Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party

RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.

This RfC is about inclusion/exclusion of eight different opinions and positions that have been challenged due to NPOV/UNDUE. Please refer to Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Undue content removed and Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Views of Deborah Lipstadt for previous discussion related to this RfC. This multi-part RfC is organized into separate sections - one for each bit. Please indicate Support, Exclude, or Modify (clearly state what to modify) along with a rationale for each sub-section you !vote in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC procedure

• Objection, why do we list some as individuals and others as sections? I also not not all opinions are covered here. Also the issue of polls was raised and op-ed pieces, but they are not mentioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  It may be possible to start an additional RfCs. The content listed here was challenged by reversion, and was discussed specifically in the two talk sections above - as opposed to general discussions on a topic.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of this article has been, including many of the polls ever since this article was created. What was discussed above was all opinions, not some. And again why are some listed as individual opinion and others as group opinions (especially as in some insistences only one of the opinions in the section has been objected to)?13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Each RfC subsection I opened up, was based on a reversion of an actual edit. In some cases - it makes sense to discuss by section.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And in some cases the material originally was reverted when it was separate. It makes it impossible to reasonably vote after all one "modify" vote may be Keep X and remove Y and another Remove Y and keep X". This makes achieving any real consensus difficult.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC.1 Charlotte Nichols

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude non-expert/notable individual providing their opinion in a party publication (Labour List).Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude There should be coverage of this perspective, but there are better sources than Labour List. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude for reasons given above, not an expert in relevant fields and simply a non-notable individual. Alssa1 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• IncludeShe is a member of the group under discussion, as such she can be said to present their views.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude for reasons given by Bondegezou. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include A reliably sourced statement from a member of Jewdas providing context for Corbyn's visit seems relevant to the topic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Relevant and pertinent to this controversy. Garageland66 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - She's a member of the group being discussed, can present their views and provide context for Corbyn's visit. Removing this would make the section one-sided. RevertBob (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Inclusion for balance leads to a bloated page, a very familiar predicament. She's not notable.--Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - The opinion of not well-known, non expert personalities should be bypassed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Include A reliably sourced statement, as she is a ranking member of the group being criticized she is relevant to the section ~ as per Simonm223. However I am not sure if she adds much. Trim and if a more notable (brief) source is available, replace. The the article is over long though on both sides and some pruning could be done. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude ... not informative or noted Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude opinions of non-expert individuals. Deb (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude ... the person quoted is not notable. Peter K Burian (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think anyone here has considered the fact that some of there comments have been republished in secondary sources too[1]. RevertBob (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Per WP:UNDUE If some major news outlet will pick it.We can discuss it right now her opinion is not notable.And Jacobinmag in not exactly major news outlet --Shrike (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki guideline is to use reliable sources not major news outlets aka mainstream sources. RevertBob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. Doesn't add anything. The statement is predictable given the source, making it meaningless. A similar statement from a secondary source would be fine. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Modify - She has been quoted by around five reliable news sources. The two sentences should be shortened to one for concision, with the Jacobin opinion source replaced by reliable news sources - see Discussion below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Calthinus: How does this differ from the question of Jeremy Newmark? Both are British Jewish political advocacy groups. I think it'd be a double standard to exclude this and retain that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: for me the difference is rank. If thhis page weren't already bloated I would be fine with including. But he (chairman) is clearly higher up than her (Women's Officer for Young Labour); in Jewdas she is merely a "member" -- not notable. Imo. Where it was somewhere in between, the "spokeswoman" my !vote was include.--Calthinus (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest the WP:NPOV requirements would outweigh the rank concern. However if we're concerned about page bloat we could remove both per WP:NOTOPINION which would satisfy me less than retaining both but more than retaining one but not the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I've voted for excluding some of the "Corbyn-unfavorable" material -- Gilad Erdan for one as he is internal to Israel and thus doesn't pass the threshold for me. I'm all for making compromises but when we're two of like twelve or so relevant editors here it's not as useful for the page. In the end I have to confess bloating the page does mitigate POV problems as no matter how much it is one way or not, readers will not resent or even notice that specifically if it happens to also be an full of huge unreadable walls of text.--Calthinus (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I'd counter that two editors making a reasonable compromise might get picked up by other editors as a basis for a consensus. And I think the reason we're in this mess has been because of attempts to balance-through-addition from people on both sides of the discussion, so if we don't keep the subtraction reasonably balanced we may end up in the same position again in a few weeks when new eyes come along and see either the "Corbyn's Labour is antisemitic," position or the "naw, this is just Israeli propaganda," position over-represented. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has considered the fact that some of there comments have been republished in secondary sources too[2]. RevertBob (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Charlotte Nichols RfC has been open for a month, with a clear consensus for removal. Can we go ahead a close this part of the discussion and remove her paragraph from the Jewdas section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I hope the closing editors considers that part of Nichols comments were republished in a secondary source[3] which hasn't been addressed. RevertBob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the wide coverage of antisemitism in Labour, if this has been only covered in LabourList and Jacobin - it is clearly WP:UNDUE. In assessing the significance of coverage (as opposed to whether an item passes WP:V - we assess the grade of the publishing venue. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Significant coverage relates to whether a topic is notable to have an article not whether content within a page is noteworthy - this is based on RS which this fulfils (although we have already been through all this numerous times before). The arguments of DUE are weak considering the section is about Corbyn's attendance to a sedar hosted by Jewdas so a spokesperson’s views are of importance and worthy to provide balance to the page. The coverage in in secondary source justifies inclusion but the content could be trimmed to the coverage received in the secondary source. RevertBob (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with Nichols being in the article, but it was one of the RfCs where there seemedd to be a consensus, with a very large number of exclude votes and very few include votes. If we need to have the argument again, well, it is true, as RevertBob says, that noteworthyness, as defined in WP:DUE, is about what the weight RSs say not about what mainstream sources say. However, at the moment we have 100 words devoted to an opinion piece by her in a blog, with an ex-blogger writing in an American opinion magazine as the only secondary source. That equates to a very low prominence in weak reliable sources, doesn't it? HOWEVER, she also wrote an op ed for the Jewish Chronicle[4], and her LabourList blogpost actually received some wider attention in other sources: Reuters ("Charlotte Nichols, one of the attendees of the Jewdas event, said..."[5]), Jewish News ("seder participant Charlotte Nichols said..."[6]), the NYT ("Mr. Corbyn spent more than four hours at the event, according to Charlotte Nichols, women’s officer of the party’s youth wing, who defended his presence in an article for LabourList, a pro-Labour website"[7]), the Guardian newsblog ("Charlotte Nichols, Young Labours’ women’s officer, uses an article for LabourList, to commend Corbyn for attending the Jewdas event."[8]) and HuffPo ("Charlotte Nichols, who attended the Jewdas Seder said Corbyn should be “commended” for his presence at the event not attacked"[9]). My suggestion would be to edit the current version to remove the Jacobin cit and replace it with some of these, and make sure that the text follows the material these secondary sources have singled out, ideally as a concise paraphrase rather than a long quotation. HOWEVER, that would go against the consensus that has so far been established, which is pretty strongly for deleting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC.2 Comedians

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude - UNDUE - two non-experts whose twitter remakes received a bit of coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify I think calling Schneider and Baddiel "comedians" is a bit simplistic. They are both notable commentators in this context. However, I'm not certain we need comments from both of them.
• Exclude I'm confused as to the benefits of including the opinions of comedians on this matter. Alssa1 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• include they are notable members of the Jewish community whose comments were reported (and indeed sought) by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify – as mentioned above, it is too simplistic to view this as comments made by non-notable comedians on Twitter. A brief mention (one sentence at the most) would seem due. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Exclude I don't see notability in this statement but concede I might be missing something. Will open up discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Undecided Per talk. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Comedians aren't relevant. They are entertainers. Sometimes they are also informers, but that's not their job, officially. --Calthinus (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include, on the basis the comments have been reported in mainstream, reliable news sources. Baddiel in particular has long been a high profile Jewish celebrity in the UK over many decades. Comedians are often adept at making a serious point in a pithy, creative way (isn't that what satire is all about?). Sionk (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude- The view of casual artists/performers is entirely undue in my opinion. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - They're not "just comedians" but notable public figures whose views on the subject of antisemitism have been widely covered. RevertBob (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include/Conditional Exclude They are Notable members & commentators of the Jewish Community whose opinions were very relevant to the section, (also agree with Sionk regards satire). Plus if Howard Jacobson, Simon Schama, and Simon Sebag Montefiore (RfC 11) stay then Schneider and Baddiel should also remain (notable public members/commentators of the community on both sides in or out). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude We're already walking a fine line with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT these days, I don't think these comments made on twitter are likely to have any lasting significance. In the event that they do there will be secondary sources for them (like books or peer reviewed articles) in addition to the immediate news coverage. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. Doesn't add anything to what's already stated. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Include, on the basis the comments have been reported in mainstream, reliable news sources and that the two have a history of commenting on British Jewish/Labour subjects and are broadly 'left-leaning. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Howard Jacobson, Simon Schama, and Simon Sebag Montefiore have value but these two do not. Schama is not even a UK resident these days. Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude additional material, the first sentence from Schneider is enough here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Bangalamania: do you want to expand on your statement above here and explain what you mean by "too simplistic?" Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Baddiel and Schneider have both featured as commentators in national newspapers on antisemitism within the Labour Party, mentioned in the Guardian story on this event (egs: Schneider - New Statesman; Baddiel - The Times (paywalled), Daily Politics, but there is much much more).

I'm still a little on the fence on this one, but the 'simplistic' comment was meant to say that this isn't simply some offhand quip by a comedian on Twitter: these two comedians are prominent Jewish Labour supporters who have written about/commented on the issue of antisemitism in the UK press. Also worth noting that the two have been critical of Corbyn at times, and are not aligned with groups such as the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Labour. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm still undecided. I do think we need to be cutting opinion and that we need to do that in a fair and NPOV way. But shortening and modifying to clarify context might be good.Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_2#Antisemitism_in_the_Labour_Party_Neutrality and, curiously, some people are now argueing the polar opposite. What's changed? Sionk (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

IN my case it is that we are including a load of rather random talking heads, why not these ones. I would vote to remove all such opinions, but if some are allowed all must be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether these should be included or not, but agree it is simplistic to call them "comedians"; their significance is both are also political commentators, relatively prominent voices of the Jewish community, have written about antisemitism and about British Jews, and Labour supporters. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Precisely the point I was trying to make. I'm not vehemently against removing these comments (with the greatest of respects, they're not academics or experts in the field), but categorising Baddiel and Schneider as just "comedians" commenting on Twitter – without providing any additional context – will inevitably bias this part of the RfC towards exclusion. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC.3 Expert opinions section

Should the Expert opinions section (or this diff be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include - Deborah Lipstadt is one of the leading living scholars on antisemitism, Holocaust, and Holocaust denial and her expert opinion on Labour has been included by top-notch publications such as the Washington Post. David Hirsh and Dave Rich aren't as notable, but both have strong academic credentials in regards to antisemitism, particularly in the UK, and are regularly included for comment by mainstream publications. This article could do with more expert opinions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify Comments by Lipstadt and Hirsh should be included, but I would find a more precise sub-heading than "Expert opinions". They're not experts on the Labour Party, for example. What about "Scholars of antisemitism". Something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  I could see antisemitism scholars or something similar as an alternative title.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Either "Antisemitism scholars" or "scholars of antisemitism" sounds like a better title than "expert opinions" to me. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Support rename to "Scholars of antisemitism". --Calthinus (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include It would seem an incredibly odd decision to not include the work of a prominent Holocaust scholar and expert on anti-semitism generally. To not include Lipstadt and her work would seem deeply inappropriate. Alssa1 (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOTOPINION does not exclude academic commentary on a topic. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify: I agree with Alssa1 with regard to Lipstadt. Even though I have spoken on the talk page before about possibly explaining Lipstadt's view of 'softcore denial' (or linking to section on her page), she is a notable figure who should be included. Hirsh has good credentials in the area, but the focus on his views of a Labour victory or lack thereof does seem to be a little bit coatracky. Unsure about the inclusion of Rich in this section; could his views could probably be better integrated in the "new antisemitism"/"rising pro-Palestinian views" section of the article, as his work is covered there? --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Per WP:NOTOPINION in general and also per WP:FRINGE specifically for references to Lipstadt's "Softcore" holocaust denial on the basis that it has not been demonstrated that this is a term anyone else recognizes as describing a real thing distinct from denying the holocaust or not denying the holocaust. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Hirsh and Rich are highly partisan commentators with a particular agenda. Garageland66 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Rich, Exclude Lipstadt and Hirsh. Hirsh's comments are tangential to this article, and Lipstadt's views on the specific topic appear FRINGE; what is included above is also not well-defined. Rich is well-sourced and succinctly summarized.

Also, titling the section as "Expert opinions" seems bizarre in this specific context and violates WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include the opinions of experts with actual credentials are, of course, informative and relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Undecided Possibly include Rich & Hirsh maybe if Avi Shlaim & Finkelstein are kept, though I agree with Aquillion that their opinions are already presented in this article. Exclude Lipstadt due to her Fringe softcore holocaust denial accusations which go too far. Should a seperate section remain the POV pushing heading def should be changed, and the section ought to include counter viewpoints. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include with section name changed: these are all notable and authoritative, leading experts on antisemitism. However, section should be kept concise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include, these are reliable sources commenting on the specific topic of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude all, at least given the article's current form. Note that these sources are already used elsewhere in the article (in fact, Rich's book is probably given WP:UNDUE weight already, elsewhere in the article); my objection in this case is that devoting an entire additional paragraph to them is WP:UNDUE, especially when we already represent their opinions elsewhere. Experts are best cited via their published works (which have in theory received the scrutiny and fact-checking WP:RS prefers); while we can cite opinion pieces by them under some circumstances, citing their opinion-pieces when we're already citing their books seems to serve no purpose beyond trying to put undue weight on their views. (I would also ask the people pushing for inclusion in an opinion-piece section if they would agree to having them their if we agreed, as a compromise, that they cannot be cited outside it - this might resolve the concern, expressed by some people above, that these are highly-opinionated sources. If anything, rather than excluding an opinion section with them, that is an argument to cite them only in that opinion section.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per Simonm223, this particular edit lends UNDUE weight to Lipstadt's "softcore denial" theories and also agree with Newimpartial - but I'm not sure what to rename the section. I don't think we can name it "Scholars of antisemitism" - this just isn't how we organize articles, even when we have criticism sections. "Support" sections are even more questionable, especially in an article like this one. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Include with section name fixed to avoid "Expert" without qualification. I agree that having a section like this in articles is generally poor, but given the article's current state (such as the meandering Rebuttal section that follows) it's a step in the right direction for improving the article overall in the future, perhaps merging these two sections. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

at least some of it, so without knowing who I am being asked to include I will vote exclude.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• With regard to Lipstadt there's the issue that her claims that Corbyn is a softcore holocaust denier seem pretty WP:FRINGE when the man has never made a statement denying the holocaust, and when the phrase seems to have been developed specifically to call people who have never actually said anything denying the holocaust holocaust deniers for... undefined and unclear reasons. Ultimately those people who advocate for its inclusion have failed to demonstrate it is a term with any sort of wide-spread use within the academic field. And as there is no credible evidence of Labour leadership denying the holocaust or protecting members who have done so, it seems like Lipstadt's opinion is rather WP:UNDUE in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Rareness of terminology doesn't inherently make something fringe. To be fringe, it would need to be repudiated by the rest of relevant discourse. Is it?--Calthinus (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Precisely the opposite; Lipstadt's views have been mentioned in a number of studies on antisemitism, and her works overall are highly regarded in the field. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Lipstadt is one of the leading, perhaps even the foremost, scholars in the field today. The term "softcore holocaust denial" she had used in the context of Labour has received media attention - and this terminology is discussed in an academic context - scholar, as well as by the media in other contexts - Mic - US - Trump adminGuardian - US - Trump admin (and many other outlets - as anything Trump administration related....), or in the context of anti-abortion groups using the Holocaust - "Pro-life group compares abortion rights advocate to the Nazi dictator, which Jewish groups claims is 'softcore denial'", or Irish Examiner. It seems there is a bit of a IDONTLIKE here regarding the verbiage, but she isn't really saying anything outside of the norm - the IHRA working definition includes comparing Nazis to modern day (not remotely close to Nazi) Israel. Trivialization of the Holocaust (another term) - is also used for such instances in which the Holocaust is misused or is an inappropriate comparison or inference. Regardless - this is really one of the top experts here - which is why she is quoted so widely.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It's exactly as I thought -- WP:FRINGE does not apply here.--Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to agree that these are not fringe views in any sense. Her "softcore" term, which she has written about extensively (not specifically in relation to the UK Labour Party) has been widely discussed and used, and repudiated by no scholars. She is about as mainstream a Holocaust scholar as there is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be repudiated to be FRINGE, it's enough that this is not widely accepted by scholars at this time. The media sources aren't enough to establish due weight here - following up on User:Icewhiz's scholar link there is an article about Softcore horror films like Erotic Nights of the Living Dead (1979) or Porno Holocaust (1981), another from Cinema journal and one from Studies in European Cinema, one about the Evangelical Gospel and another about the poetry of Sylvia Plath - we have to ask if Icewhiz reviewed these results before posting them here. Our policies recognize a difference between media and academic sources, unfortunately our editors sometimes choose to give media sources too much weight creating problem with WP:RECENTism by giving UNDUE weight to weak sources in disregard of NPOV. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, Lipstadt is not a "media source" she is a dignified scholar of anti-Semitism. She served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Fringe is not a euphemism for not liking it. It is not only the left she has leveled this charge at either -- she has been fairly even handed and consistent. --Calthinus (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by this discussion. If any of you have read any scholarly work on Holocaust denial, you will know that Lipstadt is a major scholar in this field and that her concept of "softcore Holocaust denial" is widely used in academic work. ("Deborah Lipstadt refers to “hardcore” and “softcore” Holocaust denial.4 Hardcore denial refutes the very existence of the Holocaust. Softcore denial includes all types of minimization and trivialization and is more difficult to recognize and counter." -- Sineaeva-Pankowska 2014. "Deborah Lipstadt, one of the world’s best-known authorities on Holocaust denialism, called the [Trump] administration’s defence of this decision – that it wanted to be “inclusive” of non-Jewish victims – a form of “softcore Holocaust denial.”" --Margulies 2017. "historian Deborah Lipstadt... has used the term ‘soft-core denial’ to highlight the damage done by Holocaust inversion."--Klaff 2014 Other examples:[10],[11],[12],[13],[14]) And the fact that Lipstadt's views received secondary coverage in the media shows that - unlike almost any of the opinion pieces, interviews and open letters quoted in this article - it is indisputably notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The content in the edit can still be UNDUE in terms of the prominence and weight given to it in the edit in question, which is considerable. I have read scholarly work on Holocaust denial that hasn't mentioned Deborah Lipstadt or her theories at all or has defined Holocaust denial differently then Lipstadt does (including an intent to deceive requirement, for example). These definitions are far more sound then Lipstadt's. Even more relevant is the fact that this is not the article for Holocaust denial. Is this content due for this article (Antisemitism in the UK Labor Party). My point, which has not been resolved by the above comments, is that the burden to show that the edit is due for this article falls on the editors arguing for inclusion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit was not given "undue prominence". In fact it was barely visible amid the rest of the citation dump that is this page. She is a well-regarded scholar. She does not need to be referenced in every work (who is anyhow?), that isn't really how WP:DUE works, imo. There has been gallons of ink already spilled by four editors about how she is obviously due.--Calthinus (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea that you need to be mentioned in every single piece of scholarly work about a particular topic to be considered an authority in it is frankly absurd. And it doesn't matter if any one of us consider other definitions more sound than Lipstadt; what matters is that RSs consider her an authority, which is so obvious that denying it seems perverse to me. Lipstadt has one short sentence in this article, a concise, encyclopedic one that could be used as a model for other pieces of opinion we cite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but from what has been cited in this discussion I don't think that burden has been met. In your above comments you reference that Lipstadt has received secondary coverage in the media, so I don't think you've correctly represented my comments about the WEIGHT given to media sources in your response. It's not whether she is cited in every single piece of scholarly work, if her comments were DUE for inclusion there would probably be stronger sources available then RECENT media sources. I see some of that for her work on IHR and Holocaust denial, which is cited by other academic secondary sources, but not really for her comments on UK politics (about which she is not a recognized expert, as far as I know). Of course, part of the problem is that the article title Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is non-neutral to begin with. It should really be something like "Allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party". Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two different things here. First, is she considered an important scholar on antisemitism, and, second, are her comments about UK politics noteworthy. The former claim can be made by referring to the large number of scholarly works that refer to her, or the mainstream media reports which describe her as an expert in this field. This seems irrefutable, and the suggestion "I have read scholarly work on Holocaust denial that hasn't mentioned Deborah Lipstadt or her theories at all or has defined Holocaust denial differently then Lipstadt does" is irrelevant to that, as clearly no expert is ever cited by all publications or finds unanimous scholarly support for their positions. Her comments on antisemitism in the Labour Party are made in her capacity as an expert on antisemitism and not as an expert in the Labour Party, and so follows directly from the first. Her comments on Labour antisemitism are inevitably only covered by recent secondary sources, because they were made relatively recently - but that is not the same as saying that including them is WP:RECENTISM. (The article does need more historical material in comparison to post-2015 material, but that's a different issue.) The fact is there is a LOT of coverage in secondary sources, which is enough to show it is noteworthy. And actually Lipstadt it also quoted in at least two scholarly works on Labour antisemitism too.[15][16] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for those sources, so your argument is that the position presented in this paper [17] is widely accepted by scholars and thus due for inclusion? I would note that FRINGE is a policy that applies not to individuals, but to particular theories or arguments. I don't think we need to remove Lipstadt entirely, in fact, I think the version before Icewhiz's proposed edits covered Lipstadt's views adequately and appropriately. I'm not sure if we are all on the same page so please take a moment to review the changes Icewhiz is proposing, which are far more extensive then the one line editors have expressed support for in the above comments: [18] Given the WP:REDFLAG nature of the content on "softcore denial" and its inherent intersection with the conflict area I think we have to be cautious about whether this particular content is DUE for inclusion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I am not saying the Klaff article should be included in this article or that it is a consensus view among scholars. I was simply showing that scholars who write about antisemitism in the Labour Party have cited Lipstadt's conceptualisation of softcore denialism, and therefore it is utterly wrong to say Lipstadt's views are somehow either fringe or unrelated to our topic. Possibly Klaff should be cited too, along with other scholars on this issue, as this article is heavy on opinions and light on scholarship. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing REDFLAG in the extremely widely covered comments by a noted academic on softcore Holocaust denial. It seems that some editors don't like this term being associated with Labour, but it is well sourced, widely covered (often in the title or ledes of secondary coverage of this), and by an esteemed figure in the field. One should note that comments containing holocaust denial by Labour members are being investigated by the British police.[19]. Other noted figures have made similar observations (covered in a secomdary manner) - [20], and it would seem Labour itself has admitted an incident (and follow on incident) involving denial by a Labour candidate (and the subsequent support for said candidate by the disciplinary board head who subsequently resigned).[21]Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What part of our DUE/neutrality policy do you think says that the number of times something is repeated in an isolated news cycle determines whether it is DUE or UNDUE? This is a gross misrepresentation of what the policy actually says in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. The proportion of coverage of her random comments about UK Labor made during routine press appearances, when you consider the whole of reliable sources, including books and encyclopedias on the subject is zero. Editors often exploit this to load WP:COATRACK content to articles, but what academics say to the press is not the same as their peer reviewed or cited publications (as much as editors try to pretend it is, when it suits them.) While the first version of the article had a brief and appropriate mention, the attempt to dedicate an entire section to this and title it "Expert opinions" is certainly not the intent behind our NPOV policy. I've found that this is currently one of the most prevalent problems effecting a very large amount of articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Describing Libpstadt (and other experts on antisemitism) as an expert opinion is factual. I share your preference for academic sources - in most articles - but academic sources generally do not exist for fairly recent events (which this is - being a "hot" item for the past year or so) - leaving us with NEWSORGs for this article. We generally assess DUEness by amount of coverage in RSes - this particular stmt by Lipstadt being widely covered by multiple NEWSORGs and Lipstadt's expert opinion present in sustained coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's why the first version is adequate. There hasn't been enough coverage in RS (yet) to justify the lengthier version. academic sources generally do not exist for fairly recent events does not justify adding lengthy cherry picked content from media sources. There are good reasons for this that I'm sure most experienced editors here won't need me to spell out, mostly having to do with balance and the level of detail in a cited secondary analysis. My views on media sources don't change from article to article. They are also not really secondary for Lipstadt because they don't offer any independent analysis, they only report the quotes. Media sources are fine for basic facts but there is very little justification to start including quotes and it is almost invariably a POV issue when it happens. It is also, generally, in almost every instance I have seen, detrimental to the readability of the article. I can't imagine opening up a real encyclopedia and finding a lengthy explanation of Lipstadt's (as of yet otherwise unpublished) comments to the media. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphim System that the proposed addition of the expert opinion at the top of this RfC is excessively long and we just need a tight, encyclopedic mention of Lipstadt. However, this article is full of long quotations from opinion pieces and interviews by less authoritative scholars, as well as by more or less random activists, which have had little or no secondary coverage (see RfC on opinion pieces below), so if we are looking for due allocation of weight it seems to me that the large amount of secondary reporting of Lipstadt's statements, plus her significance to scholarship in the relevant field (antisemitism) means that she deserves text more than most of these. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This part of the RfC been open for 30 days. It is clear that there is no consensus for a section called "Expert opinions" but there seems to be consensus for including Dave Rich's views. There is still no consensus on Lipstadt and Hirsh. Can I propose we put Rich back into the article for now and make a renewed attempt at consensus around Hirsh and Lipstadt, e.g if we can develop compromise text for them? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Given no responses to the Rich part of that, two weeks ago, I will reinstate him in the 2018 section, but leave Lipstadt and Hirsh and the question of whether there should be an expert opinions section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Rich content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• UNDUE. While the joint editorial was international news (e.g. Reuters, NYT, WaPo, etc.) which lasting overage, comments of these 3 fringe organizations have received scant coverage - as evident in the sources to Morning Star and Ekklesia. Oryszczuk interview at the fringe, and little read, The Canary (website) and subsequent followup (on taking a leave) in the online only Pressgazette is clearly undue.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify One could keep the opening sentence of that edit, but remove the rest of the content. The Canary is not RS and should not be used. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - Sources like the Canary are totally unreliable while the inclusion of things like Ekklesia seems to border on UNDUE. Alssa1 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• include This is an alternative viewpoint form other Jews. We cannot represent Judaism as if it is unified over this. As to RS issues, I am not sure that any of these sources have been declared not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning towards exclude due to the unreliability of sources here, although I do think it needs to be mentioned in the article that the front page was not unanimously supported among Britain's Jewish community, and that there are left-wing & anti-Zionist groups which disagreed with the editorial. Morning Star can be used as a source for this (so long as it is properly attributed), AFAIK. Unsure about Ekklesia, and the Canary is definitely non-rs and BLOGS violation. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• include - many of these sources are RS, and to exclude them would give the impression of a unanimity that does not actually exist, in violation of WP:NPOV.

Also, procedurally, I would say that the formulation of the RfC mat be inadvertently biased by including reliable along with non-reliable sources in the same section. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional include -- this is relevant and informative, but it is an astonishing double standard if actually statistically sound and representative polling of the Jewish community as a whole is removed, yet these groups (not exactly representative) stay. That would be frankly a "dishonest" outcome.--Calthinus (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include While I am receptive to Calthinus's points, I disagree that it's a double-standard to include reliably sourced statements rather than opinion polls. However I would suggest trimming down to material from reliable sources, including the Morning Star. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Views of Jewish groups should be presented for balance. Also, no evidence of sources not being RS for inaccurate r.eporting or poor fact-checking. RevertBob (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include On NPOV grounds both sides of the Jewish community should be represented. However agree with Simonm223 & Bondegezou trim the section back. I am unaware if the Canary has been found to be RS or not. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Markbassett (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude mainly due to the borderline non-scholarly sources. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak include IJV, Exclude Oryszczuk: Morning Star and Ekklessia are weak reliable sources but the three groups are notable, if not mainstream. Canary is totally not RS and the Oryszczuk interview is completely non-notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include per Newimpartial and Slatersteven. G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include to achieve NPOV. Deb (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. Editorials are understood as opinions; stating some less significant groups disagreed with the opinions isn't notable. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. We have 9 votes for including the first sentence and seven votes for excluding it, nine votes for excluding the second sentence and six votes for including it. I think therefore the fair and consensual compromise would be to reinsert the following sentence: The joint editorial was condemned by three Jewish groups, namely the Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Peace, with the Jewish Socialists Group describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

RfC.5 JVL / Jenny Manson

Should this, this, and this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude When JVL (which has been advocating for Corbyn) receives significant coverage for their positions they should be included. However, when this is (respectively for each diff) - a random Talkradio interview, a piece on JVL itself and an appearance as one of the panelists in Daily Politics (as representing one side, while the other side on the panel - was omitted), a piece on The Electronic Intifada - it is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• IncludeAgain why are these views not worthy of inclusion? Again if there are RS issues raise it at RSN, do not just dismiss sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Passing WP:V (very easy for an attributed stmt - even verified Facebook or twitter accounts would do) - a RS question - does not guarantee inclusion - what is relevant is whether it is WP:DUE - a NPOV question.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Then lets see an end to the dismissing of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude #1 (talkRadio is no evidence of notability/reliability); modify #2 to include just the "BBC1" source ([22]) to say something along the lines of JVL praised Corbyn's "commitment to anti-racism" and were "appalled" by the Board of Deputies' letter, which the organisation said did "not represent us or the great majority of Jews in the party who share Jeremy Corbyn's vision for social justice and fairness" (seems unfair to exclude the response, and it is reliably sourced); exclude #3 (FRINGE, unreliable source). --Bangalamania (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include #2 only. Other perspectives from the broadcast can also be included if they are not redundant. Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Needed for balance. Garageland66 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify as a spokes(wo)man for JVL she can be seen as relevant but she is getting a lot of text in these diffs, probably too much on a large page. Additionally, I would add that her statement aboue ct the "majority of Jews in Labour" has no mathematical backing and can be seen as contradicted by the polls -- historically >50% of politically active Jews aligned or voted fairly consistently for Labour (the rest being Tories or Lib Dems), even if we take this down to ~40%, given ~85% finding the problem in the party to be pretty serious and being very disappointed in Corbyn, that only leaves 15% left and even if we assume they are all Labour (dubious, some could be aligned to very minor parties further left, and there are some economically right-wing anti-Zionists too) that means it is very unlikely to have a majority of Jews in Labour sharing her views. Although this is flagrant OR on my part I confess (permitted on talk pages), I do think the dubiousness of her majority statement merits its exclusion. The rest, just trim I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - She's a spokesperson for a notable Labour Party Jewish group as well as being notable in her own right which provides balance. RevertBob (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, Exclude, Exclude Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include #2 As per Bangalamania Weak Include Not sure regards #1 and #3 ~ She's a spokesperson for a notable Labour Party Jewish group as well as being notable in her own right which provides balance as per RevertBob. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include #2 As per Bangalamania Weak include #1, Exclude #3 - Clearly JVL are notable in relation to this topic, but we need to reflect their view via reliable sources which show notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include per RevertBob. G-13114 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude #1 and #3. Include reduced #2 per Bangalamania, though it could be then expanded per Newimpartial. For #1, including talkradio is embarrassing to WP, and cheapens other attempts at balance. For #3, besides other problems noted in above comments, it just makes a mess of the current paragraph. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I find it rather messy to do this by voting in multiple polls that don't really take the balance of the final version into account, though I suspect other sources can be found for #3. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. There seems to be a consensus reached. The first edit has 4 include votes and 6 exclude. The second has 8 include votes and 3 exclude (some of the include votes wanted a modified version, in most cases shorter). The third edit has 7 exclude votes and 3 include. I think it is therefore clear we should include some version of the second edit, but exclude the first and third. At the moment, the current version does not include the 1st edit, so that requires no action. It does include the 2nd edit, so that can be left, but with support for trimming it. It also includes the third edit, so we need to remove that. I will make that edit now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.6 Norman Finkelstein

Should this diff and this diff be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude. Anti-Zionist activist, with academic credentials as a political scientist. Of the two diffs, diff1 has more merit (as it is secondary coverage) - however it is tangential (and rather self-obvious) to the coverage of Shah's sharing of Finkelstein's post (who stands behind this image, widely condemned elsewhere). Diff2 is an opinion piece posted on his website and subsequently also on the fringe Mondoweiss web-site - it has not been commented on in a secondary manner or published in a mainstream publication.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-Zionist activist" - in context I take this to mean Finkelstein is someone who has strongly criticised the state of Israel - and US Zionists. Why is that relevant to exclusion? Are we to exclude everyone who supports Israel - or the idea of Israel, as incapable of being impartial? Inadvertently, the comment defines the whole topic - those who see widespread anti-semitism in Labour, are almost always supporters/defenders of Israel, whereas those who are critical of Israel, indifferent to Israel, or who defend the right to criticise Israel - say that a-s doesn't exist to any significant degree! Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not present that as a reason - but as a descriptor. My rationale for exclusion is lack of secondary coverage in mainstream media (particularly for diff2). The descriptor may be relevant to as why main-stream media has ignored what he wrote on his personal website (in the same vein as his opinions on other semi-related matters). Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• IncludeA notable academic quoted by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include #1; exclude #2. I don't agree that Finkelstein's views are tangential but agree with most of what Icewhiz says here. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include #1 and exclude #2 as per Bangalamania. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include #1. Reliably-sourced and relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include While I'm not going to pretend he is impartial, he is a relevant academic whose view is well, relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - He's a notable academic whose views are relevant to the topic. RevertBob (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include Notable and relevant academic ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude, exclude. A quote from scholar, but of casual remark and not quote of scholars work. Markbassett (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include per Slatersteven. G-13114 (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude his opinion pieces; Include where his comments are reported in RSs. Finkelstein is used three times in the article at the moment. In the 2016/Inquiries section (paragraph "In May 2016...") he is quoted by the Independent so it is clearly notable, because the meme Shah shared came from him. However, in the Rebuttals/academics section (first para), he is quoted from an opinion piece in OpenDemocracy. As he is not an expert on antisemitism and still less on the Labour Party or UK politics, there's no reason to think his opinion there is notable. He appears again in the Rebuttals/Journalists and authors section, where he apparently "went public" in 2018 (whatever that means - his opinion was already clear from the 2016 opinion piece), this time citing an opinion piece in MondoWeiss. Again, no reason to think that's notable. We should keep the first, but delete the other two. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. There is extremely strong consensus for including Finkelstein in the 2016 section in relation to the Naz Shah incident. However, there was no consensus achieved on the opinion pieces (the two quotations in different subsections of the Rebuttals section), with five votes each way. I think this means that we should renew the discussion on whether the one or both of the two quotations in the Rebuttals section should remain. These are as follows: Under "Academics" In the same month, Norman Finkelstein said: "The only plausible answer is, it's political. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation; instead, a few suspect cases of antisemitism – some real, some contrived – are being exploited for an ulterior political motive. As one senior Labour MP said the other day, it's transparently a smear campaign." and under "Journalists and authors" In the same month, American scholars Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein went public calling the campaign attacking Corbyn and the Labour Party over the issue of antisemitism not only 'insane' and 'hysteria' but one led by powerful interests, with Chomsky arguing that the aim is to undermine Corbyn's attempt to create a political party responsive to the electorate, and Finkelstein asserting that, given the lack of evidence, the campaign was a calculated hoax. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.7 Rebuttals section

Should the rebuttals sections as of 17 Sep 2018 (this diff, slightly differnet version) be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude. We already cover criticism and rebuttals of claims next to each incident/topic in the rest of the article - we do not need to repeat ourselves twice. Furthermore, this section has become a collection of undue to ridiculously undue (e.g. magician Ian Saville's opinion mention in an opendemocracy piece) content, much of it sourced to primary sources of rather limited audience (e.g. the fringe Jewish Socialists' Group's stmt posted on their website). In many cases, the content is repetition (in a different form) of content from the body of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude as per reasons given by Icewhiz. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Balance is never going to be achieved if rebuttals aren't included. Garageland66 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include content and sources, although the title "rebuttals" is terrible and needs to change, along with better transitions and wayfinding. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify merge the useful stuff into other sections, when/if it is not redundant there. Purge the rest. Page is too long.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Necessary for balance. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include of course, to give some sort of balance. Though whether it needs to be quite so long, or contain all of the rebuttals, or whether it could be structured differently, is an open question. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include It's ridiculous to suggest that we should have an article about political allegations and not include responses to them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Content clearly needed for balance. RevertBob (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• include/trim/Modify Defending Responses needed for balance. However needs serious pruning & Merging where possible as per Calthinus. (also agree Rebuttals is a bad title) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Trim: include most of these, but (a) remove open letters which have received no coverage in RSs; (b) remove non-notable opinions such as Socialist Struggle Movement; (c) ensure nothing repeats material in other sections (as per Icewhiz); and (d) shorten the quotes and lists of names. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC) I only just realised that Kuper and Saville in this section are cited via an opinion piece in openDemocracy, where interviews with them are quoted by the author. I think that's a bit of a borderline source; without secondary coverage it's hard to argue the quoted comments are notable. They should also be trimmed out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment This should be condensed. The strongest content should be kept to balance other content, but I don't think this can be done by polling everything at once. Ideally we would have a few authoritative examples from both sides of the debate without too much repetition. Only what readers need to understand the general contours of the debate and no more. That is more important then the particular quotes, which tend to become repetitive. We can use expert opinions, but only if they really add something new. Too often they are included only to make the point that these experts agree with the POV slant of the article and vigorous attempts are made to exclude experts who disagree. Keeping other encyclopedia articles in mind might be a good frame of reference, or reviewing some examples.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Again I would rather we know what were are voting on, but this is more of a procedural vote.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a few:

• a ummm... magician? Who is this guy, am I missing something?
• Chomsky-- does not belong, his degree has nothing to do with the topic.
• More professors/writers/etc whose careers have nothing to do with the topic -- they are just fluff. Ironically if you're trying to push a POV, it doesn't help you to make your section unreadable.
• Non rebuttals -- i.e. Jenny Manson saying "the worst antisemitism is on the right" -- this is actually likely true but it is not a rebuttal and more Whataboutism. A major difference is that the right doesn't portray itself as the champion of the victims of bigotry to nearly the same degree, so the feelings of betrayal are not quite the same, and furthermore in the scenario where we accept that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, this arguably is more of a threat since it gives antisemitism a sort of "legitimacy" if the party devoted to fighting racism is tolerating it.

Another non-rebuttal : "there is antisemitism but its because of Israel" as per Lansman. This is not a "rebuttal". See also "Islamophobia is due to ISIS".

And this : "If it has gone unchallenged in the past, then that was an egregious mistake, and we will hold the party to its clear commitment to root out such ideas in the future" -- this is not a "rebuttal" it is a subjunctive apology and a pledge to do better.

And this : "...allegations that Labour is institutionally antisemitic, or that Corbyn himself is a racist, cut against, rather than with, the grain of what people already suspect to be true. Those who dislike Corbyn overwhelmingly think he's a politically correct peacenik, not a Jew-hater" --- not a "rebuttal" in the least.

And this : "so many others are, too, for anti-Semitism that's at least as dangerous. And yet the same leaders and institutions who are up in arms over Britain's Labor Party have failed, over and over, to express appropriate outrage" and "a case can be made that for many of these institutions, people like Corbyn and Farrakhan are manna from heaven, because they allow them to show the world how fiercely they fight anti-Semitism without actually having to do so in places where it's inconvenient." Also not a "rebuttal", its a basic error in propositional logic if you're asserting it is. If I tell you 1 plus 1 is 11 (or rather, fail to speak up when someone else says it is-- a bit more analogous) then I tell you 1 plus 2 is 3, it is a logical error to use my statement about 11 to judge the veracity of the sum of 1 and 2 being 3. Additionally, if I'm telling you 1+2=3 because my motive is to con you out of your house, that also doesn't change the fact that it's true -- my evil motives are not a "rebuttal" to my statement in this scenario.

• Total fringe and irrelevant voices -- the totally unknown Social Solidarity Movement.

• 34 random ultra-religious rabbis (or those who claim to be). This is empty tokenism at best. Possibly inauthentic at worst [[23]]
• Ilan Pappe -- Overkill at best given the rest of the section (he doesn't add anything new), well he's a scholar but there are some reasons it might be prudent to leave this one out.
• Repetition of hte same point over and over -- good example is the "antisemitism is not a problem just for Labour" one. It appears six times. It is necessary to state once. --Calthinus (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Repetition tally:

• "This is an attempt to smear Corbyn/Labour/the left": 12 [McCluskey, open letter to JC, various Jewish (far) left groups cited together, Ian Saville the "magician"..., Jewish Socialists' Group, JSG point reiterated again as "summary", another open letter, Finkelstein, Jewdas, yet another open letter with some shared authors, the irrelevant Socialist Solidarity Movement, Chomsky and Finkelstein again].

Might do tallies for other arguments later. It is not appropriate to say the same thing 12 times with different words and speakers. The section is huge. --Calthinus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How many other "experts" do we have whose degrees are not relevant to the toptic?Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven Haven't noticed it yet on the other side. Where they appear, I !vote exclude. When their careers are relevant, i.e. Lipstadt on one side, Finkelstein on the other, my vote has also been consistent.--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a point on relevance: Chomsky has repeatedly been cited by reliable sources on questions of antisemitism and, while perhaps not articulating the mainstream analysis, his views cannot really be regarded as either FRINGE or irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky is well-spoken, persuasive, charismatic and widely admired (according to some, a "personality cult"). He gets cited for many things he lacks credentials in because of this. We have policy, and also a bloated page with issues of disproportion.--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We do have policy, and that policy does not require that people have "credentials" in order to be "recognized experts" in something. Chomsky's critique of the label "antisemitism" and related positions are certainly recognized and are widely published in reliable sources, and the commentary Chomsky offers is just as certainly not "disproportionately" represented in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial Yes, the view offered by Chomsky is indeed offered by others throughout the article. Specifically, he is pointing out that often people get called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israel rather than Jews per se. How many times is this repeated? Let's count: in the "rebuttals" section alone aside from Chomsky saying it, we also have JVL/JVP/Jewdas/JSG/etc (I am counting these as 1), elaboration on this in a whole paragraph devoted to JSG again, Avi Shlaim [after a boring token list of pro-Corbyn Jews in Labour, cool anyone can compile lists], and then Sedley gets a whole paragraph for saying basically the exact same thing. So it is repeated five times, with 3+ paragraphs worth of text. Now, on the rest of the page, I really don't have the patience to count because it's so damn long (geez, wonder why), but surely you get the point? In contrast, the points raised by the other side (using the Holocaust as invective cheapens it, non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionism "incubating" anti-Semitism, tolerating anti-Semitism to please conservative Muslim voters, specific accusations of "coded anti-Semitism") ----- all seem to get about one repeat each. Meanwhile, Chomsky's point is not the only one repeated ad nauseam as among others we also have the "this is just a smear" argument repeated 12 times in one section alone. Come on, admit it-- this is disproportionate. Ironically it's not even helping anyone push any POV, Corbyn or not, when it just makes the page unreadable.--Calthinus (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

<Insert arrow here> Well, Calthinus, I agree that the page is unreadable, and there are sections (notably concerning the definition of anti-Semitism) that are repetitive. However, I disagree with the level of granularity that you are adopting when you suggest that the argument cited from Chomsky "is offered by" others and that it amounts to "people get called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israel rather than Jews per se". After reviewing the article, Chomsky is the only one I see making a rights-based argument, and doing so with specific reference to the case of Jackie Walker. I simply do not see this as a repetition of other arguments that note, for example, specific forms of criticism of Israel that claims of "anti-Semitism" have been used to pre-empt, or historical debates about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and the state of Israel. These are simply not all the same thing; to equate them as being all essentially "repetitive" of each other "ad nauseum" is to ignore the range of argumentation reliable sources offer on that "side" of the debate, while your comment shows no difficulty distinguishing distinct arguments on the other "side", distinctions that would disappear were you to adopt the same level of granularity for the criticism of labour as anti-Semitic. Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah actually I have distinguished a number of arguments on that side, there is "it's a Tory smear" (repeated 12 times), there is "it is equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism", there is "it's worse on the right", and the development of that that the debate is framed in a way unfair to Labour (this is also repeated), there is "there is anti-Semitism but it's thanks to Israel", there is "we are working on it", I've distinguished all of these, and some of them are redundant, others belong elsewhere on the page as I indicated. You're not being fair. Of course another source of length is exhaustive listings of Jewish public figures who have taken X stance -- sometimes in the context of these open letters sometimes not -- and X stance very consistently tends to be a certain one...--Calthinus (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

On Ian Saville: as with the "comedians" above, Saville's significance is as an activist in the Jewish Socialist Group rather than as a comedian. Not sure if that's enough to make him notable, but he is more so than implied by the term "magician". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay I can see your point here Bobfrombrockley. Perhaps we should consider all the celebs on both sides (the writers, the magician, the comedians, throw in Chomsky the celeb linguist/philosopher too perhaps) as a block and make one decision that applies to all of them.

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. There is a consensus to keep this section, with six votes against three. However, there are four votes for including it in a trimmed form. For now, then, we need to keep the whole section, but I think that it is sensible, probably outside of this RfC, to continue discussion on the specific contents of the section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.8 Sedley

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude - while the opinions of the former judge may be due for inclusion - they should not be repeated twice. Sedley already receives a whole paragraph on IHRA in the section (oddly - in the beginning of the section prior to any description of what this debate is about).Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include for noew, as he does seem to be talking about different things. Its not as if we do not quote other people more then once.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: Twice is one thing (and could be OK if on different subjects) - but here it is twice in the same section on the same topic (IHRA's Working definition).Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a confused and rambling section that include reference to the McPherson report (which is what one quote applies to) the other is a more general quote about what constitutes antisemitism. So yes, to my mind, they are about different topics, we just conflate them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is a different subject, and for that reason I support inclusion. Certainly it could be modified and presented better in the article, and there is a lot of conflation going on here. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude takes up way too much space, full of jargon, his point is relevant but I think we already cover it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include and restructure Surely we can do better than a paragraph-long block quote. But I'd suggest legal opinions are relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - echoed twice, exclude and implement the same criteria everywhere. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - He's notable jurist who is first talking about IHRA definition and then responding to the accusation that Labour's code of conduct failed to apply the Macpherson Principle. RevertBob (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include Both as per Slatersteven and RevertBob. Who is this Tom Frost, is he notable? if he is removed the would be less need for a strong rebuttal. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Radically trim Sedley is notable and has probably been referred to by others in this debate so should be included in the article. But he is currently mentioned three times and quoted at length. I think we have about 450 words of him in the article. There's absolutely no way that amount of weight is due. I would keep some mention of him in the IHRA section, where his legal expertise is relevant, but remove him from the "academics" section as he is not a scholar of antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. No consensus has been reached. There are five votes for inclusion, five for exclusion. Some of the inclusion votes argue for restructuring and trimming. It seems to me the sensible compromise would be to keep, but in a somewhat shortened and clearer form. I wonder if anyone could propose some compromise wording (bearing in mind Sedley has two separate paragraphs in the IHRA section, the second one particularly long, and one in the Rebuttals section)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.9 David Hirsh

Should we include material about how this did not affect the 2017 election[24]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Exclude Why does this matter, what does it actually tell us about antisemitism, in the labour party?Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Of course we include academic sources, published by Routledge, by an expert in antisemitism. This is also a significant piece of information - that the association with antisemitism is not an issue for British voters for Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Again this is not "perceptions of" it is "antisemitism in". This tells us zero about antisemitism in the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Election results and effects of Labour's antisemtism crisis are clearly relevant to the article on the crisis (or antisemitism in).Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude does not appear relevant to the substance of this article. Electoral analysis is a different subject. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include discussion of impact is a relevant part of the topic.--Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude seems like a bit of a WP:COATRACK as it's currently structured; it's unclear how people not caring about an issue is seen as impactful on it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The material also mentions four highly Jewish constituencies where it did likely; imo with discussions of impact, RS sources disputing large impact are also relevant, the gauging of the impact is in and of itself of interest. --Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - notable influential person + RS, leaning toward inclusion in this case. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC.10 Jeremy Newmark

Should we include his opinions [25]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

• include He is a a leading Jew in the labour party, and RS have noted his opinions.?Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. Being a Jew in Labour is not a criteria for inclusion. Secondary coverage by the BBC is. But the amount of coverage I see for this has me on the fence.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with you that being Jewish and a member of the Labour Party is no criteria for inclusion, but it seems to me that as Chair of the JLM, the main society for Jewish interests within the Labour Party AFAIK, he would be seen as a notable figure for inclusion (and so I would lean towards include). --Bangalamania (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include clearly relevant and reliably sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include it is not that he is a Jew in Labour but being head of the Jewish Labour Movement implies notability to me.--Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include If we state (as I did previously) that pro-Corbyn statements by Jewish groups within Labour are relevant then this would constitute a relevant position as per Calthinus Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Except he is not a spokesman for a group, he is (literally) one person expressing his personal views).Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm setting this criterion based on the fact I also support the inclusion of the statements from the member of Jewdas. Sometimes non-official people end up acting as spokespeople. It happens. In this case, and in the case of the Jewdas representative, we have de-facto spokespeople if not de-jure. I would say they should be treated the same though. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The difference (as I see it) is she is (in effect) quoted as a kind of spokesperson for a specified group, he is not (other then being Jewish). I can see who she represents, not him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include as per Calthinus and Simonm223. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include as per above, clearly notable with RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This has been open for 30 days. It looks to me like there is clear consensus for Newmark's inclusion. I think we can close this RfC, which requires no edit to the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the justification that Newmark's views are considered relevant when Charlotte Nicholls who is also a spokesperson of a relevant group whose views have been included in a reliable secondary source is not. RevertBob (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on Newmark (Neutral above) - however secondary coverage from the BBC on these particular remarks, and other coverage by multiple other news outlets for other antisemitism in Labour related remarks makes Newmark clear more DUE than Nicholls. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My view is they should both be included, for similar reasons, although Newmark is obviously more noteworthy than Nicholls (Google News give 461 results for |"jeremy newmark" labour antisemitism|, suggesting he is widely considered noteworthy by news media, compared to 9 results for |"Charlotte Nichols" labour antisemitism|, suggesting her relevance is solely to the Sedar incident. If prominence in reliable sources is the index for due weight, Newmark is irrefutably more prominent. However, the key point here is that we went through an RfC and there was a very clear consensus for inclusion, so it seems to me we should just close rather than prolong the discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC.11 Howard Jacobson, Simon Schama, and Simon Sebag Montefiore

Why is this [[26]] worthy of inclusion, why are thier voiews more notable then any othere celbs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Include They are notable members of the Jewish community quoted by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include. The joint condemnation (and a fairly early one in the saga) was internationally covered - UK, US (e.g. NYT), and Jewish press (Israel / UK / US).Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include as per above. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include not so much celebs as influential voices within the Jewish community.--Calthinus (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude/Conditional Include again notable celebs of the Jewish community. Only Keep if Schneider and Baddiel are kept. celebs/ on both sides in or out. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - another name drop informal / odd quote. Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include: notable individuals; wrote an open letter; etc. However, remove the 2nd instance of Jacobson being quoted (entry below), as once is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Include: as per Slatersteven. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This has been open for 30 days and it seems there is consensus to include. I think we can close this, which requires no edit to the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC.12 Gilad Erdan

Why is this [[27]] worthy of inclusion, why are thier voiews more notable then any othere celbs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Exclude Not really relevant. It is hard to see what this adds to our understanding of a British political controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - International ramifications of the antisemitism crisis are clearly relevant as well as widely covered by RS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include: As mentioned in the article, he is a senior Israeli minister and as such is notable. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude I am not sure what a random foreign member of government contributes to our understanding of British politics. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude The expertise and relevance of this commentator has not been established. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude He is notable (he is a politician with a position, not a "celeb"), but I wouldn't mind seeing him removed, to be honest. His statement doesn't really add much to the article. His post also is an "internal" one. If we are trying to represent the Likud position (which is notable) we can do better.--Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Foreign politician with no known expertise in British political parties. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. No expertise in either British politics or antisemitism. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 30 days, and there seems to be clear consensus to remove. I think we can now close and edit Erdan out of the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As nobody objected, I have now removed him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.13 Howard Jacobson

We already have his views in the article once, do we need it twice? [28]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

I modified the link to [29] - as this is the second appearance in addition to the joint letter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include Notable person whose opinions are noted by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include: Previous mention of Jacobson is talking about a difficult issue; numerous people are quoted in the article more than once. Not a reason for exclusion. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Previous mention on separate topic. Notable figure, opinion carried by the NYT and the Guardian. Some secondary coverage, including (more importantly) LASTING secondary coverage - e.g. Newstatesman in August 2018 - some two years later.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Although as a novelist he might not have the qualifications of some others, it is notable that a lot of his novels handle Jewish topics, making him an important voice for the British Jewish community.--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - name-dropping quote of no significance effect or WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude: Jacobson is already being quoted; the 2nd instance is not needed. (The link did not work for me; I assume that this content is being referenced: British author Howard Jacobson called the internal inquiry "a brief and shoddy shuffling of superficies" that "spoke to very few of the people charging the party with anti-Semitism and understood even fewer of their arguments."[81] Jacobson also suggested that Corbyn nominating Chakrabarti for a peerage was shown contempt for those who had raised issues over antisemitism in the party.[82]). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC.14 Polls of labour supporters

Should polls that discus the views of labour supporters be included?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Include As it is the labour party being accused it is relevant what their voters think, they after all will react to anything they do not like. If they do not see it as a problem nothing will get doneSlatersteven (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Modify (somewhat include) - general population polls (and Jewish polls) are more relevant and covered than Labour specific support polls whose results are less relevant to the general election. In as much as there are polls about Labour leadership and/or Labour internal issues (e.g. ousting MPs of either camp (there have been decertifications of anti-Corbyn opposition inside Labour, for instance, lately) - that's probably more relevant for inner Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude all opinion polls - I don't believe polls on either side can be seen as particularly encyclopedically relevant or due. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include -- they are informative, statistically sound, and of interest to the reader. Highly relevant.--Calthinus (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• It depends, of course. If a poll is asking whether the inclinaton of suporters to vote Labour has changed because of the anti-semitism row, it could be relevant. If it's asking whether Labour supporters are antisemitic or not, it would be tangential to the subject (i.e. anti-semitism in the Labour Party). Equally the article shouldn't be putting any great emphasis on what members of Facebook groups say or do. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include Agree with Calthinus informative, statistically sound & highly relevant. They cover what labour party members and voters think, not what the news media, celebs or 'expert' think they think. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Unlikely. It depends on relevance and weight and wording. ONUS would be on the material and specific edit. Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include as per Calthinus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude as per below; unlikely to offer anything of value for the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This appears to be a weak consensus for inclusion, so can this RfC be closed? No edit to the page is required. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.15 Polls of the Jewish community

Should polls that discus the views of the Jewish community be included?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Exclude As it is the labour party being accused and this tells us nothing about the veracity of the accusations. This is about antisemitism in the Labour party, not perceptions of antisemitism in the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Slaterseven, you have !voted to include the opinions of JVP, an erm, not so mainstream Jewish group. Although this probably wasn't explicitly your intention, your stance is essentially now "It's not about perceptions of antisemitism in the labour party among Jews, except this very specific subset of Jews whose views are not in line with the rest of the community". That's not really a principled stand.--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The opinions (expressed) by Jewish members of the labour party are relevant as this is the views of labour part members (and thus is a reflection of how much they feel their party is antisemitic, and how threatened they fell by it). I fail however to see how this is the same as a poll of a group of random Jews which can tell us nothing about what the party thinks or does. That is the difference, one if about the people who have experience of the labour party the other is by people who may not even have ever spent any real time with a labour supporter.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven Whose opinion is more relevant is your opinion, which I suspect is based on your specific opinion on what Antisemitism is. Yours is not the only one. Another -- which is far more popular among Jews themselves -- is that Antisemitism is a systematic phenomenon concerning the (conspiratorial/"wealth") discourse surrounding Jews in society and a resulting set of beliefs that may also be held by well-meaning people, akin to similar discourses surrounding black people and crime, or Muslims and violence. Additionally, given where Jews live (hint, lefty cities), it's rather preposterous to presume they may not even have ever spent any real time with a labour supporter. Jews were historically a bastion of Labour, after all. Most were Labour supporters.--Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I protest your characterization of the poll being of a group of random Jews. These are done by polling agencies, intended to be representative of the population and are statistically significant. If you think Survation is not RS you can take that to RSN. I already know what the result will be.--Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is not the whole point of such polls is that they are random, are are you suggesting they were selected.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Selected "randomly" but with demographic confounds controlled -- as most polls are. You make sure your sample has the demographic complexion (with respect to age, gender, wealth etc) that is representative of the population being studied. --Calthinus (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

So it was a random selection of Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include. The opinions of the victims of antisemtism are clearly relevant - and widely covered - e.g. coverage of Jews fleeing the UK due to this issue.CNN Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude all opinion polls As I mentioned above, I don't believe any opinion polls are significant enough from a long-run encyclopedic perspective to warrant inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong include -- there are multiple grounds on which this is highly notable.
  • 1) As Icewhiz pointed out, it is rather bizarre to exclude the polling of those who actually experience antisemitism from a discussion about it. I'd like to add to this -- let's be real, if this was a scandal about Islamophobia in any party, there would never (I would bet my wiki career on this) be a widely supported initiative to remove polling of British Muslims -- so why on earth are Jews different?
  • 2) Impact -- Jews are a voting constituency and their alienation of the majority of them from a party that historically many, perhaps the majority, had supported has implications that are notable on multiple levels for British politics (i.e. the beneficiaries of this are likely Lib Dems more than Tories, and possibly also even SNP) and ethnocultural relations in Britain.
  • 3) No double standards -- on other such pages, "public opinion" polls including those of specific groups are usually included. Although "other crap exists" arguments are to be avoided, double standards will inevitably lead to a loss of good faith in the editing environment. Additionally on this page there is polling of Labour members supported by users who want to exclude polling of Jews -- increasing the risk for deterioration of editing environment.
  • 4) Informativeness -- these polls, conducted by WP:RS, are of interest to the reader, in gauging the impact on the British public, perceptions of it, and the overall context of the debate. They are statistically sound and concrete -- ironically unlike a lot of the he-said-she-said that permeates the rest of the page.--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include as above, this is both important in itself and could have an impact on voting in constituencies with significant Jewish populations. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude all opinion polls as per Simonm223. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Relevant surveys deserve to be mentioned.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude/Weak Conditional Include These perceptions are less relevant than those covering those of Labour Party Members actually being accused of antisemitism, the Labour Party is on trial here, not the Jewish community. However if the surveys of Labour Party members/voters are included then maybe this could be included. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Our job is to report RS. Not to give the Labour Party or specific members some sort of fair and due process. We are not adjudicators here, just reporters.--Calthinus (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Very unlikely. It depends on specific material, relevance, and wording. ONUS is on the specific material and wording. But... material from polls of those not members of the party seem even less likely than the prior question. Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include as per Calthinus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Poll provides a wider aspect of the issues within the subject. Anatoliatheo (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude in general; opinion polls are unlikely to offer much relevant material for the article. There could be perhaps exceptions, but they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, rather than an RfC about a hypothetical, "generic" opinion poll. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it's very important that this be treated the same as the other opinion polls mentioned immediately above. I would prefer to see both sets of opinion polls deleted, but if we must retain either, per WP:NPOV we should retain both, as I don't think either is more fundamentally relevant or appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As with the other polls above, there seems to be a weak majority for inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC.16 Re English Irony

Should the background to the statement (not opinions) in Electronic Intifada be inserted at the end of [in the 21st Century] or/and 2) Richard Millett's Comments in the Jewish Chronicle regarding who Corbyn was referring to

Suggested text

1) Corbyn’s remarks were made in reference to the earlier speech by Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority’s ambassador to the UK, and an incident after the speech in which Richard Millett a Zionist campaigner, confronted Hassassian over what he had just said.

2) Millett himself later wrote that Corbyn's remarks were aimed at himself and "the other Zionists with me"

Survey

I suggest we vote for 1) and 2) separately --Andromedean (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Most mainstream media haven't addressed Millet's opinions at all. Electronic Intifada is not a RS. Version 2 is a gross misrepresentation of JC in which Millet says "I’m convinced Corbyn knew I was Jewish when he made his “English irony” comment. It’s still inexcusable if he didn’t know, as it could only apply to someone he doesn’t believe to be properly English. Had Corbyn been caught on film saying the same about a member of any other minority group he surely would have had to resign.". Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Millet' So basically even Millet himself admits it was not direct solely at him. As to Electronic Intifada, I am undecided as no one can point to the fact it has clearly been deemed not RS, but there is some indication we should use it with care.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all instances sourced to Electronic Intifada. It doesn't take much brains to realize this is exactly the sort of source we shouldn't use for this page.--Calthinus (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose both: There is already excessive detail on this page. The first point reiterates information already there. Millett is not noteworthy, and linking unnecessarily to a opinion piece criticising him might be a BLP issue. And Electronic Intifada is a borderline source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all as per above. This page is too reliant on opinion pieces as it is. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion articles

If we start removing opinion articles properly attributed, nedless to say we should also remove Avi Shlaim based on a problematic source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is why I say this is not a properly formatted RFC, the article is littered with random opinions that really add nothing to our understanding of the actual incidents or attitudes of Corbyn or the Labour party. Frankly the only way to really do this is to gut the article of anything but actual incidents and then rebuilt from the bottom up.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A proper RfC, which (at the first set of questions) this is, asks specific questions on specific content (e.g. include/exlude or ver A vs. B). The problem we had with a previous set of quasi-RfCs on this page is that they asked general quesrions and the answers were generally "it depends" - which did not quote lead anywhere.Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I question how Open Democracy is any more questionable a source than any other opinion source we're using. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 Avi Shlaim is a source I'd be willing to fight to keep as per your compromise proposals. But I'm not satisfied with the rest thus far. I strongly dislike the sort of non-representative tokenization that has beset this article (i.e. look at this Jew who supports Labour still, and this one, oh wait he's just an irrelevant magician! And she is just a Jewdas "member") --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not at home to any tokenization. My concern is rather in the opposite direction, that some editors want to suggest that people speaking for one group of stakeholders in the Jewish community should not be included while people speaking for another should be. I want us to treat these conflicting groups equally and represent the diversity of perspectives in the British Jewish community with regard to this debate openly, and fairly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

See, I would actually be sympathetic to this, except that all sense of proportion is lost. Different Jews have different opinions (including between those on either side here) but what this page is doing is disproportionately listing a very large number of Jewish people who happen to support the view it reduces to nothing but a right-wing smear campaign (never mind what this would imply about clearly left-wing Jewish individuals who have publicly voiced concerns.). As per representative and statistically significant polls -- it is clear that these are no more than 15% of the Jewish community, yet they have probably the largest amount of space on the page. This is disproportionate. What is worse, a lot of these really have no merit to be here -- a magician? A totally unknown group far-left group in a foreign country? I mean, come on mate. Crying wolf about anti-semitism to blcok criticism of Israel is a real problem and (as can observed nowadays...) in the long run makes it difficult to criticize actual antisemitism where it occurs because the word got cheapened -- which is in turn why similarly crying wolf about crying wolf about antisemitism to block criticism of Labour is not only hypocritical but also counterproductive. --Calthinus (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the case of Jewdas though, their stance on Israel and their past association with Corbyn makes their statements pretty significant. I mean if we have editors arguing that the opinion of a conservative American historian on Corbyn's puported (but never actually spoken) holocaust denial is significant, then having mention of that time he went to Seder and people started complaining about that too is pretty relevant. I agree with you that using accusations of antisemitism as a political cudgel is bad and cheapens it. It's part of what has me kind of frustrated with this cluster of pages is that so much of it appears to be just that.Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not supported removing Jewdas' view elsewhere. I have supported removing a Jewdas "member" whose only notable aspect is being a youth group leader (i.e. low rank). Different people handle things differently. Some people like to compromise and be consistent, others (who have had to deal with users pushing the Khazar theory of Jewish ancestry on Jewish topics as per one widely rebuked study by Elhaik -- gee no wonder why the instinct of assuming good faith got eroded... yes these guys who edit IP more than me are probably more right wing than me, but they also have to deal with more outright bullshit on Jewish topics on a regular basis) see the other side digging in and instead dig in themselves, because if one side on wiki pushes and the other doesn't, the pusher wins. Right now I am doing the former. Anyhow, see you round.--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven seems correct. Any disconnected informal remarks from individuals, even if famous or important people, are unsuitable. It is only if an event is famous or important to the article topic that matters. Group letters noted in papers are suitable .... individual verbal remarks a paper chose to print that is not carried by others and does not directly move the narrative should all be excluded. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is to keep opinion articles to a minimum, can I suggest that this addition, which does not seem to meet any of these requirements of notability? Note, the inclusion of this text is also being discussed on another article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#The_Finlayson_Article BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that Finlayson is in a more expert position as a political scientist at a British university to hold an informed opinion than average. That said, I'd support the removal of all opinion articles, including this one, as long as we set some consistent, neutral, ground rules regarding what constitutes an opinion piece and we commit to keeping them all off the page. The issue we're in has largely been one of dueling opinions and while I'm not happy with that state of affairs I'd prefer it to an article which is a WP:COATRACK for stating unfounded accusations as if they were true just because they've been loudly repeated.

Note I feel similarly abut opinion polls. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a minor point: Finlayson is not a political scientist; she is a philosopher. She has no track record of writing about or researching contemporary British politics, the Labour Party, or antisemitism. See her university webpage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Professor of the philosophy of politics. I think her experience is perfectly apropos. That said, please see above; I don't want any opinion pieces in this article. I just want the article to be a hit-piece on Corbyn less.Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

To be specific, her few authored works are on liberal political philosophy and feminism - not quite part of the issue here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that somebody who studies "liberal political philosophy" in the UK would probably spend a fair bit of time studying the shifts in political direction of the Labour party so I'd disagree with your characterization. But this is beside the point; my concern is that opinion articles are removed in a balanced manner. I want to see opinions removed from this article. I just don't want that desire to be used as an opportunity to trample WP:NPOV in an attempt to smear Corbyn for imaginary crimes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This may seem pedantic but did you look at her webpage? She's not a professor; she's a lecturer (they have specific meanings in UK universities). She is a Lecturer in a School of Philosophy and Art History. "She has interests in political philosophy and its methodology, critical theory and theories of ideology, feminist philosophy, philosophy of social science, and Arabic philosophy." She has not written academically about the UK; she has not as an academic studied the shift in the political direction of the Labour Party. Her views are of course valid and she's obviously smart, but her views are no more authoritative than those of any other smart leftist, and are not notable in any sense. I agree we should get rid of opinion pieces, but if we're going to start somewhere she seems a really good place as her inclusion seems completely arbitrary. I'm looking through the article now to see what other opinion pieces there are: in the 2016 section Howard Jacobson in the NYT and Jon Lansman in the Morning Star (arguably both notable and probably covered by secondary sources); in the 2017 section Jenny Manson on Talk Radio; in the 2018 section Simon Jenkins and Tom Peck in the Indy, Jeremy Gilbert in openDemocracy, Charlotte Nichols in LabourList, Jennie Fornby in Jewish News, Lansman in the Guardian, Sedley (a bunch of different opinion pieces with many words devoted to them), Lerman (openDemocracy) and Klug (openDemocracy - very long quotations), and Finkelstein (in the blog MondoWeiss); in the Rebuttals section Ian Saville in the LabourList blog (as well as, along with Kuper, quoted from a Ben White opinion piece in openDemocracy, Stern-Warner in openDemocracy, Avi Shlaim in openDemocracy, Finlay in Jewish News, Pappe in Middle East Eye, the Socialist Struggle Movement, Klug and Lerman in openDemocracy again (at some length), Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz, Finkelstein in MondoWeiss again, Lev Golinkin in the Forward, Richard Seymour on his Patreon blog, Finlayson. Some of these are the subject of their own sections in the RfC above, but I think all of the others can just be deleted. Hard to say that the presence of opinion pieces contributes to "trampling" or "smearing" Corbyn, given that all of those apart from Jacobson are defences of him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with Bobfrombrockley here. The fact is that this page has a lot of opinion articles. The mathematical fact is also that the vast majority are defensive. This cannot be disputed. Thank you Bob for taking the work to count them all up. I tried earlier to demonstrate how many points get repeated by this phenomenon of dumping any and all defensive pieces written by Jews (yes, we have to WP:SPADE -- this is the incredibly obvious pattern of tokenization) on the page. Whether this is a POV push or people earnestly trying to protect NPOV when they thought the page was previously disbalanced against Corbyn, I assume the latter, honestly. But understandable motivations does not change the fact that this is a violation of policy. I understand and totally sympathize with the BLP concerns here and my goal is not to portray Corbyn as a Nazi or even an anti-Semite (as I have said -- my personal view is not that he is, personally, and I think his intentions are good too, though I do think he doesn't take the problem seriously enough-- for full disclosure and transparency -- I am not trying to push this view either, I am trying to maintain encyclopedic quality). But these considerations must also be applied to individuals like Luciana Berger, who are defamed when people (yes, including fellow Jews) like Gideon Levy call them part of an international smear campaign, or accuse them of serving the interests of either the Tories or Israel, even when these are Jews who are critical of both and have devoted their political careers to Labour. So let's have a bit of symmetrical consideration of BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We should not include random opinions of feminists and Jews (who support Labour). Opeds can be used, in my mind, if they meet one of three criteria: 1. Key political (e.g. Corbyn) or community (e.g, Sacks, or the joint Jewish newspaper frontpage editorial) figure. Or 2. Highly notable experts (e.g. Lipstadt). Or (most importantly and 1 and 2 would typically have this) 3. Secondary analysis of the oped itself or of the person's positions/expert views prior to the oped (e.g. if a persin's prior remarks were widely covered, a subsequent oped refining/updating those remarks would be DUE). Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I share User:Bodney's previous concerns, especially about editors wanting to include as much criticism as possible available but remove all rebuttals, which ultimately leads to being a one-sided, coatrack, attack page that it was a few months ago. Differing views within the topic of alleged antisemitism in Labour including the views of Labour officials, spokespeople of relevant Jewish organisations (spokespeople for Community Security Trust are rightly mentioned multiple times in the article), Jewish organisations, scholars, jurists, academics etc from a wide range of relevant reliable sources that provides useful content, gives the page the balance it has previously lacked and addresses the POV concerns raised.

Also, interesting that BobFromBrockley wants to remove an article Lorna Finlayson (professor of the philosophy of politics) which sourced from RS but is fighting tooth and nail to keep content sourced from a blog by Daniel Allington (a media professor) arguing SPS Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Allington_blog [30]. RevertBob (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this. Allington is a sociologist and he has publications specifically on the antisemitism controversy. What you are doing here is obfuscating the incredibly obvious tokenization, dragging out of unnecessarily long text repeating the same points and pretty much all of this being on one side (the irony: Allington was being used in a relatively pro-Corbyn way, i.e. disputing the Conservative narrative). --Calthinus (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RevertBob, it's not helpful to make a personalised attack on me here. I am not "fighting tooth and nail" to include Allington. I pointed out that the WP rules on SPS on their own do not necessarily preclude his blogpost, as he is an academic who has researched this exact area and published peer reviewed articles on it. What I would like us to do is use Wikipedia policies to determine the inclusion of text about opinion pieces, rather than our ideological convictions. If the article was previously overloaded with criticism to the point of being an attack piece, it is now skewed heavily towards rebuttal through the excessive inclusion of and quotation at length from opinion pieces of varying notability. I've counted at least 28 opinion pieces with no secondary coverage quoted in the article, of which all but 1 are defending Corbyn. More pedantically, as I keep saying, Finalyson is not a professor (and nor is Allington); the meanings of that term is different in a British context than in a US context. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've been through this many times and it's been discussed at length then archived and then bought up again like a referendum against CONLIMIT. The irony is misplaced because I'm not here with a pro or anti stance but would like to improve the article with all relevant views being present. You can see here where I've added "anti-Labour content". I'm not sure how removing all opinion piece content sourced from RS helps improve the article. Sorry Bob for taking out my frustrations on you, problem is that there are too many editors here motivated to POV-push rather than improve the article, which has been seen by the how they argue every time something is discussed but when this is called out you get accused of NPA or AGF. Article is called antisemitism in the Labour Party not antisemitism of Jeremy Corbyn by the way. If the article is unbalanced then the answer should be to add content to provide balance rather than removing content, I'm sure there's plenty out there with JLM, BOD, JLC etc. RevertBob (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the article is not about blackmailing Corbyn and no one is trying to make it such. Some other people might do well to remember this article is also not "How Luciana Berger and (list of Corbyn-critics) are part of a vast anti-Labour conspiracy" (see also: WP:BLP).--Calthinus (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology RevertBob. Appreciated. I also should note I undercounted above in saying there are around 28 opinion pieces with only one of them negative; I did not look at the incidents in the 21st century section, which includes Baroness Deech, Manfred Gerstenfeld, Lispstadt (quite briefly) and John McTernan (very briefly), and since I wrote this RevertBob has added another, John Newsinger in the Socialist Workers Party journal. So the count is something like 33 opinion pieces, of which 5 are critical. This is both too many in total, and highly skewed. Seems to me we have three possible ways forward: (a) rebalancing again by adding content as proposed by RevertBob, which would presumably mean adding in (or back in) opinion pieces and open letters that highlight antisemitism in the Labour Party, presumably with the same extensive quotations that characterise the defensive opinion pieces; or (b) radical trimming of opinion pieces, both by making each mention more concise and encyclopedic (the sentence on Lipstadt might be a good model) and by reducing the total number starting with the least notable, possibly using the discussion in the RfC above to provide guidance (e.g. there seems to be consensus for including Jacobson and excluding Gilad Erdan, although no real consensus on anyone else); or (c) simply removing all opinion pieces (I think Simonm223 might have suggested that?). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy with a radical trimming of opinion pieces. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not really sure why this discussion has appeared to supersede the RfCs above so quickly, were the multiple RfCs abandoned? Should we not finish that process first? Then move onto logical and sensible trimming that conveys arguments more succinctly. On the other hand I do think The Gnome flyby edit helped improve the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

In this discussion, I think there was a strong consensus that excess opinion pieces be removed. The RfCs above seem to have stalled with no consensus. Of the 33+ opinion pieces cited, some are covered by other RfCs above and some have secondary coverage, so I won't raise them. The remaining ones, I think, are as follows, and I propose we should delete them all. 2016 section: Baroness Deech, Manfred Gerstenfeld, John McTernan; 2018 section: Simon Jenkins and Tom Peck in the Indy, Jeremy Gilbert in openDemocracy; Rebuttals section: Newsinger in the Socialist Workers Party journal, Stern-Warner in openDemocracy, Pappe in Middle East Eye, the Socialist Struggle Movement, Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz, Lev Golinkin in the Forward, Richard Seymour on his Patreon blog, Finlayson in LRB. In addition, we should keep but trim Lerman (openDemocracy) and Klug (openDemocracy), who are authoritative and noteworthy but who have excessively long quotations in both the 2018 section and the rebuttals section, without secondary sources justifying them. I know that most (although not all) of these are Corbyn-defensive, but that's because the vast weight of opinion pieces in this article are Corbyn-defensive, which makes it unbalanced. However, my main concern is not the balance one, but simply making the article more encyclopedic by reducing all of the opinion material. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Broadly agree here - the idea is to take a neutral approach to inform opinion rather than reproducing it. TrabiMechanic (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This would be a good start and if balancing content needs to be added it would make more sense to continuing discussing it after we've trimmed some of the excess. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Should we include this sentence about protesters at the talk "The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes"

The sentence "One eye-witness complained about pro-Israel protesters and their hounding of genocide survivors during the meeting." was added to the article with references from the London Progressive Journal and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. Should we include this sentence? It seems to be WP:UNDUE to include it when it has not received coverage in mainstream media and doesn't seem to be relevant as to whether the meeting could be seen as antisemitic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am in two minds, but given that a number of incidents (including this very meeting) seems to hinge on "the wrong type of Jews" yes I could see a reason for inclusion (so as to demonstrate this is not quite the open and shut case some would like to portray it as. But certainly only if RS have mentioned the incident.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's undue. It's not about antisemitism in the UK Labour Party; it's about the stupid behaviour of a tiny group of right-wing protestors, which is not relevant to our topic. Plus I'm not sure it's verifiable. The IJAN statement is sourced here: https://www.ymlp.com/zCLdnk It's not even from the IJAN website - does anyone know what ymlp.com is? And I don't think Indymedia is RS - I think it's user-generated content with no editorial control, so it is basically like citing a reddit forum. I am a bit uncomfortable about linking to non-reliable sources which name the alleged saluter too. I think we need to swiftly delete this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The protesters were protesting about antisemitism, or antiZionism, depending on your POV, and Corbyn was there, so it seems to be highly relevant. [London Progressive journal] seems to be reliable, so I can't understand why it's been reverted. Perhaps one or more of the other source links could be removed, but that's not an excuse to revert. --Andromedean (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the protestors were protesting about what they perceived to be antisemitism, but I don't think we need to go into detail about them. It'd be like if an article on Margaret Thatcher digressed for a couple of sentences to talk about bad stuff people did while protesting against Thatcher. This article is excessively detailed, so do we really want this kind of digression? The first deleted sentence, which cites the London Progressive Journal, is not as bad as the second one. I've never heard of the London Progressive Journal so don't know if it's a reliable source. The author of this piece also writes for Red Pepper, so may be legit, but I just looked at the front page and see some articles re-blogged from the rather dodgy Oriental Review (articles which have also been reblogged by conspiracy sites like Zero Hedge and The Duran) so I think it might not be RS. Maybe one for the RSN? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not just a case of people protesting against something, it is people verbally attacking (not just "doing bad stuff") targeted at the very thing they are saying should never be attacked in any way. But I would remind eds, a link must be made by RS (not us) to this and labour antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

One eyewitness complaining is probably not necessary to cover in this (already too long) article unless it is covered by several sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources, but probably none you will accept. How Israel lobby attacked an Auschwitz survivor to smear Corbyn The Corbyn anti-Semitism row reveals how desperate Israel and its lobbyists are In memory of Hajo Meyer It forms a clear picture of what really happened. --Andromedean (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

re Andromedean: None of those are really RSs (they're all opinion pieces, at least certainly the second and third are, so shouldn't be used as sources for factual claims; Middle East Monitor is not anyway considered a reliable source; EI we've discussed here before, ruled borderline by the RSN; JVL a fringe group reblogging a self-published blogpost...), but even if they were it wouldn't make the protests relevant to this particular article. This article is about antisemitism in the Labour party, not about the offensive actions of right-wing Zionists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually at least one (the clue is in the title does address exactly that, this incident in relation to the antisemitism claims. Not sure the sources are good enough, but that is a different issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Middle East Monitor opinion piece is about the Labour antisemitism controversy, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is relevant to an understanding of the controversy. That piece names the alleged Sieg Heiler, describing him as "an Israel lobbyist" - I think if we are going to link to such BLP allegations, don't we need to be 100% sure they are RS and that this is due? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Only to the same degree with have with allegations made (for example) about the person who was the subject of the attack. AS I said I want better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree allegations about the speaker at the event need to be careful too, respecting BLP guidelines (although he is passed away so not under BLP policy exactly), but at the moment it seems neutrally worded and strongly sourced. So, let's see if anybody can propose stronger sources for the stuff about the protestors before we go into whether it is due or not. [I failed to sign this comment, which must have been from around 31 Oct BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)]

• This is clearly UNDUE. If all you have is fringey sources making this rather wild claim - with MSM reporting matters differently - it shouldn't be in. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• It's UNDUE because of poor, FRINGE sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Police investigation

I can see several problems with this.

First of all aren't some of [Icewhiz's comments linked here], equally relevant to this article?

Revision as of 10:17, 3 September 2018 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Icewhiz (talk | contribs) (→‎Criticisms: Not a RS. Not reported by anyone else - so UNDUE. Anyone may lodge a complaint, and it seems the police confirmed (to a non-RS) that someone has lodged such a complaint. Language such as "accused" is inappropriate where there hasn't been even a whiff of a charge.)

Secondly, the statement can appear as if the Labour Party themselves are being investigated. The Police confirmed the Labour party was not being investigated. As far as I can tell, files regarding an investigation of some Labour members has been leaked to the Police, and some of these, if proven true, might constitute a criminal offence.--Andromedean (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andromedean: Icewhiz's comments are not relevant to the amendment I made. As for your second statement, I simply don't accept the reasoning for your removal of my edit. Both your source and mine (both reliable) state that the police are investigating allegations of Hate Crimes within the Labour party. Please explain why a police investigation into antisemitic hate crime in the Labour party should not be included on a wikipedia article about antisemitism in the Labour party? Furthermore, I would like to point out that Bobfrombrockley has kindly thanked me for my edit. Alssa1 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's much difference between the two situations, both are allegations not proven, so we may have to include, both or neither. If we do accept the articles we must also point out that in this case The Met Commissioner made it clear the Labour Party itself was not under investigation. Also Bodney reverted a similar attempt to use the same material at 9.33am this morning for different reasons (see the history), so I suggest you address those issues as well.--Andromedean (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The section did not imply in any way that the Labour party itself was under investigation. If readers want to read that into it, that is their fault, not Wikipedia's. --Calthinus (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll make a few points clear then. Firstly, Icewhiz is an editor like everyone else, the opinions he holds and the editing principles he espouses are not to be taken as holy writ; they are all open to question. The principles acted-upon on other Wiki articles do not carry-over to this one (particularly when they are not arrived at via community-consensus). Given what I've just said, perhaps you'll explain why you're citing Icewhiz and his edits on other pages in support of your position?

Secondly, the reliable articles say either "within the Labour party" or investigating "Labour members"; perhaps you'll explain your issue with the terminology used in the references?

Finally, like Icewhiz, Bodney is an editor like everyone else; their views are not to be a taken as Holy writ, why do you take their views as such? Alssa1 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a rolling repository of every news event, and we do not need to a rush to add the latest half developed news story, especially where all details surrounding the allegations are unclear and unproven. This section has been included too early, the Police are just starting to investigate the allegations, not one charge has been made yet, never mind a case etc ... at this stage we do not know if it will lead to anything at all. We have no names, nor we know their connection to the Labour Party. To include it on this page at this stage is a bit POV pushing and it adds nothing to the overall quality of the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bodney: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a static textbook released once a year. We update pages based on new information supported by reliable sources. If we were to apply your principle to wikipedia generally we would get rid of the "recent events" page of wikipedia, we wouldn't update the deaths of famous individuals until their autopsies had been completed and we wouldn't create pages for criminal investigations until the conclusion of the relevant court cases. The idea that mentioning a relevant criminal investigation in relation to Antisemitism in the Labour Party is somehow "a bit POV pushing" is a ludicrous assertion that requires a great deal of justification on your part. Alssa1 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If an edit is contested it's customary to remove it completely until agreement. However, I attempted to enter a compromise edit which described the situation accurately and fairly, however within minutes Alssa1 reverted it. Please don't edit war over this and follow rules. The reason I don't like the original edit is because several sources are already spinning it to appear as if the Labour party itself is at fault. Responsible wording is essential. All we know at present is that a Labour party dossier was leaked to LBC. In LBCs opinion it contains Labour party members, however I don't think this has been established. Neither has it been established that if they constitute an offence. Irrespective of Icewhiz's views we also need to establish if this should be re-inserted into the Campaign against Antisemitism article for the sake of consistency, since these comments were also social media posts. This was the original article text which was removed:

"The CAA is being investigated by the Charity Commission and police over suspicion of engaging in party-political activity and its petition that has been accused of inciting death threats against Jeremy Corbyn"--Andromedean (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Bodney's comments about WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS were well-founded; an investigation is just that, and there's no need for Wikipedia to try to keep up with breaking events, or follow every twist and turn in an investigation. Alssa1's comment about not reporting deaths was silly, and is in no way similar. When you're dead, you're dead; they won't be undead next week. If they died and we have a reliable source, there's no need to wait to report it, That said, we do wait for reliable confirmation before reporting a death, especially on their own page. Humans have a bias toward recent events, because that's what we remember best and what affects us most. An encyclopedia, online or not, should not have a bias toward recent events because it very easily falls into the trap of being massively WP:UNDUE, with far more words expended on what happened in the last two weeks, then what happened during a comparable investigation in 2008, even though two weeks is still only fourteen days no matter when it happens. If this ongoing criminal investigation is something that is important and deserves to be in the article when we look back at it in a year or two, then by all means, add it. If it's something that's being added cheifly because it's big news right now and everybody is talking about it, but will be forgotten soon enough, then it doesn't belong; that's what newspapers and magazines do. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andromedean: As I said in my previous edit, Icewhiz's edits on a separate Wiki page do not carry over to this one. If you wish to start a discussion with Icewhiz about the inclusion of a Morning Star article (which if you do wish to include it, I think you should familiarise yourself with WP:Reliable), take it up with him on the Campaign Against Antisemitism talk page. As for your opinion of "Responsible wording", I would say that that is neither here nor there and your opinions of media "spin" borders on WP:NOR. The reliable sources have X terminology, if you think the edit does not sit in line with that terminology, by all means explain how it doesn't. Alssa1 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The facts are:

45 cases have been handed over by LBC – ‘some’ are being investigated

Offences relate to online activity – Met has not confirmed Labour members involved

Met Police Commissioner has said: “we will not be investigating the Labour Party

Statements such as the police investigating hate crimes ‘within the Labour Party’ is misleading considering these facts. The majority of people skimming over such terminology would automatically assume the Labour party itself is responsible, rather than a group of people being investigated by the Labour party. Obviously, the investigation may result in some of those being members or even prosecuted. Alternately they might not be.

With regards to reliability, a majority of people regard the Morning star as suitable reference on the RS board. I suggest you read about the reliability of the MSM regarding antisemitism before you assume their statements can be entered verbatim.

I think consistency across related articles is a topic worth discussing --Andromedean (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not mention me - without pinging me - particularly if my unrelated comment is being misrepresented. That being said my comments in the other article were based on a totally different rationale - this was reported by a single fringey source (the communist newspaper in the UK), regarding charity regulations and that reporting was limited to the existence of a complaint. Conversely the criminal (a more serious matter) Police investigation against Labour members has been reported by Wapo, Guardian, CNN, Times of Israel, BBC, Reuters, Jerusalem Post .... And just about every media source that even remotely covers UK politics and antisemitism in the UK. Those accused of antisemtism are all WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, so BLPCRIME is not an issue - as they are public figures we, per policy, merely reflect what the sources say. This clearly should and will be included in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The are zero facts currently available that support a claim that the allegations relate to WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, this is misinformation. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see how the police opening an investigation into possible antisemitic hate crimes by Labour members would satisfy WP:NOTNEWS for an article on antisemitism within Labour. It is very well sourced and in my view it should be in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The bar for PUBLICFIGURE is very low - people locally elected or party officials are public figures. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think people are confused here. Nobody has said that the police investigation refers to individual members (yet) except for Bodney and Andromedean, making this a likely unintentional strawman. Being a BLP issue is not necessary for inclusion on this page -- actually more the opposite. As far as we know, the investigation is solely about antisemitic acts within the party. It is entirely possible it comes out "negative", which would be good for Labour. This is the accurate and neutral way the text was presenting it: In November 2018, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick announced that they were beginning an investigation into alleged antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party. The allegations came to light as a result of a dossier passed to the Metropolitan Police in September 2018 by LBC Radio. I do not see anything in that sentence that incriminates anyone yet. Regarding WP:RECENTISM, it's been pretty much agreed by both sides that although long term background is relevant, this page covers the 2015-2018 current event.--Calthinus (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Milk's suggestion to put it in the lede -- personally I'd be against that. That is too soon. One two sentence paragraph is not, the two sentence paragraph is due. --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) is that what we have is an accusation handed to the Police (which is not itself proof of wrong doing) that as far as I know does not (at this time)m name any specific person, and which may not in fact be labour party members. I think this should wait until charges are in fact pressed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

From the CNN article "British police have opened an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party." which means that the police think it is a strong enough accusation to open an investigation. Also from that article: "According to LBC, one case involved a party member who posted on Facebook that a Jewish Labour lawmaker was "about to get a good kicking." LBC also alleges that a serving Labour counselor inflicted "ten years of hell" on a child by calling him "Jew Boy"" so it involves at least two Labour members. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think most of the sources say the police have referred this to the CPS to see if it warrants a criminal investigation, not that there is one. I would also point out the Met have said that some of the material may (MAY) indicate a crime had been committed and as such they are required to investigate. And LBC are not the police, so what they say is irrelevant to what the Police might be thinking. As I said nothing is lost by waiting until we see if this is smoke or just November the 6th mist.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt the statements were made. The sole question here is a legal one - whether such antisemitic statements/incitement constitute a crime under British law (as antisemitism per se is not a crime in the UK (which is also the case elsewhere)) - e.g. in a possible similar case - Blaming Greyfell tower on "zionists" - the CPS made a determination that in their view this was not a crime in the UK. However - regardless of whether this is or is not a crime (which is perhaps a question of a permissive legal environment in the UK promoting and allowing such stmts) - the investigation of these statements is highly noteworthy for a page on antisemitism in Labour - and given police scrutiny, we should of course also cover the stmts themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It may well be clear the statements were made (though it might be fairer to say "There is no doubt the statements were handed to the police, LBC may well have been handed a fake dossier"). It is not clear who made them, where or in what context. This is why I think thus has no place yet, No charges, No names, no statement by the police really on what incidents they are actually investigating. By the end of this this may well be a wholly different story, and nothing is lost b y waiting until we do have the whole story, we are not a live news feed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the material, with this response from Lord Hain Anti-Semitism probe would not occur if Labour tougher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Redshirt (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Peter Hain who "pioneered" the reframing of Zionism as an imperialist project imposing apartheid on an indigenous people and who helped originate the "new antisemitism" in the Labour Party, or is this another Lord Hain?Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, 'giving a good kicking' is a phrase sometimes used metaphorically. For example David Cameron said Gordon Brown 'deserves a good kicking' in the commons. The comments on the CAA petition were far worse and included clear death threats against Corbyn. --Andromedean (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andromedean: I'm beginning to think that your opposition to including the Police investigation into antisemitism comes from a personal ideological affiliation with Labour rather than a wish to improve the article. Almost any phrase in the English language has a metaphorical use, why do you think it's necessary to point that fact out? And what makes you think the use of it in this case is metaphorical? Also what relevance does 'but Corbyn has had mean things said about him too', have to do with Antisemitism in Labour and the police investigation into these allegations (and whether or not we should include them on this page)? Alssa1 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1:Please can we keep all personal comments about other editors off this page. At all times debate the subject, not against your fellow editors and assume good faith. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bodney: I have assumed good faith, however the last comment by Andromedean suggested to me that they do not have the objective of improvement in mind. What relevance does "nasty comments" against Corybn have to do with whether or not we should include a police investigation into antisemitism on a page titled "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party"? Alssa1 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1: I've explained it several times, and printed it out for you. Compare the equivalent case on the Campaign for Anti-Semitism. Here it is again. This edit was taken out permanently, despite clearly being true: "The CAA is being investigated by the Charity Commission and police over suspicion of engaging in party-political activity and its petition that has been accused of inciting death threats against Jeremy Corbyn" I can't accept the edit on here, unless it's also included, and it mostly the same editors who are involved, this seems fair to me. --Andromedean (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andromedean: Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works; as I have told you already, positions espoused and acted upon on one Wiki page do not carry over to another. If the issue of the CAA means so much to you, go to the Campaign Against Antisemitism talk page and talk to Icewhiz and come to a consensus about it. However that issue is entirely separate from the topic of inclusion here. Whether we include the Police investigation should (and will be) based on the community consensus around the individual merits of its inclusion. It will not be based on a personal issue you have with another edit, made by another editor on an entirely separate Wikipedia page, after all WP:NOTBATTLE. Alssa1 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1: I'm only discussing a point, not warring. I'm sure Wiki has a policy on whether decisions on one subject can carry over to others with similar issues, but I can't find it on WP:NOTBATTLE. Certainly the basic rules and regulations carry over. Also certain decisions reached such as what constitutes a reliable source on WP:RSN over to others. It's something we could raise and get clarified elsewhere if you wish. --Andromedean (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andromedean:, yes rules and regulations certainly carry over. But the idea that your interpretation of a position espoused by one editor on a separate page somehow carries over to this one is patently absurd. The idea that you will not accept the inclusion of the police investigation on this page unless you get the edit you like on a different page is also absurd. As I have said before, the decision to include or exclude mention of the police investigation should (and will) be based upon the individual merits of the case. Alssa1 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, if there are decent sources for the CAA investigation, I don't see why it shouldn't be included on the CAA article. If was just one, the Morning Star,[31] it'd be hard to make the case it was noteworthy. There seem to be at least two more,[32][33] but they don't say exactly what the MS says, and three is still quite low for establishing noteworthyness. This Labour case, in contrast, is very widely reported, with multiple possible sources, though so the noteworthyness here is clear. Reading WP:NOTNEWS, I think the inclusion of this issue in one or two scrupulously neutral sentences is appropriate: we are not doing original reporting; we are not reliant on breaking stories or primary sources; it can be written in an encyclopedic way. So long as we are very clear that the party itself is not being investigated. Might also be worth (as per SlaterSteven above) explicitly say the police are seeking advice from the CPS on whether any of the material is criminal (which is mentioned in one of the sources[34] cited in the earlier edit), although (as per Calthinus), it's worth remembering that antisemitism itself is not a crime, so something doesn't have to be considered criminal by the CPS in order to be considered antisemitic by us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bobfrombrockley, is that the main difference between the cases are the sources. However, I suspect our opinions will diverge on what constitutes a reliable source, since the MSMs impartiality on antisemitism have been questioned, and the alternative media, who widely reported on this, have been necessary for balance and perspective IMO. The same applies to this section. This is why I suggested this more neutral version:

In September 2018 LBC Radio obtained some social media posts from an internal Labour Party document, and passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. Two months later, the Commissioner announced the police were beginning an investigation into alleged on-line antisemitic hate crimes, but the Labour party itself was not under investigation.--Andromedean (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We still should wait until we have any some clear evidence of an antisemitic act, an investigation is not enough. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bodney: why is it not "enough"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssa1 (talk • contribs)

I think that compromise wording looks OK. I don't think we need to wait for evidence of an antisemitic act: the actual social media posts are not in dispute, and they look clearly antisemitic to me, and they are being widely reported. The outstanding issue is their legality, which we will find out in due course. I appreciate that we should go slow with this type of stuff, and better to keep the text out until we can reach something satisfactory, but I really don't see the problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the content with the requested caveat. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether a criminal or antisemitic act as happened , almost the same response we should not rush until we have more evidence ...As per Slatersteven "We have is an accusation handed to the Police (which is not itself proof of wrong doing) that as far as I know does not (at this time)m name any specific person, and which may not in fact be labour party members. I think this should wait until charges are in fact pressed" or we have clear evidence of a anti-Semitic act.. As per Mathglot "An investigation is just that, and there's no need for Wikipedia to try to keep up with breaking events, or follow every twist and turn in an investigation....If this ongoing ... investigation is something that is important and deserves to be in the article when we look back at it in a year or two, then by all means, add it. If it's something that's being added cheifly because it's big news right now and everybody is talking about it, but will be forgotten soon enough, then it doesn't belong; that's what newspapers and magazines do." Even if was non 'criminal', but likely to be antisemitic we should edit with the same objective restraint. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the text 'within the Labour party' part which I object to most, and this has been re-entered. All we know is that the dossier was obtained from the Labour party, so they would be investigating if Labour members were involved.--Andromedean (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should talk to the publishers of all three of the sources, which say Police have begun an investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party (Sky News) Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party (BBC News) British police have opened an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party (CNN). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And I will say again, we do not know if these posts were even by labour members. That is the whole issue here, we do not know if a crime was committed, by whom, or even when.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should be cautious and not hasty on this, but (a) it doesn't matter whether a crime was committed for it to be due to include here, as this article is not about criminality in the party but about antisemitism in the party; and (b) our job is not to weigh up the evidence and attribute guilt or not but simply to report what the weight of reliable sources say. There is a vast quantity of reporting on this story, and so long as we describe it in very careful, neutral and encyclopedic language I just don't see what the problem is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a news feed. We are supposed to provide details, not headlines. Nothing is lost by waiting until we can actually say something beyond "a accusation was made", one of the reasons this page has so many issues is the fact that every accusation (not matter how unspecific) that is made had to be mentioned. This adds nothing to our understanding of the issue, and that is what this page should be about, informing the users about the issues. So no I do not think this is encyclopedic, this is not a list (despite the fact this is how it appears).Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of police investigation

Should the article contain this content on the police investigation into antisemitism? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote

• Yes, it is widely covered and clearly relevant to the topic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes,. widely reported and obviously relevant to the topic. Alssa1 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, quite obviously - even on a doh level. Very wide international coverage for the alleged antisemitic hate crimes by Labour members.[35] The stmts themselves (and their nature) aren't in doubt - though whether they are "just" antisemitic (including calls for genocide) or a bona fida hate crime in the UK is perhaps an open legal question. e.g. "We shall rid the Jews who are a cancer on us all." ... rferring to Jewish people as "devils" and suggesting the Red Sea would be an "ideal destination" for them, they added: "No need for gas chambers anyway as gas is so expensive and we need it in England" is obvious antisemitism.WaPoNYTCBCIndependent In any event the nature of the statements made by Labour members, and the fact that the Police is actually investigating this is extremely widely covered (quite possibly meeting WP:GNG for a standalone article - however it would be better to include this in this article and not spin it out). Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, as per my comments above, we do not need to rush to include until the clear facts are known (the is no print deadline in Wikipedia). The Independent's report is shockingly concerning, but we still need to know more solid evidence about who was actually involved in those potential acts of antisemitism, where and when and what are their relationships to the Labour Party, before adding it to this encyclopedia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per available coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• No until more facts are known per User:Bodney, the fact that an investigation has been started is not in itself worthy of an encyclopedia entry, however much coverage it has received. Bear in mind WP:NOTNEWS. G-13114 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• No longer I hadn't reached a fixed position on this, and was willing to compromise, providing an alternate neutral text, but this was just used as a excuse to revert and re-insert phrases which implicated the Labour party. So I think it's better left out completely until more information emerges.--Andromedean (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• No What we have is material so vague as to not be encyclopedic, it is a list entry at best. We do not know who, why, when or what. In fact most of this is one radio stations speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• No per Slatersteven and others, needs more coverage and to move from just starting an investigation. The source itself says "Labour sources indicated the leaked file formed part of the party's own investigations into antisemitism claims." so the position is confused and we should wait. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes in an age when the UK police are cautious about initiating political investigations (eg hesitated for a long time over allegations of illegal Brexit referendum spending as the evidence built up (for example) I think this investigation is significant and relevant. TrabiMechanic (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, as per nom. This is well sourced. Bondegezou (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, well sourced, not POV in the way it was presented, due for discussion on the page as per media coverage.--Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• No – A vague announcement of an investigation isn't encyclopedia until there's coverage of clear facts are known as per NOTNEWS. RevertBob (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the sources are credible and the political ramifications are news. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe we should let uninvolved eds vote, out opinion are already known.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the issue has now progressed to a vote, perhaps you should take part? Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No it has progressed to an RFC, you do not need an RFC to have a vote. As I said I would rather we waited for new blood before re-iterating out opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that, although I am obviously a yes supporter, I agree with Slatersteven here. Regular editors of this page have generally reached fixed positions which will shape how they vote here. We need un-involved editors to have a say, as the main issue at stake here is how we apply policy, in particular WP:NOTNEWS, and I would like to see uninvolved editors' views on that. I should add that almost none of the RfCs above seem to have reached consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between 'reaching consensus' and having a unanimous voting result. There are a number of RFCs that have votes that far outweigh the other side. Alssa1 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bodney: You assert that "4 to 3" isn't consensus, can you tell me what number is consensus? What is the justification for removing the edit when the majority of people (expressed thus far) are in favour of the inclusion of the edit? Alssa1 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that some of those opposed to the edit had not voted (expressly to give new eds a chance).Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Snowded makes a point I think I had picked up on but had not properly formulated. This was a leaked Labour party document, do does it in fact contain anything that was not already out there? If these are old accusations just dredged up are they even prosecutable (assuming there is anything here to actually prosecute?). Let me illustrate, say the "social media" messages are the same anonymous ones we already mention.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Delighted to see so many editors vote 'No'. Presumably on the same basis we should remove almost all of the article. which relates to individuals who have been suspended pending an investigation, but deny antisemitism. I'm all for that. But on the basis of simply noting that an investigation has been launched by the police, people will draw their own conclusions about innocence or guilt, per every other incident so far. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should, lets start by a EDM which as absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism also being on this page. RevertBob (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording proposed seemed likely to suggest conclusions -----Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any one is saying "innocent until proven guilty" they are saying "we do not even know what the charges are". What we have is an internal investigation, which oddly no one actually seems to have published, no names, no dates, Not anything that might actually be libelous. It is not even clear that this is actionable (after all what the sources say id the police have handed this to the CPS to determine if anything prosecutable may have occurred).Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To put this in context, here we have a statement from the Metropolitan Commissioner of police reported on the 2nd November by the BBC "She made it clear the Labour Party itself was not under investigation. We would always want institutions and political parties and similar to be able to regulate themselves. However, if somebody passes us material which they say amounts to a crime we have a duty to look at that and not just dismiss it." This may or may not amount to anything. The report also makes it clear that the material came from internal Labour Party investigations. The debate here is not about if it should be mentioned (it should) but the wording used. Some of the include votes seem to be unaware of this. In this respect the RfC is badly phrased - it should really be about a change to the way the material is referenced (the actual link provided). The proposed wording is not neutral in so far as it does not fully report the context. I also think it doesn't deserve a full section but just a brief note at most. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you suggest we phrase the material? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: In what way is the proposed wording "not neutral"? Alssa1 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it doesn't make it clear that the Party itself is not being investigated and ignores the fact the police are obliged to investigate any such allegation - it will become a news item if they take it further. The most I think we can justify is a simple sentence that says In September 2018 LBC Radio obtained social media posts from an internal Labour Party document, and passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. The Commissioner confirmed that they would look into the matter, but the Labour party itself was not under investigation. It does not justify a section or any implication beyond that -----Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded:That terminology would suggest that no member of the Labour party was being investigated, when in fact all of the reliable sources (The Washington PostBBCThe GuardianThe Independent) say that the criminal investigations are against Labour members and activists. I would suggest that the terminology "the Labour party itself" refers to whether the leadership is being investigated. Alssa1 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All we know are is that an internal labour party document identified social media comments - we don't know from who, how prevalent, if they were major figures or minor one. We need to wait a see and for the moment and see what happens - oh and you should not confuse the identity of a Party with that of its Leadership. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I note the same sources say that the police have said the Labour party is not being investigated. This is exactly why this needs to be left out until we know what (and who) is being investigated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this article is about antisemitism in Labour and not antisemitism of Labour, the investigation of the party itself or lack thereof is immaterial. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but I was responding to someone who said the party was being investigated. It is not (however) irrelevant that we do not know who is being investigated (or even if the CPS will support an investigation), precisely because the kind of mistake about "this is an investigation of the Labour party) is going to happen given how little we actually know about this. If eds making argument for inclusion are making this mistake then we need to ensure that whatever we write is not informed by the same beliefs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Which person said that? My point is that the suggested terminology doesn't actually explain what it means by "the Labour party not being investigated". The sources say that Labour party members and activists are being investigated rather than the operational nucleus of the party. Alssa1 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

My error I assumed that " I would suggest that the terminology "the Labour party itself"" meant you felt the labour party (and thus the leadership) was being investigated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What I intended to suggest was that the terminology "the Labour party itself" was referring to the nucleus and operational aspects of the Labour party (thereby meaning that they weren't under investigation). By saying this, I was trying to highlight that using the "the Labour party itself" without further clarification might suggest that no Labour member or activist was under investigation by the Police. Alssa1 (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not following your reasoning, who has suggested that if we include this we cannot say that labour party members may be being investigated? I think all that was said is that the suggested edit does not make it clear the labour party itself is not under investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone has suggested that. What I was trying to say earlier is that we should provide a bit of clarification so as to avoid any confusion. By all means we should say "the Labour party itself is not being investigated", but should we say that we must also make clear that that does not mean that individual Labour members and activists are not under investigation. Alssa1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well as we do not know who (or even what) is being investigated (or even what the scope of the investigation is) I doubt we can. We could at best say that comments alleged to have been made by Labour members and activists are being investigated. I am not sure that is very encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We know (because that is what all the reliable sources say) that there is a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members and activists. We know the former senior police officer Mark Chishty reviewed these allegations, and he said 17 instances should have been reported to the police for investigation, and another four were potential race hate crimes. We know that the things said included things like: "“We shall rid the Jews who are cancer on us all…” Another allegation talks about how a serving Labour councillor is accused of carrying out a “10 years of hell” campaign of intimidation and harassment against a child, including calling him “Jew boy”. The fact of the matter is, we know the nature of the allegations, the categories of individuals in question (and their relationship to the Labour party). I'm not sure why you think we don't know these things. Alssa1 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We do not know who said what. We do not know which of these allegations are being in investigated. We do not know if any of these investigations can even be linked to know individuals.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, how is that relevant to whether it should be included in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Because we do not have enough to make this an encyclopedic entry that tells the reader anything usefully. We (literally) cannot say who said what, if it is old or new (we may already cover many (if not all) of these incidents), we cannot say they were labour party members (as the police have not said this, and no proof has been offered), we cannot say they were antisemitic (as no prosecutions have yet occurred), or even of the ones that are were said by labour members (as opposed to sites visited by them). All we could say is "allegations have been passed to the CPS to determine if any criminal activity was involved and could be prosecuted", that is not encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources say "it was reported the leaked dossier included a total of 45 cases of alleged antisemitism by Labour members." (Sky) "Police probe into anti-Semitism claims against Labour members" (BBC). Just because we do not have further information than that does not mean the current information isn't useful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Every single reliable source we have says that they are Labour members, I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that "we cannot say they were labour party members". Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members, according to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police.", So they say these are "alleged antisemitism by Labour members". The fact they do not say alleged Labour members would be because it would be redundant, as they make it clear these are all just allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ohh lets add "It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.", so lets stop saying that all the RS are saying this was a Labour document.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but no one said that all the RS say it was a Labour document. All RS do say that the police are investigating Labour members and activists. You previously said "we cannot say they were labour party members", have you changed your tune now? Alssa1 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I think what I said it we cannot imply it is proven they are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that we can imply that those under investigation are guilty of the allegations against them. However if you're saying that we can't say that those under investigation are Labour members and activists, then I can only say that the RS state that they are Labour members and therefore we are entitled to point that out. Alssa1 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So you agree that the alleged antisemitism refers to Labour members? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying that RS are saying that this is LBC saying they are. So we have to also point that out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So even though the RS say explicitly that Labour members are being investigated, you think they are just going on the word of LBC? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: That's your interpretation. We have to go by what the RS say, and they do not say they're just going on the word of LBC. Alssa1 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media. So yes an RS is saying this is LBC's claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So you don't think that the RS would have checked with the police themselves whether Labour members were under investigation before writing that "Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members, according to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police." etc? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are news sources reporting a statement - and the statement says internal documents/hate crimes it doesn't say yet who is being investigated just what. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

And some also make it clear the claims are only those of LBC, this is why we need to word this carefully. You will note the police do not actually say (in quotes of the police) who is being investigated, not even if they are labour members. Hell one your quotes only says "linked to" not "by" (for example, and the only one that actually says this is what the police said). So no it is not at all clear what the police are actually investigating, what we have is some media speculation. Now if you want to actually present some suggested text we can discuss adding it (after all at least one user has objecte based upon the text, me I doubt it will win me over but you never know).Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

intro: a little fault

Quote of a part of the introduction:

"...although it removed or amended four out of eleven 11 of what allegedly constitutes antisemitism, added ..."

"11" should be deleted, right? Atomiccocktail (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atomiccocktail: yes.--Calthinus (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Me very very brave editor, I deleted the '11' error off the page. I would like to thank all other editors who have helped me achieve this. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol--Calthinus (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Jewish groups in the lede

This article has quite a long lead section. The long third paragraph includes these three sentences: In addition, a number of Jewish groups in the Labour Party have disputed the antisemitism claims. These include Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists' Group; all of whom have said that accusations of antisemitism against the Labour Party have a twofold purpose. Firstly to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel in order to deter such criticism and secondly to undermine the Labour leadership since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader in 2015. As per MOS:LEADREL, emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. It seems to me odd that that we dedicate space in the lead to these three very marginal groups. We say "a number of Jewish groups in the Labour Party", but there are only two Jewish groups in the Labour Party, the large and long-established Jewish Labour Movement and the small JVL, which was established precisely and solely to dispute accusations against Labour. The other two groups we mention are not associated with the party, although individual members may have joined post-2015, and both are fringe and small. (In contrast, the mainstream organisations of British Jews have been among those making allegations of antisemitism, widely reported in mainstream sources, so it seems odd that we ignore them in the lead in favour of these marginal groups.) These groups are not too fringe to be mentioned in the article of course, but I don't see why we give them such weight in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of stuff has been removed, it did used to list quoite a lot of the stuff about polls, ect. But it would seem fair to mention the fact that the claim has been disputed by some Jewish groups (but not all of them are ion fact Labour groups).Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think a sentence saying it has been disputed would be totally due, just not the current amount. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said I have no idea why the material about the accusations was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Slatersteven. I think this version is much better - encyclopedic, neutral, concise, and everything here is adequately followed up in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning fringe groups in the lede is UNDUE. Stressing these groups as Jewish - as opposed to pro-Corbyn organizations is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are they all pro-Corbyn, do you have an RS for that claim? The material was long standing but as you appear to have objected to my edit I shall revert to the old version.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

So lets analyse it bit by bit. Are Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists' Group part of the Labour party?Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither of them are part of the Labour Party. The most public spokespeople of the each of them, Richard Kuper and David Rosenberg respectively, have both become Labour activists since 2015 and are publicly associated with the leadership, although they hold no particular office. But as organisations they have no link to the party, JSG often criticising it from the left prior to 2015 and JfJfP avoiding involvement in domestic politics. I guess it's fair to say, though, that they are broadly supportive of Corbyn. I don't think it is misleading to call them Jewish groups, and the formulation Although all mainstream Jewish groups have condemned the Labour party, a number of Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims makes it clear they are not mainstream. If necessary, could say something like Although all mainstream Jewish groups have made allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party, some left-wing Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims. That would also have the advantage of also not portraying mainstream Jewish groups as blanket anti-Labour (the Jewish Labour Movement is pro-Labour, even though it raises the antisemitism issue, and many key figures in the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council are Labour members). Would that work? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, I do not like the idea of masking assumptions based upon support (say) for one issue. Sure two of them are clearly left wing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask we revert back to the last stable version whilst this is ongoing, none of the changes made have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Which version do you mean? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We usually mean "the last stable version" the version made that existed the latest round of edits. So it would be this version [[36]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"The latest round of edits" is pretty subjective, so I think you should make a case why you are choosing the edit which focuses on non-mainstream groups and ignores the mainstream groups. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And I would remind edds again that you stick with the last stable version, so why are we not doing that? The new lead does not have consensus and so we should revert back to the last consensus version, that is how we do it. I wonder why the rules do not apply now?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Promotion of fringe groups, while excluding mainstream groups, can not remain in the lede. Nor can an internal inquiry described as whitewashing for peerage,[37] be used without such relevant context. There is no consensus to promote fringe groups in the lede, nor has a policy based rationale been presented for promotion of these fringe groups.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion, it does not alter the fact this was long standing material and until there is consensus for removal (or alteration as I did) it should not have been removed. That is what we do. Revert, unrevert, talk. That material has been in the lead for months unchallenged, it was then removed and the removal was rejected. We should now discus before it was removed again, what you have done goes against the principles of BRD and consensus building.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the paragraph - either we replace it with a balanced paragraph which mentions that Chakrabarti was given a peerage and gives more space to mainstream Jewish groups than non-mainstream groups, or we remove the paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Again fair enough, but this does not alter or contradict my point, until we have consensus it should be reinserted according to policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe Slatersteven is right about the last stable version, which we should leave until we reach some kind of consensus, but I think we can move easily to consensus. I think Chakrabarti and maybe the HAC report should be in the lede, but the Chakrabarti content should not be sourced from Seymour's opinion piece and Chakrabarti is in the previous para so shouldn't get too much space. I think it would be wrong to give too much context in the lede, which is long. And I would have thought we could all agree on the inclusion of mainstream Jewish opinion.

Can I propose something like this: The controversy prompted Corbyn to establish the Chakrabarti Inquiry to investigate the allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which found that although antisemitism and other types of racism were not endemic within Labour, there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere". The all-party Home Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry into antisemitism in the United Kingdom the same year and found "no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party", but that the leadership's lack of action “risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic”. Disciplinary investigations have led to some party members being expelled or suspended for bringing the party into disrepute. Livingstone resigned from the party in 2018 after being suspended for two years. Corbyn himself was the subject of controversy in 2018 after his comments on Facebook in 2012 concerning the removal of Freedom for Humanity, an allegedly antisemitic mural, were brought to public notice and for being a member of three Facebook groups in which antisemitic content was posted. Although mainstream Jewish groups such as the Board of Deputies have raised concerns about antisemitism in the Labour party, a number of more left-wing Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims. These include Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists' Group. Would that work? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

That looks better, although I would include the Jewish Leadership Council and perhaps the Jewish newspapers as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I thought the whole point if this was the lead was too long?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer: this includes the previous paragraph, where Chakrabarti is first mentioned. But your're right. This version (including refs) is 40 words longer than the last stable version, which is a step back in terms of trimming - although it is a lot more balanced and accurate. One of the reasons it's longer is that it includes Icewhiz's footnotes re the mainstream community, which are 87 words long - the actual text is shorter if the footnotes aren't counted. Is there somewhere in the body where these footnotes can go? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure they are needed as the material should already be in the body, if it is not it has no place in the lead. Nor do I see a need for a list of examples, it should just be enough to say these opinions exist, not who holds them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Bob's version is a step in the right direction. I do think we should pare Chakrabarti (both paragraps) further - not only due to this be internal and with a quid quo pro peerage scandal - but mainly simply since it is old and does not reflect subsequent developments. In terms of timeline - it was a big event in 2016 - but the scandal, and scope of antisemitism in Labour, has expanded greatly since 2016. If you look at profiles covering the entire scandal - Chakrabarti does not get nearly as much space as we allot to it in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not base our articles on unsubstantiated claims of wrong doing. For that reason alone I must oppose this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What about replacing the last two sentences with (including the references I've taken out here for ease of reading): Although mainstream Jewish groups shave raised concerns about antisemitism in the Labour party, a number of more left-wing Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims.

That should be short enough. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

More or less what I had altered it to (with you adding the stuff about them being "left wing"). Not sure I think we need teh left wing caveat, but also not sure it is a huge problem, just unnecessary. I can live with this change.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust/Genocide Memorial Day

Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page? RevertBob (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes, seems very relevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Highly notable, widely covered, directly ties to antisemitism and denial by senior Labour leadership.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• No – This section is NOTNEWS based on a Politics Home blogger who trawled through Hansard to see what dirt they could find to paint Corbyn as an antisemite and this is the best they could find. We have a January 2011 motion and then we jump to a Tweet over 7 years later by Karen Pollock referring to it as "denial and distortion".

There's no sources of this for when it happened whilst Ed Milliband (Labour's only Jewish leader) was leader, and considering Parliamentary EDM are public, nor is there any evidence of any antisemitism being present other the tweet by Karen Pollock referring it as "denial and distortion" in reaction to seeing something which has been in public domain without any previous objection not least from Labour MPs like Hodge, Berger, Woodcock, Mann etc.

The full motion declared: "This House welcomes the Never Again For Anyone Initiative by survivors and descendents [sic] of survivors of genocides, which declares that every life is of value; notes that disabled people were the first victims of Nazi mass murder, that working class activists and trade unionists, many of whom were Jewish, were the first to be sent to concentration camps, and that Nazism targeted not only Jewish but also Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, lesbian, gay and bisexual people and others they deemed undesirables." I can't see what's antisemitic about this?

It sounds like a long line of calculated smear campaigns by the press against Corbyn. I think it's a BLP breach to make such a serious accusation based on such a weak journalistic claim. There's no evidence that the EDM was antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article. RevertBob (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, widely covered and "but they didn't respond at the time so it must be a smear" is not a reason against inclusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, for all the reasons given at length last time we discussed this a couple of week ago. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously relevant. Alssa1 (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• See the Comments section below: one person, Haren Pollock's, statement doesn't deserve the amount of text which was devoted to it, particularly when she didn't actually make any explicit accusations of antisemitism. The sources used have a common bias and failed to describe the early day motion accurately or in detail.     ←   ZScarpia  
• Yes, relevant, widely reported, properly sourced, duly weighted content. No policy based reason to not include this text has been presented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not in its current state, it needs to be altered.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No per weight. The vote occurred years before anyone commented on it and has too little coverage to report in a neutral manner. We have one commentator saying it is holocaust denial but too little coverage of that opinion to know whether it is a meinstream view. TFD (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No per TFD and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs)
• Yes Notable incident covered by many sources. Random Redshirt (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Why has this RFC been opened, I was not aware there was currently a dispute over this that needed an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here. Please note the discussion is about what evidence is there that the EDM is antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article. RevertBob (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That has not been active in over two weeks, and no challenge has been made to the current material in (about that time?)). So again I fail to see why we need an RFC on what looks to be a resolved issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are we re-litigating this three weeks later? I also thought we reached agreement on this, that it was worth inclusion but should go in the 2018 section as that is when it was controversial. If we didn't, shouldn't the RfC be placed within that section on the talk page, so people can read the discussion before voting? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion this immediately follows on from has been (prematurely in my view) archived here, which is a bit frustrating as we have rehearsed the arguments at length which are now being re-litigated. I recommend people read that discussion before voting here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The text which was inserted in the article was cited to articles in two Israeli newspapers [38][39] and an "essay" in a pro-Israel, rightward-leaning British newspaper [40] by Henry Zeffman, who, judging by this article and this, is distinctly unsympathetic with Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian section of the Labour Party. Those are reasonable sources for the reaction of pro-Israelis or anti-Corbynites, but, as far as the Early Day Motion itself is concerned, the meat of that is Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK’s Holocaust Educational Trust, saying "any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion" (one of the sources claims that Pollock directly accused Corbyn of "denial and distortion" though that doesn't come out in the fuller quote given in Haaretz), which, to justify inclusion in the current article, we have to accept as the equivalent of antisemitism, though that isn't stated explicity in the articles. In terms of neutrality, a policy requirement, depending on sources with a uni-directional bias isn't good. It's dubious that they fairly represent the Labour Party's response and it's noticeable that the Early Day Motion itself isn't described accurately or in detail. The Motion doesn't actually, as stated, call on the government, nor anyone else, to do or acknowledge anything specific. No mention is made of the Never Again For Anyone Initiative, which has a central place in the motion, nor of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network[41] who are behind it (IJAN were also behind a letter to the NYT signed by 300 people which criticised an advert posted by Elie Wiesel).     ←   ZScarpia   22:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with ZScarpia that Zeffman's essay is a bad source, as it is an opinion piece. (There are other sources if two aren't enough, which I listed here.) I disagree that one sentence is excessive amount of weight for Pollock. I disagree too about needing to simply "accept" that denial is the equivalent of antisemitism, as Pollock's quote explicitly mentions antisemitism: "But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity [i.e. the anti-Jewish specificity] is a form of denial and distortion." Her full statement is here, by the way, and adds that it causes "offence" to "the Jewish community", and locates it as part of a pattern of "persistent offending", which shows why it is relevant to our article. The motion is only described briefly in the inserted text, and to repeat the whole motion (as the cited Ha'aretz source does) would be adding even more weight in word to the incident, but the inserted text (following the sources) does accurately describe the actual call for action at the end of the motion, which was precisely the contentious element. If it needs to mention IJAN for context, that could easily be added, although the only source I can see which we could cite, apart from the primary source of the motion, would be this one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(In the following, for 'Park' read 'Pollock' and for 'IJAF' read 'IJAN'. Thanks to BobFromBrockley for pointing out the errors.) I must be being blind. Could you point out to me where Park [correction: Pollock] calls the content of the early day motion antisemitic. I'd be interested to know whether you think that using solely pro-Zionist sources to cover what anti-Zionists do or say is likely to result in a neutral article. This Mirror article refers to the Never Again For Anyone initiative mentioned in the early day motion as "an apparent reference to a campaign promoted by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)" and then goes on to describe what the IJAN says about it: "the initiative is intended to challenge the 'Zionist expoitation' of the Holocaust for 'political purposes' ...". The IJAF [IJAN] site is a reliable source for what the IJAF [IJAN] says about the initiative. The Electronic Intifada is a reliable source for what the Electronic Intifada says about the initiative, that it is "coordinated in part by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)".     ←   ZScarpia   01:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Park? Do you mean Karen Pollock? She does not explicitly say the EDM was antisemitic. She says it denies the antisemitic specificity of the Holocaust, and that makes it clearly relevant to the topic of this article. I am not sure it is appropriate to be calling Ha'aretz a "pro-Zionist source". If you think it is not a reliable source, I think you'd need to take that to the RSN, as it is used heavily as a source by several WP articles. Other reliable sources are available too, e.g. the Mirror article, so we can add that. I don't understand the reference to IJAF (you mean IJAN?) being an RS or what the EI article from 2011 adds: it doesn't mention the Labour Party or the 2013 EDM. Are you saying we can't mention this incident without a few sentences about IJAN? Wouldn't that give it undue weight and make it a bit off-topic? But if IJAN can be fitted concisely into the text without too many words, e.g. using the Mirror article, I wouldn't see a problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I was referring to Karen Pollock (not Park) and the IJAN (not IJAF).

As far Pollock's commentary goes, I'd better start by repeating that, subject to provisos, I have no objection to the article referring to it goes. Having said that, I disagree with the argument you've given for doing so. There's a bit of a mismatch between the title of the article and its introduction, but going on what the latter says, the article appears to be about the current controvery in which allegations of antisemitism have been made against members of the Labour Party. In order to justify the inclusion, in two references to Pollock's statement, you have had to interpret in a dubiously valid way, inserting the explanatory text "i.e. the anti-Jewish specificity" in one case and, in the other, casting Pollock's use of the word "specificity" as "antisemitic specificty". Pollock's commentary is problematic as it's ambiguity makes it difficult to determine exactly what her argument is.

Pollock's tweet reads: "Holocaust Memorial Day already rightly includes all victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides. But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion." What exactly does Pollock mean by, "the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core?" And, "any atempt to remove that specificity?" Holocaust with a capital "H" is used in two different ways, one referring specifically to the Jewish Holocaust (Shoah), the other referring to all victims of the exterminatory policies of the Nazis [42][43][44][45]. International Holocaust Remebrance Day commemorates the latter. Holocaust Memorial Day, the UK implementation of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in something of a fudge, commerates the Nazi's extermination victims as well as victims of later genocides (though not earlier ones including at least two in the 20th century). In the sense used by the Remembrance and Memorial Days, contrary to Pollock, the Holocaust was a set of crimes, rather than a specific one, those directed at non-Jewish victims having nothing to do with antisemitism, let alone having it at their core. Pollock is excercised by the name change. It's likely that she's exercised because of the motivations she perceives behind the push for the change. Presumably she perceives those as being anti-Jewish in some way relating to how she defines the Holocaust? That being the case though, is she not trying to have it both ways, protesting about how the UK Memorial Day already commemorates other non-Jewish Holocaust and non-Holocaust genocide victims?

Reliability operates on a sliding scale with academic sources near the top and news sources tending towards the bottom. Reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for fact checking. For academic journals that usually takes the form of peer review. Most newspapers may have lawyers, to avoid litigation, check particular articles and editors ensure that style guidelines are adhered to, but to what extent and how effectively they check facts is really anyone's guess. On Wikipedia, news sources really do have to have a poor reputation for bias or low quality in order to be disqualified as unreliable. News source may be accepted as reliable in general terms on Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are infallible. The Media Reform Coalition published a report on disinformation and inaccuracies in reporting on antisemitism in the Labour Party. Most newspapers will have biases of some sort, including political and national ones, which is why, of course their reporting is contradictory and varies widely. This LSE report describes bias in reporting on Jeremy Corbyn. In general terms, Haaretz is a paper of the Zionist left, which means that it's reporting tends to attack the Zionist right. Attacking the Zionist right does not make it anti-Zionist though. It also does not mean that it does not carry articles which do not follow its general editorial line. Some of its maverick contributors include Amira Hass (pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist) and Gideon Levy (post-Zionist is my guess - perhaps this piece could be cited in the current article: "The Jewish establishment in Britain and Israeli propaganda have taken out a contract on him, to foil his election: He’s an anti-Semite, Labor is anti-Semitic, Jewish life in Britain is in 'existential danger,' no less, as three British Jewish newspapers cried out in a joint editorial.") However, the Haaretz article under consideration follows the pattern which would be expected in pro-Zionist sources. Although not as militantly pro-Zionist as pro-Zionist sources come, I described Haaretz as such to contrast it with how anti-Zionist (or post-Zionist) sources would report on Corbyn and the Labour Party. See for instance (I'm not, by the way, trying to argue that any or all or the following are reliable for anything apart from their author's own views, just supply examples of what the anti- [or post-] Zionist viewpoint looks like): Jewish Voices for Labour [46][47]; Strategic Culture Foundation [48][49][50]; +972 [51]; Gush-Shalom [52]; Al Jazeera [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]; Media Lens [63][64]; Mondoweiss [65]; Electronic Intifada [66][67]; Middle East Monitor [68]; American Herald Tribune [69]; RT [70]; Information Clearing House [71]; International Socialism [72]; OpenDemocracyUK [73][74]. Finally, there is the Finlayson article in the London Review of Books, which is an example of writing which is not pro-Zionist, but not necessarily anti-Zionist.

By "the IJAN site is a reliable source for what the IJAN says about the initiative", what I meant was that, so long as any statement is accompanied by a qualifier such as "according to the IJAN", the IJAN site would act as a reliable source for anything cited to it. A circumstance where you might want to do that is when that site contains the best explanation of what the Never Again For Anyone initiative is about. I included the Electronic Intifada quotation because, contrary to the Mirror article, it says that the initiative is only "co-ordinated in part" by the IJAN.

The cited sources fail to give an accurate or neutral description of the the early day motion or its intent. The Wikipedia article should. The fact that the initiative originated from a Jewish group whose members include camp survivors is significant I think.

Pardon me if that is garbled. I'm too tired to check it thoroughly.     ←   ZScarpia   02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(On doing further reading, I've noticed that I was mistaken about the way that the word Holocaust has been used. Although International Holocaust Remembrance Day seems to use the wider definition [the United Nations General Assembly reaffirms that "the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one-third of the Jewish people along with countless members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice"[75]], Holocaust Memorial Day and the Stockholm Declaration which led to it use the narrower one, counting non-Jewish victims of the Nazis as "people killed under Nazi Persecution." ["On Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and the millions of people killed under Nazi Persecution, and in the genocides which followed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur."[76]] That clarifies Pollock's argument somewhat. Since the narrower definition was being used, it's clear what she means by "the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core." However, although the narrower definition is being used, as other Nazi victims are still commemorated (and those of subsequent genocides in addition), her complaints about attempts "to remove that specificity" seem a bit overblown. Since "Holocaust Memorial Day already rightly includes all victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides," shouldn't it bear another name if the narrower definition of what the Holocaust was is used? 00:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC))

ZScarpia- I get your point about Pollock's ambiguous comment; she is not explicitly saying the EDM is antisemitic. All I'm trying to argue is that her mention of antisemitism, given that her comments are very widely reported in reliable sources, shows why the issue is relevant for this article. We don't need to disentangle what she means or agree with her. Second, I don't see how the sources ail to give an accurate or neutral description of the EDM, especially if we add the Mirror one which mentions IJAN: the Ha'aretz source actually links to and quotes the entire text of the EDM; what more could they do? Third, on whether the sources are reliable. You seem to be blurring point of view with reliability and lumping news and comment together Wikipedia has policy on what constitutes a reliable source and consensus on which sources are reliable. I am fairly certain Ha'aretz is considered reliable. I'm not sure what the purpose is of your list of sources, as they don't seem to mention the EDM at all, but they are a very mixed bag, including a mix of news items and opinion pieces. JVL is a reliable source for JVL's opinion, but not for claims of fact. Strategic Culture Foundation seems like a marginal Kremlin-backed conspiracy site and opinion aggregator[77] and everything you list from there is an opinion piece not a news article (reblogged from elsewhere - specifically from another pro-Russian conspiracy site TruePublica and from a Wordpress blog). The Gush Shalom link is a petition. Al Jazeera is an RS and some of the links are to news items we could cite in the relevant section, but at least for clearly marked as "opinion". I don't know if Media Lens, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada or Middle East Monitor are considered RSs, but your links are all clearly opinion pieces. American Herald Tribune is a very dodgy conspiracy theory site which publishes 9/11 denialism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial - please don't consider us linking to it.[78][79] Russia Today is at best a borderline source, but this link is an opinion piece. Information Clearing House seems pretty WP:FRINGE to me. OpenDemocracyUK is a respected website, but it is opinion not reporting. Finlayson is discussed elsewhere on this talk page, and is, in my view, non-noteworthy opinion. Personally, I think we should minimise opinion and neutrally report what reliable sources say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Pollock mentions antisemitism, but in connection with the Holocaust rather than as an accusation directed at signers of the early day motion. Her statement is so ambiguous that, in discussing it, we have actually had to try to disentangle it or interpret what it means. That's at the heart of why we're arguing about whether she's making accusations of antisemitism or not.

I did write: "I'm not, by the way, trying to argue that any or all or the following are reliable for anything apart from their author's own views, just supply examples of what the anti- [or post-] Zionist viewpoint looks like." Having said that, I do think that the anti-Zionist viewpoint is under-represented in the article and that using pro-Zionist/pro-Israel sources to supply that viewpoint is a seriously deficient approach. There are two problems (though, from the pro-Zionist viewpoint, of course, they may actually be seen as beneficial). One is that the pro-Palestinan/anti-Zionist viewpoint tends to be contained in alternative news sources or sites. The other is that the reporting in conventional news sites tends not only to be biased, but factually deficient, as outlined in the Media Reform Coalition's report. The situation is that many of what are being used as reliable sources have a common bias and that they are not actually reporting reliably on the matter in hand. One of the results is that what should be regarded as viewpoint is being presented as fact. You wrote: "I think we should minimise opinion and neutrally report what reliable sources say." How should the fact that a report from a university research group says that, bearing in mind that news sources are at the bottom end of the reliability spectrum, many of what would normally be regarded as reliable news sources here are misreporting on antisemitism in the Labour Party?

Although you've written off a lot of the links as opinion, opinion, of course, does have its place in the article. Much of the content of the used "reliable sources" is reportage of opinion, those sources having a rather one-sided bias meaning that the opinions selected have a one-sided bias also. Finlayson is, if I'm correct, a professor of political philosophy. Is her opinion really worth less than a lot of those chosen for inclusion? For the present, I'll avoid embarking on a detailed discussion of any of the linked sources, but just mention that the reason for including the RT piece was because it's a defence written by Ken Livingstone, a rather central figure in the antisemitism controvery.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand the relevance of the Zionist/anti-Zionist issue here. Although the EDM was inspired by an anti-Zionist group, IJAN, it was not actually about Israel/Palestine, and Pollock made no reference to Israel/Palestine in her response, and the Ha'aretz and Mirror articles. The article already devotes two paragraphs to the Media Reform Coalition report, and it was discussed on the talk page here and it was raised on the RSN, so I probably shouldn't devote more words to it in this section, but my view is that the report is very flimsy. As for opinion, a separate section of this talk page is devoted to that question, where I list the 33+ opinion pieces already cited in this article, of which all but about 4 are pro-Corbyn and anti-Zionist or Israel-critical. I also argue there that Finlayson (a lecturer, not a professor, in political philosophy, with no record of publishing on antisemitism or the Labour Party) is not a particularly noteworthy source, although we continue to quote her in this article for some reason. Yes, the reliable secondary sources report opinions expressed by people they consider noteworthy, and we should use that to determine whether opinions are noteworthy enough for us to mention, which is proper (hence the quotations from e.g. Jenny Manson or Jon Lansman in this article - or, for that matter, Ken Livingstone, who we already quote twice from reliable sources with no need for recourse to RT, because he's obviously noteworthy), but that is different from citing opinion pieces without having any yardstick by which to establish their notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

At this time we are just discussing inclusion, discussing the nature of that inclusion just clouds the issue, I will note that agreeing to include a mention is not agreeing to the any old text. So even if the RFC passes that is not cat blanche to add a specific form of text.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I probably didn't manage to make my personal position very clear above. I don't have any major objections to Pollock being quoted briefly (a minor one is that, as far as I can see, she doesn't actually refer to antisemitism explicitly) so long as, for the sake of neutrality, accurate descriptions of the early day motion and the Never Again for Anyone initiative which it revolves around (which would include the rationale behind the initiative) are also given.     ←   ZScarpia   02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you propose some wording? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording is linked in the RfC so we are discussing the inclusion of that specific text. That said, if we can find consensus for some other text here, that's also fine of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The question posed at the top is about whether to include at all, not whether to include a specific wording: "Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page?"     ←   ZScarpia   11:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It links to the content. Seems pretty straightforward. If you don't like that specific text, feel free to propose something else. The RfC will run for a while so there's time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's been mentioned already, but it might be worth noting that Karen Pollock was heavily involved in the mural controversy, being the person who criticised it for containing stereotypically antisemitic images.[80][81]     ←   ZScarpia   16:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is that worth noting? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason it 'might' is because the more she has been involved in the controversy, the more significant she becomes in her own right in this article. It looks to me as though she may have been one of the key figures in the mural-part of the controversy. I see she also made comments about Jackie Walker.     ←   ZScarpia   12:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say it is worth noting that she is a (not the) person noted by reliable sources who criticised the mural for containing stereotypically antisemitic images. In fact, she is widely quoted by reliable sources in relation to antisemitism in the Labour Party,[82] suggesting she is somebody who is noteworthy for us to be referring to on this page (in much the same way as, say, Jenny Manson or Jon Lansman are (but Lorna Finlayson or Richard Seymour aren't)). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

She is widely quoted as an authority on antisemitism and Holocaust denial in the UK - by dint of her rather significant position in the Holocaust Educational Trust - one of the main UK bodies dealing with these issues. Her being quoted as an authority only increases the weight of her comments. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As this RFC is about the inclusion of specific text, and as there is no clear consensus for inclusion of that text I have removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Making reference to it being "a form of denial and distortion" is not the same as calling it antisemitic. Such a serious accusation of placing this content on this article based on such vague wording isn't appropriate. Wikipedia needs to be careful for such a strong allegation and would need better reasons for inclusion. Ultimately, there's no evidence that the EDM was antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article beyond the vague comment. RevertBob (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Question added at the top of this section.     ←   ZScarpia   23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. You can't add a question after people already commented. You can open a new RfC if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Jackie Walker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)