Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party

Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists' Group and Jewish Voice for Peace

The previous RfC appears to show a mixed outcome where for part of the text there may be potential consensus and part has no consensus. I suggest a modified version sourced from RS with objected text removed as per the advice from ANI. There were no arguments on the RfC that the Morning Star isn't a reliable source and there's an RfC which confirms that it is. RevertBob (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is disruptive, and should be speedy closed. The prior RfC (which did not close with a "mixed outcome"), on the same WP:FRINGE content, was closed on 8 Feb 2019. Relaunching a RfC on the same issue a month later is not how we do things here. Changing the cited source tk the UK's only communist pro-Corbyn newspaper does not change the situation here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Independent Jewish Voices are now semi-defunct post-2015 except for their original convenor, Antony Lerman [1][2]. The Jewish Socialist Group is almost certainly a front within the SWP... it certainly is/was affiliated with the SWP's other fronts such as the UAF, Stand Up To Racism [3][4][5][6][7] and the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) [8]. The JSG is only really a 'Jewish organisation' if we are now going to categorise the SWP as a Jewish organisation as well! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oppose. WP:UNDUE weight to fringe groups. The joint Jewish newspaper editorial was covered internationally being major news. The response by these fringe groups was limited to Facebook. Furthermore, the cited sources from the fringe Morning Star do not support the content. One source is JVP's open letter which supports JVP (but is not actual reporting - this is akin to a letter to the editor). The second source mainly covers the joint editorial and mentions that "Mr Rosenberg, a longstanding Corbyn ally, posted on Facebook accusing the papers..." - it frames this as a Facebook stmt by Rosenberg - not JSG. As for IJV - they are missing in action. So - fails WP:V, and is clearly WP:UNDUE promotion of fringe views.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include – Content trimmed down to include one sentence sourced from the WP:RS (which is determined by accurate reporting and fact-checking not political bias) Morning Star source. As per WP:NPOV, this is relevant content and an alternative viewpoint form other Jews and both sides of the Jewish community should be represented. RevertBob (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Jewish News has a circulation of 24,518, the |Morning Star 10,000. Given the overall newspaper reading population, both are 'fringe', and in my view, both are acceptable, because they represents vocal constituencies or important traditional communities. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply You really need consider the target demographic of both newspapers. Jewish News is bought by 8.5% of the UK Jewish population. That's large by any measure. The Morning Star's target demographic is what? Labour voters (12.878,460 last GE)? Trades Unionists (about 6.2 million)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If we used that logic, we would void most of the page, since the statistics are that 0.1% of the Labour membership has been accused of making antisemitic remarks, while 85% of the Jewish constituency is convinced that 'Anti-Semitism is rife' within the party. The former emerges from a simple statistical measure of who of the 600,000 people have been reported to the party. The latter is a perception. Within the Labour Party, Stephen Sedley argues,

“an undeclared war is going on inside the party, with pro-Israeli groups such as the Jewish Labour Movement seeking to drive out pro-Palestinian groups like the Jewish Voice for Labour by stigmatising them, and Corbyn with them, as anti-Semitic,”

Within Wikipedia, mirroring this, this rift is repeated. Some editors showcase the newspaper war hostile to Corbyn and his party, others note the extraordinary incongruity between the obsessively repeated innuendoes, and the statistical reality. The former seek to elide Jewish Voice for Labour, the latter defend its use, since the idea that there is only one statistically significant, uh 'Jewish perspective' on how Labour goyim view Jews' is a POV-push to use policy to create an imbalance and cog the dice.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: please strike "cog the dice". While I'm uncertain of the penalties for dice cogging in Roman barracks, the similar card sharking leads to American Remains or the inevitable in any Western scene.Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have certainly emended my horrendous spelling mistake for 'view'. All that needs to be added is that the penalties for using cogged dice ( perhaps nequior talus Martial Book IV.XIV 9) in Roman barracks are not known, since that is too specific. Roman courts did not consider plaintiffs’ claims for redress on gaming rorts, of which coggng the dice was one. I would guess, actionable. And Wikipedia in its wisdom follows the same principle.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Firstly, addressing the inclusion of Jewish Voice for Peace... They are a US based anti-zionist activist group and, while I agree entirely with their mission statement, the relevance of their opinion on a joint editorial by UK newspapers about a UK politician is extremely questionable. Of the other two groups, Independent Jewish Voices are more credible by a long way and I would not question their inclusion. Jewish Socialists' Group on the other hand is a fringe group and their inclusion is unwarranted. It isn't really up for debate that the three UK papers represent a majority view of UK Jews on this topic. If we are to include a counterpoint to it, a single short sentence covering IJV's letter would be as much as could be reasonably justified. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include What the RFC said "There is no consensus to include this information." So it is true there was no consensus. It had been long standing content that had just as much been the subject of regular talk page discussion as it is now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include per Slatersteven. I might add that the repeated use of the 'fringe' argument is bizarre.

British Jews constitute 4.44%0.5% of GB's population, i.e. by this logic they are 'fringe'

Of British Jews, the percentage who are Hasidim varies (1996/1997) from 3-4 to 10%, or if you look at the school-age population,36% are taught in ultra-orthodox schools.

So, British Jews are percentually fringe in terms of the whole population, as ultra-orthodox Jews are fringe (under 10%) within British Jewry, and the 15% of British Jews who do not think Corbyn or his party anti-Semitic are also 'fringe' compared to the near consensus of the 85%. Not for that should we start saying that the views of 85% of 4.4 0.5 percent on a major British political party deserves hectically minute coverage untarnished by reminders that notable fringes Jewish-political, or Jewish religious, dissent from that majority. If we are to observe WP:NPOV, w are obliged to cover all significant views within the affected ethnic community, governing the reportage only in terms of WP:Undue. The Corbyn bashers there are due more coverage, but those who rebuff that community's overall attitude deserve proportionate coverage without suppression of their disagreement as 'fringe'.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have no idea where you get the statistic that "British Jews constitute 4.44% of GB's population". On the latest census, we were actually rather less than 0.5%, and you are incorrect by an order of magnitude. I suspect that a decimal point slipped in your calculation. RolandR (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct, as usual. My apologies. Don't know what happened, but hope your hypothesis, which suggests digital incompetence rather than senile hyperbole, explains it. Either that or somehow the figure popped up from some memory that at the end of WW2, 4.4% of the British Parliament consisted of members of Jewish background. My apologies. Roland (the lower figure of course only strengthens one's admiration for the extraordinary achievements of such a minority, as per Hobsbawm,Interesting Times p.25.'if there is any justification for the claim that 0.25% of the global population in the year 2000 which constitute the tribe into which I was born are a 'chosen' or special people, . . it rests on its quite disproportionate and remarkable contribution to humanity.' The hysteria documented here distresses people like me -too much to be genuinely proud of to allow it to be trashed effortlessly by imitating the curse of Western modernity, ethnonationalist haranguing. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently, about 3.5% of MPs are Jewish. The highest figure seems to have been after the 1966 election, when about 6.5% of MPs were Jewish - most of them Labour, as it happens. I am not going to comment on the hysteria; living at the centre of this means that I have a much sharper perspective, much of it informed by experience rather than by documents, and thus not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that was interesting. I have no idea why you started spouting about "ultra-orthodoxy" (you know that's viewed as an insult by the people you're describing?). I also have no idea why you started spouting about the hasidim. It's fairly clear though that you think the two are one and the same. Maybe to you they are? The 85% does not include "ultra-orthodox" jews, whether they're hasidim or otherwise. They are generally detached from politics and will have no opinion on Jeremy Corbyn. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot construe what an interlocutor states, in context, don't presume to answer. Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. "Interlocutor" huh? lol Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some reasons for inclusion. WP:FRINGE is not relevant outwith matters using the scientific method. Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not In the topic subset of Jews in the Labour Party, the leftwing Jewish groups collectively are notable, based on the coverage they get in the media. They also speak on the issue for much of the LP membership, who have twice elected JC as leader, so I think they can be quoted where there is a RS.The political stance and circulation size of Morning Star are not barriers to it being treated as a reliable source. It covers a range of left wing political issues and views. Given that the national press are all anti-Corbyn, it is important that we allow the voice of the LP and its supporters to emerge. Regarding this particular instance: I think JVP should be excluded, as they are too distant from the issue. I think IJV should be excluded if there is not a RS (I did not see one). JSG is small, it is not stated what the role of David Rosenberg is within the organization or that he is speaking on behalf of the organization, or the context of his words. So he is only speaking for himself, which is not enough. So, I think he should be excluded too. Jontel (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include. As these groups represent the views of many Jewish Labour Party members their views are notable on the subject of the article. G-13114 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) I agree with the UNDUE and false balance arguments made above. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning INCLUDE. Happy the guidance of ANI is being followed, and think there is some prominence and need to cover more POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Addition of another fringe source doesn't change much still WP:UNDUE and violation of WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Please read the page, and this section, before voting. This is not about a 'fringe source'. It is about whether to include content or not. A movement is not a source, be it fringe or otherwise. The newspapers reporting the movement's actions constitute the sources, which can be mainstream or fringe. So, since you didn't understand this, it woulde be good to read the section, grasp what it's about and then 'revote'. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include As per all the reasons above given by RevertBob, Nishidani, G-13114 and Slatersteven above, and esp. regarding maintaining non-partisan neutral balance in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include per others listed above. --NSH001 (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include: Though the 'alternative' viewpoint may not be covered to any great extent in the newspapers, much of whose reporting is far from factual, in order to achieve neutrality, it should be treated appropriately in the article, which means giving it at least some coverage, however brief.     ←   ZScarpia   21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced on the FRINGE opposition (I think JSG and IJV both represent valid viewpoints in this debate, even though they are clearly a minority within a minority), but more importantly this fails verifiability. Neither link mentions IJV. JSG is not supported by the first link, which is about Rosenberg personally not the Group. JVP is shown more clearly, but the source is the open letter itself so primary, which is far from ideal (and suggests less noteworthy). Note JVP is a US group. So, if the text were to follow the sources it'd need to say something like "One prominent Jewish socialist, Dave Rosenberg, and the American left-wing organisation, Jewish Voice for Peace, condemned the editorial, with Mr Rosenberg describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria". which doesn't seem worth including. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ineptness

(*(1) this restores a phrasing I removed while making a large rewrite and expansion with far more detail. You kept that expansion but restored in another lead paragraph the defective and misleading phrase, overegging the pud. since the lead now repeats itself. That is incompetent,Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• (2) Lerman 2019 was removed, on the unheralded pretext that wiki can't cite a retired scholar. Worse, the pretext also added that he might be used, if attributed, but a quotation from an official report is not Lerman's opinion. Worser, Lerman has been stable on the page for an article he wrote in 2018, which you didn't challenge. So you are being totally incoherent. You cannot challenge an article by a scholar because he was in your view 'retired' in 2019, while leaving in an article from 2018 by the same scholar when, if you were correct, he was retired. This kind of random removalism hits the bottom of absurdity. Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Either take this to ANI or stop commenting on users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing reportable in Icewhiz's position. It is just in these two cases, poor editing practice. That the two edits were incoherent, and for that reason 'incompetent', can be noted, and are not personal attacks. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I take your point on (1) - you did indeed paraphrase this elsewhere, therefore - I self reverted. As for (2) - Lerman from 2018 is used for an attributed quote - Lerman is a RS for Lerman's own words (he may be UNDUE - but that's a separate matter). Lerman, on opendemocracy, is not a RS on other BLPs in an unattributed fashion. Constructively, I suggest you replace Lerman2019 in the lede with the BBC - 2018 or 2016 - if you want to keep this particular direct quote. Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the revert on that. You still haven't shown what I asked for. Someone who has a scholarly record on anti-Semitism, who headed the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, worked for the Runnymede Commission on Antisemitism etc., with 30 years of writing, within Jewish or other think tanks, about anti-Semitism, and reliably published on the topic consistently, is self-evidently RS. Look, those credentials are so strong, and his position as an authority on the topic secured by the think tanks employing him for decades, that objections are extreme. If you make the exceptional claim, with no wiki policy writ to back it, that he is on the pension and therefore ratshit, unless used with attribution, I suggest you argue that at the RSN board. openDemocracy is used elsewhere on this page, and no one has thought that odd. Why it should somehow transmogrify into non-RS because Lerman also wrote a piece for it, is inexplicable. WP:BLP, again , has nothing to do with this. The words quoted are from the Chakrabarti Report in any case do not require attribution to the author of the source where it is cited. I'll take it to RS, but really, if you make obviously strange claims without policy basis, you should be the one to address the appropriate noticeboard.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

See here. Let's be patient, not reargue what we've said here, but wait for independent third party assessments.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I clarified my challenge there - I suggest you don't respond (and neither shall I) - and we'll see what outside input says. My issue with Lerman on opendemocracy is first and foremost that I don't see opendemocracy as a WP:RS for facts. Had Lerman been published in mainstream news media (not as an oped) or (better) in an academic journal - then I would not have contested that. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What's Arutz Sheva doing here then? Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I currently see it in the article being used for an attributed opinion from an expert in the field of antisemitism - not as a sole source for fact. WP:RSOPINION is a generally easy bar to meet (e.g. - I'm not challenged Lerman 2018 on RS grounds - as the source is probably reliable for Lerman's own opinions (which means we can trust them not to type something up and post it under the byline of an author who didn't write it)).Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, frankly, you are missing quite a bit. Manfred Gerstenfeld is used twice, once unattributed (by not mentioning him as the author)

Note 115 Manfred Gerstenfeld Muslims play a prominent role among Labour party anti-Semitic inciters, Arutz Sheva, 8 May 2016

Note 271 (Manfred Gerstenfeld) "Reactions to anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party". Arutz Sheva. 29 May 2016.

Gerstenfeld is controversial in Norway, after claiming that "Norway is a nation of anti-semites" and that "Norwegians are a barbaric and unintelligent people", and accusing King Harald, Crown Prince Haakon, former Foreign Minister and now Labour leader Jonas Gahr Støre and former Prime Minister and now NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg of being "anti-semites". Gerstenfeld has published books about his views on Norway and written several newspaper articles that have been controversial.[4][5] Norway's largest newspaper and main newspaper of record, the conservative daily Aftenposten, has described Gerstenfeld in an editorial as a far-right extremist and fanatic.[6] Imre Hercz, a Norwegian doctor and well-known member of Norway's Jewish community, has condemned Gerstenfeld's "propaganda war against Norway".[4] According to expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hilde Henriksen Waage, Gerstenfeld is a central figure in a smear campaign against Norway on the Israeli far-right.[7] Odd-Bjørn Fure, Norway's main anti-semitism expert and founding director of the Center for Studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities, has said that Gerstenfeld "is not worth arguing against. I prefer to deal with serious people. We do not take this person seriously

I.e. You are justifying the retention of two articles by a man who has zero academic qualifications in the field he writes about and who is highly controversial, known for racist and bigoted remarks, writing for a fringe Israeli settler newspaper to descant on the British Labour Party (when his articles quote mainly British newspapers we already have access to. That's fine.

But you reject an accomplished British scholar specializing in anti-Semitism,-about whom not a jot or tittle of suspicions about intellectual integrity exists, as opposed to Gerstenfeld- writing in openDemocracy. If you can't see the extreme subjectivity of what is dictating your choice between what is acceptable per RS and what is not, no amount of argumentation will persuade you that the above contrast is comically unbalanced, when not sheer chutzpah.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerstenfeld should be used attributed - if he's not - he should be. However, he is a noted scholar on antisemitism and the Holocaust. As for being "controversial in Norway" - well - considering he has written on the widespread antisemitism in Norway that's not surprising - all you've got there is various Norwegians saying Norway is not antisemitic. Considering the Norwegian AG just recently ruled that saying "Fucking Jews" is not antisemitic (but rather a "criticism of Israel" - even though Israel was not even mentioned)[9][10] - Norwegian opinion really carries very little weight on the matter. Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone without credentials (he has no scholarly credentials in this area) and who has made inflammatory racist statements against an entire people as anti-Semitic ("Norway is a nation of anti-semites" and that "Norwegians are a barbaric and unintelligent people", ) is automatically ruled out from being a reliable source, especialòly on a sensitive topic dealing with another nation and the same topic. Period. You shouldn't be pushing this. It is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You'd better provide a source for that quotation - copying from a wiki article does not excuse a BLP violation. Gerstenfeld has definitely criticized Norway for widespread antisemitism there - your personal opinion (or Norwegian popular media) on the issue matters little. Here's an opinion with some weight: "Author Manfred Gerstenfeld, who is recognized by many as one of the leading scholarly authorities today on anti-Semitism and on post-Holocaust studies[11]. Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the ipsissima verba from his own website here,'This has made Norway, in my view, the most anti-Semitic country in the West.' Having declared that, on another page on his website, while claiming the press misreports him, he asserts that 'This text also quoted me falsely as having said that Norway was “the most anti-Semitic nation in Europe.” .' Since he contradicts himself about what he said, his defense on anything he says is improbable.

Anyone who says 'I deny I said that' and then 'follows it up with 'Yes, I said precisely that' withourt using a confessional mode or irony is obviously so totally unfocused that he can't be treated seriously, in the world, let alone on an encyclopedia.]

Whoever wrote, whether it be Anshel Pfeffer, a Haaretz journo, or someone else, that Gerstenfeld is 'one of the leading scholars today on anti-Semitism and on post-Holocaust studies' is familiar with neither of those scholarly disciplines, since they don't cite him. The book you refer this opinion to is edited by three people teaching at the West Bank's controversial settler institution, Ariel University, and is published by IGI Global, which is a vanity or predatory publisher or rogue book publisher.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely it is better to source factial info on Chakrabarti from news sources rather than op eds, even if the op eds are written by serious people like Seymour and Lerman? Re Gerstenfeld: I support his removal, along with all of the other opinion pieces not widely quoted in secondary sources. [I believe this unsigned comment from a month ago was by me. Apologies for not signing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC) ]

[12] "I cannot help but feel this is a POV fork from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom an article that most of the material for this one was cherry picked from (and it still mostly duplicates). It is hard to see how and why we need an article on this when far more antisemitic parties can get away with just an article about them." I wonder if the original poster can possibly justify his comment from back in 2017, now? -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Referencing

This article has Citations, Sources, a Bibliography, and Further reading. Can't we streamline this? The most common practice now is just Refs and Further reading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore some editors, counter to WP:CITEVAR, have been adding Harvard style citations - which are clunky and annoying to work with. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC consensus, random op-eds

This edit stating "rv random removals" reinstated content that a recent RfC decided to remove. It also restored two rather random, and recently introduced (not in the WP:STABLE version) op-eds/letters - one in Jewish Telegraph and another in Al-Jazeera - we had previously agreed that op-ed commentary should be pared down - particularly when the op-eds aren't referred to in a secondary manner (by sources covering the op-ed). Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The rabbi letter should just go - it's been RfCed and the closer gave us a clear steer. Neve Gordon should go - a completely arbitrary op ed by a non-UK professor who has no academic record on either antisemitism or the Labour Party, no more noteworthy than any of the probably hundreds of op eds written about this issue. There's a stronger case for Geoffrey Alderman's inclusion, as he has done scholarly research about antisemitism and British party politics, but given our bloated article I don't really think it's noteworthy enough, and has had no secondary coverage. Can we just delete? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I see RevertBob has restored the rabbi letter (along with these minor opinions) in order to go back to a stable version. Isn't it violation of policy, though, to go against an RfC closure, especially a pretty recent closure? I don't want to simply revert, but maybe my fellow Bob might want to revert himself? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is editing against consensus - restoring content a RfC decided to remove. Furthermore the edit summary of "Restore stable version with notable opinons sourced by RS" is false as it also restored the two random op-eds which are not in the WP:STABLE version of the article - added on 31 Match (breaking WP:CITEVAR one must add) and on 19 April - in both cases the content was in the article for less than 6 weeks prior to being challenged. Considering we have talk-page consensus this editing was out of line - it can certainly be reverted forthwith. Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• @JFG: your close of - Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill - "There is consensus not to mention this letter at all, per WP:UNDUE. — JFG talk 19:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - has seemingly been challenged twice with reversion. Are BobFromBrockley and myself misunderstanding your close? Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  The RfC was closed on 2 April and it's the first time I am notified of a challenge to my findings. If any editors disagree with my reading of consensus, the appropriate process is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Meanwhile, any changes to article text against RfC consensus can be reverted on sight. — JFG ^talk 11:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Have now done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Baronees Deetch's comments removed

@Newimpartial: Regarding the removal, it was removed as "undue." How is a statement by a member of the House of Lords undue? It is one of only two in that section? It is also from a speech made way back in 2016. It is not undue in my opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Cutting out opinions wothout secondary coverage is actually a good idea (and there is secondary coverage of other stmts by Deech which we should possibly include). However we should apply this standard in a uniform fashion on all opinions without secondary coverage. In accordance with this standard I removed a number of primary opinions, but there probably is quite a bit more cutting to be done.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Her background is in academic law, academic management and embryology. If you wish to show that Labour politicians are so influenced by a wish to appeal to the Muslim minority that they express antisemitic sentiments, then you should be able to find journalists or political scientists saying that in British publications. Jontel (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

She was also Adjudicator for Higher Education, and quoted in that context on UK antisemitism.JC, Telegraph. International coverage is more significant than local British. However, we should be consistent here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not yet seen either any expertise or coverage on the part of the Baroness that would make these comments DUE. Of course Tory Lords will attribute base motivations to Labour officials; this does not make such comments relevant to the article at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There are argument for her notability that might support inclusion, but on the whole I think we need to remove opinions without substantial secondary coverage and support her removal. However, as per Icewhiz, we need to be consistent. There is still a lot of opinion material that should go: Gerstenfeld, Sedley, Rosenfeld, Lerman, Bindman, Robertson, Klug, Finlay, the Socialist Struggle Movement, Shlaim, Finkelstein (in the academics section), Newsinger, Chomsky, Pappe, Sedley again, Klug again, Gould, Gordon, Lerman again, Golinkin, Levy, Seymour, Cook, Alderman (see previous talk section). Their is no metric by which these, of all the hundreds of op eds written about this issue, are the opinions we quote. It's just not encyclopedic. Can we just get rid of all of them please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Back in 2017 - early days for this article - Deech's op-ed (in a newspaper of record) did serve a purpose - there was less secondary coverage and this was a notable person commenting (and the same was true for other early op-eds). However we are now in 2019. The antisemitism crisis has been covered extensively in a secondary manner - also in academic books - e.g. Lipstadt. We simply don't need these op-eds anymore. I think the criteria for including an op-ed/letter should be non-passing coverage in at-least 2 reliable non-fringe sources - in which case those sources should cited (and we should include in our article what the secondary sources say of the opinion - not random bits from the opinion) and, possibly, one could also ref the op-ed itself. We should also, possibly, consider a retrospective requirement (secondary sources discussing the opinion at some distance of time (e.g. more than a month) from the op-ed itself) - but that's a higher bar. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I support a two-source threshold. I think there is strong consensus from previous discussions for trimming op ed material in general, but when each specific instance is applied it tends to get reverted. So, the onus should be on editors who think that op ed quotes here are due to make sure they are sourced via secondary sources otherwise they should be deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a question about this. Pro-Israelis can depend on being reported on this issue in the Israeli press, the NYT, it appears, the British Jewish press and most of the mainstream British press, which is pro-Conservative, pro the Labour right wing and anti Corbyn. By definition, the mainstream press are large companies. Pro-Palestinians and leftwingers have many fewer established sources and have to rely on self-publication or much smaller enterprises. Isn't there a danger if these are systematically eliminated of bias and excluding alternative viewpoints, even if they have significant popular support? Jontel (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, if this is an issue then it is an issue for all Wikipedia articles on politics. It is just not encyclopedic to arbitrarily pick un-cited opinion pieces and give them a lot of space in an article. At any rate, the article is not about *Israel*, pro- and anti-, but about the UK Labour Party and antisemitism. To suggest that views on racism in a UK political party map on to whether people are "pro-Israel" or not is a bit worrying. Of the op eds which seem to me arbitrary, Gerstenfeld, Shlaim, the SSM and Levy (and maybe others) are themselves Israeli, Alderman strongly pro-Israel, and few of the others would call themselves "anti-Israel" so I don't see this as an issue. On another note, I just looked back. I made the trimming proposal in an RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_7#Opinion_articles here, which received some support and no opposition, but the RfC was closed without an apparent decision. Not sure if that provides a mandate or not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it wasn't specific. Also see rebuttals where there was consensus to trim, just not what. I do think we broadly have consensus to trim opinions - and we should simply set a hard metric here - as there really isn't any lack of opinion here to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"At any rate, the article is not about *Israel*." From at least one point of view, the current controversy, which is largely why the article is being given so much attention at the moment, IS, as a central issue, about Israel (and the Palestinians). From those viewpoints, the controversy is a lever being used by supporters of Israel and opponents of the leftwing politics of the current leader of the Labour Party to get rid of Corbyn. See, for instance, what Jonathan Cook has written: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Tony Greenstein asks interesting questions about why Hobson's book, which has recently become part of the controversy, is only now being attacked for its antisemitic content: [18], [19]. My view is that at least a small amount of space should be given in the article to outlining the alternative viewpoints. Those viewpoints may not be covered much or represented accurately in the traditional mass or 'Jewish' media, but they do exist. It would be good if the use of double standards and partial reasoning to prevent or eradicate coverage of those viewpoints from the article weren't totally successful.     ←   ZScarpia   10:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I do think there is a problem if we rely on coverage from Israel and the United States of UK opinion as the basis for what is DUE. We have seen the same editors delete widely-discussed commentary from US commentators (Chomsky) while insisting that coverage from within the UK becomes DUE when discussed in the Israeli press. Per the discussion of circulation figures above, there should not be one sourcing standard for perspectives we agree with and another for those with which we disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)