Talk:David Miller (sociologist)

Undue?

"Miller has attended and spoken at multiple events headed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission,[26] which organised the annual Quds Day march in London. Prior to 2015, some of these marches featured flags of the Lebanese political party and militant group Hezbollah,[27] which was added to the UK's list of terror groups in February 2019.[28]

Attended events of IHRC (who organized marches, did Miller attend?). At some marches before 2015, sometimes a Hezbollah flag was displayed. What is this, long distance guilt by association? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s the “long bow” school of Wikipediaism. It is also synthesis as the second sentence is sourced to articles which don’t mention Miller. The first sentence is not well sourced as it is a list of articles on the Islamic HumanRights Commission website that mention the term “David Miller”. It would be appropriate to mention Miller’s support or connection to the IHRC if we could find proper references. Burrobert (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it for now. Miller was present at the launch of the IHRC report into Islamophobia in 2015 (so was Peter Oborne) and he was a keynote speaker at a IHRC conference in 2016, along with dozens of others, including Yvonne Ridley. I'll have a look for further coverage of any association he may have/have had with IHRC, if it's notable it'll be there. As for the Quds march, unless he organised it what's the relevance? None. :) --DSQ (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've found a list on Millers' website Lectures, Papers And Talksand the only other ref I can find to the IHRC is a seminar he attended in 2007. I've been unable to find any other coverage which mentions his keynote appearance or his attendance at the Islamophobia report launch. I've also added an undue weight tag to the article - the majority of this BLP covers a three week period of his life and, whilst the events are notable, the coverage is far too detailed imo. --DSQ (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal of the sentence "Miller has attended and spoken at multiple events headed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission" until we can find a suitable source. You are also correct about the coverage of that short period being undue because of its "depth of detail" and "quantity of text". We can either trim that section or try to expand the rest of the bio. Burrobert (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Burrobert. I'm still looking for sources that cover Millers' ties with IHRC but so far I've come up with his own website, the IHRC website, and their YouTube channel - nothing else. I guess we could use those sources to support a brief mention? Having said that, he's spoken at dozens of events over the years around radicalisation, terrorism, Islamophobia, lobbying, media spin, etc - so I'm pondering why the IHRC was singled out for mention. Odd. :) With regards to the undue coverage of recent events, I was thinking we could trim it down a bit, I personally think there's an overuse of both quotes and detail and the entire section could certainly be more succinct. I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to chime in before I do a "bold" on it. --DSQ (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated agreement with DSQ & Burrobert for removing the IHRC stuff which involves synthesis and reliance on primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I could support some trimming -- especially of statements by individuals (as against group efforts). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree there might be excessive opinions of individuals, e.g. Kamm, York, Bouattia, "Media Guido", unless secondary sources refer to these. (York reporting is RS for fact, but his opinion is not really due.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd remove the "Syrian Civil War" section completely. His links to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media can be adequately covered in the "Career Section" and the opinions of Kamm and York should be in the article about the group - not in a BLP. If readers want to know more about the group, they can click on the wikilink and go there. :) I'd trim the second paragraph in the "Statements and activities" section slightly and remove the third paragraph in its entirety. I'm sure Finkelstein, Young & Guido Fawkes will offer further musings if/when the case actually goes anywhere. The opinion of his peers and colleagues is relevant, random journalists not so much. I'm not too sure about the final paragraph - the letter was signed by less than one-tenth of MP's and Peers. As for expanding on his career, there's lots of info that might be useful, but it'll take me some time to collate it and look for sources to back it up. If we trim down the sections as I've suggested and expand the career section, it'll appear more balanced and more like an actual BLP. Let me know what you think. --DSQ (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Syrian stuff is one of main grounds for his noteworthiness, but might not require own section. However, not sure it's relevant to his academic career as it is activism that spills past border of his area of expertise. "Statements and activities" is an odd title. Agree second para could be shorter. Third (& 4th/5th) para also probably trimmable. Secondary source debate (start of 3rd para) may be due. View of individual local MP (para.3) and of APPG (para.6) view seems noteworthy as reported in independent secondary RSs (respnse may not be - see WP:MANDY), but APPG para might include overlong verbatim quotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We should remove anything expect basic information that is not sourced to reliable secondary sources and anything whose source doesn't mention Miller. TFD (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to pick this up after a delay. I agree that this is a very odd page, and also with lots of the specifics here. So that would mean deleting a) the third and fifth paragraphs in full (the Bouattia opinion piece not being a RS); b) presumably anything from the Electronic Intifada (as per [1] (I gather from this TheJC is considered legit? [2]; c) presumably the block quote from the "Support David Miller" campaign which has been hyperlinked in (6th paragraph). What proportion of the block quotes in the 4th paragraph should stay? Finally, what is the view on the value of the Bristol Uni paper, The Tab, as a source of factual information? Thanks for the constructive work on what is definitely a delicate topic Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not having heard much here, I had a go at bringing the page back into line. What do people think? Obviously very happy to discuss further and make consensus-driven amendments, emendations, or other alterations etc. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, here are the items which have been removed in the recent edit:

• In February 2021, Miller was reported as saying at an online campaign event: "It’s a question of how we defeat the ideology of Zionism in practice. How do we make sure Zionism is ended essentially. There’s no other way of saying that. It’s not enough to say Zionism is racism, Israel is a settler colonial society… The aim of this is not only to say things but to end settler colonialism in Palestine, to end Zionism as a functioning ideology of the world."
• He has said that his university's Jewish Society has mounted a campaign of censorship that made some students feel unsafe. Miller discussed recent attacks on him and others in an op-ed in The Electronic Intifada: "The Israel lobby's attack on me lays bare what is actually going on – a weaponization of bogus anti-Semitism claims to shut down and manipulate discussion of Islamophobia".
• In The Times, journalist and Conservative peer, Daniel Finkelstein, argued that Miller should be sacked for his "attack" on the Bristol University Jewish Society.
• In response to Finkelstein, Toby Young, co-founder of the Free Speech Union, wrote an article in The Critic defending Miller on free speech grounds. Young said that he had "little sympathy" for Miller but that he "would stop short of calling for him to be fired". Young also said that: "Grossly offensive speech is unlawful, but nothing Miller has said meets that threshold".
• Miller was also defended in a tweet from the Media Guido Twitter account of the right-wing political website Guido Fawkes, saying: "Personal statement: I don't think David Miller or Roy Greenslade should lose their jobs for disagreeing with me."
• Later in February, Miller was defended in an open letter by over 315 academics and others, including Noam Chomsky, Ahdaf Soueif, Norman Finkelstein, Judith Butler, Ilan Pappé, John Pilger and Deepa Kumar. The signatories said that there had been "unrelenting and concerted efforts to publicly vilify" Miller, praised him as an "eminent scholar" and said that the "impact of his research on the manipulation of narratives by lobby groups has been crucial to deepening public knowledge and discourse in this area".
• Miller has also been supported by Malia Bouattia, a former president of the National Union of Students. "The attacks against Miller are part of a chilling wave of intimidation sweeping across British universities, targeting critics of Israel", she wrote in a piece for Al Jazeera. "Years of onslaughts by the British government and the Israel lobby on Palestine solidarity movements in UK universities have led us to this point."
• In response, the Support David Miller campaign commented: "It is reprehensible but unsurprising that campus lobby groups for Israel which have organised this letter ... are attempting to suppress and censor criticism of Zionism. In their bid to silence Professor Miller, they are attempting to whitewash apartheid; the daily demolition of Palestinian homes; and the racism at the heart of Zionist ideology."

Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the undue template should now be removed. The issue(s) discussed in the "Statements, activities and responses" section are the main reasons for Professor Miller to have a Wikipedia article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The tag was added because the article has "way too much detail on events that effectively cover a three-week period of his life/career". That reason still holds. The page has existed since 2018. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue goes back many years. Professor Miller's periodic interventions relating to Zionism have gained media attention for more than a decade. His comments and history in this area isn't restricted to February and March 2021. Philip Cross (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that being anti-Zionist, anti-racist and concerned with fighting Islamophobia is an "issue". Miller's views have presumably been long-held. Hopefully we can document them in a neutral way with sources going back earlier than this year. Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

What is this "three-week" period you think is getting too much focus in the article? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The tag was added by DSQ who has provided some comments above. One of our editors suggested inclusion of material from earlier in Miller's career as a way of dealing with this. A full exploration of Miller's views on Zionism, racism and Islamophobia would be useful. You should refrain from editing this article until you become qualified. Burrobert (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronizing commentary. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I am as qualified as you. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone excepting users banned from editing, of courese. nableezy - 16:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It was not meant to be patronising. There are restrictions for new editors. There is a notice at the top of this page and I have posted a standard notice on your talk page. There is no expectation that you would have been aware of these restrictions until advised. Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I was not aware of this restriction. I find it odd that Miller's investigation for a possible hate crime is considered part of the the Arab–Israeli conflict, but so be it. I'll limit my contributions to this talk page, for the time being. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries. You can still make comments on the talk page and make edit requests here in the meantime. Burrobert (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Morning. Just to clarify, this is what the article looked like when I came along. [3]. It had a standalone section on the newly commenced police investigation and this had been prominently inserted right under the career section. I removed it. It has some original research about Miller's links to IHRC - also removed. Para 2 onwards of the "Statements and activities" section covered the period February/March and took up practically two-thirds of the article. Clearly undue. I added the tag for this reason. I see it's been trimmed right down - I'm not a fan of the inclusion of the opinion of random journalists - facts, yes; opinion, not so much, so I don't think the opinion of both The Times & Finkelstein are necessary, one or the other. I do think the opinion of Jewish students from Bristol Uni are relevant and they're not included. Clearly, the section will be expanded when the Uni investigation & police investigation are completed, until then I personally think the section is still undue. Side issue: I also still think that the Syrian Civil War section should be expanded upon or removed. A standalone section that effectively just tells us that he's a member of a group? The section is puffed out with irrelevant detail and the opinion of Chris York, both of which belong in the article about the group, if they belong anywhere. :) --DSQ (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)\

I disagree with removing that entire section and replacing it with just a sentence saying he's a member of the "Working Group on Syria", As you note, the material you removed also includes criticism of him, personally, due to the group's activities. This is relevant and sourced. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I would mention that the opinion of all students should be included not just the Jewish students.Selfstudier (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

DSQ, I refer you to my comments opening the section below. Without Finkelstein's article and the response from the Board of Deputies, there is no response from the Jewish community to Professor Miller in the article. So these additions are not exactly random. I am sure you care a great dal about the Jewish community, and no one has directly responded to the comments I made yesterday. You might as well be the first.

Selfstudier, without reports of current Bristol University students being polled on this issue, I do not see how that community can be fairly represented in this article. Philip Cross (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am simply making it clear that all sides need representing, there is a student petition supporting Miller for instance but as I have made plain I am not in favor of introducing every bit of tittle tattle that comes out.Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. While it true primary sources are not outright banned when cited alone, this section begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." So it is desirable to include a secondary source at when Spinwatch is mentioned in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are making here? Selfstudier (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your removal of the Standpoint citation in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean in the lead? I explained why in my edit summary. If you are complaining about the self ref in the lead for spinpoint, that's fine by virtue of aboutself but you can delete if you want.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no desire to remove the mention of Spinwatch from the lead since there is a significant detail below which Miller took seriously enough to apologise for. Double sourced as well. Philip Cross (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)~

I already removed it, not necessary there anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip, to be honest I haven't read that section, I was responding to a ping and wasn't intending on sticking around right now. :) I'll read it later and comment. Ta. --DSQ (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Further comments after the latest changes

• We say in the lead: Miller’s "research and publications focus on terrorism and propaganda". However, Terrorism is only mentioned once in the body: "he led a project examining the function of expertise in the area of terrorism". This does not suggest that terrorism is a major focus of his work. On the other hand, Islamophobia is mentioned a few times in the body and Yvonne Deeney in the Bristol Post says "[Miller] is a specialist in Islamophobia". I suggest replacing "terrorism" with "Islamophobia" in the first sentence.

• The second sentence in the lead ("From 2018, he was professor ... and the spreading of conspiracy theories") is awkward and should be rewritten.

• I suggest that the sentence "He is the co-founder and co-director of the non-profit company Public Interest Investigations (PII), which runs two projects, Spinwatch and Powerbase" be moved up the batting order to become the second sentence in the lead. It should come before we mention the recent events.

• There is a "better source needed" tag against the Skripal story. What is the point of it? The two sentences are obviously accurate since both sentences are attributed to Spinwatch and we link to the actual article in Spinwatch where the claim appears. What would a "better source" provide?

• We are still quoting Dave Rich as a neutral observer without explaining his (and the Community Security Trust's) role in the complaints against Miller.

• We say: "Students were quoted by The Telegraph the following September as saying his lecture reminded them of "anti-Semitic language, tropes and conspiracy theories" ". The source says: " While there is no suggestion of anti-Semitism, students said they felt that, taken as a whole, his lecture was reminiscent of “anti-Semitic language, tropes and conspiracy theories". We have left out the first part of the sentence.

• What is the point of this sentence: "Keith Kahn-Harris and Dave Rich said that individuals included had either changed posts or died in the intervening period"?

• We say based on an opinion piece: "In the same month, in an online meeting Miller expressed a belief that an interfaith gathering at the East London Mosque between Muslims and Jews involving the preparation of chicken soup for the homeless as a "trojan horse" for "normalising" the Zionist movement in the Muslim community". What Miller actually said (the video is linked in the article) was that Israel was using interfaith work as a trojan horse to normalise Zionism in the Muslim community. He said one example of this was the interfaith gathering to make chicken soup.

• The following sentence, which seems to be an attempt at guilt by association, is meaningless and should be either removed or expanded to include what Press TV said: "Iranian backed Press TV also, according to the Jewish Chronicle, defended Miller in late February".

• We say: "In March 2021, Avon and Somerset Police said that it had opened a hate crime investigation". The source says: "A British university professor may have committed a hate crime when he labeled Jewish students “pawns” of Israel during a lecture, a police spokesperson said. Avon and Somerset Police made the statement on Thursday". There appears to have been no further mention of what we call an “investigation” so it seems unlikely the "investigation" ever happened.

• Relevant parts of the TLS article by Jonathan Rosenhead should be included to balance opinion from Dave Rich, Shiraz Maher, Sabrina Miller, Daniel Finkelstein, Marie van der Zyl and David Feldman.

Burrobert (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert These changes should help to improve the articles balance. Regarding the CST we could mention Miller's opinion of them before they launched the complaint against him, and the CSTs response. Andromedean (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Rightho thanks. I will start implementing the programme soon. Burrobert (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Skripal, the sources are a mess: opinion pieces, a primary source, fringe sites, a generally unreliable source.

Re * What is the point of this sentence: "Keith Kahn-Harris and Dave Rich said that individuals included had either changed posts or died in the intervening period"? I think the point is they are saying the analysis he presented in his teaching did not fit the reality. I guess that sentence should have Kahn-Harris' piece as a citation as well as Rich's New Statesman piece.[4]

The chicken soup piece cites two opinion pieces (it could equally cite a third, in the Times by Danny Finkelstein, who mentions Miller's "characterisation, last summer, of a mosque’s interfaith chicken soup cookery class as an attempt to normalise Zionism among Muslims."); using these opinion pieces would require attribution. However, the incident is covered by reliable sources too, and we should re-write based on them. Jewish News says "At that event, he suggested that British Jews were using interfaith events with Muslims, including a chicken soup cookout, to increase the acceptance of Zionism among Muslims...." and gives the whole quote ("“The Israelis have sent people in,” Miller said, “particularly through interfaith work… pretending Jews and Muslims working together will be an apolitical way of countering racism. No, it’s a Trojan horse for normalizing Zionism in the Muslim community. We saw it in East London Mosque for example, where East London Mosque unknowingly held this project of making chicken soup with Jewish and Muslim communities coming together. This is an Israeli-backed project to normalize Zionism within the Muslim community and they were doing that at the same time they were doing the attack on [Jeremy] Corbyn,”") and more succinctly in another article "In 2019, Miller suggested that British Jews were using interfaith events with Muslims, including a chicken soup cookout, to increase the acceptance of Zionism among Muslims." I'd use a version of that last sentence.

Re Avon police, Jewish News quote them saying "“Our investigation is at an early stage and enquiries are ongoing to establish if any offences have been committed" nine months ago; are you saying they were lying?

Re Rosenhead, this seems like false balance, unless he says something substantive that makes the article actually better. We could instead consider removing Maher and Finkelstein, to make our article more factual and less opiniony. (Rich, S Miller and van der Zyl are all noteworthy as they are players in the story, so should definitely stay.)

I agree with the other proposed edits, and also with Andromedean that the CST issue should be spelled out more carefully. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• “I think the point is they are saying the analysis he presented in his teaching did not fit the reality”. I don’t think the sentence tells us anything about Miller. It appears he created a course in 2013 and still uses the same material.

• The “chicken soup” quotes that you have provided do a better job of summarising Miller’s video.

• “Our investigation is at an early stage … “. Not sure where that comes from. It is not in the source we are using on the page.

• “Rosenhead, this seems like false balance”: Regarding Rich being an actor in the drama, we haven’t mentioned that yet. We also have not fully explained Sabrina Miller's role in the affair. She was Campaigns Officer and committee member of the Jewish Society at Bristol Uni. She has written articles for the JC asking for Bristol Uni to sack David Miller (we cite one). She said she "posted a video mocking Miller’s conspiracy theories". She said "Electronic Intifada and David Miller supporters have subjected me to a painful tirade of abuse. ... People have accused me of weaponising antisemitism and using the Holocaust to “play the victim”. Unbelievably, I have even been told that I am an agent of “another country” ". Her article in The Tab is a request for David Miller to be sacked ("I’ll make one final plea to Bristol: Get David Miller off of my campus".) She set up a change.org petition in early 2021 to have David Miller removed from Bristol Uni. Describing her as "of Bristol's Jewish student society" does not adequately describe her role. I am suggesting we add Rosenhead’s comments to what is already in the article. Rosenhead says that Miller was attacked “because his academic field includes the analysis of how powerful networks can influence media representations and, hence, public beliefs – and because one focus of this research has been the projection of narratives favourable to Israel. Perhaps Miller should be grateful for this vivid public validation of his academic analysis ”. Afaict, no one has raised an issue with the inclusion of the opinions of Dave Rich, Shiraz Maher, Sabrina Miller, Daniel Finkelstein, Marie van der Zyl and David Feldman until now, so there is no reason why their opinions should suddenly become an issue when a proposal is put forward to add Rosenhead's opinion. Burrobert (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Bob actively disapproves of Rosenhead for some reason :)Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: "“Our investigation is at an early stage..." I've added the Jewish News source above. It's also in the Bristol Post. Re detailing Rich/S Miller as players in the drama: I've agreed this should be spelled out. Re no one has raised an issue with the inclusion of the opinions of Dave Rich, Shiraz Maher, Sabrina Miller, Daniel Finkelstein, Marie van der Zyl and David Feldman until now: Maher's inclusion has been raised: this is one of the sources mentioned by ScottishFinnishRadish listing excessive opinion pieces and week sources used in this article at the BLP noticeboard. I don't see what Finkelstein and Rosenhead's opinions add. I'm not questioning the others you list. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the previous source from the page and added the source which does say that an investigation was being conducted. We can't use the Bristol Post article for this because it does not mention David Miller's name. The statement from the police in the JewishNews does not mention Miller by name so we are relying on the JewishNews for the information that the investigation was related in some way to Miller. I wonder when we can expect to hear a result from the local police? Burrobert (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubling up. The opinion of the APPGAA from March 2021 is quoted twice in separate places. Also, presumably the following content is from the same speech. Does it need to be mentioned twice, one after the other?

• Miller had previously told The Jewish Chronicle that: “There is a real question of abuse here — of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”.
• He called members of the University of Bristol Jewish Society "pawns ... [of] a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing".

Burrobert (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thx Burrobert - edits so far definitely improve article. You're right about the pawns; the second time ref (Times of Israel) better than first one imho as it avoids opinion source. APPGAA is there twice because "students" and "Israel/Zionism" are now in separate sections - not sure how best to deal with that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's OK for them to be in twice, it shows that group as concerned over two separate issues.Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinion within the article

This is a follow up from the previous section. I thought it would be easier to follow if it was contained in a separate section. I have listed below the opinions that currently appear in the article. :

• In 2010, Shiraz Maher wrote in Standpoint that SpinProfiles lacked entries on the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and IEngage (the name under which MEND was then known).

• (The following opinion is from Dave Rich. However, is not related to the complaint that he and his organisation lodged against Miller.) In a 2021 article in the New Statesman, Dave Rich Head of Policy at the Community Security Trust, wrote that Spinwatch "echoes certain facets of anti-Semitic conspiracism." and criticises a booklet co-authored by Miller in 2011, The Cold War on British Muslims[30] that claims to reveal "pro-Israel trusts and foundations" and "networks of money or power" which attempt to "marginalise British Muslims.”

• According to the Sabrina Miller of Bristol's Jewish student society, in 2019 Jewish students and Bristol's Jewish Society (JSoc) at Bristol made a complaint to Bristol University about Miller's “Harms of the Powerful” lecture module.

• On 23 February, Daniel Finkelstein, in a column in The Times, wrote that ...

• In a 19 February letter, Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies said Miller's "increasingly ...

• On 28 February, Malia Bouattia, former president of the UK National Union of Students, defended Miller in an opinion piece for Aljazeera: "the accusations ...

• Iranian backed Press TV also, according to the Jewish Chronicle, defended Miller in late February.

• On 4 March 2021, historian David Feldman wrote that Miller's work on Israel and Zionism was in the tradition of "conspiracy theorists [who] have pointed to Jews as the malign force driving the modern world".

• The opinion of the APPGAA is quoted twice.

• In April 2021, 550 academics, including Simon Schama and Simon Sebag Montefiore, signed a letter condemning Miller's statements ...

• Thangam Debbonaire, whose constituency includes the University of Bristol, also denounced the comments Miller made.

• ... a Change petition was also set up, gaining almost 40,000 signatures in support of Prof Miller and an open letter to the University was signed by hundreds of public intellectuals and academics, ...

• A separate letter, signed by hundreds of Jewish supporters, stated that "Jewish opinion on Zionism has always been diverse" ...

Which of these opinions should be retained and which discarded? And should Rosenhead's opinion be added to the mix? My view is that we should

• add Rosenhead (there is some reluctance to do that)
• expand or remove PressTV's opinion (no one else has commented on this)
• Explain Dave Rich and Sabrina Miller's roles in the events (there appears to be agreement on this)
• Amalgamate the two mentions of APPGAA
• Otherwise retain what we have.

Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between opinions cited in reliable sources (e.g. Debbonaire, van der Zyl, the APPGAA, Schama, the petition and letter, and opinion pieces that we quote directly and which are not mentioned in secondary sources (e.g. Maher, Finkelstein, Bouattia, Feldman, also Rosenhead). Generally, in my view, the former category are more likely to be DUE as they are considered noteworthy by RSs, and there aren't a huge number of RSs reporting about our subject. The latter category are less likely to be DUE: we need a very good reason to include them, e.g. significant expertise or relevance or because other RSs considered these opinion pieces noteworthy. Therefore, I'd suggest leaving the former category in place unless there is a specific problem, but that those who think any of the latter should stay in need to give good reasons. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia admits to a [potential cultural bias], and encourages a wider viewpoint. I don't think there are many widely cited sources which cover Muslim, Middle East, non-Zionist and free speech views. For this reason I think we should use Bouattia & Rosenhead for balance. --Andromedean (talk)20:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

category

An editor has repeatedly deleted the "British conspiracy theorists" category, claiming that it is unsourced. This is exceedingly odd, given the way the article itself covers his engagement with conspiracy theories. I invite other editors to consider this issue. I note that the editor in question is engaged in a large-scale effort to depopulate this category, so it probably requires broader attention (e.g. ANI), but let's try to fix the article issue as well.

As a reminder (in part to myself): the article has a 1RR restriction. I've reverted twice myself (having forgotten about the 1RR), so I have no intention of taking action -- again, only a reminder. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You can resolve this easily by pasting here on article talk the various sources from scholarship or mainstream news organisations which characterise the article subject as a conspiracy theorist in authorial voice. Not opinion pieces, nor articles saying some students who disliked what he taught said he discussed conspiracy, but those which actually characterise him as a conspiracy theorist directly: i.e. the standard needed on this website for obviously derogatory content. We ought also to establish whether the breadth of this coverage (if any exists) constitutes due weight and balance to use this term. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was this removed from the last section?

The tribunal found that his conduct was 'culpable and blameworthy', a finding that would reduce any compensation by half. The judgement also said that there was a thirty percent chance that he would have been sacked for additional social media comments he made two months later, if he had still been employed. Miller said he would seek "maximum compensation". However, the tribunal said any award would be reduced by half "because the claimant’s dismissal was caused or contributed to by his own actions".

BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed some of that text. Reasons below:

• The phrase 'culpable and blameworthy' does not appear in the Guardian article that was being used as a source.[5]
• David's wikibio mentions a 50% reduction in the compensation later in the same paragraph: "The tribunal said any award would be reduced by half "because the claimant’s dismissal was caused or contributed to by his own actions". This version uses text that is contained in the Guardian source.
• The word "however" is a word to watch.
• The text about there being a thirty percent chance that he would have been sacked later is still in the article. Burrobert (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Legal precedent

Please add to the paragraph "Employment tribunal" after the sentence "This judgement establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.":

This ruling set a legal precedent, as it firmly establishes legal precedent that anti-Zionism – the criticism of the racist setter-colonial ideology behind the oppression of the Palestinians – is a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 that anyone expressing anti-Zionist beliefs is legally protected. Employers can no longer use opposition to Zionism as a pretext to discriminate, dismiss, or destroy people's careers. 93.211.221.18 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It will be a cold day in hell before we use a speech by Mr Galloway as a source on Wikipedia. You might want to consult WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Employment Tribunal found that David Miller went beyond anti-Zionism (against the right for Jews to self-determine). See the Judgement Summary note to press and public:

"The Tribunal also concluded that what the claimant said and wrote about students and the University’s student societies contributed to and played a material part in his dismissal. This was determined to be culpable and blameworthy because, among other things, the Tribunal found it is not appropriate for Professors publicly to aim aggressive discourse at students or student groups. Because of this the losses attributable to the unfair dismissal element of the claim were reduced by 50%.

After his dismissal the claimant posted comments on social media in August 2023 saying that “Jews are not discriminated against”, they are “overrepresented” and that “Judeophobia barely exists these days”. Because of this the tribunal further found that, had the claimant still been employed at this time, there is a 30% chance that he would have been dismissed shortly after these further comments. This affects the level of damages occasioned by the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. Other claims brought by the claimant for direct discrimination and harassment relating to matters such as failing to publish the first internal complaint report, making adverse public comments, failing to defend the claimant and subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings did not succeed and were dismissed."

Many British Jews and mainstream British Jewish groups also consider David Miller to be antisemitic

Colt .55 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, we will see whether or not it is a legal precedent, but the guy was improperly dismissed and is going to be compensated for that and has been cleared of the antisemitism allegation twice regardless. That says it all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I don't think it "says it all" -- because Colt.55 has found some other things that were said (specifically about Jews, and about the way the court saw those statements). On a totally separate topic, I find myself wondering whether he is currently employed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not new though, we knew that already. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed references

References