Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party

notable POV

If the POV of some unimportant reporter is worthy of inclusion why not the POV of multiple independently notable political activists?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but in truth mostly opinions and views and little examples of antisemitism. There are several competing reasons for the apparent smearing of Labour, not the least of which is the desire to link any criticism of Isreal's actions to be seen as anti-Jewish: Then we have the desire of the Tories to paint their main political competition with a smear and conservative media outlets being more than happy to help beat that drum, and then we have the bias in much Arab and Muslim oriented news that is very anti-Zionist; all this raises quite a mess for Labour being viewed as less than favorable towards British Jewry. As Labour has more active members from minority and immigrant groups, for example, Pakistani background, where antisemitism in Urdu language news outlets in the UK is common place, it is not hard to see this bleed over into public comments of such Labour members. This is problematic for Labour, but hardly a party wide rise in antisemitism, from what I've seen. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Labour has antisemitism problem, 51% of voters say" [1]
• "Shame of Labour party antisemitism" [2]
• "Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem" [3]

If a 'Labour' news outlet like the Guardian is running such articles, there is a problem. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not for us to judge the veracity of the claims (or the rebuttals) just to report them. All I am saying is that if we include the opinions of none notable people there is no valid excuse for excluding this of notable people.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A thought: Comments by non-notable persons should be groups together and not specifically named in this article while comments from could be named and quoted, regardless of position. But all this should be done with some care for possible motivations of why people are making the statements in the first place as not all motivations are virtuous. This is my opinion. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No they should not, we do not censor. We should not try and second guess motives. If it is the case then frankly almost no opinion should be allowed as all can have nefarious motives attached to them by Edds.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

When you have The Daily hammering on and quoting only Tories, one does not need to "second guess motives"; merely list clearly the sources. People can draw their own conclusions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The issue is excluding the opinions of those people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming the sources are as important as naming the people; for example, the Guardian is very solidly 'Blairite' and anti-Corbin. The problem is when an article is nothing but opinions, polls and perceptions, then it can be slanted so it is best to have more factual items. This is not the Sun, after all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said I am not disagreeing with that. But I am not sure what you mean by "more factual items" in the context of this discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Back to the original point, are you referring to a particular example of reporting opinion as fact? or making a general point? I would think we should be distinguishing between 'opinion' and 'fact' when we build balanced Wikipedia articles. Sionk (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That was not my original point, mine was about allowing POV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist vs. Anti-Jewish

The use of the term 'antisemitism' within this article and many of it's quotes appear to mix or confuse the two very different issues of Anti-Zionist vs. Anti-Jewish sentiment. Jeremy Corbyn's Passover actions with Jewdas is far from 'antisemitic' but very much anti-Zionist as an example. This article has lost all NPOV - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say. In this regard, many comtempprary antisemitism scholars view one as, for the most part, cover for the other.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

To act in an anti-Zionist way and speak openly in support of (any) Palestinian rights, will cause someone out there to label you as anti-semiotic; this does not mean it is true or that it should be included for that matter. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely a case for reporting the news accurately, rather than describing allegations as fact, I agree. All reputable news sources describe anti-semitism allegations as allegations, rather than unquestionable fact. Partisan editors here shouldn't be reaching their own conclusions prematurely. Sionk (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why report smears and allegations like this at all? Soon we will have topless photos on page two. Just because allegations are made and reported does not make it a factual event or we would also have have articles on the 'giving birth to aliens' as fact as well. Just because someone calls anti-Zionist actions anti-semiotic does not make it so, nor rise to the factual levels to include it on wiki. IMO - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Many RSes disagree with your ORish assertion, reporting this as AS.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not the reporting that's the problem, but the WP:UNDUE given to opinions and allegations with huge amounts of coverage in this article that call into question it's neutrality. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, reporting allegations as fact is also OR. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Just the sheer volume of opinions and allegations in this article is problematic and it also gives rise to making this very much about the past few years by regurgitation of the tabloids. Hiding behind the 'It comes from a RS, repeat it.' does not change mean it is always worth repeating. It gives WP:UNDUE to allegations and opinions. Sure it's reported as allegations and opinion, but these claims are given more coverage than the original act. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Would that not depend on who says it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Labour Party Neutrality

The neutrality of this article's extensive use of allegations and opinions, call into question the basic neutrality of the article as well as giving WP:UNDUE to these allegations and opinions. There are also questions regarding surrounding WP:BLP and WP:CHERRYPICKING of sources. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If at all, we are giving UNDUE weight to rebuttals by the Corbyn faction - which are, for the most part, ignored by mainline RS. We are also, perhaps, overly cautious in attributing allegations of AS - instead of outright stating that this is AS per most RS.Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

e.g. in the mural episode - it seems RS have not problem simply saying this is AS or contains many AS tropes - [4][5]. However are overly cagey - starting with the title "Corbyn and a mural" (it would seem the mural is not the issue, an AS mural is), and continues with a very cautious description of the mural - "mural, Freedom for Humanity by Kalen Ockerman, known as Mear One, which was considered antisemitic, a claim the artist denied" - which makes it sound as if there is some weight to the position that this did not contain AS tropes. The Guardian, hardly a conservative outlet, says straight out: "In a Facebook post in 2012, Corbyn offered his backing to Los Angeles-based street artist Mear One, whose mural, featuring several known antisemitic tropes, was due to be removed after complaints." - as do other sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We have 3 paragraphs on people saying it was, and one on the rebuttal and you claim it is unbalanced to towards the rebuttals? I also note your guardian source also has the rebuttals (well some of them), if they think they are worthy of reporting why should we exclude them?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We're taking a different tack in our voice - creating a false balance (which is not present in the RS) regarding the AS of the mural. Certainly we should include notable rebuttals - but do so inline with WP:BALASP - and not lend weight to minor opinions beyond what is present in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, a person accused of something cannot be said to not have a significant viewpoint on that accusations. Indeed wp:blp comes into this. We also have other issues, such as the opinions of notable peoples as opposed to unnotable ones. Also there are other issues, do all sources agree on something (such as a source that says that something is only alleged "Jeremy Corbyn was right to express regret for sending an apparently supportive message to the creator of an allegedly anti-Semitic mural." (BBC) or where a comment is only regarded as possibly supportive "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apparently backed the painting of a mural which was condemned as having antisemitic undertones "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apparently backed the painting of a mural which was condemned as having antisemitic undertones" (JC)). Things are very rarely that clear cut where BLP's a concerned. So unless every single RS says something is a fact we cannot imply it by omission of opinions that contest the idea it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OK lets re frame this, what are we talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the opinions of non notable (in their own right) people?

• You've already raised this above. Why raise it again here? Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

To try and know who actually supports what.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wiki notability of a wiki article (not the same - one could create an article) - is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the opinions of academics whose area of expertise is not political or antisemitism?

• Would someone who doesn't have an informed opinion ever be reported/repeated in RS's? If it isn't widely reported, then we wouldn't repeat it here, would we? Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• If widely covered - then yes. Note there are a few other expert areas that may be relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the opinions of writers or artists?

• Well, we have quotes from Sneider and Baddiel, both prominent comedians and some of the UK's best known Jewish personalities. Why single out writers and artists? In fact, artists and writers are probably the best people to sum up a situation in one or two pithy sentences (probably why the aforesaid two writers were noticed in this instance). Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I should have made it clear I mean anyone who is a Celebrity.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Depends on coverage - if they received wide coverage, then yes.Icewhiz (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Not all 'coverage' is equal, The Times of London is not The Daily or The Sun. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

In wide coverage - I was implicitly assuming weighting per the quality of the RS involved - and I would tend to exclude non-RS all together (though if the daily is re-covered by a RS saying according to the Daily... it is sort of in the middle).Icewhiz (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the objections of the accused?

• Of course. In the interests of BLP concerns as much as anything else. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Normally yes, however we should not give UNDUE weight to such content or include tangential figures (e.g. Mear One who is not the subject of this article (or coverage) - which is focused on Corbyn's response). We should, also, take care not to repeat anti semitic speech if there is no compelling reason to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A BLP is A BLP, we identify someone as having committed an act then we have to give them a right of reply.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that in WP:BLP anywhere? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but this [[6]]b implies that yes that is what we should do. BLP it not the only rule that apllies here, it is just that BLP reinforces their importance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

As Mear One's authorship and reply are off topic - the correct choice would be to simply exclude the artist who created the mural - avoiding this pickle all together.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be fine with me - or just say that he denies it being antisemitic and leave it at that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Except that we can still identify them by the subject. So either we remove all mention of this being antisemitic, or we include the artists denial. But I have no objection to just saying they have denied the accusation, we do not need a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If we do not identify them - we do not need to provide any such detail on them - particularly when an outside party would only identify them if they knew about this mural debate to begin with. If someone sees the identification following through one of our references to a RS - they can see the coverage of the pros/cons of the mural in the reference. Placing Mear One's denial creates a NPOV problem - as we can not and should not devote the space needed here for the countering viewpoint which is much more prevalent (or nearly universal) in this case.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, if they can be easily identified then we are accusing them, just using weasel words to avoid having to including their denial. I think they NPOV problem of saying their work is antisemitic (or alleged to be) and not allowing for the accused to deny this if far worse. It is not as if every source says it was antisemitic (just that is was alleged to be). Are you really saying that in a 4 paragraph section adding the text "the artist denied it was antisemitic" is undue?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It was not alleged to be AS - it was reported by mainline RSes as containing AS tropes. Including Mear One's stmt that this was not AS would be grossly UNDUE without including the multiple, and nearly universal, opposing viewpoints. Our current text - which was considered antisemitic, a claim the artist denied. - is a NPOV issue. As it is - we can simply omit Mear One from our article - as we are interested in Labour's actions/reactions on the mural issue - and not the artistic merits or lack therof.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[[7]],[[8]], [[9]], [[10]], no it was not universally reported as antisemitic, so yes it was "alleged to be AS" by many RS. This is not a review of its artistic merit, it is an accusation of wrong doing (and possibly illegality).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine in terms of the denial, but there should be more about who considered the mural antisemitic and why. I also think we can remove the artist's name as it doesn't seem particularly relevant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn himself, and most (or all?), of Labour consider it AS - I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and antisemitic - there is no real debate on this. Beyond the NPOV issues - there is also an issue of us promoting AS discourse.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What? How the hell is allowing someone to deny they are antisemitic promoting AS discourse?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include allegations without direct evidence in word or deed of antisemitism?

• Yes as long as we a clear that are only allegations, and as long as RS have covered them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So wiki becomes a tabloid filled with unproven 'allegations', that does not seem very encyclopedic. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, what matters is coverage. It is not up to us to evaluate the merits of the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Like counting the number of re-Tweets? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that, and that would seem ORish. I was referring to coverage in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the difference between counting re-Tweets and the number of times conservative rags bounce a juicy story around to up readership? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

One would be OR, the other would be use of RS.Icewhiz (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because an allegation is being reported in circles of RS, does not mean it is fit for wiki; for we would have an 'Presidential wee wee video' article. There has to be an underlying act that is verified for a swirl of allegations is worth more than a footnote, if any mention at all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As long as the instances were widely reported in mainstream RSs and they are clearly described as allegations (and they are allegations of antisemitism and in the Labour Party) then I don't see the problem. The bigger problem is where Wikipedia editors claim allegations as proof, or start wandering off writing about allegations of something else (like my favorite bugbear about inclusion here of stories about people being a member of a social media group where some other members of the group, maybe or maybe not LP members, made allegedly antisemitic comments). We need both focus and balance. Sionk (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, great, we need both focus and balance and with that wiki should not have an article with larges parts sections based only on allegations. This begins to look more like a smear article in the Telegraph when you have no underlying act of antisemitism, merely the repeating of allegations. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Should anti-Zionist or anti-Israel views be considered antisemitic?

• If RS make the claim we report it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

However not all RS are created equal and are not always reliable for all issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• We should include what RS report as anti-semitism or allegations of such. If something is report just as AI or AJ - that should not be in. However something being AI or AJ does notmpreclude it being AS. In any case editor opinion on the merits of the claim (or the reliability of well established RS) - are utterly irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So Corbyn shows up at an anti-Zionist Jewish group dinner during Passover, some one calls this anti-Semitic, that gets reported in RS and you say it has to be included? Why? There is no underlying antisemitism in the original act, only 'accusations'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well - being Jewish does not preclude being anti-semitic. The question is not whether the claim is correct or not, but whether the claim has received coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nae, the First question should be whether the claim has any hint of merit, then consider the coverage. This is not The Sun, but Wikipedia! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not judge the merit of a claim, only its coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It is sorry if you are willing to list out allegations without any supporting evidence, or pattern of actions to support it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The question to ask is not what editors think of the merits, but whether this received non-dismissive coverage in mainline sources (not the Sun or Daily Mail).Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about listing allegations without evidence (I assume that the allegation was made, not that it is true, as even RS are not infallible and make mistakes). If RS make an allegation we can include it, if they do not we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

{od} So if allegations with little or no merit make up the bulk of many sections of this article, the article should then be titled - "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party" for in truth you care not for the factual nature of the allegations, just that the allegations are in the RS media cycle. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think that is what many of us have said form the start. Many of these allegations are just that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And many are not, with Labour itself recognizing them as AS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Which ones?Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope you all are watching the debate about antisemitism in the house of commons today. Here's a taste and I'm sure you can find the rest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In answer to the question "Should anti-Zionist or anti-Israel views be considered antisemitic?", whether it could be considered anti-semitism is dependent upon a number of factors. The ADL defines anti-semitism in relation to Israel as: "Anti-Israel activity crosses the line to anti-Semitism when: All Jews are held responsible for the actions of Israel. Israel is denied the right to exist as a Jewish state and equal member of the global community. Traditional anti-Semitic symbols, images or theories are used." MP's like Ruth Smeeth and Luciana Berger (and others) have certainly been victims of that kind of abuse. Brough87 (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged causes section

Is this really appropriate. Is supposition from about an underlying aim for a bunch of mainly unconnected events really adding to the article? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AS in Labour is being covered in RS as a connected series of incidents.Icewhiz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My point was that trying to add information about an alleged secret policy being behind the various examples is getting into conspiracy theory territory. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It is beginning to sound like we might need an RfC on renaming the article: "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party" given the large part allegations consume in this article with little or no underlying support. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right, yes we do now need an RFC over this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that we continue to go in circles on the Talk Page on this and other topics, it might be best to start using the RfC format to settle some of these issues. Slatersteven, would you be willing to write up an RfC on the name for starters, I'm afraid I will not be able to be write it in a neutral voice at the moment. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you think an RFC on this will resolve.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC On new article title

Given the nature of the debate as well as denials and accusations of bias from both sides in the off wiki reporting should this be retitled as "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party".Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, per common name.[11][12]. Might be justification for adding saga[13] or row[14]. Note that the party itself has admitted AS multiple times (and has taken action against members), for instance lately here.[15] It seems there is no doubt (Labour admitting as much) that this is an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• No. Icewhiz covered all the bases. COMMONNAME, and Labour admitting there's an issue and vowing to fight it seems to make a weasel word unnecessary here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Prodcedural close Why have you opened an RFC instead of an RM? Also, this is just another rerun of this RM, which took place less than 6 months ago. If this RFC/RM stays open, then No per IceWhiz and the reasons for not moving at the previous RM. Iffy★Chat -- 08:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A user asked for one above, this was not my idea (I have no idea why they even want it), maybe next time I should just say "do it yourself if you want one".Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to clarify in the text that you are opening this on behalf of another user. We do the same on WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• No There's controversy regarding which members are really engaged in antisemitism, but Labour itself admitted this problem exists within the party.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MY appolgise I thought it was clear form the thread above that it was was being launched at the request of another user.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• No per common name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per common sense, the article mostly cites allegations, rumour and speculation from dubious primary sources .jasmallman (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• No (hasn't this been discussed before?), per WP:COMMONNAME, though I can understand why the issue has been raised again when certain editors insist on adding every example of rumour and insinuation. Sionk (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per NPOV. "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" is a declaration that there is antisemitism in the Labour Party. The modifier "alleged" keeps the title neutral. The fact the Labour Party itself has said there is antisemitism in the Labour Party is still just an allegation; organizations cannot declare something about themselves and that thing simply becomes a fact. This is as true for negative statements as it is for positive ones; for instance, Acme Company's declaration that it is "the best dish soap in the world" being used to declare Acme the "best dish soap in the world" in its corresponding WP article. DocumentError (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• No because its not "alleged", its fact... over and over evidence has been presented which shows antisemitism and people have been suspended. This is not a conspiracy theory, its actually happening. When you have Labour supporting newspapers like The Guardian publishing reports and organisations like Momentum telling its supporters that "antisemitism in Labour should not and cannot be dismissed simply as rightwing smears nor as the result of conspiracies" and also saying that anti-Jewish bias is "more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago" then its a real problem.[16] The current title of "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" is neutral based on the references, putting "alleged" in the title makes it POV as it supports the conspiracy theory that its just a smear campaign. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 21:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• No per common name. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, per WP:COMMONNAME; it's not an NPOV issue. Also worth looking over WP:ALLEGED. Ralbegen (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, the dispute appears to be over the extent of antisemitism in the party, not whether it exists at all (Icewhiz gave some examples). The proposed title would therefore be misleading. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, the name "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party" would suggest that antisemitism in the Labour party is non-existent, which goes against what the Labour Party, academics and victims of the abuse have said, Furthermore there are wiki principles like WP:COMMONNAME which must be adhered to. Brough87 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

political leanings

Why do we need to know if people are left wing, but it is POV to list other people as right wing? Either we list all affiliations or none, doing anything else if POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that they are left wing is the thing making them notable here - the fact that Guido Fawkes is right wing doesn't make a difference to this particular report. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not, surely that has also been noted and thus is notable?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone is described as left wing and someone else as right-wing, or Blairite, or Conservative supporter etc., then this is relevant. I agree we shouldn't be cherry picking who we label and who we don't. Sionk (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Especially when the justification for exclusion is "well they are telling the truth" (the implication is any other label is to imply they are lying). That is a Gross violation of NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing the Guido Fawkes blog as right-wing is accurate and reflects the background of its creator, Paul Staines. However, editors who try to make a point of labeling the site as being right-wing (and the reverse also often applies elsewhere) are trying to use the label to dismiss its reporting. It is true the blog has a mixed reputation for accuracy, but it is being mentioned here when a reliable source, The Times, has followed up on its coverage. Philip Cross (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No more then labeling Judas as left wing is, either we list all leanings or none (as long as RS report them).Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the reason that Jewdas were notable is because they are left wing - that is the whole point of the story and the reason for the controversy. Guido being right wing is not relevant to this story. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Labeling Jewdas as left wing, or even fringey left-wing - within the Jewish community - is due. This is not a random Jewish group - the reason this elicited pushack (perhaps misguided) from the larger Jewish community is the rather extreme views of Jewdas within the spectrum of the Jewish community.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you know it is not just some random group who happened to invite him? And why is it also not due that the man who "uncovered" this is not right wing? Also did it illecite push back form the larger Jewish community, it seems to be a lot of Jews push back against the push back.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Because this is not a "random" group - far from it - they are notorious (in the Jewish community) for being anti-Zionist and anti-Israel (they are also full of satire). Per their own webpage - [17] "Radical Jewish Voices". Per ITV - [18] "defended his decision to meet with a radical Jewish left-wing group". Per NY-Times - [19] - " Jewdas, a self-described radical leftist Jewish group", "The group’s very name — a play on Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus Christ — is a provocation, one that has angered many of those encountering the group for the first time. Some critics say that Jewdas’s name, and antics, risk stoking age-old myths and hatreds that have led to anti-Semitic violence.", "the group may be best known for its vociferous criticisms of Israel and its policies toward Palestinians", "“It’s a radical diaspora Jewish group that has taken an explicitly non-Zionist stance, alongside satirizing the many absurdities of the British Jewish community and throwing excellent parties,” according to a founder of the group, Joseph Finlay.", "In a tweet the group posted at the end of last year, it called Israel a “steaming pile of sewage.”" - all of this leading to (per ITV) "The Campaign Against Antisemitism described his actions as "a very clear two fingered salute at mainstream British Jewry"." Being a (possibly satirical in part) radical left-wing, anti-zionist, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish establishment group of Jews - goes to the core of what Jewdas is.

As for Guido Fawkes - it is a meh - frankly one might ask whether we even need to mention that he broke this. If this were only reported by Guido Fawkes - we wouldn't have included this. As it is - he broke a story, and we picked it up for coverage here since it became a national and even an international news item.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention Guido at all, would be much simpler with just "In April, Corbyn attended ....". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Removed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I see so the fact they are left wing tells us what we need to know, but the fact this was propagated by a right wing blogger is not? Well consensus is against me, but I see this as POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If Corbyn had denied it, then it might be more relevant, but as it has been reported by many other news agencies and Corbyn said that he went there, I don't think it is relevant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes was relevant for a few hours - when this broke. He had absolutely no relevance a week later, and none today - look at when RSes mentioning Corbyn/Jewdas stopped mentioning him. Corbyn going to the event wasn't a secret - Fawkes was simply the first one with the scoop - we don't credit scoops in most of our articles - especially when they aren't particularly relevant to the article at hand. There might be other places in the article in which it might make sense to attribute someone as "right wing" (who merits inclusion in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)