Talk:Ben Judah

Notability tag

Reddogsix, I'm removing the notability tag, a Google search seems to confirm WP:GNG is met. If you look it over and still have concerns, you may want to consider AfD. Alhanuty, I've added some links, but others still might come across this article and think it is non-notable; it still needs some work. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Questionable citations

In the first section alone, there were multiple sentences that stated facts not found in the referenced URLs. The later sections are not any better. Due to the large amount of edits made by anonymous users, I've marked this article under WP:AUTO. Watbe (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've crossed checked the references and they seem to match up.Stephleung (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have crossed referenced citations and they add up. Have removed as WP:Auto as there is nothing that could be challenged for neutrality. David Nahoum (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed dead links to articles. It seems a stretch to suggest he 'covered' various wars on the basis of a now-dead link.

Similarly, I've removed the reference to him being a regular guest on BBC etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJMysterio (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous IP addresses removed section on journalistic controversies and re-inserted author flattery. The controversies are all well-sourced with multiple references to high-quality publications. No clear reason for removal. Suggest marking under WP:AUTO ? SandraMayM (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I've read into the edit war over the claims made around Judah's inaccuracies and have suggested two small changes to the text. Judah claims in the entry that Politico & the New York Times 'stood by his reporting'. This is unsubstantiated. The New York Times piece was subjected to widespread ridicule in the British press and multiple inaccuracies were pointed out and evidenced. There is no evidence that the New York Times was contacted and asked to update the piece. Hence the claim that it 'stood by' the reporting is specious. Similarly I have searched but found no statement from Politico re the Sikorski piece. Jindobry (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

For reference I am pasting the deleted section from the article below. The inaccuracies were abundantly sourced from multiple well-regarded publications. These have been removed from the article although they are correctly sourced according to Wikipedia best practice. The current claim that the NY Times 'stood by' the article, on the other hand, is unsourced other than that the piece is on the website:

In 2014, he wrote a piece for the New York Times in which he cited Russian oligarchs living in London's new Shard tower as evidence of the takeover of the city by the Russian elite: "The Shard encapsulates the new hierarchy of the city. On the top floors, “ultra high net worth individuals” entertain escorts in luxury apartments. By day, on floors below, investment bankers trade incomprehensible derivatives." The piece received widespread mockery on social media and rebuttals in the British press which pointed out that the Shard was not full of prostitutes because it was as yet unoccupied. A piece in City AM pointed out apartments weren't just unoccupied they hadn't even been sold. AdWeek said the errors were "too numerous to detail" . The Evening Standard reported Judah defended the piece on social media by claiming it would be true in the future.

The New York Times piece also included other details of the Shard's supposed inhabitants: "Come nightfall, the elevators are full of African cleaners, paid next to nothing and treated as nonexistent. The acres of glass windows are scrubbed by Polish laborers, who sleep four to a room in bedsit slums." Business Insider described the reaction to the piece as "a major backlash" Spears magazine in an editorial said it was right on substance, but the inaccuracies of the factual reporting was "wrong" and "embarrassing"

In a 2016 mostly favourable review of 'This is London' in the Times, John Arldige quoted the factual mistakes in the New York Times piece to question the accuracy of the book noting it does not cite sources and two years on, apartments in the Shard had still not been sold.

Jindobry (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

‘British French’

Why is he ‘British French’?

Both his parents are English, were born in England and there is nothing in the biography to suggest any substantial French connection. Killimordaly (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The author discusses French heritage and citizenship in this piece.

https://medium.com/@b_judah/islam-and-the-french-republic-from-the-banlieus-to-le-pen-land-92d8a1fbf0e0

Killimordaly (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Nahoum (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible vandalism: Undid revision 1039322005 by SandraMayM (talk) WP:3O

User SandraMayM appears to be engaged in disruptive editing. My primary concern is that (talk) and cited critics are taking a piece of creative opinion writing as absolute fact and manufacturing a controversy. The full original contains these paragraphs:

"But London has changed. And the Shard — the Qatari-owned, 72-floor skyscraper above the grotty Southwark riverside — is a symbol of that change.

The Shard encapsulates the new hierarchy of the city. On the top floors, “ultra high net worth individuals” entertain escorts in luxury apartments. By day, on floors below, investment bankers trade incomprehensible derivatives.

Come nightfall, the elevators are full of African cleaners, paid next to nothing and treated as nonexistent. The acres of glass windows are scrubbed by Polish laborers, who sleep four to a room in bedsit slums. And near the Shard are the immigrants from Lithuania and Romania, who broke their backs on construction sites, but are now destitute and whiling away their hours along the banks of the Thames."

However, I believe that we should leave in the Radek Sikorski scandal as that was a notable, widely-written about controversy.

Copying(talk) 0lida0 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)0lida0

Hi 0lida0! I made an edit in an attempt to reconcile the two sides of the edit war, with the goal of avoiding having to escalate it to the administrators' noticeboard. Hope it's acceptable to you? Thanks! Bookworm-ce (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bookworm-ce! Thanks for getting back. It seems a third party has jumped in overnight and streamlined it for us both! It looks acceptable to me now as it points out that the NYT piece envisages an essentially hypothetical / symbolic scenario. Best wishes!

Possible vandalism

JinDobry10 just reverted my edits. They were all carefully sourced and cited. It is especially problematic that he/she has removed employment at think tanks since that appears to be Judah's principal employment. Wikipedia is the source for the think tank's political affiliations. Comment below suggests JinDobry10 is WP:AUTO. I do not have any evidence for that but neither do I wish to engage in an edit war so will leave to someone else to assess, maybe Bookworm-ce?JJMysterio (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This is what was deleted, most of it was already on the page: JJMysterio (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Judah has worked for a series of conservative and other think tanks in the US and UK. From 2017 to 2020, he was a fellow of the conservative American Hudson Institute focussing on kleptocracy. In the UK, he has written reports for the UK's right-wing Legatum Institute . From 2010 to 2012, he was a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. He has also been a Visiting Fellow at the European Stability Initiative in Istanbul. He is currently a non-resident senior fellow at the American Atlanticist Atlantic Council.

In 2021, he wrote a report for the right-wing UK think tank, Policy Exchange .

Update I have reverted the edits of JinDobry10 as no-one has stepped into settle this dispute. Judah's principal employment and source of income appears to be from right-wing think tanks so important to include. JinDobry10 also repeatedly removing fact of marriage for unclear reasons. JJMysterio (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Response

What we are seeing here from this family of hostile sock puppets including JJMysterio and JinDobry is editing that do not meet the biography of a living person standard.

Firstly:

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously and in a dispassionate tone avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. 

This is clearly not the intention of the editing undertaken which has attempted repeatedly a politically partial, hostile and partisan edit not meeting the neutrality standards of a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry.

Secondly:

These accounts have attempted an editing that violates these terms of the biography of a living person:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. 

Material, as explained in the edits has been selected to manufacture scandal, present a distorted view of matters and quoted tabloid and low quality materials. It is extremely partial, reflecting a partisan agenda, designed to attack the subject. This evidenced through repeated attempts to delete sources, insert politically partisan definitions, or include in the entry an unrepresentative sample of work for political effect.

I will continue to revert edits that do not meet these standards. 

When new information is presented, as in case of think tank employment, I am happy to cooperate to re-insert it in a neutral manner. These accounts, sadly, have shown no willingness to engage in constructive debate and are engaging in vicitimisation with a political agenda. This violates the spirit of Wikipedia which is a neutral source.

JinDobry10 (talk)

Response Hello, thank you JinDobry10 for explaining your rationale here rather than simply engaging in edit warrring as you had previously. Given your intimate knowledge of the subject of the article, can you elucidate why it is inappropriate to include Judah's employment at various think tanks? Especially as it seems this is primary source of employment? To me this seems very important and it is a glaring/deliberate omission to exclude it? (Do you have any response, btw, to the suggestion below that you *are* the subject of the article?) Also, could you explain why in your view it is appropriate to remove (the sourced and referenced) marital status? It's not as important as the above but it is a matter of public record and I don't understand your rationale for repeatedly deleting it. It would be helpful, if you could explain why, in your view, the controversy around the inaccuracies of the NY Times article and Politico articles is irrelevant or as you suggest above 'victimisation with a political agenda'? Neither of these were 'manufactured' scandals. They did actually occur. In the case of the Politico article there were real geopolitical consequences. You've also repeatedly included uncited references to 'standing by the reporting'. Can you offer any substantiation for that? Thank you for engaging.JJMysterio (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Multiple Sock Puppet Accounts Attacking Page

This page is under attack by a series of sock puppet accounts with no edit history apart from attacking this page, suggesting a coordinated campaign. These accounts are BlinkTwice22, Jindobry, SandraMayM JJMysterio. This page is now under an edit war and action by editors is needed, Bookworm-ce, 0lida0, Materialscientist. As Bookworm-ce and 0lida0 have noted these accounts are engaging in vandalism and attempting to manufacture controversy. This page needs attention from a specialist editor in this topic such as Philip Cross. Due to the high amount of attacks, edit wars and anonymous IP edits a pending changes protection procedure is advised for this page as a first step.

Hello, I’m one of those cited here as a ‘disruptive sock puppet’. I’d just like to explain my background & interest. I signed up to edit this article because I became suspicious over the sourcing of certain claims made so undertook some simple investigation. It is my contention that it has been largely self-authored and self-edited by Ben Judah. It is my concern that he has used both anonymous IPs & accounts under which he contributes to Wikipedia. These inc for eg User:David Nahoum User:Shanah5782 User:85.240.66.40 User:81.0.36.173, & User:51.6.91.167 User:0lida0 User:JinDobry10 & others. Note: User:Shanah5782 is the (unsigned) author of the above paragraph alleging disruptive editing. The earliest contributors to this article specialised only in contributions to the Wikipedia pages of Ben Judah’s immediate family.

I have not attempted to revert his most recent attempts but instead to engage here. The NYTimes article has multiple inaccuracies that were referenced in multiple well regarded publications. I believe that accounts associated with Judah were responsible for repeatedly removing these and asserting the NYTimes ‘stood by the reporting’ ditto with the Politico article. This is a nonsense unsourced claim: the NYTimes has never made a statement on the reporting. The absence of correction by a newspaper is not positive proof of anything and cannot be used to justify the use of this phrase or the erasure of the substantial body of criticism over the inaccuracies contained within the article.

All of the most recent ‘corrective’ edits including excising whole paragraphs and accusations about sock puppets appear to be from accounts associated with Judah.Jindobry (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

0lida0 Hello, I am one of the editors you mentioned. I have a loose professional relationship with Ben in that we move in similar circles because my specialist area is also Russia, and thus I take an interest in his work. However, I do not have any direct personal relationship with him, aside from possibly meeting him once at LSE in 2016 and exchanging very few words. I have very few opinions about him as a human. I will continue to correct what I consider to be malicious and unnecessary edits (and to sporadically write about my favourite K-dramas). Thanks for your concerns, though. — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Independent sources

Nearly all of the Career section is sourced to his own writings, which are not independent sources. Other information is taken from his book publisher's site, various author "blurbs" etc. Without independent sources this article fails WP:BLP and will need to be deleted. If you have independent sources, please add them to the article. Lamona (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I just added the only independent sources to the article: the reviews of his two books. These are probably enough for the article to meet WP:NAUTHOR but this means that the only appropriately sourced info in the article are his two books. The remainder of the article would need to be removed if it cannot be sourced. I would like to hear if anyone has secondary sources that can be added. Lamona (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ben-Judah.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

BLP concerns and suspected coordinated editing

Several recent edits appear to violate the principles of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, and may involve coordinated or sockpuppet activity.

• • Summary of issues**
• Multiple new or single-purpose accounts have inserted poorly sourced, biased, politically motivated or unsourced negative material on this page.
• The added content relies on primary, self-published, or otherwise unreliable sources, often presented in a way that creates an unduly negative or misleading impression.
• They have attempted to flood the page which contravenes BLP policy.
• Attempts to restore neutrality have been repeatedly reverted without engagement on this Talk page.

• • Requested actions**

1. Administrator review of recent edits for BLP compliance. 2. Consideration of temporary page protection to prevent continued disruption. 3. If appropriate, referral for a Sockpuppet Investigation into the pattern of newly created or single-purpose accounts.

I’ve will refrain from further reverts to comply with WP:3RR but would appreciate moderator input to restore adherence to verifiability and neutrality standards. If any editor can provide high-quality secondary sources to substantiate the removed material, I’m happy to review them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanah5782‬ (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for editorial oversight and BLP compliance on this article

Over time, the article on Ben Judah has repeatedly drifted away from encyclopedic standards, alternating between overly positive and unduly negative additions that do not conform with WP:BLP and related content policies.

• • Summary of issues**
• Repeated attempts to fill the page with long lists of media outlets, think tanks, and article titles that do not meet the threshold for inclusion under WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
• Past versions have included both promotional and critical material lacking appropriate secondary sourcing or encyclopedic relevance.
• The result is an unstable entry that tends to fluctuate between non-neutral extremes rather than a concise, balanced, verifiable summary of the subject’s notable work.

• • Requested actions**

1. **Editorial attention** from experienced contributors familiar with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:DUE to help maintain neutrality and ensure only reliably sourced, encyclopedic content remains. 2. **Page monitoring** or, if necessary, **temporary semi-protection** to prevent further unconstructive additions or removals that violate BLP standards. 3. Guidance on establishing a more durable consensus version focused strictly on secondary, independent coverage.

The goal is to keep this biography accurate, balanced, and compliant with core Wikipedia policies governing living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanah5782‬ (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources that do not meet Wikipedia standards

The Londoner does not qualify as a Wikipedia reliable neutral source as it is essentially an agenda driven blog. Any sources quoting the Londoner should be removed. Sources like this should not be used as footnotes to make claims in BLP. Can editors make a decision on this? JinDobry11 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@JinDobry11 We cannot make a blanket statement that just because a reliable source quoted the Londoner, it disqualifies the source. We would have to go case-by-case, looking at how the Londoner was used. Could you point out which source you think has the most inappropriate use of the Londoner? —C.Fred (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Have posted below how it has a pattern of libel accusations and been fined for libel making it an unreliable publication. JinDobry11 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Further, taking a look at https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/about/, I don't share your conclusion that it's a blog; what reliable sources have described it that way? —C.Fred (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

However, I will concede that in reading through https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/a-government-advisor-wrote-a-libel-against-london-why-did-we-believe-it/, it does not make the case that experts (other than the journalists who wrote the Londoner piece) share that opinion about Judah's book. —C.Fred (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The article states: "Experts and academics who have examined the book for us in recent weeks dispute its accuracy" then quotes a Romanian academic, a representative from a Romanian charity, a Romanian support worker the director of the Roma Voice Centre and a former police officer. I accept that "academics" in plural is possibly inaccurate, but otherwise I don't agree. Orange sticker (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Orange sticker In fairness, I probably should put that I did not find it making the case that experts... The article was dense enough that I skimmed it and missed the passage you quoted. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The language currently used is inaccurate and doesn't reflect this is a blog with a history of being sued for libel having contacted a handful of people. This does not speak for an "expert class" or a wide group of experts as currently written it implies it does. Please adjust to reflect the small amount of challenge which is not substantiated or proved. JinDobry11 (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question on your talk page ? Orange sticker (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can an editor make a decision concerning this sentence? Complaint is the way it is currently phrased makes it seems as a wide variety of experts and not two community activists and an academics raised questions. Therefore the sentence should be amended to reflect accuracy. New sentence should say instead book received one critical response where Romanian community activists made allegations. JinDobry11 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This shows that you do not agree with the accuracy of the sentence as currently constructed. Please amend to reflect this view. JinDobry11 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you edit the sentence / make an editorial decision to reflect:

- It is one critical piece, in contrast to all other coverage, not a unanimous view of "experts and academics" and cannot be weighted equally as all the other coverage and response as that's an accurate portrayal.

- There is only one academic, so not a plural

- Criticism is from two people best described as community activists as you noted.

- These are allegations not substiantiated

Conclusion: A fairer sentence might be "the book received criticised by Romanian community activists," as one academic is a one off and not representative.

That would be accurate. JinDobry11 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should respond to your requests until you have responded to my questions regarding your account and potential conflict of interest. Orange sticker (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure happy to. JinDobry11 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No same person / no conflict of interest. I am not making further edits on page. Leaving this to be decided by editors. JinDobry11 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this the same person as @Shanah5782‬? Orange sticker (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No not same person. JinDobry11 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you give examples of its unreliability? Mcljlm (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The publication house Mill Media behind the Londoner has a pattern of making accusations that result in libel cases.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/digital-journalism/mill-media-journalist-sued-libel-faces-10000-county-court-bill-after-expose/

It has been fined for these practices.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/digital-journalism/mill-media-journalist-sued-libel-faces-10000-county-court-bill-after-expose/

Therefore it has a pattern of unreliable journalism which means its claims cannot be taken as gospel. JinDobry11 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It does not state in that article that Mill Media or the Londoner have been fined, the case has not even concluded yet and being sued is not an indicator of reliability. Furthermore, as the Londoner is published by Mill Media and has an editorial process, it is not what we generally consider a blog, i.e. a self published source. Please read WP:RS and explain how this source fails the criteria laid out there, and please reply to my message on your talk page. Orange sticker (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Raising concerns as these are potentially libellous claims made in this article, from a single publication which is being sued for libel. Your sentence grants this equal weight to all other coverage and as currently constructed is inaccurate. Can you make a decision with editors? A more accurate line would be "the book also received criticism from Romanian community activists" with a link to the piece. The people described cannot be summarised as "experts" as if the entire expert community had a view. JinDobry11 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@JinDobry11 You seem to be the singular editor disagreeing with the content. And by singular, I mean there is a growing amount of behavioural evidence to suggest that you and User:Shanah5782‬ are the same person. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence in the article you cited of the publication being fined. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Please respond to the specific content challenge on accuracy of the description. JinDobry11 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that the source is reliable? —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Despite their above denials, JinDobry11 has been confirmed by a checkuser as a sockpuppet account of Shanah5782 and both accounts have been blocked accordingly. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shanah5782. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I have requested this page is protected to prevent a reprise. Orange sticker (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)