Talk:Henry Jackson Society

neo-cons?

Does the society self define as neo-con or not? If not what is wrong with being a neo-con? Thomas.neumark 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Although most external observers view it as neo-con, the soc clearly makes efforts to use other terms in its more prominent publications. 'Neo-con' is more often considered pejorative outside the US, and in many interpretations it is impossible to become a neo-con without becoming American.

@Thomas.neumark: I've read a few of their journals now. None of their voices are calling for forced democracy or the other signature doctrines of neo-con thinking of the 80s and 90s. Conservative liberalism perhaps. Even some national conservative thought. But neo-con is long gone from this grouping. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas.neumark:@MarnetteD:@Captanllama:@Unreal7: I'm looking at this whole article now and it's clear the piece needs revision. It currently says that the group promotes military intervention to promote human rights, but there's no documentation I've read that suggests that. In fact, in conversation with The Guardian its official spokesperson says precisely the opposite. The article calls the think tank "neoconservative" when its namesake identified as a classical liberal. I propose to use the Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle process to make the appropriate revisions. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My only involvement with this article was to format the refs so I can't really help in the larger discussion. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Think tank?

Is the HJS really a think tank? Evidence would be things like: publishing significant pamphlets or reports under its own name, employing or at least funding researchers, or holding major conferences. Can anyone point to evidence like that? From what I see "Society" is the right term - it holds meetings of like minded people and publishes short articles (sometimes reprints from elsewhere) in an (electronic) newsletter, and is run by an "Organising Committee" of members. Rwendland 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Guardian considers the HJS a think tank - the profile of HJS hosted by the Guardian (seems to be written by HJS representatives themselves) says that the society is "not a thinktank in the conventional sense". An unconventional thinktank is still a thinktank.

• The Independent also has run a column on the society calling it a think tank
• The HJS is also categorized as a think tank on the Social Science Information Gateway, an academic internet resource directory funded by the UK government.
  • There are other references, but those are the 3 most authoritative I could find in 5 minutes of googling. The HJS may not have the resources to be a fully fledged thinktank at the moment, but given its patronage, mission, and associations with US think tanks, it seems likely that they aspire to more "conventional" thinktank status. Bwithh 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty reasonable sources, so I accept it's OK for the article. Though, from what I know of it's activities, it doesn't really match the definition very well. Thanks. Rwendland 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

- Further to this, HJS now host frequent events/conferences, publish reports under their own header and are considered for things like Prospect Magazine's think tank awards.

The Guardian describes it as an "intellectual project" and a "non-profit organisation". The other link is dead. Itself describes it as "cross-partisan". Wakari07 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Political influence section

This really needs proper external references - at the moment it is full of unverified boosterish claims and sounds like biased original research. Please provide references or this section will have to go Bwithh 16:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Media Section

This is sloppy at best and needs updating to the Nth degree - should it even be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.82.187 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they date back to before the current standard of inline citing about 2007. The section was called "External links" once, and the convention then was to list online cites in this section. I agree they need reviewing, and most deleted. The better of them (proper news articles in good newspapers) perhaps should be turned into inline cites; the article is under-cited by present standards. Rwendland (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Should this even be included? There are now numerous mentions of HJS across the media and citing every single one would be silly, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.82.187 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, most of the links are dead. I'm rolling the remaining articles into inline cites and binning this section EardleyC (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-partisan?

The opening of the article says that the HJS is a "non-partisan association". What is the objective evidence for this? The reader of its publications would be excused for thinking that it is a pro-Zionist, anti-Palestinian association. There should be evidence provided for this opening statement. Also, the links to articles in the Guardian should be reviewed: the main one was published in 2005, when the present nature of the HJS could not be known. Gordoncph (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Two Cheers for Capitalism

What the hell does that mean? "Less than 3 cheers" = not full support? Or "more than 1 cheer" = strong support. Stupid phrase, massively ambiguous, highly conversational language. Please correct forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.182.190 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Two cheers for capitalism" is a one of the stated founding principles of the organisation the article is covering. We may not like the sentiment. But that doesn't mean that any of us get to change the quotation.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cross-Party v Right-Wing?

There is an edit war over these terms going on - it seems quite clear that HJS's advisory board members are both left and right wing seeing as they span different parties, and this has been referenced. Whoever is behind the 'right-wing' tagline is making a subjective rather than objective point. Are democracy, freedom and human rights only right-wing concepts now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgedredduk (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Human rights

Is there any source that could support the claim that one of types of this organization is "Human rights". The problem is that other sources are clearly against this.Ferakp (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section

Dear editor, Why did you delete the Criticism section? Can you explain it here. Ferakp (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears your opinion is clouding objective descriptions. You cannot claim the views of the HJS beyond what they have specified. Your sources are primarily opinions and perceptions. You can't comfortably make claims for the views of the society. They are clear what their views are. It's not all about sources it's about reliability of the sources. You seem on a personal vendetta to paint the HJS as a "right-wing neocon" organisation. I can also do a quick search online to paint a society how I'd like it to be seen based on opinion posts. I intend to represent the view of the society as they claim. If the society is perceived differently then you must specify it's a perception. This page is not a place for subjective bias, it's for a fair representation of the society and what they are. The criticism section is repetitive, targeted and has a general tone of subjectivity. I tried to clean it up several times but you've gone hard on the full blown bias again and again with only non-society and opinion based sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.153.175 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

: I don't understand you. What is my opinion? I just interpreted sources, I didn't add "my opinion". HJS can claim their researchers born to the family of Jesus Christ, are you going to believe them? No. I just interpreted sources and added what sources say. Sources are reliable and if you think they aren't, show your evidences. You just deleted the entire criticism section, and last time you hadn't clean it, you had deleted many important parts. If you think some parts are wrong or you don't agree with them, you won't delete it, you will explain it here on talk page so we can see it. Waiting you to list sources you see unreliable and show the "cleaned" version. Ferakp (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

: : You clearly have an agenda since you frequently place "right-wing neoconservative" in the first sentence. Some media sees them this way but other media describes them as 'pro-democratic'. Unless they claim their views, I would not say they hold any stance. This is different to perception, it's possibly true to say some media outlets see them as having certain leanings. I have amended the criticism several times, I have put my reasons accordingly. The criticism section, as you had it, appears to lack objectivity; continual descriptions of 'neoconservative' and more (including of the book of their Associate Editor). Criticism can always be made but it must be worded objectively and noted as perceptions when it is the case. It appears some objectivity and carefulness is needed, I tried to provide that but it was removed. The edits you propose do not appear objective to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.153.175 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda, I just added what sources say. If sources don't support my changes, you will be right but they are supporting my changes. If you disagree with sources, explain it here. You just call sources unreliable and I am still waiting you to explain it. The right-wing neocon part was sourced. If you think it is wrong, add it to the criticism section instead of deleting it from the article. Write to the criticism section that x persons or organizations have described it as a neocon or right-wing. The criticism section was well sourced, and it doesn't have to be sweet text. Your opinion is just your opinion. If you think the criticism section wasn't neutral and it should be more neutral, you can suggest the new neutral version here. I can add my comments and if we agree, we will ask admins to add it. If not, we will ask other users to comment it. What you did now is not accepted in Wikipedia, you can't delete the entire section just because you don't like it. Please, write here your suggested(fixed) version of the criticism section. Ferakp (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It clearly is an agenda. I've even unsure why "right-wing", "neoconservative" and "strong military" are criticisms. You and I can note that there are issues with these world views, as they are all world views but without describing why they are criticized because of these views it appears like an agenda, i.e.: you just don't like this world view. You can't describe them as 'right-wing neocons' based on several an opinion pieces! They have never explicitly stated this is representative of their views either. As I've said, if you want to say the society claims view A but several media organisations feel they represent view B, then that seems more acceptable. I amended it several times with reason but no compromise or reason was provided and my edits simply removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.153.175 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I will call admin to restore content and then you can edit it. I will then write my comments to the talk page ( I won't restore it). Ferakp (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope we manage to resolve this and I appreciate your understanding of my issues with your previous edits. I simply felt the description as 'right-wing' as fact and the seemingly subjective criticism portrayed the society in a bias and unreliable light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.153.175 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sure we can resolve this. My point is that there should be somehow mentioned things I added. We can edit it so that we mention they are claims or "according to x.." style. They can be presented as opinion of the writers.Ferakp (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We can not describe an organisation based on their self-description. That would be a Primary source and probably biased. Per policy on primary sources: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is what I tried to tell him/her. Just because they claim to be "democrat" doesn't mean they are. Ferakp (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

: This is a fair criticism, though I feel we should describe the stated aims and goals of the society as well as perceptions. This is different to, as I tried to tell you, labeling them and their views X, Y and Z in the first sentence because of a few opinion pieces you've found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.153.175 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree that they should be called right-wing or neocon, then we can transfer it to the criticism section and call them only a British think tank in head section. Do you agree with this?

I don't agree with this since I see no elaboration of why their reported 'neocon' leanings are a negative thing. Again, there are issues with all world views but I would not criticise a world view just because it's left, right, center or whatever! I also have an issue with the criticism being stated as fact. You say things like '... because the society is neoconservative.' This is sourced, yes, but it's an opinion and should be written as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.153.175 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

86.184.182.216 edits

86.184.182.216 - You edits are not proper here. The Society's general political leanings are well-documented:

• BBC News: "a right-wing think tank"
• Paul Dixon (2013). Timothy J. White, ed. "The Victory and Defeat of the IRA? Neoconservative Interpretations of the Northern Ireland Peace Process" in Lessons from the Northern Ireland Peace Process. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 119. "the founding members of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (2005), which takes a hawkish view on military intervention..."
• Matthew Goodwin & Caitlin Milazzo (2015). UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 175. "the right-wing Henry Jackson Society"
• Tom Griffin, Hilary Aked, David Miller & Sarah Marusek (June 2015). "The Henry Jackson Society and the Degeneration of British Neoconservatism: Liberal interventionism, Islamophobia and the 'War on Terror'" (PDF). Cordoba Foundation/SpinWatch, p. 39: "the society’s rightward drift"
• Ahmed, Nafeez (7 May 2014). Think tank behind Tory foreign policy promotes Arab world fossil fuel hegemony, The Guardian. London: "the Society's list of international patrons reads like a 'Who's Who' of American right-wing hawks"
• Gordon, Tom (4 January 2015). Scottish Labour leader urged to cut links with right-wing think tank The Herald. Glasgow: "the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society"

So we have multiple news articles, plus two academic-press-published articles and one report. That is firm sourcing. Now, if you have the articles that show the contrary, feel free to present them and we can talk. But you're not going to be able to filibuster this. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm reverting anon's edits.VR _talk 19:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You should read the above discussion about the criticism section. It is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.182.216 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

response to 86.184.182.216 edits other matters to do with Reliable sources

I do not believe it's appropriate to use any source associated with Anas Altikrit or the Cordoba Foundation he founded or the news articles that depend on the credibility of either. The latter is listed as a terror group, even by Arab nations, such as the UAE and has been since 2014. [1] Likewise, Spinwatch can not be considered a credible source as it is funded by Muslim Brotherhood, an antisemitic, pro-terror organisation; for which I refer people to the text "Unity and Diversity in Contemporary Antisemitism: The Bristol–Sheffield Hallam Colloquium on Contemporary Antisemitism published by Academic Studies Press in 2019. Now there's been enough time for the connections to become clear all the sources need to be removed. For these reasons, any source that is informed by Cordoba Foundation or its associates are not consistent with the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and move they are removed.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Likewise articles by "Ahmed Nafeez", whose byline in his work for The Guardian clicks through to an online casino [2] cannot be considered credible. He has been shown to misuse his own sources, famously in the case of his mis-use of Professor Andrew Gelman [3]. Mr Nafeez's work, generally, and specifically on the topic at hand, does not conform to Wikipedia benchmarks for a reliable source and should be removed.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Jackson Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620061805/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/pcfs/all-party-groups/guide-to-the-rules-on-apgs.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/pcfs/all-party-groups/guide-to-the-rules-on-apgs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Gigantic commits

User:Greentoad66 performed a commit that is impossible to review, because it adds more than 8,500 characters and also deletes a lot of stuff (so you've actually added a lot more than 8,500 characters). Viewing the diff involves scrolling through *many* screens. It is impossible to construct an informative edit summary for a change with that kind of scope; reviewers are therefore compelled to perform a detailed manual comparison of the before-and-after texts. That is unfair.

Please consider re-doing your change as a series of modest-sized edits, each with an edit summary that is a reasonable description of the change you have made.

Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

My first edit so sorry for any errors in form ...

I didn't actually delete anything - I moved some sentences around - and I think the bulk of the adds are going to be references. But sure, happy to make more modest-sized edits.

Greentoad66 (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

FWIW, I do not intend to revert you again for giant commits; I was actually going to say that in my comment, but thought better of it. I've been seeing an increasing number of giant commits lately, and I've taken to reverting them (with a talk-page comment), partly to get the editor's attention.

Anyhow, welcome to Wikipedia. If I can help you at all, let me know. I'm just an ordinary editor like you - I have no magical powers such as administrators have. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed content

Now I'm looking at this article, I'm seeing lots of issues. The section that begins with claim that the society "mostly" looks at Islamic extremism simply doesn't stack up. Of its 12 most recent publications, one of them is about political islam. The rest are about threats to democracy from China, Russia and right wing extremism. Either this article is badly out of date or simply uninformed. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Supporters and Critics

It may just be me but I am at a bit of a loss as to the section on Nikita Malik and the allegation that she made claims about a scout leader that were subsequently withdrawn by newspapers. The quote in the cited article refers to Hassan Al-Rawni, whereas the apology was made to a separate Muslim scout leader, Ahammed Hussain. I am unable to find any reputable secondary sources to justify the claim that "Nikita Malik of the Henry Jackson Society provided The Daily Telegraph with information they claimed showed a Muslim scout leader was linked to Islamic extremists and Holocaust deniers".

If no such sources (which comply with wikipedia: reliable sources) exist, I suggest the section is removed, as the connection between HJS and the actions of these newspapers becomes tangential.RedHotandBlue (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking all that through @RedHotandBlue:. If there is no reliable source on the extant assertion regarding Ms Malik, please remove it. It's potentially libelous and shouldn't be here, or on any other wiki article.The Little Platoon (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted @The Little Platoon:. I will do so. RedHotandBlue (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's a few sources:

"Nikita Malik, Director of the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism of the Henry Jackson Society, states “The MAB has been a long-time proponent of Islamism in the UK and should not be in a position to host a Scout group. Hussain Al-Rawni, its scout leader in the UK, has a social media presence that propagates support for the network, and promotes dangerous terror-denying conspiracy theories and praises anti-Semitic organisations. This man should categorically not have access to children.” Nonetheless, no evidence was used to support these claims.

The sole source of the Telegraph’s investigation is the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a group accused of being a “far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist organisation…utilised as a propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups”, not by a natural adversary of the organisation but rather a person who helped found HJS, Mr Matthew Jamison. The quote continues: “the far-right anti-Muslim racist nature of the HJS has helped to lay the intellectual groundwork for much of what President Trump and his Breitbart reading “alt-right” movement is attempting to do against Muslim people”. - https://www.mend.org.uk/claims-scouts-founded-work-islamophobic-organisation/

"The Times has followed the Daily Telegraph, The Mail and The Star in being forced to pay ‘substantial damages’ after admitting they made false claims about a London mosque and its event coordinator Ahammed Hussain.

“We accept these allegations are false and apologise to Mr Hussain for these errors and the distress caused by them. We have agreed to pay damages and costs,” the latest retraction published by The Times said last month.

Like the others, it apologised for making false allegations that he promoted extremism in his position as a scout leader at Lewisham Islamic Centre, where he was supposed to have breached rules to separate children by gender. Its assertion that he had a ‘history of association with antisemitic organisations’ was also incorrectly asserted.

Similar admissions have already been issued by the other dailies, making it more than a year to obtain legal redress against the defamation of Hussain’s character as well as against the mosque that were first published in January 2019 in the Daily Telegraph.

“In hindsight, I can see that this failed attack on my character was a desperate attempt to undermine the good work that Muslim Scouts groups do generally, and mosques like Lewisham Islamic Centre in particular. At the time though, having my name smeared across four national newspapers and news sites was a shocking experience,” he said in a statement.

His solicitor, Zillur Rahman, of Rahman Lowe Solicitors, also said that “once more we see the media using false extremism allegations to attack someone whose civic service they should be applauding.” It was “disappointing to see national newspapers yet again running libellous stories that create hysteria about a particular community, in this instance the Muslim community.”

The false allegations are understood to have been based upon claims made by the extreme right-wing Henry Jackson Society and in particular the director of its ‘Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism’ Nikita Malik, who gloated in a now-deleted tweet about the front-page story but as yet neither are thought to have issued their apologies for the false claims." http://muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/

"In April 2019, we announced a series of apologies to the Lewisham Islamic Centre from the usual right wing media outlets concerning a fabricated and accusatory tale regarding our Scouts group. We are now pleased to add that, in this case, the last of the fake news mongers, The Telegraph, has equally offered its apology to the Lewisham Islamic Centre.

It was The Telegraph, with shoddy investigative assistance from the nefarious Henry Jackson Society, who first broke the lie that our scouts group was being investigated by police for fears of extremism and for allegedly segregating children who attended the scouts group. And with rabid enthusiasm, the fake news was seized upon by the likes of The Times, The Daily Mail, The Daily Star without so much as a soupçon of fact finding to ascertain the validity and credibility of the so-called news story. Then again, what is to be expected of “professional journalism” when Truth, Integrity and simple courtesy to news consumers are traded for blatant partisanship and unbridled hysteria?" https://lewishamislamiccentre.com/2019/06/08/daily-telegraph-apologises-to-the-lewisham-islamic-centre/

"Open concession: The article was published by our client following receipt of information in good faith from the Scout Association and the Henry Jackson Society; nevertheless our client now accepts that the article (using that expression to refer to both print and online versions) is defamatory of your client and will apologise to him for publishing it." http://www.rllaw.co.uk/apologies-as-published/

80.47.137.128 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@80.47.137.128: and to the registered editors @Rwendland:@Bwithh:@MrDemeanour:@RedHotandBlue:@MarnetteD: I and others really want to see the quality of this article lift - and that must mean we use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. So a press release from a solicitor is out. The benchmark is a "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So, that would include the BBC, The New York Times, Al Jazeera. Community group newsletters do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, nor are they independent. I think we need to check if the actual author is independent too. Thanks for joining the conversation, and I hope that we see some fresh, interesting content soon.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure an offical apology published by a solicitor on behalf of their client after winning a case against a newspaper can reasonably be construed as a "press release". The other sources from are from a UK NGO (Muslim Engagement and Development) and the largest monthly ethnic paper in the UK (The Muslim News). Therefore I believe that all three fit the criteria for being a reliable source as defined in the reliable sources checklist 80.47.137.128 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that I am jumping into this late, however, I agree with @The Little Platoon: that a press release from a solicitor – who is instructed to act in the interests of a client – falls far short of the standards in wikipedia: reliable sources. Given this is an obviously contentious area, in which risks of defamation are high, any sourcing should be secondary, as well as "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

I also have concerns about relying on NGO (Muslim Engagement and Development, who seemingly have a decade-long dispute with the Henry Jackson Society in which each have traded allegations about the other. The Henry Jackson Society has repeatedly published papers accusing MEND of extremism and MEND have repeatedly referred to HJS as racist.. MEND were also criticised in the UK Government's Commission_for_Countering_Extremism over claims it labelled some Muslim groups "Uncle Toms". As such, this sourcing does not meet the benchmark, especially not in the realm of contentious issues. AtwaterCarville (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that a solicitors statement is not a reliable source. I also disagree with saying the NGO isn't a reliable source for this matter. In order to reach a consensus on this I suggest we complete a reliable source checklist for all 3 sources. I think it would also be a good idea to complete reliable source checklists for any of the sources used for the Muslim Engagement and Development page where the primary source of information is the Henry Jackson Society. If there is still no consensus after the reliable source checklists have been completed I suggest we request a party opinion. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @The Little Platoon: and @AtwaterCarville:, these sources clearly don't meet the required standard. Given, the nature of these claims, they need to be sourced independently from sources with good records of fact-checking and neutrality. A solicitor represents a client – so by definition – cannot be independent in these circumstances. However, I agree with @80.47.137.128:, that the material from HJS should not be taken as sourcing for Muslim Engagement and Development. There is clearly some dispute between these groups and it is not satisfactory to rely on one for negative claims about the other. I note @80.47.137.128:, you have made changes to Muslim Engagement and Development, in recent days and agree there is scope for improvements to that article. That discussion should take place on its discussion page though. RedHotandBlue (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with @The Little Platoon that a solicitor's statement expressing an apology is no kind of WP:RS. A solicitor is required to act in her client's interests, and is therefore necessarily partial. While partial sources may be acceptable as quotes, they are not acceptable as support for content in the article body. A solicitor will take one position one day, and another position the next, depending on which client they are representing. This is no criticism of solicitors; that is what they are supposed to do. They are professional advocates.

I'm amazed that anyone is questioning that. Relying on an utterance from a solicitor acting in pursuance of their paid role is like relying on the utterances of a White House PR; they will say what they are paid to say. Anything less would be dereliction of their professional duty. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus we should add all the references and only remove them if they fail to adhere to the checklist. Therefore I will restore them. Anyone reverting them will be able to reference any reliable sources or they'll be engaging in vandalism. Ay80.47.137.128 (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This was the opposite of the consensus. Four (by my count) editors have agreed that the sourcing for these claims (which may be defamatory in nature) are grossly insufficient. I'm afraid you have not convinced other editors on the adequacy of this sourcing. It is not necessary to disprove a claim on Wikipedia page in order to omit it. It must be positively and adequately sourced in order to include it. These claims have not – as has been repeatedly said – been so justified. AtwaterCarville (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the best way to settle this in accordance with wikipedia guidelines is to do a Reliable Sources Checklist and gain consensus on every line, and if we can't agree upon a consensus we should ask the opinion of an independent third party. The first line is:

The goal

• What are we trying to do here?

Establish whether or not The Henry Jackson Society were implicated in the successful libel action Ahammed Hussain took against The Telegraph.

Do we have a consensus on that? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No. There were a number of other claims involved, including allegations against a Ms Nikita Malik. In order to justify the claim made in the original text, it is not a matter of whether the HJS was "implicated". It is were they the source of information that was subsequently conceded to be defamatory? There are also questions as to whether the Henry Jackson Society accept these claims to be defamatory.There are then questions as to whether the information provided to the Telegraph was itself inaccurate or whether how the Telegraph described it was.

Have you got a source that shows exactly what (if any) information the HJS (or Malik) provided the Telegraph regarding Mr Hussain? Hencefar, no sourcing has (irrespective of credibility) has provided an evidential basis for what exactly the HJS is supposed to have told the Telegraph. The quotes used referred to a different Muslim scout leader. RedHotandBlue (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you objecting to following the standard wikipedia protocol of completing a Reliable Source checklist in order to determine whether a source is reliable or not? If not and your objection is based on "What are we trying to do here" what are your suggestions for what it should be changed to? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no objections I think we should continue the reliable source checklist. Next part is What's the material that the ref supports? Does anyone want to add to this? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There were objections @80.47.137.128:, namely that the claims (from your original edit) went far beyond what you sought to portray them as. There were a series of five or six factual claims (any of which could be defamatory or contested). If there is a desire to include such claims, there is a fairly well-known burden to satisfy. Suggesting -- as it appears it has been -- that the original claim was one of "implication", seems improper to me. As does -- for that matter -- claiming there were no objections when there was one. I understand the desire to uphold the original edit but certain editorial conduct draws me all too close to suspecting bad faith. AtwaterCarville (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Restoring shot of Boris Johnson at Henry Jackson Society.

I believe that @Filedelinkerbot: @JuTa: mistakenly removed [File:Boris Johnson speaking at Henry Jackson Society IPU Room Palace of Westminster 11 February 2019 - seated behind l-r James Rogers Bob Seely MP and Alan Mendoza.jpg] from this article. The reason given at that time was "No OTRS permission given for 30 days." However as I look at [4] I can see that Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2020062510010198. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard.The Little Platoon (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)