material from a second witness that appears to corroborate the allegations. Carden denied the allegations (followed by a specific quote from Carden).

It was reported in November 2019: "There was renewed pressure on a Labour shadow cabinet minister after The Sunday Times obtained WhatsApp messages that appear to corroborate claims he sang "Hey Jews" to the tune of Hey Jude on a raucous coach trip last year."

Wikipedia is not stating that the allegation is necessarily true. Wikipedia is simply informing readers what was reported in The Sunday Times and on Buzzfeed followed by a specific denial from Carden.

As well as in The Sunday Times and on Buzzfeed, the allegation of Carden singing an anti-Semitic lyric was featured on BBC News Online, which reported: "Shadow international development secretary Dan Carden was accused of singing an altered version of the song on a journey back from Cheltenham Festival. Jeremy Corbyn said: "If it's true, it is utterly and totally unacceptable." Labour leader Mr Corbyn said he was "looking into" the allegation.

This was also reported in many other reliable sources as well, such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and Sky News etc.

It is acceptable, in my view, for Wikipedia to include the allegation and the subsequent denial from Carden. There is sometimes content on Wikipedia that others dislike, however, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support this approach for the inclusion of the alleged anti-Semitic conduct providing, as you've indicated, the subject's rebuttal is given due weight. They've been given WP:RS coverage and are clearly of public interest. Darren-M talk 09:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References