Talk:Kerry-Anne Mendoza

Lack of independent sources

This article suffers badly from a lack of independent sources and reads like Kerry-Anne Mendoza's CV. I haven't been able to find any more reliable sources. If no one else can, perhaps this article should be merged back into The Canary page, or just deleted.

I think she is really only notable through co-founding The Canary and this should merged with that. Jontel (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this page could do with a section on the Carl david goette-luciak controversy

Any thoughts from anybody on whether this page should have a section on the Carl David Goette Luciak controversy. Lots of stuff on Buzzfeed, the Guardian, etc Booklung (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention Mendoza? This one does. And here's a sample of Goette-Luciak's reporting. JezGrove (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

As above, this is more about the Canary. If it is added to Wikipedia, it should be added to that article. Jontel (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

On that point, I think this page should be merged into the Canary page. Valetude (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbeit macht frei tweet

Re this diff, I concur with Molave Quinta that secondary coverage in two sources demonstrates noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It's arguable that this gives too much prominence to a single tweet though, when she's made thousands of tweets. G-13114 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

[EC] Jewish Chronicle articles by Lee Harpin, such as the cited one, have been on the losing end of multiple libel cases. I doubt that any other similar source would be treated as reliable anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Harpin wrote: "The Canary’s editor Kerry-Anne Mendoza has repeatedly faced allegations of antisemitism – and recently referenced the infamous slogan above the gates to the Auschwitz death camp in a tweet which read, “Get Brexit done; Build, build, build; Jobs, jobs, jobs; Arbeit macht frei.”"
That statement contains errors and inaccuracies, undermining Harpin's claims. Note:

• Auschwitz was a complex consisting of multiple separate camps.
• The first camp, Auschwitz 1, was built to take prisoners such as political ones.
• Auschwitz Birkenau, Camp 2 (if memory serves me correctly), was principally where Jewish prisoners were taken.
• The slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei" appeared above the gates of many concentration camps, including ones in Germany itself which were not intended for Jewish prisoners.
• At Auschwitz, the slogan appeared over the gate of Camp 1, the original camp. I'm fairly sure that it did not appear above the gate of Auschwitz Birkenau (Camp 2).
• Properly speaking, the definition of death camps is ones whose purpose was purely extermination; every person transported there was killed. At Auschwitz Birkenau (Camp 2), a "selection" was carried out on arrival. 'Useful' prisoners were used as slave labour, the rest were killed. As the purpose of Camp 2 wasn't purely extermination, Auschwitz is not counted, as Harpin describes it, as a death camp.

Given the inaccuracies in the cited article, Harpin's habit of libelling people and the fact that the "Arbeit Macht Frei" slogan has no sprcial Jewish connection, I recommend deleting the section. It's worthless.
    ←   ZScarpia   19:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

First, the RSN is currently considering the reliability of the JC as a source so it would be wrong for us to jump the gun here on that basis; let's wait until the RfC there is closed.

Second, the JC is not the only source for this material. The previous version by Molave Quinta referenced above had three sources, soI expect it would be easy for us to triangulate the JC reporting.

Third, it would consitute original research for us to use our own detailed knowledge of the camps to trump what sources say about this particular quote, but our Wikipedia articles don't support your argument: our Auschwitz concentration camp mentions its role in the genocide against Jews, is illustrated by the "Arbeit Macht Frei" gates which are iconic image of Auschwitz , and notes that Jews (possibly tens of thousands) were killed at Auschwitz 1; our Death camp article lists Auschwitz in its lead as a death camp; and our Arbeit macht frei article says in its lead "The slogan is known for appearing on the entrance of Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps." BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

PS actually our article doesn't cite the JC anyway so the above is moot. If the RSN confirms the JC's reliability, we can consider supplementing the current Jewish News sourcing with the JC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC] 1. The "Arbeit Macht Frei" article confirms that the sign appeared over the gate of Camp 1, the original general purpose concentration camp, at the Auschwitz camp complex. There was only one sign at the Auschwitz complex; the sign did not apear over the gate of Auschwitz Birkenau (Camp 2), the camp particularly associated with the Jewish Holocaust. The article also confirms that the slogan appeared over the gates of multiple other concentration camps, the first occurence being Dachau. Therefore, as I pointed out, the sign does not have a special connection with Jewish victims of the Nazis. {This BBC article confirms that the sign was over the gate of Camp 1, a former Polish army barracks which the occupying Germans turned into "a jail for political prisoners."}

2. Possibly tens of thousands of Jews were killed at Camp 1. But then, non-Jews were killed there as well. In fact, extermination of non-Jews was also carried out at Auschwitz Birkenau. Harpin's 'antisemitims' argument still fails; there is no special connection between the "Arbeit Macht Frei" slogan and Jewish victims of the Nazis.

3. As Wikipedia policy states, just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean that it should be included in an article. Editorial judgement can be used in a number of ways. We can determine whether sources are reliable in particular contexts. We can determine how much weight to give information, if any. I have explained why Harpin's argument, and by extension similar arguments being adcanced by anyone else, is invalid (it depends on there having been a special connection between Jewish victims and the slogan). I have also pointed out Harpin's history of libelling people. Therefore, my opinion is that Harpin's accusation should not be given space in the curent article.

4. As you say, contradicting what I've read elsewhere, sources (including the [Encyclopaedia Britannica) do count Auschwitz-Birkenau as a death camp. That, though, does not validate Harpin's argument.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the point that the Lee Harpin article from the Jewish Chronicle is no longer cited:

Instead, a Jewish News article is used.

This states: "Kerry-Ann Mendoza’s use of the phrase written above the gates to Auschwitz-Birkenau drew immediate criticism from Jewish representatives and Holocaust educators, as well as MPs."

However, as we have seen:

• The sign was not, as asserted, above the gates of Auschwitz Birkenau. At the Auschwitz complex, the one instance of the sign was over Camp 1, the original, general concentration camp.
• The sign had been erected over the gates of multiple concentration camps. {the photo in the Jewish News article is of the sign over the gate of the Sachsenhausen camp}

Therefore, the argument presented in the Jewish News article is also invalid. In effect, the accusation is a smear. It should not be given space in the article.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Saying that RSs are invalid because of our own research is {{WP:OR]] and we can't go down that road. If this was an article about gates of various camps we'd not use a news article about a UK political activist as a source but look for something more scholarly, but as this is an article about a UK political activist we use UK news sources. Whether it was camp 1 or camp 2 or how many non-Jews died at Auschwitz is utterly irrelevant to the point that the phrase is associated with Auschwitz which was a key part of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. (Our article on the phrase notes it was probably used at Auschwitz III too, where almost all of the 2,500 killed were Jews.) In any event, the current version of this article doesn't include the part of the JN/JC article you say is inaccurate, so this is all academic as well. In fact it doesn't say anything about the phrase or why it is considered offensive, so perhaps we should expand to include Karen Pollock's quote from JN too... BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again: contrary to misrepresentation by the sources, the slogan has no particular connection with Jewish victims of the Nazis. In order to make an allegation of antisemitism, the sources falsely represent the slogan as having been solely connected with Camp 2 at Auschwitz. The slogan was used at multiple non-extermination concentration camps. In addition, at the Auschwitz complex, the slogan was used at the camp created to take political prisoners. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to be included. Source reliability is based on reputation for fact checking. Here we have sources which can be clearly shown to misrepresent facts in order to support an accusation of antisemitism. There is no value in including the information. It does nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia, but instead lowers it. It does matter that the sources misrepresent where the slogan was displayed as the accusation they make is based on that misrepresentation.

As far as your comment about "research" goes, note that I'm depending on my memory of past reading. Clearly, whatever reading and checking the authors of the cited articles did, it was inadequate.

Contrary to your claim, the "Arbeit macht frei" article does not say that the slogan was "probably" erected above the gate of Auschwitz Monowitz, Camp 3. If, however, the sign had also been erected there - why doesn't it, like other signs, still exist? - that would just make claims made by the sources even less valid than they already are. Camp 3 had no special connection with Jewish victims of the Nazis either. Even western prisoners of war were forced to labour there.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the JC can be considered a reliable source for anything related to this case, given its atrocious record of publishing false information on left-wing figures. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Re Boynamedsue: as the question of the JC's reliability in reporting on left-wing figures is currently under discussion at the RSN we should wait until the outcome of that discussion before inserting any citations to the JC, but for now, at the risk of repetition, the JC is not cited on this issue or indeed in the article at all. ZScarpia has made a case that the other sources are also inappropriate because of how they discuss Auschwitz, a case that appears to me completely dependent on OR. I cannot see what text in the current article is inaccurate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is, I think, a DUEness question, half of the article is effectively about a tweet.Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not half the article; it's three sentences (and the third of these covers the fact that the political movement she joined has investigated her, which would not make sense if the first two were deleted). Better to expand the rest of the article rather than remove this material covered by multiple RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree about expanding. There is more to KAM than one tweet, afaics she makes a lot of them so why the focus on just this one? I can guess and it is getting really old.Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good starting points here[1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple Google of "Kerry-Anne Mendoza" (in quotes) is good enough and avoids all the JC junk.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The News search with exclusions for non-reliable sources (to which you could add the JC if the RSN determines it non-reliable) is a better route to good secondary sources rather than non-reliable and primary sources which dominate the first pages of the simple Google. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed, it's a rediculous amount of prominence given in the article to a single mildly controversial tweet. G-13114 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two tweets and both are complaints about Brexit, that she uses a certain imagery to complain about it is not really that controversial.Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Various "Bob From Brockley" posts which mention Kerry Anne Mendoza: [2][3][4][5].     ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks "{{u|ZScarpia}". Those are actually all links to the same single thread. But I don't think my tweets are a reliable source for Wikipedia so not sure why you think editors should read them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Granted, the first link is to a ThreadReader version of the Facebook thread linked to by the second.

The links were provided as a branch of the discussion on the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" talkpage where I asked you whether you might have any conflicts of interest. The above links are to disparaging remarks made about the topic of the current BLP article made by the blogger "Bob From Brockley". As "Bob From Brockley" is you (you just confirmed that), perhaps you shouldn't be editing an article about a person you have been attacking off-Wikipedia. Perhaps, at least, you should have disclosed that you have a potential conflict of interest?     ←   ZScarpia   13:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean the first link is a ThreadReader version of the Twitter thread linked to by the second and fourth while the third is a blogspot archive of the same. My profile page here links to my blog and Twitter so there wasn’t really anything to confirm. I once wrote a critical thread about this person, who I have no personal relationship or interaction with; I have not “been attacking them”. I don’t think our COI policy is meant to preclude editors from editing topics on which they have opinions. If an admin or uninvolved experienced editor tells me that’s wrong, I’m happy to not edit this page again. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the links on your user page, which I hadn't been aware of. I meant what I wrote, which hasn't actually been contradicted by you, but thanks for pointing out the interconnectedness of everything. I'll take your word for it. You weren't "attacking" Mendoza? Really!? Disparaging somebody off-Wikipedia and then editing their article has the potential to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, not something which will be encouraged.     ←   ZScarpia   23:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)