Talk:Michèle Renouf

message: Daniel Griaznoff - a descendant of Russian aristocracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.101.233 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/02/1038712882022.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.101.233 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Griaznoff

message: I came to this page after seeing this request for editorial assistance.  In my opinion, the edits that are the subject of the ongoing back-and-forth are pretty clear examples of POV commentary (they are unsourced as well) and as such do not belong in a Wikipedia article.  I would add also that there is no need for them.  The unadorned and undisputed facts quite sufficiently describe the views and character of Michele Renouf.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial commentary in text 

message: Please note that "lady" should not be at the beginning of the article per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Honorific_Titles --Faith (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been restored (and yet again removed) per MoS, namely, "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics ... Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria." Note Lady receives specific mention. The restoring editor will need to show why the MoS should be ignored.  --Faith (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MoS clearly allows for the inclusion of "Lady", as occurs in every other relevant bio. I have seen here. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Particular interpretations of the MoS notwithstanding, in my view the current manner of introduction ("Michele Renouf, Lady Renouf") is kind of awkward.  I preferred it with just her name, introducing "Lady" further down in the article text.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is the correct style and is consistent with other articles. It is PoV to remove it. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it's not so long as one is unaware of those other articles.  Instead it's just a matter of style.  Can you give a couple of examples of other articles?  JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Off the top of my head: Ann Winterton and Sylvia Hermon. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful, thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect usage in other articles does not mean that it's supposed to be that way. I quoted the MoS above where it specifies that Lady is an honorific that is not to be used inline like that.  It's tenatious to keep adding it against the MoS. Please stop. --Faith (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again. The MoS states this is the correct usage actually.  Have you read it? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The MoS allows the use of title, but does not allow honourifics.  A title is Sir or Lady, an honourific would be The Hon., The Rt. Hon., His Grace &c.  What do you find confusing?Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Norma Major,  I think you're very much going against all consensus here, which is never good! Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics. Honorific titles (e.g. "Sir"/"Dame" prenominals used by some knights), not to be confused with honorary titles, simultaneously possess properties of both honorifics and titles. Because of this, their use inline has been controversial. This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria. Consensus has not yet rejected any honorific titles; if/when they do so, they will be listed here. Open a discussion on the MoS Bio talk page if there is an honorific title that needs consensus."
So, titles are okay, honorifics are not, and honorific titles - such as "Lady" may or may not be. But I think this says th inline use of "Lady" is fine, and other articles seem to reflect this also. But I can certainly see how other interpretations would be possible. - EronTalk 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. "Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria" - Quite clear. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's states it is controversal, but I'm tired of beating the point as I have no interest in the article. --Faith (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the plus side, if we've managed to reduce the problems with the article to an MoS disagreement, it's progress.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Renouf 

message: I have removed the Categories Australian White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis from this article. There is no evidence in the article that she falls into these categories or that she has specifically engaged in such activities. She seems to focus on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. If there is clear evidence that she does belong to these groups, it should be included in the article before the categories are restored. - EronTalk 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Is there any reason, other than a presumed attempt to conform to proper French spelling, for retitling this page "Michèle Renouf" from "Michele Renouf"?  Renouf is Australian, not French, and I have never seen her name spelled with the accent grave.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why this page was moved. It certainly should not have been - as you say, there are no references whatsoever that have her name spelled with the accent. It should be moved back. I'll see if I can do that. - EronTalk 15:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She uses the accent on her own website, which suggests it is certainly her name. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I'm not sure her web site is a reliable source. We do use it as a reference, but only to reference the fact that she has published some DVDs and that she has expressed support for certain individuals. All the reliable sources in the article - primarily newspapers that have published profiles of her - don't use the accent. I know it may seem a bit odd to argue that we shouldn't take her own word for how her name is spelled (it seems odd to me, and I'm the one arguing it) but we are talking about someone who has - according to reliable sources - been a bit creative in embellishing her personal profile in the past. ("Countess Griaznoff", anyone?) I think erring on the side of caution - and of newspaper fact checkers - is in order. - EronTalk 16:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A name (like sexuality, as I've argued on Wiki in the past) is up to the individual themselves to declare. That's my view. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nothing to do with French nationality, the accent is commonly used in England whenever Michele is spelled with a single 'l'. This is partly to avoid confusion with the Italian male name Michele. As the previous post pointed out, a person's own site is surely the most reliable source for the spelling of that person's name!Oafc1990 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michele vs. Michèle 

message: Borderline at best. Berks911 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: This section was removed by Causteau with an edit summary that I do not find convincing at all: "rm POV section supported by link to an opinion piece and a primary source; see Press TV talk page for full discussion". I think the section is not particularly POV, and the sources seem fine for the statements which they support. (For the unsupported statements there are better sources at Press TV.) User:RCS reverted the removal.
However, I don't understand what the section is doing in this article. What is so notable about a Holocaust denier (or "supporter of prominent Holocaust deniers") publishing in media that publish Holocaust deniers? It seems to go without saying. The section as such looks like a coatrack for criticism of Press TV. That Press TV is funded by the Iranian government, while true, does not seem to be particularly relevant to the person. The association is, however, a potentially negative one. As much as I hate Holocaust deniers, I think we should still stick to the (BLP) rules.
It's absolutely fine with me (really!) if someone can invalidate these arguments so I don't feel compelled to remove the section again in a couple of minutes. (Currently I can't watch the last source, so there might be something helpful there.) Or perhaps we can replace the section by a single sentence that is more relevant to the person. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement with Press TV 

message: The article long asserted that her first marriage was to Daniel Griaznoff, with source.  See here.  A later article reports his name as Daniel Ivan-Zadeh.  Here.  I Googled both names and the sole hit for the latter name was that article, whereas the former showed up a few more times (though probably all derivative from a single article).  Based on that simple numerical comparison, I reverted the text to Griaznoff.  Anyone who knows a better way to break the tie is welcome to do so.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian is the more thoroughly researched and more recent source. His name is his name. Please move on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.75 (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely asserting the superiority of one source over another does not strike me as any "better" or more satisfying way of resolving the dilemma - what's your basis for claiming that this more recent article  was better researched, versus simply wrong?  Other that your say-so, there's no reason to believe one over the other.  I don't care one way or the other - as you say, his name is his name - but the question remains open, precisely what his name *is*.   If you want to change an apparent fact that's 1) sourced 2) from more than one place and 3) been sitting in the article undisturbed for quite some time through *many* revisions, you really need to do better than offering up a contradictory source and simply saying it's a better one.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: A second source in The Times gives Renouf's first husband's name as Daniel Ivan-Zadeh. You would really would need to demonstrate Peter Wilson's reference to the standard sources was wrong for your transliteration theory to be sustainable or relevant. Those articles which give Griaznoff appear to be dependent on Renouf herself as a source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Griaznoff or Daniel Ivan-Zadeh? 

message: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/hermes/cme1,260720.html - --RCS (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just undid a revision adding a new picture - it's a screen capture from a YouTube video that was in turn recorded directly from a television showing what I presume to have been a commercial broadcast.  I confess to a near-perfect inability to understand what images may or may not be properly uploaded to and used on Wikipedia, and perhaps this one fits into one or another fair use category; but as a general matter, a photograph of a likely copyrighted TV interview would seem to present a problem.  Pending resolution of this matter by the uploader I think it's best if the image not be linked.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture update 

message: AAARGH (Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste) is not a reliable source; please do not use it in this or any article. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  aaargh 

message: I have removed false material where I can find support to do so from reputable sources. In addition, I should point out that the source for some of what I have removed appears to be from a self-published page on a website based on Niue in the Pacific Ocean (mainly in Danish) which is dedicated to historical revisionism (Google translation of main page). Philip Cross (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: False information

message: The Conservative Association's Group, where Renouf is supposed to have shown her film, certainly exists, but no connection to Renouf is online. Given the BNP chose to rescind an invitation for her to speak at one of its meetings, it is likely any invitation from a mainstream organisation would have been reported and be on the web. On the grounds of potential libel, I have removed this passage. 
Renouf's film on the USS Liberty incident has not received media coverage either, so I have considered it non-notable and not retained a mention of it in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: USS Liberty incident

message: As much of the material I have removed in recent days has reappeared in the past, it seems appropriate to go into this in more detail.
"with a thirty year membership of British Actors Equity"
Membership of Equity will be true of virtually everyone who appears in a commercial, a closed shop still operates in this area. "Thirty year membership" is not ununusual either.
"Arthur Mainwaring, who was a Korean War reconnaissance aerial photographer."Even Lady Renouf's own self-published writings do not claim this, so it has to be considered WP:OR. 
The passage on her academic background is disputed in The Australian article, so I have modified it.
Previously the article claimed, her first husband was a"descendant of Russian nobility whose family had fled from the collapsing Russian Empire during the Bolshevik October Revolution in 1917".The Telegraph does indeed make this claim about her first husband, but its relevance is questionable since this is article about Lady Renouf, and other sources query his aristocratic credentials. The Telegraph quote about him is "descended from the Russian aristocrats who fled the Russian Empire during the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917". So how close, given it implies Daniel Ivan-Zadeh/Griaznoff was at some remove from being a Russian aristocrat, yet he still had a title which Lady Renouf was apparently able to use? So my addition "she has claimed him to be of Russian nobility" is a reasonable attemopt of clarity, given unclear accounts. Incidentally, the Telegraph article does assert that Lady Renouf is the daughter of a truck driver. 
"Arthur Mainwaring, whose parents owned a hotel by the ocean at The Entrance"This does not even match Lady Renouf's own account given to The Australian's Peter Wilson: "Renouf says her grandparents owned a country pub in NSW [New South Wales]".
I removed the references to the documentaries on the grounds of non-notability; they are not reviewed anywhere which can be cited within WP rules and imdb does not list their creator under any of her names, nor with a second 'l' in Michele. I retained reference to the Palestine films on the grounds that the screenings at the Houses of Parliament might be significant: the citation needed tag was added because no allowable source refers to the screenings taking place. Insufficient proof is not prove of inaccuracy, but the existing citation is solely to the film's presence on YouTube.
"Her views are considered so extreme that the controversial far-right British National Party, once prevented her from addressing one of its meetings on the grounds "her presence would put the BNP in a bad light" due to her links to Muslim historians and politicians."This is not supported by the sources; the connection to Irving was presumably the reason. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of early August 2009

message: I have referenced a Johann Hari  article in the passage on the Reform Club in the Holocaust denial section, in addition to the article by The Independent's Ian Burrell where it is cited.
The Burrell article of 23 April 2003 refers to Hari’s piece being published earlier in the month, whereas the reprint on his website dates it from 1 July 2003, and he refers to the event taking place on “21-23 June this year". A citation on the Institute for Historical Review page gives a hard copy reference: "The Independent, January 7, 2003, page 18", but Hari does not use the American date format on his website, so it might be an error too, if one assumes the date on his website is correct. An entry on the SourceWatch wiki dates the article from 13 April 2003 - or 2002. But this source does not meet the usual WP criteria for citation. If 13 April is correct, "this year" must be 2002. Incidentally, Hari’s article is not currently on the Independent or Find Articles websites.
The confusion over the correct date thus remains. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Johann Hari article

message: I changed the header of that section (). "Controversial" is still a bit euphemistic when you think that she's being active on behalf of people like Ernst Zundel who love Hitler for what he has done to the Jews and bitterly regret he didn't manage to fully carry it out. But at least it doesn't have this whiff of Martin Luther King the section header had before.--Insert coins (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil rights? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Michèle Renouf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080714091538/http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-502609/Labour-donor-David-Abrahams-banned-taking-beauty-queen-club--views-Holocaust.html to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502609/Labour-donor-David-Abrahams-banned-taking-beauty-queen-club--views-Holocaust.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015223141/http://www.presstv.com:80/pop/wmp.aspx?id=55153 to http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=55153
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michèle Renouf. 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/20071030213703/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=194 to http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=194
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Michèle Renouf. 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/20081231154423/http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/9/15/not-so-bright.html to http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/9/15/not-so-bright.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515120720/http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/White_Supremacy/new_orleans_052005.htm to http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/White_Supremacy/new_orleans_052005.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120804190835/http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=645 to http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=645
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603211728/http://www.nikolairomanov.com/doc/iv1pre/index.html to http://www.nikolairomanov.com/doc/iv1pre/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michèle Renouf. 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/20081015192444/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4939_83.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4939_83.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413214816/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/mckinney_israel_2009.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/mckinney_israel_2009.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: What's meant by 'a review of Renouf'? Can anyone clarify?
Notreallydavid (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life and education 

message: The same category says Renouf is an atheist, which seems rather at odds with the category I have mentioned in this section title. Please let me know if I'm right or wrong.--Thylacine24 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is category "Late modern Christian antisemitism" really applicable here?