Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Antisemitism in the British Labour Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

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 and, also, by the supporters of Israel, to curb the expression of anti-Zionist sentiments. See, for instance, what Jonathan Cook has written: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. 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: [6], [7]. 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)

Please don't gaslight. The article is about antisemitism, not Israel. It has been proven time and time again, and with evidence beyond refute that there is an antisemitism problem in Labour that has nothing to do with Israel. The only reason to bring Israel into it is to downplay the antisemitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Social media has enabled anyone to find and share all sorts of odd and unpleasant ideas. Some of them have joined the much expanded Labour Party. However, there is surely more to this than the odd person tweeting about bankers. Almost all of the people targeted to be purged are active pro Palestinians. Generally, what they have said or written has been either misrepresented or is about Israel. Most social media activity was just between activists or, recently, in response to continual attacks on the party leadership by some MPs and celebrities. The Labour Party has not proposed or considered any policies that affect the lives of British Jewry. Surely the motivation for the industrial scale of the investigating, spying on, and hounding of leftwing activists for things they wrote, often years ago, must be opposition to the prospect of a pro Palestinian UK government? Jontel (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

RSes tend to emphasize a concern that there could be an antisemitic government that would pose an existential threat to UK Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is, that there exists a viewpoint that the current controversy, which the article is largely about, has been generated by supporters of Israel and opponents of Corbyn in order to get rid of him. That viewpoint may be fallacious, but that isn't a reason not to describe it in the current article. As this piece by John Humphrys says: "Mr Corbyn’s supporters suspect that the campaign against him is due to his long-standing and outspoken opposition to the policies of successive Israeli governments and his support for Palestinian causes: he has called Hamas his ‘friends’. Some argue too that the issue is being ‘weaponised’ by those in the party who have never accepted Mr Corbyn as its leader, despite his having resoundingly won two leadership elections, and are using the smear of anti-Semitism to destroy his chances of becoming prime minister." To Corbyn's supporters may be added those with anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinian views in general, such as Jonathan Cook, some of whose articles I linked to above. ← ZScarpia 13:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a smear to call out antisemitism. Here's the latest antisemitism from Corbyn and his followers. [8] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not anti-Semitic, to call out the abuse of that claim or charge for political ends, namely in order to silence criticism of Israel's occupation. You are convinced per the above that both Corbyn and his followers, all 600,000 Labour members, are anti-Semitic ('Here's the latest anti-Semitism from Corbyna and his followers'). NPOV obliges editors to be careful about, strive to be neutral regarding what are claims and counter-claims, regardless of their personal beliefs. It is evident from the article and the talk page that considerable efforts are being made to tamp down material regarding the Labour response to these charges, to dismiss Jewish dissent as intrinsically fringe and therefore undue, and at the same time showcase the claim that the party and its leader is anti-Semitic (-something that the best sources suggest is, statistically, erratic). Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Israel, when we're talking about antisemitism. Interesting why you do that, and the article I linked about which showed how the PSC also did the same. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:30, 9 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)

At the moment, there are almost no opinion pieces that reflect anything like a "pro-Israel" (whatever that means) or anti-Corbyn view (Deech and Gerstenfeld, whose removal is supported by a range of editors) but a large number of opinion pieces that reflect a defensive position about the Labour Party and come from the left (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), plus one opinion piece by a strongly "pro-Israel" voice but with a quote selected to exonerate Alderman (Alderman. So there is absolutely no imbalance in favour of "pro-Israel" material. And nor would the requirement to use secondary coverage to establish noteworthyness create an imbalance. So Jontel's position only makes sense if we accept that presenting facts as reported by RSs is so distorting that we need to balance out the facts by quoting large numbers of defensive opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Per User:Jontel 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?...... Given that the overwhelming anti-Corbyn anti-left bias of nearly all of the mainstream media has been highlighted numerous times, not least by the Media Reform Coalition report from last year. How can we be expected to create an unbiased article which adequately covers all substantial viewpoints on the issue, using only sources which are inherently biased? This will lead to inevitable failure of the article to achieve the central objective of neutrality. To use an analogy, it's rather like trying to write a neutral and unbiased article about a Russian opposition politician using only Kremlin approved state news sources, an impossible task. G-13114 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE, which we usually avoid. NPOV means reflecting mainstream coverage, not fringe viewpoints.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, deciding what counts as 'fringe', those views are certainly not fringe among Labour Party members or supporters or on the left, and how can we produce a balanced article without including those views. There are many viewpoints which have widespread following which are not well represented by the mainstream media. G-13114 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

As has been said numerous occasions, we use reliable sources (not mainstream sources which there is no definition of). RevertBob (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see why Wikipedia gives primacy to secondary sources, which are independent of the parties involved, and are hence more likely to be objective and hence accurate. In highly contested areas, however, secondary sources often have an agenda, and I would include books by academics in that. I think it is always a good idea to find original texts and transcripts and interviews by sympathetic interviewers with those involved. One can then at least compare the usually highly summarised and interpreted commentary with the fuller descriptions. Ideally, I think that the latter should be referenced in addition to secondary sources to allow readers to form their own view. Regarding secondary sources, some such as the BBC, perhaps the Guardian, TV channels and newswires are less likely to have an agenda than commercial or community publications, including foreign ones, while the Morning Star will provide an alternative viewpoint. Also, I think the opinions of those who defend Corbyn should be included (are WP:DUE, given that they are numerous and prominent, just as those of his critics are throughout the article and in the references. The Labour Party is the largest political party in Europe, numbering over half a million, and its leadership have been democratically elected. So, arguments that reflect the Labour Party viewpoint are not fringe theories. Jontel (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Having one standard for NYT and another for the Morning Star is disingenuous: Making an argument for one to have opinions being without attribution because it's RS whereas claiming another which is also RS to be partisan or not having a secondary source is an obvious double standard. RevertBob (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is well put and I get all these points. I agree that academics can have an agenda too (the agenda of the Media Reform Coalition is pretty clear, for example). My problem with it is why we really need such a volume of "viewpoints". The weight of the article should be on what has actually happened, which would include reliably sourced public statements by the key players such as Corbyn, Lansman, Formby, the Board of Deputies etc. I don't think it is usual for an article like this to have two dozen extensive quotes from opinion pieces. Many are obviously non-noteworthy (e.g. the Socialist Struggle Movement); some are really hard to see as noteworthy in relation to this topic (e.g. Neve Gordon, Lev Golinkin, Jonathan Cook). We need encyclopedic criteria for inclusion: recognised expertise on the topic, citation by secondary sources. Othersise it is just a dump for arbitrarily selected defences and criticisms of Corbyn. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the space taken up by rebuttals seems excessive. I can see the case for dropping quotes from obscure or irrelevant individuals and organisations. However, the number of of those protesting is relevant, including joint letters. Using full quotes and ordering them by period and source type makes the section lengthy. Many of the quotes seem to make similar points. Perhaps it would be better to set out each point and list those who have made it, with much less use of direct quotes. However, I can see that it is a bit of work. Jontel (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that would be a good solution - more paraphrasing and more systematic. But, yes, quite a bit of work! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@BobfromBrockley: "The weight of the article should be on 'what has actually happened'." You appear to me to be barking up the wrong tree. The point is, sources disagree about "what happened", which is why, for the most part, we're in the situation of reporting, at least in relation to the current Labour Party antisemitism controvery, which a goodly chunk of the article is about, what is claimed to have happened rather than what "did". The point made by the LSE and Birkbeck College reports is that there is widespread misreporting of issues surrounding Jeremy Corbyn in the press. ← ZScarpia 12:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Bob mentions 20 opinion views that should go. 1 is fiercely anti-Corbyn Manfred Gerstenfeld, notorious at least in Norway for making wild assertions without evidence in a similar case. I think it dangerous to take out one anti-Corbyn/Labour voice and balance that by gutting the article of 19 other people who take a diametrically opposed position, particularly when they are serious-minded people with some knowledge of the issues.

The other 19 consist of prominent thinkers, writers, academics- 13 are of Jewish background. Nearly all have either specific legal competence in matters regarding anti-Semitism, left-wing British politics and the historical intricacies of the I/P conflict which lies like a shadow behind many of the allegations made.

There is extensive secondary evidence that overall mainstream coverage is hostile to Corbyn and Labour. Great effort has been made to reduce as undue/fringe mentions of Jewish dissent in the ranks, something that has little mainstream coverage. So we built the article with mainstream bias, mainly written from the angle of political pressure campaigns as covered by staff writers with a thorough knowledge of British politics but zero knowledge of the overall complexities which form the context, something which most of the 19 mentioned take into account. So, in my view, there is a structural balance between the newspaper reportage, running to the sensationalist 24/7 news cycle, and the longer overall perspectives provided by these various legal, anti-Semitism, human rights, and leftist activist thinkers. Some of course could be eliminated without problems, i.e. those without wiki bios, Rebecca Ruth Gould, Lev Golinkin, Joseph Finlay.

Geoffrey Alderman, in Bob's list, has, by the way, already been removed and only remains in the bibliography. I think it a fair infra-Jewish meditation that should have been retained, but haven't pressed for its reinclusion any more than I have edited to remove Gerstenfeld, whose place here is, I think, preposterous.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Relevant views of notable figures and organisations (within and outside of Labour provides balance) that are relevant to the topic that is sourced from RS is justified to be included. RevertBob (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is fringe. I am not sure why you keep trying to introduce the fringest elements trying to defend Corbyn and the Labour Party. Criticize Israel all you want, but when it crosses the line into antisemitism, and when there is open antisemitism, as it has been shown time and time again, it's quite fringe to say there is no problem with antisemitism in Labour. I suggest you check out Rachel Riley's Twitter account, where she shows and retweets the daily antisemitic attacks and tweets of active Labour members and council members and candidates and Labour inactions. You'll see how Labour is not only not doing anything about antisemitism, they have welcomed it in its midst. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

'trying to defend' is a dead-give-away. There are claims and counter-claims, and this prose reads as implying Alderman is 'defending the indefensible.' No. He joined a discussion within those Jewish circles convinced of Corbyn's guilt and laid out a case disagreeing with an alarmist trend. Alderman is an historian of British Jewish history. No one said there is no problem. Everyone, even Jews, have been accused to anti-Semitism: it exists, just as anti-Semitism as a loathing and systemic persecution of Arabs exists. I don't follow Facebook, Twittes, Instagram - I read books, . which actually require the few who do to concentrate for several hours, rather than go ballistic over what the zillions of thoughtless gabblers froth over - not twitching sound-bites by the gossipy twits of the global gossip mill, with its genius for fabricating hysteria and group anxieties. Labour's inaction?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47203397 Labour: 673 anti-Semitism complaints in 10 months11 February 2019 See this.

She said 96 members were immediately suspended from the party for their conduct between April 2018 and January 2019, and 12 were expelled.

673 complaints of anti-Semitism by Labour Party members were received - a Labour spokesman said this represented about 0.1% of the membership
96 members were immediately suspended after complaints were made and a further 211 were told they would be investigated
146 members received a first warning, and 220 cases did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules for an investigation
Of the 307 who were suspended or notified of an investigation, 44 members left the party
Another 96 were referred to the party's anti-Semitism Disputes Panel

Rather than read Instagram, buy a copy of, no, given it's lengthy, read the wiki article on Miller's The Crucible. It's the best summation of what's going on here.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please explain this "just as anti-Semitism as a loathing and systemic persecution of Arabs exists." And again, you say they are doing something about antisemitism, yet I showed you that they aren't doing enough, and worse, they are covering it up. The released emails show that they are not doing enough, and that it comes from the top. And I told you to go to Twitter because that is how people communicate instantly and you can see how Labour councilors and candidates are speaking, and there is a thread of antisemitic Labour candidates/councilors, yet Labour is not doing anything, as of now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Give me any example of what is rightfully detested about anti-Semitic behavior that will stand the test of being unique to Jews in their diaspora history, and which Palestinians in the occupied territories have never suffered. The parallels run far deeper than any differences. WP:NOTFORUM. So this is my last word.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you can't answer me, so "this is my last word." Typical. Antisemitism is not about Israel, it's about the Jews. That you bring in the Palestinians tells more about you. That you also state that "just as anti-Semitism as a loathing and systemic persecution of Arabs exists" says a lot about you. That we find you on a page about antisemitism in the UK, which has nothing to do about the Middle East is telling because some people will want to bring the IP conflict into everything with Jews and condone antisemitism and blame it all on Israel and proclaim "whataboutisms." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Then please read this article. Much of the assault on Corbyn and his party's putative antisemitism (I'll make a synopsis for you if you're too busy to actually look at it) concerns his opinions about the Middle East and the I/P conflict.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Labour has: repeatedly condemned antisemitism at the highest level; made it a disciplinary office, adopted the IHRA definition and examples for disciplinary matters; expanded and overhauled their disciplinary processes; suspended and investigated many members; expelled some, prompted the resignation of others, and issued formal warnings to many more. To say that they are doing nothing and have welcomed it is symptomatic of the lack of balance on the issue. Jontel (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

They say they have, but then the documents prove they haven't. [9] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Good we are moving towards some consensus, e.g. dropping those with no wiki bios. Not all of the 19 (if that's the number) are prominent thinkers, writers or academics, though - Socialist Struggle Movement aren't, for example. And some of them may be prominent thinkers, writers or academics but aren't in relation to antisemitism or the Labour Party (Jonathan Cook writes about Israel/Palestine, including for Unz Review; Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe and Neve Gordon are serious scholars, but on Israel/Palestine not Labour or antisemitism; Norman Finkelstein is very controversial and has no expertise on UK politics; Chomsky may be Jewish and well known but has no expertise on British politics and has no particular expertise on antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, Bob, being "controversial" isn't really a disqualifier in this context, and Finkelstein has at !ease as much "expertise on UK politics" as many of the Israeli commentators currently cited in the article. And whatever you think about Chomsky, he is certainly a widely-cited, if again controversial, expert on antisemitism. Barring any substantial shift in the sourcing, it seems DUE to me to present both, so long as they are covered in RS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not an expert on antisemitism. He lost his academic job over serious allegations that his work constituted Holocaust denial. Chomsky is a linguist, and again has no expertise in antisemitism - being involved as a party in the Faurisson affair (as well as a number of other such issues) does not make one an expert.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Finkelstein is an expert on anti-Semitism, unlike 95% of the writers of newspaper sources on this page. He did not lose his job over an allegation of Holocaust denial. He lost it because he made a minute case that Alan Dershowitz plagiarized material. Chomsky in his early years had considerable experience of anti-Semitism. Every argument both he and Finkelstein deal with in their numerous books is surrounded by an interpretative web that to challenge Zionism is tantamount to being anti-Semitic. If you familiarize yourselves with these works, you will note that, to get the factual record as they see it straight, they always have to take apart the 'Zionist' interpretation, doing which invariably earns them accusations they are friendly to anti-Semitic thinking. That remark about Finkelstein is really comical, for the son of two people who survived several Nazi death camps, and grew up listening to stories of Nazi persecution. One cannot evaluate this huge newspaper chatter if one's basic sourcing is just that, newspapers and googling to a purpose.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly being accused as auch or sympathetic to such does not an expert make.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, familiarize yourself with books written by those authors please. Beginning with the subtitle of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the Abuse of History.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's always those trying to downplay antisemitism throughout the world who love Finklestein. No matter the continent, he's loved by them. Finkelstein is not an expert on antisemitism, he's an expert on fringe and that's about it. Being a child of Holocaust survivors doesn't make you an expert on antisemitism and using that is just being a token Jew to be on your side of the argument. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please desist from opinionizing about an author whose most recent work was published by the University of California Press, not as an 'expert on fringe', whatever that unearthly weird English phrase is supposed to mean (Fringe (trim)/Fringe (hair)?, and whose name you have trouble spelling. To repeat, he wrote a book on the misuse of anti-Semitism, again published by that august institution. He qualifies indisputably.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's rather simplistic to merely put people into Israel and antisemitism boxes given that a high proportion of the article is conflation of antisemitism with criticising advocates of Palestinian rights and/or critics of the Israeli government, the adoption of the IHRA non-legally binding new antisemitism working definition etc then the views of prominent thinkers, writers or academics etc on Israel/Palestine are relevant to the article, the views of Finkelstein and Chomsky are particularly the most relevant to this article. RevertBob (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear that both Sir Joseph and Icewhiz are allowing their POV to blind them to the status of Finkelstein and of Chomsky as recognized expert commentators on antisemitism. It is not a matter of "trying to downplay antisemitism" or "token Jews" - the latter being a rather horrifying term - it is about reflecting the perspectives that RS world-wide include in discussions of antisemitism. And I would point out that a lack of sympathy for policies of the state of Israel in the part of commentators cannot possibly be used as a litmus test for expertise in antisemitism - that way lie extreme BALANCE issues. Newimpartial (talk)

It seems clear that you and others are allowing your POV. Also, people can be antisemitic without Israel getting involved, and in many cases, claiming "Israel, Israel" is just trying to downplay the antisemitism, and in many cases that is what many Labour people are doing and have been shown to have done. And Chomsky and Finkelstein are indeed fringe and especially so with regards to Labour and antisemitism. They should not be used in this case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The motivations of most of the Labour Party members involved appears to be opposition to perceived oppression, inequality and discrimination in Israel, not hostility to Jews because of their race or religion. Snippets of conversations or sharing of cartoons don't always show the context and it is helpful to understanding to include sources making that clear. Jontel (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as POV goes, my only goal in this discussion is that WP's article should not be any more skewed or simplified than BALANCE, according to the available RS, would dictate. And FRINGE is to be judged in terms of available RS taken globally, and not according to your own personal opinions no matter what expertise you may believe yourself to have on the subject. Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Newimpartial has hit the nail on the head of the two editor's POV pushing, filibustering, fixed positions and subjective arguments on these pages rather than based on rules and guidelines. RevertBob (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If a person's comments have not been picked up in secondary sources then they fail inclusion as undue. Being a baroness or even a princess does not mean that every word one utters on every subject should be incorporated in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off track in this discussion. I suggest someone opens an RfC about the Deech comments or we stop the discussion here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree this has got completely off track. The difficulty is that removing individual opinion pieces is problematic without applying a consistent standard, based on WP:DUE. I totally support the removal of Baroness Deech, but for the same reasons as I support removing lots more opinion material. One point of fact about Deech: she is described as a Tory peer above, but she is a cross-bench peer, made a peer by the Labour government. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with taking her out, is that the whole section on 'allegations of accommodation to Muslims' (how terrible: the whole uproar is about a perceived failure by Labour to accommodate its views on Israel to those tendered as reflecting the general views of the Jewish community) would collapse, since it would leave only there the vitriolic hyperbole polemicist, Manfred Gerstenfeld as the only representative of this view, and, of course (and I can agree with you there) he shouldn't be in here. So you are in effect asking for that section to be elided. That view re accommodation is a legitimate them, and, for the moment, Deech seems the only relevant political voice expressing it, a reason for at least her retention.

Generally, I never understand WP:Undue arguments, since, at least in my experience of the I/P area, it often functions as a rationale for eliding what editors dislike. I can't see that in your approach Bob, but I don't see the distinction you are making re opinion pieces. Read carefully the whole article is about opinions, sourced to politicians (acceptable), newspapers, and public intellectuals with some notable academic background in studying anti-Semitism, Israel or British. To write an article only focusing on what politicians, interested parties, state, while excising any meta-discussions of the controversy by non-politicians, would be extremely unwise.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

In regards to a possible RfC - I propose we discuss opinions in general - as we have way too many of them in the article. Any objections to setting a coverage in 2 secondary RSes (not the opinion itself being written, but coverage of the opinion by authors unconnected to the opinion) DUEness threshold?Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Papers by Chris S. Friel

Editors (I have ones such as Jontel who have an interest the Muralgate controversy particularly in mind) may be intereted in some of the papers released by Chris Friel on academia.edu which he has also made available without a user account here (scroll down to find ones about the current Labour Party controversy). Chris gives an account here of how he developed an interest in the Muralgate scandal, his findings which are written up here and a short account of their reception here. Other essays explore Muralgate further and other aspects of the Labour Party antisemitism controversy. An outline of fifty of them is given here. Hopefully, I won't have worsened Chris's "ghost" problem. ← ZScarpia 11:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is he, why is this notable?Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Somebody who did a lot of digging and bothered to write it up. He's not "notable" as such, but I found what he wrote interesting and thought some other editors might too. His essays contain a shedload of citations, which is always useful. ← ZScarpia 12:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Then this would be a violation of undue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The papers would count as self-published and, therefore, not reliable and the author somebody without recognised expertise in the area. But, then, I wasn't suggesting that the papers be cited in the article. I do hope that someone finds them interesting and worth a read. ← ZScarpia 13:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a discussion board, this is for disusing improvements to the article, not as a general forum about the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Providing additional information as a resource for editors is helpful to Wikipedia and should be welcomed. Jontel (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

New Jon Lansman Labour List article.

I just came across this new piece by Jon Lansman in LabourList which might be of relevance to this article. G-13114 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Journalists Wikipedians, check your evidence on antisemitism

I also came across this Journalists, check your evidence on antisemitism ...which is of relevance and some interesting comparative data. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

op-eds

Lets remove all opp-edds, not some. Secondly lets do it one at a time so as to make it easier to look for source's. Lets not just have block removals.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Illustration (we can argue about POV latter) [[10]], enough? How about this [[11]]?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - you restored two very newly added op-eds (which I agree we should prune - only include opinions covered in a secondary fashion in mainstream sources (MEMO, for instance, is not a RS)). These additions were already discussed in Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC consensus, random op-eds - with consensus to remove. If we are to stack this article with a random collection of op-eds (and really - finding op-eds critical of the crisis Labour is much easier than those supportive of the Corbynite faction) - its length will balloon beyond proportion. I request, that as these op-eds were already discussed and not present in the WP:STABLE version of the article - that you self-revert until we establish a consensus for new op-eds (and hopefully remove some of the present op-eds). Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You also removed at least one other Opp-edd as well, not just the two newly added ones. Nor does that seem to be a properly formatted (or closed) RFC. It also seems to be about another matter anyway. ~~When were the three added, I am having difficulty tracing it~~ 1st May. Nor do I recall any requirement for sources being mainstream (whatever that in fact means), just reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

These were added in April, and disputed in April. They were just re-added by RevertBob after he returned to editing. I remove 2.5 op-eds - Gordon (1), and Alderman (in an April letter to the editor, and another blog post by him in May which was new from the latest edit). All of these were recently added - and lack any secondary treatment. The PR note on qmul's website (where Gordon is staff) that contains a single paragraph summary and a link to the Al-Jazeera op-ed - is not independent secondary sourcing nor academic publishing. Please see prior discussion Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC consensus, random op-eds.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

And as I said that was not properly formatted, and has not been closed. It you wish to start a correctly formatted RFC please do. Nor (as I have said) does it seem to be talking aboutn teh saem things, it is talking about the "The rabbi letter",as I said it was not properly formatted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The section, a normal talk page section (not a RfC), was properly formatted. The op-eds in question (or one letter to the editor, one blog post in the spectator, and one op-ed in Al-Jazeera) did not receive any secondary attention to date. The are not present in the WP:STABLE version of this article. Their addition was contested on these grounds. You contested their removal (without participating in the relevant talk page discussion) on the basis of "then remove one at a time, to maker it easier to look." - and not on any policy based rationale. Do you have any justification as to why these new additions, apparently reported/commented-on by no one other than the authors, are WP:DUE? Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I know, that was my point, it was not an RFC. Nor does it appear to be about those Opp-edd peices, it appears to be about a specific item for exclusion. Yes (by thew way) at least one has received secondary attention, you may not agree it is in an RS, it has however received attention. Hell I can find Opp-edds by third party disusing the others as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've yet to see where these op-eds have received attention in reliable independent secondary sources - care to present such sources? Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Care to provide the policy that says they have to be?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Labour is a widely covered topic (thousands of opeds, thousands of secondary sources). Per WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". We can't include every op-ed on Labour's antisemitism crisis on this page (we would violate WP:TOOBIG quite swiftly). DUENESS is determined by coverage in published sources - hence - I'm asking for your to demonstrate that these particular op-ed/blog-post/letter-to-the-editor are DUE per coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nor do we, but the above does not say "independent third party" it just says published in reliable sources. Now if we gave them more then a sentence you might have a point, we do not. This [[12]] is an Op-eed, we use it as a source twice. If we use Op-edds as sources then we can also quote them. Now if you want to remove all opp-edds, fine lets do that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven asked you a very straightforward question, Icewhiz. For sometime now you have insisted repeatedly that an opinion can't get in unless the opinion is requoted in another source. WP:RS states:-

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format

You dodged the question by raising WP:Due. It is normative, per policy, to cite opinions Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects.

So you need to clarify why this repeated assertion is not what appears to be the case, a piece of homespun restitched out of whole cloth, and passed off as a known guideline.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion critical of the Labour Party leadership is implicit and often explicit in the many examples of alleged antisemitism in the article. To reflect the alternative viewpoint, which the many op eds show is shared by many people, some should be included, even when they have not been covered by a hostile community and commercial media. Rather than arguing over the reliability of the sourcing of opinion, which is not required as they are clearly not fabricated, it would be a better use of time to paraphrase and combine views with similar sentiments to reduce space. Jontel (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources (not mainstream coverage, which has been mentioned on numerous other talk pages that Icewhiz simply refuses to accept).

It seems his prescriptive interpretation of UNDUE is also soley based on his own opinion but apparently on nothing else.

Sources for statements are used here appropriately according to Wiki policy by attributing it as the views of those it's been written by in the same way as other articles (they don't need to receive coverage in reliable independent secondary sources as Icewhiz claims). More information useful to the reader can be added to help improve the page. RevertBob (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, do you intend to respond to the points raised by Slatersteven, Nishidani and Jontel? Or is your lack of response acceptance of their arguments as the consensus and you won't wait for this discussion to be archived before bringing this up again? RevertBob (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say we need a wider discussion for op-ed inclusion policy in accordance to WP:DUE (and WP:NPOV in terms of selecting which ones we include) - this will probably require a RfC to resolve - though seeing as we haven't come towards any agreed upon formulation. I daresay I do find Slatersteven's suggestion of removing all op-eds (up top on this discussion) as somewhat compelling. Even if this doesn't happen now, it will probably happen at some point as the article matures. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. If we quoted all the op eds about this issue, or even just cited them, the page would be enormous. Secondary coverage is a standard way for Wikipedia to establish what is due and noteworthy. We can easily ensure that we keep our article balanced by reporting official Labour responses to allegations or comments to the press by Labour spokespeople or other relevant figures (e.g. Lansmann, McDonnell and Formby are mentioned: we don't need the op eds to ensure balance. It seems bizarre to balance facts with opinions because the facts are "implicitly critical"; we need to ensure we cover the facts neutrally. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this supported by any policy or guideline, or solely based on your opinion? RevertBob (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That's also been the case in my experience, especially in longer articles such as this where there is far more material written about the topic than should be included in the article. It's a much better way to decide what to include than having a discussion for every single item. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we follow policy and guides or tradition and culture? RevertBob (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Which policy are you recommending we follow here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We follow the fact that no policy stating that sources for statements need to receive coverage in secondary sources exists. RevertBob (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION and WP:LENGTH. Note: current article is 200 kB. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If people are concerned about length, we should summarize the material on Corbyn rather than detailing it, particularly for the period before he became leader. Jontel (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Much too long

90% of this should be cut, especially excessive quotes, e.g. Finkelstein asked "What are they doing? Don't they have any respect for the dead? ... All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging... Zezen (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree we cover too much triviality, the problem is no one agrees as to what it is. If "talking to the wrong Jews" can bed seen as antisemitism then Jews saying "this is cobblers" is as relevant. I have long argued we should only have material on major party figures actually being found to have engaged in antisemitism, not every overblown incident (which is what most of this article consists of).Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is so long because they are mainly quotes. If they were accurately paraphrased, the section would be shorter, while retaining the sense. Jontel (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking about the article, or a section?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

100% agree there are too many quotes that could easily be just referenced or paraphrased. This largely relates to the op ed dispute elsewhere on this page as that is where the excessive fat is. I don't agree, though, that we cover "every overblown incident" (we know that literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of complaints have been made about party figures, and we only cover those that got attention in RSs). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is not just too long, but also there is far too much trivia,or what seems like trivia to me. Quotes from party members should at least be confined ust to elected public representatives, and that's all. It is very hard for someone totally new to the subject like me to understand the issues on this basis of this article alone. It is rare to see such a confused and confusing Wikipedia entry Quotes can be useful if they highlight a key issue, but mostly they do not throw light on what the controversy is supposed to be. The quotes are in the references anyway for readers that have more interest """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGcoa (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Incredibly long and boring - how many words are there about a single facebook message about a mural. Needs serious pruning.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party

Much of this article is about Jeremy Corbyn. Even though he is the leader, it seems unfair to tar the whole organisation with the actions of one person, especially in this level of detail. This material is covered on his own lengthy page. He should be mentioned here but shall we remove the detailed material about Corbyn from this page and simply reference him in relation to this? Jontel (talk)

i have long argued that this article focuses too much on one man, and a narrow slice of time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it focuses too much on the post-2015 period and has too little on the history, and perhaps that too much of the post-2015 period focuses on Corbyn. But I would proceed by expanding the pre-2015 material and be very careful about what is stripped out as it is likely to face disagreement. I'd bring examples here first to get consensus before removing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The article creator's original version of the article very much concentrated on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party (note the very first sentence, which refers to the current controversy and cites a Vox article recounting its first two years). Because the article title was such a general one, other material has been tacked on, with an unbalancing result. It would have been better if a more specific title had been chosen in the first place. The article creator (who has since been banned) left a revealing comment on the talkpage: "I'm going to be working on a background section, how the party has become antisemitic and why." That displays a probably ahistorical belief that the party members are more antisemitic than they've ever been, explaining why, despite the general title, he or she concentrated on the period of Corbyn's leadership. ← ZScarpia 11:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. An objective of this campaign by some does appear to me to be to depose Corbyn, and this is not always explicit. Further to BobFromBrockley's comment, I propose that the material about Corbyn and alleged antisemitism prior to his election as leader i.e. 6.1, which is more about him than the Labour Party, is replaced by the statement that: 'Corbyn has been challenged on antisemitism in relation to associations and comments prior to his election as leader', with a link to his profile, which contains a significant section covering all the allegations. This would enable those interested to explore his past actions and views, while retaining the focus of the article on the organization, which is its subject. Jontel (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The article focuses on the Corbyn content because that is what the sources focus on. We shouldn't remove relevant content because of perceived injustices in the sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; perhaps I can be clearer to save time/ effort. I am not suggesting that the possible motives of the sources is a reason for the material on Corbyn's past actions and views prior to his becoming leader to be simply referenced via a link in this article to his page rather than being detailed at length. Nor, though, do I think that such material should be included in this article simply because it has been published. Rather, it is a question of its relevance to the subject of this article, as you suggest. Corbyn's actions and views as leader are unquestionably relevant to an article on the Labour Party. However, I suggest that his actions and views as a mere one of hundreds of backbenchers are much less so and need only be referred to with a link to his page, where they are covered, rather than detailed here. His impact as leader can be judged on the basis of his behaviour in that role, rather than his very long past history. Removing the duplication between the two articles will also help with the length of this one. Jontel (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to have two articles, a "UK Labour Party antisemitism controversy" one, which the current article was originally clearly supposed to be about, and an "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" one, which covers the history of antisemitism in the Labour Party? ← ZScarpia 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, if Corbyn had stayed as a simple backbencher then they would not be notable enough to take up a significant chunk of the article. However, once he was elected leader, then his historical actions become more notable and relevant to this article. ZScarpia, while Corbyn's previous actions do take up a significant part of the article, they don't seem to take up enough to justify a whole new article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not suggest "a whole new article" on Corbyn and his 'antisemitism'/ sympathy for Palestine; this is already covered on his Wikipedia page. On Zscarpia's idea, I'm happy to hear more, but don't see how it would look at yet. Jontel (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have clarified my previous reply. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify the idea I was floating. The current article started off as and is mainly about the current controversy, with historical detail added on. What I was envisaging is that the current article is retitled and the historical detail is moved to a new one. Therefore, there would be an article about the current controversy, which would be the current article modified, and another article which carries a long-term historical overview. The problem I was addressing was a slightly different one than whether the article concentrates too much on Jeremy Corbyn personally, but is related, that is, does the article concentrate too much on the current period. ← ZScarpia 09:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining further. Yes, the article brings together three very distinct periods. A century ago, Britain ruled a quarter of the world and most European societies looked down on other cultures, religions and races, even after the removal of legal restrictions. Labour leaders were not immune to such ideas and had particular concerns about the impact of large scale immigration and the emerging power of finance capital, both of which had a strong Jewish component, even if such leaders were more sympathetic to Jews in general than society as a whole. Then there is the growing concern from the 1970s onwards about Israel/ Palestine, particularly as Britain played a prominent role in creating the situation. Finally, there is Corbyn's election as Labour party leader in 2015, leading to common cause amongst a right wing media, centrist Labour MPs and advocates of Israel's expansion that a (pro Palestinian) Corbyn government must be prevented, leading to a three year long media campaign to prevent it. I can certainly see these working better as separate articles. Jontel (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz's comment below is illuminating with regard to the purpose of this article. "This article is a child article of Corbyn." ← ZScarpia 08:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This article primarily covers the 2015-2019 political crisis/scandal - which heavily involved Corbyn (though not just Corbyn). I'd support re-titling it. However if we are to turn this into an historic overview article on the issue (and trim the present-day political scandal) - then the present day political scandal will get its own article - which will leave us with two articles to wrangle over instead of one. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That reads as though it's in accord with the first three comments I wrote in this section. Hopefully a separate historical overview article would be reasonably tranquil. ← ZScarpia 09:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia’s suggestion seems sensible to me. A historical overview article, where the post-2015 period would just be summarised in a paragraph. (The title of that article would be the title of the current article.) And an article on the controversy or affair which has unfolded since 2015, where much of the material in the current article would go.

Advert by 64 Labour Peers

64 Labour Peers took out an advertisement in the Guardian in July, the text of which included "The Labour Party welcomes everyone* irrespective or race, creed, gender identity, or sexual orientation (*except, it seems, Jews) This is your legacy, Mr Corbyn." The advertisement was a consequence of the perceived antisemitism within the Labour Party. I believe this should be mentioned in the article. Others apparently don't, and RevertBob has asked me to make a case for its inclusion. I hereby do so and welcome all comments.

My case is simply that it happened, is significant, is relevant to the topic (having its origins in the debate about antisemitism in the Party), and can be reliably sourced; further more that it indicates that there is dissent within the Party as to existence or non-existence of antisemitism in the party and that some leading figures in the Party believe that the blame for not dealing with this lies with the Party leadership. All this is relevant to an evaluation of the issue which the article seeks to cover.

I previously mentioned this development in the article and an editor deleted it (without discussion on this talkpage). --Smerus (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose inclusion. Comments, advertisements, and other expressions of opinion on the topic are not automatically notable. If you want to include it, show that it has had some form of long-term impact or significance. --Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I presume RevertBob was referring to the three authors as there is already a live RfC on the advert of the peers, as you know. See above. Please do not start parallel discussions as that is just confusing and inefficient. From the suggested text, Absolutelypuremilk is talking when he writes of a peers' letter about the ad from the 64 peers, not the previous letter from the four peers offering to advise on disciplinary procedures. (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, so far (unless I haven't spotted it), no one has different opinions on the peers' letter and the Panorama program, i.e. people are in favour of inclusion of both or exclusion of both. Happy to split the RfCs if someone does though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly relevant - very wide national British coverage and continuing coverage of a push to hold a no confidence vote - BBC, Guardian. Baroness Hayter was sacked from the shadow cabinet for saying Corbyn's team handling of the situation was similar to the "last days of Hitler".[13] So clearly we have ramifications here beyond just the advert itself. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, worthy of inclusion - doesn't have to be a whole paragraph or subsection, but has gained enough coverage to be noteworthy. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I see the ad as a disingenuous exercise in empty condemnation by unelected political opponents who are members of a body which Labour is planning to abolish, failing to offer evidence, analysis, understanding or solutions, and just one of very many. Oppose its inclusion. Jontel (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is being discussed in at least two other threads, we do not need a third.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A great effort successfully removed, unless I'm mistaken, the evidence that 12 British Holocaust survivors had written an open letter in praise of Corbyn (12 Shoah survivors pen open letter: ‘Corbyn’s bent over backwards to help Jews’). Now we have the argument that what 64 Labour Peers think of him must be included. Why are unelected peers' views about Corbyn's hostility to Jews notable, whereas the views of a group of Shoah survivors are not worthy of mention? Double standards again.

We're repeating here once more the same thing that occurred in the 2014 Gaza war. 327 Shoah survivors and their descendants wrote an open letter of protest to the New York Times condemning the massacre and calling for a boycott.( Holocaust survivors condemn Israel for ‘Gaza Massacre’, Call for Boycott,' Haaretz 23 August 2014) This was added, repeatedly edited out, and now readers who look up Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict in the Holocaust survivors section will be informed that Holocaust survivors all jumped to support Israel and were alarmed about anti-Semitism. Well done, once more, as NPOV is interpreted by numerous editors as giving only one unified 'ethnonationalist' story, and suppressing anything dissonant with the political message.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

JC (2015): "Respectable position on Israel."

From before the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader, a 2015 Daniel Finkeltein article from The Jewish Chronicle:

The Jewish Chronicle - Daniel Finkelstein - Why is Labour so placid?, 13 August 2015: The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader would not be a problem for the Labour Party. It would be a debacle. A catastrophe. A calamity. A disaster. ... What is hard to cope with is not so much a leader who won't be elected prime minister, but one whom mainstream members of the party cannot honourably vote for themselves. ... While Ed Miliband was not wildly popular with most Jews, he took a respectable position on Israel. It wasn't one I shared, and I was heavily critical of it. It even outraged many members of the community, who were bitterly disappointed with his position on the last Gaza action. It was, however, a respectable position, for all its faults. Jeremy Corbyn is in a different place altogether. He shares the virulent anti-Zionism of the hard left. One that seeks to make Israel a pariah state. One that treats Israel as if it were the central cause of all foreign affairs problems. One that treats with Hamas and is friendly to Hizbollah.

← ZScarpia 18:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Electoral performance in areas with dense Jewish population - section title

This is quite a long title, and not entirely accurate as Jews only comprise a small minority, perhaps under a quarter, I suppose, even in these constituencies. How about 'Electoral performance in 'Jewish' constituencies' or 'Electoral performance for Jewish concentrations' or 'Electoral performance for Jewish clusters' ? or perhaps there are other suggestions. Jontel (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I added that header as it's the language used in the source, but any of those proposals are fine with me. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

SYNTH/OR

I just reverted this series of additions based on this section, since it would significantly expand an article that is already far too long, mostly by adding trivia or minor blow-by-blow commentary. My concern is that because this is a fraught topic, it constantly attracts people who want to add more and more detail to ensure that what they see as the correct "side" is properly-presented, which leads to the massive bloat described in this section. We should summarize important conclusions and key events, rather than going for a blow-by-blow that tries to convince the reader one way or another via sheer weight of arguments or by redundantly trying to cover every single person who weighed in at any point. (Also, as an aside, I disagree with the way several people were characterized in that edit - Jonathan Cook and Richard Seymour aren't described that way in the cited source; and it's not essential to their notability. Especially the digression with regards to Cook, which is long-winded and feels like a WP:SYNTHy way to call his position into question.) If people think one facet of the dispute over Labour is over-represented, I urge them to fix it by removing or condensing and summarizing some of the less significant stuff rather than adding more counter-punches or rebuttals - the article still has plenty of stuff that could be trimmed. --Aquillion (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on the WP:OR description of writers, but deleting massive chunks of new content which have been widely covered without any discussion on the talk page is not the way forward. Especially when those new sections don't contain any of the overly long quotes being complained about. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillion has made a major cut on the basis "rv; see discussion on talk about how this article is already mostly too long. A lot of these additions delve back into the back-and-forth by proxy that bloated this article to its current state and go beyond a WP:DUE summary; also, the characterizations of individuals are WP:SYNTH and don't reflect what makes them notable or how they're described in the sources cited". But curiously his cuts are all to recent events which do not favour Mr. Corbyn. This is a blatant example of WP:NNPOV and should be censured. Events are and have been happening - such as censure of the Chrakravarti report, the Labour peers who took out an advert in the Guardian, the BBC Panorama programme, the open letter form Jewish writers, etc. - all of which User:Aquillion has decided off their own bat to be irrelevant. They should not be excluded from the article because one editor objects to them - and certainly not without debate on this talk page. If the length is objected to, I can suggest other ways forward - eg. excision of comments by non-UK pundits, who are not germane to the debate.--Smerus (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Your additions were clearly pretty WP:BOLD (you significantly rewrote the first paragraph of the lead, and drastically expanded a lot of other sections), and, well... I reverted all your additions, so if you feel reverting them was WP:POV based on that, you're also impugning yourself for one-sided additions; if you think there are WP:POV problems with the article as it stands, you should make a section to discuss those so we can consider balance more broadly. Certainly you're correct in that adding a bunch of material that clearly takes one perspective on a topic, all at once, raises WP:POV issues that need to be discussed. But that's not the important point, since inclusion ultimately has to be decided by WP:DUE (though WP:BALANCE also matters, I suppose, which makes one-sided additions like your alarming if they might push the article unduly out of line with the general tenor of sources - but that would require a lot more discussion to assess, if that's your concern.) The lead isn't the place to give a blow-by-blow over the Chakrabati Inquiry; it's one relatively brief event in a larger timeline, so summarizing its conclusions is sufficient - more detail on it is given in its section in the article. And the lead of the article in particular has been the result of a lot of careful consensus-building, so you should be more cautious when rewriting it in such a drastic way (especially since, by your own admission, you were rewriting it on WP:POV / WP:NPOV grounds, something you have to have realized would be controversial.) Similarly, adding individual commentary by different people all fundamentally saying the same thing doesn't improve the article overall - we already summarize the point of view that those sections express, after all. More generally, this article isn't a universal timeline of every single event that occurs in relation to the topic - devoting an entire paragraph or section to every back-and-forth, every complaint anyone makes, and every criticism that gets published isn't appropriate. Most of the things you added are, comparatively speaking, trivia in the long term. --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think the additions were excessive. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper so adding material that does not add anything by, for example, repeating existing commentary or that will be disregarded in a year or two, is probably not particularly helpful. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section The lead should summarize all the key points in the article in four paragraphs, so needs particularly careful composition. Jontel (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify Aquillion and Jontel, you don't think the Panorama programme, where eight former staff made allegations about the handling of complaints in the party, is even worth mentioning in this article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it should be used because the significance of the various allegations by the ex staff are either not entirely clear or strongly contested and because their motives and those of the producers have been questioned. Moreover, some of the allegations seem to refer to quite some time ago. Getting into it would just open a huge debate. Jontel (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is already bloated with personal opinions. A line or two at best is all we need.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Which personal opinions are you referring to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

All of them, we have way to many "and in the opinion of" type comments, Historians, trade unionist, et all. This is just (in truth) largely a catalog of anecdotes (either for or against). We really do not need any more, there are police and equality investigations now, we do not need any more (especially anonymous) accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of Aquillon's edit removed opinion (the removal of Schama et al) and was justified because of the bloating of opinion material. (I'm not sure why other excess, non-noteworthy opinion material (Cook, Seymour) wasn't removed.) But some of it was factual material (Panorama). I think these need to be discussed separately.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two ongoing issues this article is seeking to cover: 1) historic antisemitism in the Labour party and 2) the current situation which is continually evolving with new events. Both of these are obfuscated in the article by giving detailed comments from third parties not especially qualified or relevant to comment on them; and also by the objection of some editors to tolerate some characterizations of the situation. As a consequence the article is becoming a battlefield rather than encyclopaedic. You can't imo cite the Chakrabarti Inquiry and its conclusions (especially in the lead) without indicating critiques of the enquiry. You can't just cite Jewish authors who deny antisemitism in the Party but delete references to those who claim it is there in the party. You can't just delete that 64 Labour peers have criticized Corbyn over this issue - it is part of the developing story, as is the Panorama programme. You can't comment on the EHRC investigation only by setting out criticism of the EHRC. Or, at least, you can't do all these things and have a balanced WP:NPOV article. The attitude of some editors seems to be that of a policeman saying "move along now, nothing happening here." That seems to me completely against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You have made some points: here is a response. 1) There are third party commentators on both sides, so removing some could well involve removing opposing voices. If any are definitely unqualified or irrelevant, you can say so, of course. 2) There are three critiques of the Chakrabarti report in 4.2. If people think that the report is not of any value, perhaps it should not be in the lead. 3) There are around 40 references to claimed antisemitism in the Labour Party in the article, expressed in various ways. Almost every action and statement contains that implication. However, accompanying all of them with further condemnatory quotes would become tedious. A focus on facts rather than opinion impoves NPOV. The rebuttal section is there to challenge the need for the actions and their implications. 4) The peers' advertisement is saying what the media, right wing Labour MPs and various others have been saying on a near weekly basis for 3 and a 1/2 years which is reflected in much of the article: it doesn't really add anything. It might warrant a brief mention. 5) On Panorama, as stated above, the claims have been strongly challenged and those involved criticised heavily. Any mention of the programme would need to bring that out. 6) The existence of the EHRC investigation is already being used to condemn the party; a critique of those involved is simply balance. 7) Many in the rebuttal section do feel that the scale and significance of any antisemitism in the Labour Party has been exaggerated and that both polls and inquiries have tended to back that view up. They accept that there are a few members making antisemitic comments on social media, just as there really were communist spies in 1950s America, but that the response has been excessive and intended by many protagonists to disrupt Labour's election chances. 8) As this has been a heavily reworked article, your best bet in making changes is to make small, short ones every so often, to give editors the opportunity to amend them, and to leave the lead until your changes elsewhere have stuck. Jontel (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But also you cannot do the reverse, you cannot claim X is antisemitic if X has denied it and not include the denial. That is why I say there is too much emphasis on allegations and opinion. We have to put both sides, then we have to have the rebuttal of the rebuttal, then the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal ad nausiam.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, one could (for example) agree on a format on the basis of event: statement of accusation: rebuttal - then leave it at that until something resolves it one way or the other. I agree that ongoing re-accusations and re-rebuttals of a particular situation add nothing. What I complain of is the elision of complete events.--Smerus (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But until we get the current article in a fit state I am sure sure expanding it is a good idea, issue such as recentism and undue already are issue here. the party that is over 100 years old well over a quarter the article is about the last two years. Hell the section on the Working definition of antisemitism takes up how many paragraphs?17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Then the answer is to split the article on the lines I indicate above. One article on the history - which will be shortish. Another on the current events/disputes, as a current event, (as it is an unfolding situation) and which, like most current event articles, will indeed tend to sprawl unit it is over when it can be appropriately edited. At the moment we cannot know whether it will run and run, or will blow over with not much change; and we have to admit that we do not know this. We can't use this situation as an excuse not to record things we may not sympathize with. --Smerus (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That is called forking, and I am against it. The article should be about Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, not allegations about one leader, not the last two or three years, and not every little incident. The article is bloated for that reason, a list of trivial incidents and unproven allegations with a smattering of genuine questionable incidents (that get drowned out by all the noise). NO forking it off is not the answer (that was what created this article in the first place, a fork to present the issue in more detail).Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review to see if others have thoughts about how to improve the article, whether by deleting certain parts or by splitting the article. If you like, feel free to look at the list of other unanswered reviews here, improve one and then ask for someone to take a look at this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I support such a forking, to create two manageable articles, one of which (the historical one) will be stable quickly but needs expanding, and the other which will be controversial but is an important enough topic to have an article of its own.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Finkelstein; citations

In the section 'Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone' I have removed a citation which did not refer to the text to which it was attached, and corrected the text to confirm with the other citation (which deals with the situation in May 2016, not the situation after Livingstone was expelled, and not, as the text claimed in a WP:OR fashion, "after the furore."). These corrections were reverted when another editor undid my edits because I also cut out the comments of Norman Finkelstein. As Finkelstein is an American academic not directly involved in the debate on Labour Party anti-semitism I should have thought that, as everyone agrees the article is too long, it could do without his gloss (and indeed with out the glosses of many others who seem to pad out the article, and always on the side of refuting the existence of a problem). But so it goes. I have however recorrected the text in the light of the citation.--Smerus (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Finkelstein was the author of graphic that was shared by Shah so his comments are obviously relevant. RevertBob (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree, not sure why his view of his own material is not relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think his comment is relevant, as it is his graphic under discussion. Moreover, he is a political scientist who has written on Israel, Zionism and the misuse of antisemitism. If you are suggesting adopting a blanket policy of excluding non British commentators from this article, you should propose that formally, as there are others. Jontel (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A scholar who had an tenure issues due to his work in the area... Finkelstein's reaction is predictable and has little bearing on antisemitism in Labour. What's relevant is actual RS coverage of Shah. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A notable academic whose views are relevant to the topic (as discussed numerous times) before which sourced by RS. RevertBob (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable (in the context of this article) says who? He is a radical US academic, like Chomsky who is also a favourite to be cited in this article. Fascinating that according to some editors, it is OK to quote in this article Chomsky and Finkelstein and UK political activists who deny the existence of any problem, and not cite, or even mention, Schama, Sebag Montefiore, Howard Jacobson, 64 Labour peers and others when they say the problem exists. There is no doubt that the deniers are currently being privileged in this article as it stands, which makes it clearly WP:NNPOV.--Smerus (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You say radical as if that is a negative trait? The thing is, Chomsky and Finkelstein are political scientists with a lot of experience on the subject whereas the three you mention are only popular authors/ TV writers with no particular expertise on the Labour Party or contemporary antisemitism. Moreover, they are quoted in 5.3, so do take the time to read the article. The resignation of peers is mentioned. Also, look at how many times the BoD, JLC, CST, JLM are quoted, plus Gerstenfeld, Lipstadt and others. Jontel (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

These are not all comparable. BoD, JLC, CST, JLM are major players in the story so vital to include for their actions. Gerstenfeld and Sebag Montefiore are commentators spouting opinions and should be deleted, along with Chomsky and Finkelstein, unless they are shown to be part of the story too (as Finkelstein is in relation to the Shah incident but not in relation to his opinions in the Rebuttals section).BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, it is absolutely unreasonable, (and rather rude to me), to suggest that I think of 'radical' as a negative trait. I sought to point out that radical commentators denying an antisemitism problem get a lot of space in this article, and non-radical commentators get edited out/objected to.--Smerus (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a valid argument. RevertBob (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree: and it is you who are arguing it.--Smerus (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I've not bought up Chomsky, Schama, Sebag Montefiore, Howard Jacobson, Labour peers etc. If you want content included then argue the case for its inclusion. RevertBob (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Very well, RevertBob: the advertisement by 64 Labour peers came about as a consequence of the allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. I therefore argue that it should be mentioned in the article and welcome comments for and against. See below.--Smerus (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have a clear consensus position as to which academics are included, but I can't see one which applies to the ones included in the article, or one which has been discussed on the talk page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As I've argued before, Finkelstein should be mentioned in the Naz Shah section because he was part of the story (she shared his graphic). However, his opinion is not relevant in the Rebuttals section (he currently appears not once but twice, under Academics and under Journalists), as he has no particular expertise or relevance and there is no extensive secondary coverage of his opinion. An RFC closed five months ago by Barkeep49 concluded that there was consensus to include NF in the Shah section but no consensus to include him in the Rebuttals section[14] so I think we need to just delete him from the latter and leave him alone in the former.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus for A, "Replace the section in this article with a sentence and link to the relevant section in his profile". As several supporters of A write, this article is either about Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party, and the title makes which it is rather clear. No one supported B, and supporters of C mostly did so with the reasoning that this article is or should be actually about Corbyn; while there is noticeable support for starting such an article, most agree it is not this article. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to pursue the point about whether the amount of material on Corbyn pre his leadership is WP:UNDUE in this article. I think there is some relevance but that the length is excessive, particularly as it is covered on his profile where it is available for reference. Moreover, reducing this section will contribute to reducing the overall length of the article, which I anticipate continuing to grow. Can I suggest we have a vote on this to clear it up by everyone putting these three options in order of preference with regard to section 6.1. in this article i.e. Events involving Jeremy Corbyn as a backbencher?

A Replace the section in this article with a sentence and link to the relevant section in his profile

B Replace the section in this article with the relevant section in his profile, resulting in the two articles having the same text regarding the period before he became leader. The section in his profile is shorter and was arrived at after some discussion and amendment amongst the editors involved.

C Leave section 6.1 unchanged. Jontel (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

A, then B, then C. Thanks, Jontel (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A, then B, then C. Thanks,♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 04:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A, then B, then C in order of preference. That aspect is WP:UNDUE in several respects - it's WP:RECENTISM, with extensive focus on a controversy whose long-term impact isn't yet proven and which logically would only be a small part of the historical topic at the moment. Additionally, given the way Corbyn's article has been trimmed down, the version here ends up feeling like a WP:POVFORK - it doesn't really make sense to devote so much text and space to something that isn't WP:DUE that much attention even on the primary article for the subject. Beyond that, the whole section has become a bloated mess of editors trying to argue back and forth by dropping in every news story, reaction, counter-reaction, and so on; this is not a helpful or useful way to present the material to the reader. We're an encyclopedia, not a debate club; we provide a broad summary and overview, not an argument dozens of points in length trying to persuade the reader. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

C. Lets not kid ourselves - this a 2015-2019 political scandal, that mainly involves Jeremy Corbyn. This article is a child article of Corbyn, and is clearly more detailed that what is possible in Corbyn. Should this article be trimmed in regards to this highly covered and clearly notable scandal, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:SPLIT we would create Antisemitism scandals involving Jeremy Corbyn and/or 2015-present UK Labour party antisemitism scandal and/or place this material in Corbyn's article. I think we should stick to one article - this one - as opposed to creating a child article for Corbyn specifically (which would clearly pass WP:N). Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A At the end of the day this is either about Corbyn or the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

C of the options given C is the one I agree with. However if it's changed at all I would suggest instead of just being group under 6.1 the article should be moved into chronological order based on the date of the event. After all this is about Antisemitism in the Labour Party and these events are all valid for being on this page. If you think this page is to focused on Corbyn then instead of removing valid information with reliable sources, I suggest you add the missing information demonstrating that he is not the only person who has a history of it. If the page was in chronological order it would be simpler for people to slot in that additional information about other antisemitic Labour members/events. The information shouldn't just be removed as there is a lot there which is not included on Corbyn's page. Let's face it this crisis in Labour has come about due to Corbyn and his leadership, without him becoming leader with his history of supporting and turning a blind eye to anti-Jewish rhetoric would Labour be in the trouble it is? The crisis come out into the open when people started for the first time looking at the new leader and his background, before as a backbencher he was politically obscure and not given the political scrutiny or held to account for his actions. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A There's events WP:UNDUE from early 2010s and then we jump to several years later to WP:RECENTISM. There's no sources of this for when these events happened whilst Ed Milliband (Labour's only Jewish leader) was leader. Ultimately, this content is about Jeremy Corbyn not Labour so should go there. RevertBob (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A - It's WPUNDUE to include all of it. If not, use the better version of B. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
C for now, but split article. This survey assumes the outcome of the conversation in the previous section. I think that ZScarpia's split proposal is very sensible and will make this edit unnecessary. The current material would be part of an article on the current Labour antisemitism crisis, where the focus would be on the post-2015 controversy around these events, but not be given much space in a more general Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article. However, before that split occurs, it would be a disaster to remove this amount of well sourced noteworthy material. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

While he is the party leader, his powers are constrained by those of the National Executive Committee, a formally independent disciplinary secretariat and, for much of this period, hostile staff and parliamentarians, so issues relating to the party are not entirely under his control. Nor is it suggested that he was highly influential when he was a backbencher.

So, I think there is a logic in separating his two roles, making this article about the Labour Party, including material relating to Corbyn's role as party leader in the handling of allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, while putting material relating to his backbencher Palestinian solidarity activity in his profile, while linking the two articles. Jontel (talk) 14:37, 11 July 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.

RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to include content about the Panorama documentary is pretty clear, by a noticeable margin; no consensus on mentioning Panorama in lead or including the 64 peers' letter at all, as voices on those are almost evenly split. Perhaps there is room for further discussion or compromise. While no one disputed that both items happened, the argument was one of importance, basically WP:WEIGHT. People arguing for inclusion of both items did so on the basis that they are self-evidently important. People arguing against took issue with that self-evident importance, especially of the peers' letter, even those supporting it supported it more weakly than the documentary. The difference seems to be that the Panorama documentary is, in itself, due to coming from the BBC, an independent high quality journalistic source, while the peers' letter is an advertisement, and as some wrote, would need independent coverage to judge importance. Finally, I have to mention Aquillion's argument that "we don't cover every claim, counterclaim, and blow-by-blow"; while that is definitely a worthwhile goal of what we should do, it's not really achieved currently, which makes it much weaker. Much of the article is, in fact, exactly claim, counterclaim, and blow-by-blow: "in year X, month Y, these claims and rebuttals were made". --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we include the content about the claims made by former staff in the recent Panorama programme and the 64 peers' letter (advertisement) to Labour? See the second paragraph in the "Claims by former Labour staff" section here and also the "Criticism of party from Labour peers" section in that same version. Furthermore, if the claims by the former staff are included, should they be covered in the lede? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Covered and in the lede, although I'm not sure the peers' letter needs its own subsection, it could be folded into another paragraph somewhere. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Not in lede The other issues aside I am not sure that unsubstantiated and (largely?) anonymous accusations should be in the lede without also including rebuttals, and the lede is already bloated enough.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
and not anywhere if it is overly long or ignores any rebuttals. At best any of this deserves one line and then a rebuttal, and that is at best.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

are you happy with the content in the main body from the edits linked to above? We could move the peers' letter to the "Resignation of MPs and peers" section and change it to "Reactions of ...." as I don't think it justifies a subsection of its own. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither in neither as the peers' letter will have to be balanced by recent petition(s} in support of Corbyn while the staff allegations will require a rebuttal. More party infighting. Jontel (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
They will only require a rebuttal if such counter-claims receive wide coverage. My reading of the current coverage, in mainstream outlets, is that there is only a perfunctory par the course quote of the Labour/Corbyn spokesperson denying there is an issue - which at most deserves a brief mention by us. Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Covered and, subject to discussion, in the lede. The events like the peer's letter, the Panorama programme, (and indeed the letter from Simon Schama and other Jewish writers attacking the Labour Party, which an editor also deleted from the article), actually happened and can be substantiated by citations. If the Independent Group 9 MPs are in the lede, why not the comments of 64 Labour peers? All these matters are relevant to the topic and can't be randomly ignored on the basis of 'usubstantiated'. In the same way, the lede should be scrutinized for existing NNPOV presentations. Mentioning the Chakrabarti enquiry without noting that it was widely criticized suggests, in a POV fashion, that it can be accepted as fully adequate. I would say that the Panorama programme is a clear candidate for the lede; it came about as a consequence of the issue covered by the article; whether or not its allegations are substantiated (which time may tell) it is a part of the story. At the time of writing, there is nothing in the lede subsequent to February 2019 - it is positively misleading not to include anything since then. --Smerus (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Include. Obviously include in body, in lede - probably should get a sentence. The BBC Panaroma program isn't too shabby by itself in terms of DUENESS. This initial reporting (secondary in and of itself) has been subsequently covered in a secondary fashion by multiple other secondary outlets over some period of time. Calls by Labour peers to investigate the Labour's antisemitism as well as resignations of three other peers due to Labour's antisemitism,[15] are clearly major developments in this ongoing political scandal. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Not in lede - lasting long-term historical impact is unproven, there are many reactions but only the ones that have proven lasting long-term historical impact are leadworthy. RevertBob (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Exclude entirely; no indication of long-term impact. "This actually happened" isn't a valid argument for inclusion per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE; we don't cover every claim, counterclaim, and blow-by-blow, especially on an article that is already bloated and far too weighted towards WP:RECENTISM in terms of recent controversies (many of which have ultimately only played out over op-eds and which have had little measurable political impact.) This is the sort of thing that seems breathlessly important to partisans heavily involved in the subject at the time it comes out, and has absolutely zero long-term significance afterwards. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Include it has to be included in the body as its evidence of the problem, how the crisis has actually played out inside the Labour party and the party's use of non-disclosure agreement's to try to silence former staff from even talking about it. The BBC Panaroma program is a reliable source which summaries the evidence of these witnesses. It should also be highlighted in the lead, as WP:lead is meant to be a summary of the most important contents. The 64 peers' letter is also clearly a significant development as it shows a significant push-back against the leadership's default position that they are handling it. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Include Panorama in body; only include peers' letter if it can be shown to be noteworthy via coverage. The Panorama documentary is obviously noteworthy: it received sustained attention from the party before broadcast, who tried to gag it and briefed against it, and it was central to the news cycle for some time afterwards, generating lots of secondary coverage. I haven't seen this level of coverage of the peers' letter, so would only support inclusion if noteworthyness could be shown, although the significance of some of the signatories (major Labour figures) makes me receptive to that argument. Both are probably unneccesary in the lede, at least no more than a sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I am not sure the issue is inclusion so much as to what degree. This is why the lede is a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, note that the original content contained a rebuttal from Labour: Labour Party officials sought to refute the programme's findings, claiming that the former party employees were "disaffected former officials" who had "both personal and political axes to grind". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This might be relevant if we're to include it. A new report from the Media Reform Coalition on the Panorama documentary. [16] also covered [17]. G-13114 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lede: Eight former Labour staff claimed that senior Labour figures had interfered in the complaints process, but Labour said the staff had "personal and political axes to grind".

Do those who thought inclusion in the lede would be ok but worried about its length (Smerus & BobFromBrockley think this would be a neutral wording and not too long? (Note that I recently changed my name from AbsolutelyPureMilk) Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This might be a more useful quote from Labour "a seriously inaccurate, politically one-sided polemic". However, given that view, I would question whether it should go in the lead. Jontel (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with either quote from Labour - I don't see why Labour saying that criticism of them is inaccurate should mean it isn't notable enough for the lede. Bellowhead678 (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My rationale is that allegations which are strongly disputed are of uncertain accuracy and are therefore not good evidence of AitLP or its handling. Consequently, they are not of sufficient significance for the lede, even if a hostile media chooses to give them, and everything else relating to the subject, wide coverage. Jontel (talk) 09:37, 11 August 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.

Should we describe the individuals mentioned in the Jewish Chronicle article as "pro-Palestinian"?

Jontel made this edit, describing the individuals as "pro-Palestinian". However, the article makes no mention of that, and doesn't even mention Palestine (apart from to say that Eisen was too extreme even for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign). It therefore seems like editorialising to describe them as such. Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, happy to explain this. The readers of JC will likely be aware that those mentioned in the article are indeed pro-Palestinian activists: Latuff, whose cartoons are about Palestine, Sizer, about whom the article does mention Zionism, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quds, Salah. Those reading Wikipdia may not be so aware of these people and organisations, and indeed, they are not all mentioned in the Wikipedia article. So, I think it is true to the sense and intention of the JC article and clearer to say that we are talking about pro-Palestinian activists and not leave readers with the impression that we may be talking about e.g. David Irving, the IRA or anyone else. Jontel (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you should have a read of WP:OR. The source doesn't mention them being pro-Palestinian activists, so there's no need to include it as if it's relevant to the JC article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a highly opinionated source. Very many people would not accept the description from the article and some balance will be required, one way or another. Jontel (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that HuffPost and the Guardian articles on the front page don't describe them as pro-Palestinian activists, I'm not sure that's a fair comment. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, to be more explicit, the context and reason for the various behaviours and Corbyn's engagement is the Israeli-Palestine conflict and omitting that is missing the heart of the matter. "Pro-Palestinian" is an efficient way of conveying that. Otherwise, explanatory sources can be added if you prefer, instead. Jontel (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Given the previous sentence is "Corbyn is a patron of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and had campaigned extensively for Palestinian rights during his 32 years as a backbencher", it's difficult to argue that the context is being omitted. Anyway, the point is that these people are criticised for their alleged antisemitism, not being pro-Palestinian, so it is misleading to describe them as such. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not misleading to call them pro-Palestinian because it is true but I accept that it is not in the JC, which omits all context and explanation. If you insist on it being sourced, that can be done. Alternatively, rather than describe them, we can simply say that Corbym met them as part of his search for lasting peace in the ME, which he has said numerous times. Jontel (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a better suggestion. Bellowhead678 (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of Corbyn, and by extension supporters of his, The Jewish Chronicle is certainly not neutral and, additionally, in my opinion, is of questionable reliability. From "The Candidate, Jeremy Corbyn's Improbable Path To Power" by Alex Nunns, chapter 13: "The most powerful smears deployed during the campaign worked by suppressing all context, isolating a particular comment or association, and presenting it as evidence of Corbyn’s villainy. In its most grotesque form, this involved pulling out examples from Corbyn’s long history of advocacy for the Palestinian people in order to tar him as anti-Semitic. ...The smears created during the leadership contest were more ambitious but less plausible as their subject was Corbyn himself. The Jewish Chronicle newspaper led the charge, printing a front page editorial on 12 August 2015 that declared: "We are certain that we speak for the vast majority of British Jews in expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader." ... Corbyn was, though, bolstered by a letter published in the Jewish Chronicle on 18 August, sent by around 50 prominent Jews including the poet Michael Rosen, actress Miriam Margolyes, and Professors Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe. “Your assertion that your attack on Jeremy Corbyn is supported by ‘the vast majority of British Jews’ is without foundation,” it began. “We do not accept that you speak on behalf of progressive Jews in this country. You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong.” The organisation Jews for Justice for Palestinians also came to Corbyn’s defence, with a letter in the Guardian on 20 August: "We are horrified by the McCarthyite techniques being deployed to smear a prominent critic of Israeli policy. The approach is familiar. Attack the person not their political views and ignore their record. Fish for scraps of past contact with somebody controversial or in any way questionable, regardless of the political context of the contact, how long ago it was or how brief—then damn by association. Above all, reinforce the message that opponents of Israeli policy must be anti-Semites… The use—and serious abuse—of accusations of anti-Semitism and the like is evidence of panic that someone who stands up for Palestinian rights might end up leading a major British political party."" ← ZScarpia 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No this is about antisemitism, not anti zionism.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Much of the British Left are obsessed with opposing racism, at home and abroad. They actively oppose colonialism, imperialism, and apartheid. Consequently, they oppose Israeli policies and, for many, its ethno-religious exclusiveness. The plight of the Palestinians has become for some an overriding injustice that must be addressed, like Poland in the 19th century, the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, Vietnam in the 1960s, Nicaragua in the 1970s or the campaign against South African apartheid. Moreover, given the enormous and sustained US subsidy of the Israeli armed forces, campaigning against Israel is just an element of their wider campaign against the persistent US policy of economic, military and subversive intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere since WWII. You can see that the left has no particular hostility to British Jewry by the absence of discriminatory policies or physical attacks. So, while the the article is about antisemitic expression, the underlying motivation is always Palestine and it is worth bearing that in mind. Jontel (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe maybe not, some anti Zionism is also antisemitism, but some is not. This is why I say just being pro-Palestinian is not enough for inclusion, its OR and Synthy. If an RS does not say they are antisemitic we cannot imply it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 10

Tags

Baronees Deetch's comments removed

Papers by Chris S. Friel

New Jon Lansman Labour List article.

Journalists Wikipedians, check your evidence on antisemitism

op-eds

Category

Much too long

Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party

Advert by 64 Labour Peers

JC (2015): "Respectable position on Israel."

Electoral performance in areas with dense Jewish population - section title

SYNTH/OR

Finkelstein; citations

Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party

Survey

Discussion

RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)

Survey

Discussion

Should we describe the individuals mentioned in the Jewish Chronicle article as "pro-Palestinian"?