Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Needs to be added

“Come on Jezza, sue me. I think you’re anti-Semitic. I think everything you do and say suggests you are anti-Semitic. I think you’re an anti-Semite, just like Margaret Hodge, prominent Jewish Labour MP. If that’s not true, prove to me that it’s not true. Take me to court, sue me for libel, and let’s get this out in the open.”ref Talk Radio 82.31.120.65 (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it's relevant 82.31.120.65 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Only if we accept here veiwpoint as notable, I do not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Julia Hartley-Brewer Is notable. 82.31.120.65 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

She is, not everything she says about everything is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree on both points with Slatersteven. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Sacks

Jonathan Sacks says recently reported remarks were “the most offensive made by a senior British politician since ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”.ref 82.31.120.65 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the above?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This should also be added. 82.31.120.65 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a separate issue, please do not confuse discussions with material about more then one edit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@82.31.120.65: I agree that these comments should be added. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Odd how they were not that offensive in 2013, oppose as recentism & newsy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sachs intervention is definitely newsworthy RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitic comments made in 2013 are hardly "recentism". 82.31.120.65 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

NO but deciding now it is an issue is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

But the intervention IS an event in the unfolding chain of event RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

an unfolding series of allegations, not events.15:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sacks coming out and saying this is clearly a very notable development that is due for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Why more then any of the other times he has spoken about the accusations against Labour? Why suddenly is his opinion of note?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, I don't think he's ever made a comment like this before (i.e. comparing Corbyn to Enoch Powell). He is a very key figure, and this does seem notable for this page. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No but he had made many comments about his views of Corbyn and antisemitism. He has long been critical of the Labour party over this issue (certainly as long as everyone else).Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)so can this be added? 62.31.85.182 (talk)《

I think it is obvious I am saying I do not see why this should be added.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sacks' intervention was significant and widely covered in the news and so deserves to be included. However, there is the issue of neutrality to consider. Corbyn was criticising a number of Zionist protesters at a meeting who failed to understand that the Palestinian ambassador was using irony. In making his comparison to the Rivers of Blood speech, Sacks falsely claimed that Corbyn had been speaking about British Jews in general. If Sacks' statement is included, then so should criticism of of that statement. [1]     ←   ZScarpia   10:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Undue content removed

I removed (in a series of edits - each bit separately) content sourced to the opinions of non-experts / non-notables in a political/antisemitism context (or non-notable from the side of analysis of the debate) that was mainly sourced to op-eds and/or very borderline (or flat out non-RS in some causes) sources. I removed the "Rebuttals" section on account of it being mainly filled with op-eds of a questionable characters from one side of the divide and since the more significant rebuttals or responses are inline in the rest of the article already. Such "criticism" sections are generally discouraged per policy, and are definitely not needed when criticism is already inter-spaced throughout the article. We should take care in promoting views that defend (or outright promote) speech deemed as antisemitic by multiple sources, and which have not received any mainstream coverage. Please discuss objections here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

These are highly controversial edits. This article has been protected on a number of occasions and it still has a problem with balance. This mass-edit has done nothing to achieve balance. Rather, it is highly partisan and was not discussed here first. So please begin the discussion, achieve consensus and then edit. Garageland66 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have began the discussion. The WP:ONUS to include this material - most of it very recently added - is on those seeking to include it. This article should not be a repository for every op-ed by a radical left-wing activist that justifies speech considered as antisemitic by several sources - Wikipedia should not promote such speech. I will also note that the inclusion of the image itself of Mear One's mural (as opposed to coverage of the scandal) - featuring several antisemitic tropes,[2] and widely considered antisemitic - including by Corbyn himself [3] - is highly questionable. If we include opinions - they should be of notable experts in the field of antisemitism or notable relevant political figures - and preferably those that have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Including content sourced to the advocacy website Open Democracy, which mentions a "Jew for Jeremy" Facebook post - diff - is grossly UNDUE, and possibly fails WP:V due to the nature of the source. Considering we have widespread mainstream coverage of the antisemitism crisis in Labour - we do not need to resort to such borderline sources at all. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: your edits seem reasonable and I support them. The argument that we must include any old source to achieve some obscure concept of "balance" goes against the principles in which wikipedia is built upon. Alssa1 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz, we have a far higher ratio of op-eds supporting Corbyn than mainstream coverage. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Garageland66, the controversial series of deletions this morning were an extreme example of very biased WP:IDONTLIKEIT 'isms. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, both side of this debate must be presented. Thus is just POV pushing of the worst kind. They do not have to be experts, it has to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think such large, wholesale removal without prior discussion (many of which are against previous consensus) making the page one-sided is disruptive and reduces the quality of the article. Sources need to be reliable (not mainstream) as per Wiki policy and guidelines. The wide range of relevant reliable sources that provides useful content gives the page the balance it has previously lacked. RevertBob (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We did not have prior consensus on these bits, many of which were recently added. Balance requires us to be consistent in our inclusion policy. Including every random pro-Corbyn utterance on Facebook that got mentioned in a borderline source (e.g. opendemocracy) - is UNDUE. But should we choose to use such a selection criteria - it should be applied to voices critical of Labour as well.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, if RS repeat it we do not get to go "but its not a proper rs". If you have questions about the relabilty and suitability of sources raise it at RSN, if it has not been rejected there we cannot reject it here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I agree with the idea of reducing the reams of opinions in this article, it just be done with more care and balance. It is true we do not need every rebuttal, but we also do not need every condemnation. Yet what we have is precisely the opposite, removal of rebuttals and adding more condemnations. This turns the article into exactly what policy warns us against, attack articles. Nor is a "she said, then he said, then they said" list of accusations particularly encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently negative bits in the article are rather strongly sourced. On the other hand - there is a large amount of supportive crud that is exceedingly weakly sourced (e.g. op-eds in borderline sources that mention a supportive Facebook post). In other cases - e.g. Stephen Sedley - we repeat the same opinion twice or in Sedley's case thrice (including in the lead off paragraph of a "Working definition of antisemitism" - before we even introduce what this kerfuffle was about) How about addressing specific bits you see fit for inclusion? Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have said before this should not be a collection of opinions, from either side. I think all personal opinions, open letters and surveys should be removed and this should just deal only with direct accusations and the parties response to them. What the UK board of real Jews or the Labour committee for making Corbyn look better then Theresa May think is irrelevant. So no I cannot give you an example of what I think should stay beyond "if we have it already make a case for removal that goes beyond "I do not like it"". I certainly think that we need no more opeds, the article is bloated enough already. So before anything is removed people should stop adding them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on those who support recently added content (which most of it is - following massive addition of UNDUE material in the past month - not a stable version). Regardless, I've made a case for each redacted bit - stating the sketchiness of the sourcing or the duplication of the same opinion (thrice!).Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Concrete proposals made so far are:

1. Icewhiz: "If we include opinions - they should be of notable experts in the field of antisemitism or notable relevant political figures - and preferably those that have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"
2. Slatersteven: "all personal opinions, open letters and surveys should be removed and this should just deal only with direct accusations and the parties response to them"

Are there any more concrete proposals? If so, please add them to the list. If not... can we use these as a starting point for agreeing a principle/set of principles governing what opinions and other information should be included in the article? EddieHugh (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My concrete proposal is to require multiple SECONDARY sources, of a reasonable quality, for each opinion added. Given the abundance of coverage on the issue - we should focus on what multiple high quality sources have covered. We should prefer (all things being equal regarding scope of coverage) expert opinions and/or politically/community notable figures.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I second Icewhiz's proposal as described. Alssa1 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, this is too open to subjective criteria (what is "reasonable quality", and why leave out "probably biased"?). And no appeals to authority should not be a criteria for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think the term "reasonable quality" refers to sources that meet wikipedia's requirements for reliability as well as coming from people who have expertise in the field that they are discussing. Alssa1 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Remember the goal: to form an agreement. Slatersteven, your proposal mentions including only "direct accusations"; can you suggest a way of limiting which people/groups/sources get included, based on that? Icewhiz, can you tighten/rephrase "reasonable quality"? EddieHugh (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

RS, what other criteria do we need, do RS report an accusation of antisemitism (that is as I said a direct accusation, not a vague assertion). Such as "X said this and it is antisemitic". RS repeat said accusation we repeat it. What we should not have is a list of umpteen opinions about each incident, nor general opinions about perceived (But unspecified) issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"reasonable quality" == sources generally seen as the community as reliable - e.g. in RSN. This isn't exact science - obviously the BBC, WaPo, or the NYT will be better regarded than a niche publication. In the UK - BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, The Times, Independent, Financial Times would all meet the "reasonable" test without a doubt. Reuters, AP would obviously meet this. In the US - NYT, WaPo, WSJ would clearly meet this (as well as many others). Multiple == multiple outlets reporting on the same comment - not via a news-wire copy (e.g. a Reuters wire run by umpteen outlets - counts as 1). I am essentially suggesting something similar to WP:ORGCRIT (which is used on wiki in a different context - but is well formulated). Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I support Slatersteven's proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose such a broad re-interpretation of RS criteria for one article. We need a consistency of approach regarding RE=S, not article specific exceptions, exemptions or exclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a RS issue or exception. But rather -- WP:DUE - quoting - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." - and such criteria is routinely used in articles that have an abundance of high quality RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That says nothing about "reasonable quality" sources and is a separate issue. If you want to make undue arguments fine, but that has nothing to do with what they are sourced to, as long as they are sourced to RS. Nor can undue be used to reject an RS because it is not "a real RS".Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose Icehiz's proposal, mostly i fear it on subjective grounds re notable experts and the overall bias in the MSM. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• I partly support Slatersteven proposal specifically regards personal opinions and direct accusations (do this stage first). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At this stage, 'opposing' or 'supporting' one or other of the proposals is not the way forward – they're too different, so we're not going to get a consensus for either. We need to find common ground and then work on the points where we differ. This requires compromise. EddieHugh (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so certain we won't see consensus for Slatersteven's suggestion; consensus doesn't equal unanimity. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to reinterpret RS as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guidelines.

This "reasonable quality" or "wrong kind of" RS argument doesn't apply to any other article so it has no place here. WP:ORGCRIT is regarding notability not noteworthiness. As per DUE, that is what this article is doing: when something makes a big splash in the right-wing corporate media is takes up large chunks of the page and other RS only get a footnote.

My proposal would be to allow anything that is RS within the topic of antisemitism including the views of Labour officials, Jewish organisations, scholars, jurists, academics etc. RevertBob (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We already have a massively bloated article with just that, and not a lot else. The problem is every time someone says anything about this it gets put in (they do not have to even be notable, or reported in more the zero source, an op-ed piece or book is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of antisemitism?

Why do we have a section on Accusations of antisemitism, is that not the whole point of this article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It probably needs to be renamed and/or integrated elsewhere (perhaps in the 2017 timeline?). All three paragraphs were widely covered, and are definitely DUE, however the organization of this into a section is a bit out of place.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall much if it was elsewhere, why was it moved?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying up & apologies was my fault (editing with bad toothache and have been unable to get to my dentist). They used to be in a section called Public perceptions but they were not public accusations but accusations by individuals. I also moved the 2 surveys in that section to the Survey section. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that was me who moved it lower down the page because I thought it'd be more constructive to have it one place. I've changed it back now. RevertBob (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Except these are not the perceptions of the public, they are perceptions and opinions of specific individuals. Usually "public perceptions" is taken to mean the general public.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Only rebuttal surveys allowed?

Perhaps the survey evidence should be moved to a separate section, as it is currently included in the "rebuttal" section and surveys that demonstrate antisemitism in the party are being removed? StuartH (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

1, NO but the section is about rebuttals, not surveys. 2, [[4]] we do mention it, we do not need to mention it twice. There is however an issue with the fact that this was added to the lead, and not to the body before hand. The lead is a summery of the article, it is not there to emphasize information. Now shall we discus where in the body this should go?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What either changing it to A. "Rebuttals and commentary" or B. upgrading the surveys to a section in its own right? I would personally choose B. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Or we have a public perception section, or we put it in the correct year.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

My thought was that the surveys should be a section in their own right and not a sub-section of rebuttals, as we should not be cherry-picking surveys. I mistakenly thought it was already a separate section when adding it. I also noticed that the survey was included in the lead and was in the process of reconciling the refs when it was removed from the body - I agree that the lead should not be summarising something that isn't in the body. Shifting the survey heading one level up should resolve the conflict if there is more support for this change. StuartH (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure we should keep on adding sections and subsections to empathize each and every damn opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The suggested change would move a section, not add one. The worst possible outcome would be to include a survey section that is actively pruned to remove any surveys that support the main theme of the article.StuartH (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Errr, it was not a section we had two days ago. Thus yes it is adding a section.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Then we consider the move and the addition separately. The section already includes surveys that aren't rebuttals, but it's absurd to suggest that only rebuttal surveys will be considered for inclusion. Unless we actually do start needlessly adding competing surveys in duplicated sections in the main body and rebuttal subsection. StuartH (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you may have a point, the section needs renaming, as whilst those surveys are not rebuttals, they do say that labour is not all that antisemitic, and thus refute the claim it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Surveys should be upgraded to a section in its own right. While most of the surveys do suggest labour is not thought to be antisemitic, the second paragraph of the Campaign Against Antisemitism surveys section is the one regarding the Jewish community's perception. Its not really adding a section, just upgrading a subsection, because both sides are represented. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The rebuttal section should be redacted all together - we already have criticism inter spaced in the article. As for surveys, they are hard data which we should include, and I agree in a separate section. Recent relevant polls - More than 85 per cent of British Jews think Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, Nearly 40 per cent of British Jews would 'seriously consider' emigrating if Corbyn became PM, and 36% of voters believed Labour held, or probably held, an anti-Jewish prejudice ... The Opinium poll also found that 34% think Labour tolerates antisemitism, while 33% think Corbyn is antisemitic. Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So? this is a seperate issue (being discussed above).Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep now two separate issue. 1) Give Surveys for and against their own section. 2) The Rebuttal section should not be removed, but maybe its content should be fully interlaced into the relevant sections of the article? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the Survation survey into the survey subsection. Although I think the surveys should have a separate section of its own. RevertBob (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

85.92% of British Jews think Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic

Source, can someone add it? Random Redshirt (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We already do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Views of Deborah Lipstadt

Someone put this under the inflammatory heading of 'Holocaust denial' citing the views of Deborah Lipstadt. Now I'm not hugely familiar with this woman or her work, but it appears from her article that she believes that former US President Jimmy Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner is a holocaust denier! A view which I'm sure most people would find somewhat crackpot. How much prominence exactly should be given to her opinions? And I'm sure that title header is utterly misleading and should be changed. G-13114 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Given her background and the coverage of her Corbyn–Labour comments, there's reason to include her here. Her "softcore Holocaust denial" phrase has got lots of attention, but her description of what it means e.g. here makes it clear that the stress is on "softcore", not "denial". Perhaps we shouldn't copy her phrase here, by covering her comments without the dramatic terminology. EddieHugh (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how Carter is relevant here (and questions as weĺl as remarks on Carter were made by many dating back to the 70s or earlier). Lipstadt is one of the leading academic experts in antisemitism, and is experienced with British antisemitism vis-a-vis Irving and other incidents. Her statements were widely covered both in UK press and more importantly (as UK press is not disconnected from the subject here) in top notch outlets such as WaPo. Lipstadt is exactly the sort of expert we should be citing.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, although I do understand the point that EddieHugh is raising about terminology. Lipstadt's use of the phrase "softcore Holocaust denial" is covered pretty well in her article for the uninitiated, but should a brief explanation be included here? Or a wikilink to that part of the Lipstadt article? --Bangalamania (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it needs renaming, after all it is not really much about denial in the labour party. I also think (given the fact this is a BLP) we do need to be very clear about what she is saying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial is rightfully utterly wrong. Where is the any actual real evidence of holocaust denial in the Labour Party. I can not access the Washington Post, but the examples I could read had zero to do with the great evil that was the Holocaust. Criticizing the Israeli state or its army has nothing to do with evil of the Holocaust or antisemitism. 'Soft Core Holocaust' is a very misleading term. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Per Lipstadt, who made her expert opinion crystal clear, figures in Labour have engaged in and encouraged softcore holocaist denial - which is the trivilization of the Holocaust by drawing false comparisons between the Holocaust/Nazis and other nations. This is an expert opinion, Lipstadt is preeminent expert here, with SIGCOV for this view (unlike various opinion pieces and off the track reporting in borderline sources that currently clutter the rebuttals section), IDONTLIKEIT by Wikipedia editors carries very little weight.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we have an actual quote where she says this, rather then says that the current situation encourages it outside the party? This is after all "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (section)" and not "Antisemitism caused by the UK Labour Party (section) actions". Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets make this clear, this is awp:undue wp:blp violation. Does she say the labour party engages in holocaust denile?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And as far as I can tell it is a 50/50 split between inclusion and exclusion, it is not just me.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would remind users that if material is objected to it should not be reinserted until consensus has been achieved.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The person who added the material has the burden of proof to add citations, which they duly did. The citations from a highly reliable source (the Washington Post) claim that Lipstadt stated this. The comments are not stated in Wikipedia's voice but attributed in the text to Lipstadt. Even if you reckon Lipstadt's opinion as a clearly biased statement of opinion, it still qualifies for inclusion via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The question here is not whether Lipstadt's opinion is accurate or not. By removing the material and requiring consensus, you are either saying that you doubt that this is Lipstadt's opinion, or that you doubt that WaPo is a reliable source in reporting what she said. Which one is it? Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not Verifiability, it is undue and BLP. The question is does she say X or Y, as far as I can tell she does not say the Labour party has engaged in holocausts denile, thus that aspect of what she says has nothing to do with the article. Nothing else she says is new, it is about (for example) the mural, thus her opinion (if it really should be included) should be there, not in a section that implies something that she does not claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As well as the fact that (yet again) only one side of the debate was included (thus it was a wp:NPOV violation), and (again, yet again) another example of recentism. We should not include every comment by every person about his, it must add something new, not just repeat already expressed opinions (about controversies that are nor a year or more old).Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

BLP situation? Towards whom Lipstadt? Lipstadt clearly said what she said about the situation in Labour and how this situation promotes Holocaust denial. We do not need to insert a Labour party response as a rebuttal to eqch and every assertion - the Labour party line should not be given UNDUE emphasis. If you have a problem with WaPo or one of the top antisemitism and Holocaust experts out there (Lipstadt) - take it up with them. We follow sources - we do not soapbox on how the sources are wrong. Lipstadt directly addresses Labour (in fact, we could expand on her words in the article) and has been covered by top notch sources innthe context of the Labour antisemitism crisis.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an accusation made against living people (well again actually no, she does not accuse the LAbour party of Holocaust denial). And of course the Labour parties response should be included, it is an accusation made against them they have a right of reply (and also verfiablitly, if RS report it so do we, is that not the argument being used for inclusion of this material?). Yes we should give every response to every accusation we include, this should not and cannot become an attack page consisting of a list accusations and opinions that are unfavorable to the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Labour party is not a BLP. We cover the Labour party, in this regard, as it is covered by RSes - which is for the most part negative. Being favorable or unfavorable to Labour is not a valid editorial goal - reflecting coverage this has received, is.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but this is talking about its members and Mr Corbyn, they are living people. We thus cannot imply that living people (even Mr Corbyn) supports, condones, or tolerates antisemitism or holocaust denial if they explicitly say they do not (especially when the source does not explicitly say they do engage in holocaust denial). This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Certain editors want to give undue weight to the views of one conservative (by her own admission) American academic; and I would contend that considering the precarious WP:LIBEL position we would be putting ourselves in by giving undue weight to her honestly fringey position is really problematic. It certainly doesn't warrant a multi-paragraph section with topic header. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's one paragraph of 109 words, 31 of which are the official Labour response. It now doesn't have its own heading either. The article is 11,388 words of "readable prose size". Giving the widely covered, well-sourced views of a well-known Holocaust academic 1% of the article length, when what she's said is a variation of what lots of others have said, is reasonable. On BLP, all the paragraph gives from Lipstadt on Corbyn specifically is: 'Lipstadt said that Corbyn is at best "blind to overt manifestations of anti-Semitism"'. I don't see a BLP or LIBEL problem here. Which part, exactly, of WP:BLP is seen to be in danger of contravention? EddieHugh (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And we give a whole sentence to the claim that Labour is in some way responsible for a rise in Holocaust denial, that is the BLP violation. That Corbyn (by his (alleged) inaction) is responsible for such a rise. Also it is a BLP violation to include accusations with out responses.Slatersteven (talk)

(ec) "Academic"? This is one of the leading experts on antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Not many academics are featured in full length drama movies - Denial (2016 film) - for their actions countering British antisemitism. An expert opinion in Labour that was widely covered in top notch sources. And if you do not have a source stating she is conservative - you should strike that assertion. BLP policy does not require a response, and regardless we have a multitude of UNDUE Labour party denials - including for this bit - this article should devote most of its coverage to experts and RSes - not to the Labour party line which usually receives a small paragraph at the end of mainstream coverage - nothing near the UNDUE amount of coverage we are giving to Labour's stmts.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we, where else do they respond to her accusations, or are you saying that (as I said) this adds nothing new? Ohh and I said nothing about her being conservative. I am saying that it does not matter if she is an expert, this is a one off comment that does not add anything new and that has already not been said. This cannot become just a list of every notable person criticizing Labour, that is an attack page, and that is against policy. We include material not because it is verifiable, or by an expert but because it adds to our materiel understanding of the topic, what does this add?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It adds the perspective of someone with a long history of tackling anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. "a whole sentence to the claim that Labour is in some way responsible for a rise in Holocaust denial" – Labour, not Corbyn, so no BLP violation. Icewhiz: being an academic doesn't rule out being other things; it's a simple statement of the fact that she works for a university. EddieHugh (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz has made it clear before that they consider even the statement that Lipstadt can't read minds at talk to be a BLP violation, while calling Corbyn a holocaust denying anti-semite on his bio page is apparently not. I usually try to assume good faith but over this issue I'm honestly having trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We already have plenty of such perspectives, what new perspective does this add? And it does link it to Corbyn, and the Labour party is not some sentient entity, it is a group of people. So yes it is an accusation aimed at a group of living people, a serious one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We presently include the like of "In the same month, Ian Saville, magician and Labour Party member said he is "disturbed " by the way antisemitism has "been taken up as a proxy with which to attack the left in the Labour Party."[232] " sourced to Ben White at opendemocracy - a borderline RS, penned by an activist. Lipstadt, one of the leading experts in the field, quoted by WaPo, Telegraph, and multiple other outlets is clearly more due. Lipstadt, as an authority in the field, could potentially be used unattributed - but regardless this expert opinion has more gravitas than approx. 95% of the present crud in the article. NPOV requires us to be consistent - we don't apply one sourcing standard to allow inclusion of "Jews for Jeremy" Facebook posts and another to exckude one of the leading experts in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So no then it adds nothing we do not already have. Wikipedia is not a list of opinions. It is not about sourcing, it is about what does this add.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It adds, from an expert opinion, a tangible and measurable increase in softcore Holocaust denial in the UK due to Labour's tolerance pf such speech and speech by figures in Labour. Now - why are you so keen to redact this very well sourced on-topic piece of information?Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not about antisemitism in the UK. This is about antisemitism within (that is inside, not outside) the Labour party. She is talking about antisemitism in the UK (the clue is in the use of the initials UK, and not the word Labour).Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In my case it's because I don't believe the opinion of an American historian on the current political situation of the UK is WP:DUE any significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and, while mud-slinging from a conservative academic may sell copy, it doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedically significant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"This is about antisemitism within (that is inside, not outside) the Labour party"... I'm surprised that you use this argument to support removing information, given that, in the talk section immediately above, you rejected the same argument for removing information. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No I said that people who support labour is as much about the labour party as its members (thus has relevance as it can have impact). She (as far as I know) cannot even vote in a British election, so her views can have no real impact (so hers is just another opinion). So it is not quite the same thing. Also I would point out that people who are Labour supporters may also be labour party members, so one does not exclude the other (thus it may also be relevant).Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

An expert's ability to vote in UK elections would seem to be a rather odd sourcing requirement (one that runs counter to NPOV and would make this a very British-view centric article - which it should not be) - the influence of any single vote being minuscule.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The "American historian" being one of the leading authorities on antisemitism and Holocaust denial - including major work on British antisemitism and Holocaust denial is regards to David Irving and others and who was quoted in leading outlets, over quite some time, on both sides of the pond.Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You've said that many times. I don't think it does anything whatsoever to address my original complaint with regard to the policies I cited, which is why I don't lend that statement much significance. You found a conservative academic who said something embarrassing about a politician you dislike and you've been spending the last two weeks trying to insert it everywhere and anywhere. It does little to make her opinion due any weight. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, and in stark contrast to her round with David Irving, Lipstadt has provided no examples of Corbyn denying the holocaust in a hard or soft manner, and notwithstanding the conflation of critique of Zionism with antisemitism, no examples of Corbyn saying anything anti-semitic. Her opinion that Corbyn wass being anti-semitic by criticizing Zionism is just that, an opinion, not based in any evidence. And as such her academic credentials are neither here nor there. She's just a pundit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Leading historian" is pushing it - based on her own page here, this sort of incident (regarding her accusations of "soft-core holocaust denial", a term she invented herself, against a wide variety of political figures) is what she's most famous for, not her research. Beyond that, the personal opinions and politics of a scholar are not automatically notable - even in her area of expertise, she is mostly WP:DUE when publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Op-eds by her and the like could be mentioned, but devoting a full paragraph to them (let alone an entire section) or treating them as statements of fact rather than statements of her own personal opinions and politics is misusing her as a source and lending her WP:UNDUE weight, especially given that her theories about "soft-core holocaust denial" are not widely accepted and are therefore fairly WP:FRINGE. Beyond that, her views are already covered in the 'incidents in the 21st century' section; I think it's clearly WP:UNDUE to devote an entire paragraph to her opinions further down. --Aquillion (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say all along! Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so (seeking some principles), would the 'remove' supporters here also be in favour of removing the views of: "former Court of Appeal judge Stephen Sedley"; "law lecturer Tom Frost"; "Human rights solicitor Geoffrey Bindman"; "Geoffrey Robertson QC, an expert on freedom of speech and human rights"; "Writer and scholar of antisemitism Antony Lerman"; "Philosopher and scholar of antisemitism Brian Klug"; "American scholar Norman Finklestein"; "independent researcher Jamie Stern-Weiner"; "linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky"; "Joseph Finlay the former Deputy Editor of Jewish Quarterly"; "Israeli historian and socialist activist Ilan Pappé"; "Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy"; "writer Richard Seymour"; etc, etc? All of them give their opinion, often with little or no justification (at least as presented in this article); some are American academics; some are quoted more than once; some get a paragraph or more. What set of principles is being applied that marks "historian Deborah Lipstadt" as being different from the others I've listed, and therefore not worth including, in contrast with the others? EddieHugh (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to discuss those, go ahead and create a section to discuss each, or a broader section listing the ones you object to and why; I'm certainly not averse to the idea that the article is already overly-burdened with opinion-pieces, and it could definitely use a cleanup in that regard (or consolidating the most common opinions down rather than just dropping a bunch of quotes on the reader because an editor liked how snappy they sounded.) I feel that 'argument-by-proxy' and the ensuing WP:QUOTEFARM is a major problem on controversial articles, especially ones like these where the controversy itself is largely confined to dueling op-eds. But those things certainly aren't an argument for devoting an entire paragraph to Lipstadt. Also, for the record, the default while a contested addition is under discussion (and no immediate signs of consensus) is normally to revert to the last stable version (ie. in this case taking it out until discussions are complete); there's a few other special cases, but most of them default to remove in any case. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

IDONTLIKE (it would seem softcore Holocaust denial is "embarassing" as opposed to a serious matter) is not a reason to remove one of the foremost experts on antisemitism from an article on antisemitism. Meanwhile, we are devoting entire paragraphs and sections for random people who have supported Corbyn - including, for some odd reason, just about any Jewish person (including a magician) who made hia opinion known publically. This all adds up to a rather blatant POV problem.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Skimming the relevant section, the vast majority of stuff there is cited to secondary sources; this is important, because it both answers the WP:DUE issue and gives us context. That said, all the opinions on the page (and many other aspects) could certainly stand to be condensed into a more readable format; many parts of this page suffer from repeating the same accusations and rebuttals over and over as if simple repetition lends them weight. But none of this is an argument for compounding the problem by devoting an entire paragraph to one person's opinion. Possibly the creation of a 'responses' section would be appropriate, with the common responses and reactions generally-summarized, and the people who hold them noted. I've found this worked in the past at avoiding op-ed pile-ups in situations where huge numbers of people put their oar in and editors constantly pushed to add new opinion pieces they agreed with. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

WaPo, Telegraph, and multiple other soirces coverage of Lipstadt's expert opinion is done in a SECONDARY manner. WaPo is quoting and describing her expert opinion in a large piece covering the Labour antisemitism crisi as a whole.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of her position as an historian of the holocaust, if she's making use of a neologism that has not had any uptake in the academic community to characterize the views of a politician in an op-ed, she's straying outside of her RS box pretty far. With all that said, I'd agree with Aquillion and EddieHugh that we can trim the dueling op-eds on both sides of this dispute; we're making an encyclopedia, not a news clipping service. I think my rather strong WP:NOTNEWS opinions aren't going to surprise anyone in this discussion though. I would suggest that Aquillion's suggestion to create sections to discuss each is a good starting point. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Far from the only use of the term,e.g. news piece an abprtion activists using Hitler and is covered in an academic context as well per "holocaust+denial"&btnG= scholar. Finally - repeating a falsehood dpes not make it true. None of the cited spurces for Holocaust denial are opeds. Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Every single one of those sources is quoting Lipstadt; some even putting her statement in scare quotes. This is not demonstrating wide-spread use. Just the media's ability to parrot a soundbite. 'Softcore' Holocaust Denial seems to only exist as Lipstadt's rhetorical hammer when she wants to call somebody who has never denied the holocaust a holocaust-denier. Again, if you can find a quote or a reference to Corbyn actually denying the holocaust, please bring that forth. It doesn't exist though, because this whole thing is just partisan newspaper bullshit to keep the moribund Tories in power and I'm getting tired of this trumped up controversy dominating references to the Labour party in an encyclopedia that purports to be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what sources do - quote experts. Using quotation marks does not mean these are "scare quotes". It would seem that even Jewish Labour Movement chair Ivor Caplin thinks (after apologizing for launching an attack of this view on a radio show) that ""I have the highest regard for Professor Deborah Lipstadt and for the incredible work she has done over the years in challenging Holocaust denial and I apologise unreservedly to her.".[5] Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Adding rather significant missing not.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

One more time, do you have a single reliable source suggesting that Corbyn has ever denied the holocaust? No, "well it counts as holocaust denial to criticize Israel or the Zionist movement because a historian made up a word," but a clear example of him doing this? If no, then per WP:SLANDER we can't give non WP:FRINGE credence to claims he's a holocaust denier. Softcore or otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a well sourced expert opinion - it might not even require attribution - but attributed it is not slander. It is most definitely not remotely fringe - being covered and carried by mainstream outlets as an expert opinion. It is not our place to perform primary analysis of Corbyn's stmts in regards to meeting some criteria - we rely on expert analysis and coverage in secondary sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So your answer to my yes-or-no question was no. Noted. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At no point does she say the Labour party or Corbyn have engaged in Holocaust denial (and yes it is fringe, you can be an expert and still hold a fringe view, has any other expert used the term 'Softcore' Holocaust Denial?).Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to look up the definition of fringe - someone widely quoted as an expert by leading outlets such as WaPo, The Atlantic, The Telegraph, etc. - as well as being a well published and cited scholar in the field is not fringe - and saying so is a rather gross BLP violation. As for the use of the 'softcore Holocaust denial - it is used by others, however it refers to trivialization of the Holocaust by making inappropriate comparisons between the Nazi regime and modern day, no where close to Nazi, movements, This has been an issue in and around Labour - and a matter of great controvesy. If you recall, Corbyn wanted to modify the IHRA examples to remove comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany from the example set. It would seem that the whole objection here is based in IDONTLIKE of softcore Holocaust denial as a term. Lipstadt, who has much greater gravitas and weight as an expert in antisemitism in relation to various media sources, is expressing in more technically precise language what various pundits and community figures have been riled up about.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone can be mainstream for one opinion and fringe for another. So I ask again, who else has said this, if it not a fringe view others will have expressed it. I can only find her using the term.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How many academic antisemitism/Holocaust experts have weighed in? Not that many - Lipstadt is merely using a technical term from the academic field. Of course, there have been other tie in s- The Holocaust Education Trust has accused Corbyn of "denial and distortion" - "But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with anti-Semitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion.” - no softcore. And of course we have long running associations with orgs like Deir Yassin Remembered - Jeremy Corbyn's 10-year association with group which denies the Holocaust. So - 2 domain experts have used denial. Care to bring any domain experts (in antisemitism or the Holocaust) - with a counter view? Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit break (Deborah Lipstadt)

So lets see, as long as no one else has commented on it it is not fringe? And guilt by association proves nothing about whether or not Corbyn has engaged in Holocaust denial (but at least you have now found a source accusing him of it, so by all means lets have a section on that, one that gives the full story of course). But none of this supports the idea that softcore Holocaust denial is not an idea that only Lipstadt believes is a real thing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The HET director accuses him directly, not by association. Others have used/referred to Lipstadt's jargon, e.g. Sineaeva-Pankowska, Natalia. "Holocaust Memory and Holocaust Denial in Poland and Moldova: A Comparison." (2014).Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not only mention the HET director, and can we have a quote please of someone else using it (using it not referring to it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Precisely, somebody saying "Lipstadt has this term," is not the same as the term not being a WP:FRINGE statement. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Does not belong in the article under the section titled "Softcore Holocaust denial". It's a term used by Lipstadt; I'm not aware of other scholars using it. Thus it should not be stated in Wiki-voice. Deborah Lipstadt is a noted scholar of Holocaust denial; her opinion could be integrated into the body of the article, but not enough for a whole section. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  @K.e.coffman: - Following your title comment, I tried to bunch academic experts on antisemitism, including Lipstadt, under a section titled "Expert opinions" - however - this got reverted with the edit summary "No need to change the title. These are partisan opinions never mind expert. We should be trying to address balance. - which seems to be a BLP vio in relation to these academics. Meanwhile, it would seem that the current sense of balance favors including "Ian Saville, magician and Labour Party member said he is "disturbed " by the way antisemitism has "been taken up as a proxy with which to attack the left in the Labour Party." (this sourced to an opendemocracy (which probably rates as a blog - though an established one) opinion piece.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Its antisemitic antisemitism

Really do we need to have umpteen mentions of the Mural being antisemitic, do we really think our readers are so stupid they will not think that an "an allegedly antisemitic mural" is not about an allegedly antisemitic mural unless we say it every time we mention the mural? Do you not see how much this undermines the credibility of the article?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

For starters we can drop the allegedly - as multiple RSes, as well as Corbyn himself, have called this antisemitic. Second, if we are taking the highly questionable choice of displaying antisemitic imagery on Wikipedia, it should be clearly labelled as such.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK no skin off my nose if you really think anyone is not going to get it. But we keep allegedly, as I am sure you would agree that Corbyn is not an expert on what is antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think "allegedly antisemitic" should be included in the caption. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Solely because our readers aren't “so stupid”? (see your opening remark)GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I said more then that. But yes not assuming our readers are so stupid as to know know that a section titled "allegedly antisemitic mural" is about an allegedly antisemitic mural is a not a valid reason to hammer the point home. We have to assume our readers have a modicum of brains.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The mural is unquestionably antisemitic, it has been eliminated because of the antisemitic meaning ("undertone"). The RS appear to confirm that fact. So why - "allegedly" ?GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall that some of the sources did not come outright and say it was they said it was "an allegedly anti-Semitic mural", ohh well one of the sources does say it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ohh,I see..GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Good, so as we have RS saying this was only an allegation so must we, that is why we have wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Using alleged is a violation of WP:ALLEGED. When this broke, some British sources were somewhat cautious, something more recent sources are not. Per [www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural Vox] this is a "a blatantly anti-Semitic mural in London" - and there is no lack - in fact a great multitude of sources that use the label. We follow sources, and we do not add weasel words. A mural is not a BLP, and if it were - this is still amply sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined" (also this is not binding "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and making an accusation about someones work is making an accusation about the creator of that work. Ohh and the source that says it was only alleged top have been antisemitic was published 2 days before the Vox source. That is not a significant time difference.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No lack of additional sources. Antisemitism is not a crime in the UK, we are not asserting wrongdoing.Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets see what other (more recent then 2 days before) say [[6]], [[7]] (not exactly unequivocal is it), [[8]], [[9]]. So no it is not clear cut. And BLP is not just about crime.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Even in the rather cherrypicked links above - you have language such as "a mural many regard as blatantly anti-Semitic", in news.com.au. The Times used "antisemitic mural" in its title (and in later reporting in recent months - uses simply "antisemitic mural"). iNews - elsewhere - [10] "Corbyn argues that an anti-semitic mural east London..... Moving on to recent sources that are more neutral regarding British Politics - New Yorker - "On March 23rd, Luciana Berger, a Labour M.P., complained about a Facebook post that Corbyn had left in 2012, offering his support to the artist of an anti-Semitic mural that had been removed in East London"[11] Bloomberg - "He faced an unprecedented demonstration by Jewish groups outside Parliament earlier this year after he was found to have defended an antisemitic mural and was accused of turning a blind eye to racist language used by party members in their criticism of Israel.[12] Foreign Policy - "This conspiratorial worldview inevitably lends itself to centuries-old tropes about Jewish power; anti-Semitism is the ultimate conspiracy theory. A mural that was removed from East London in 2012 encapsulated this outlook. It depicted hook-nosed Jewish bankers .... Corbyn, a backbench member of parliament at the time, backed the artist responsible for the piece.[13], NY Review of Books - "of failing to notice, for example, that a London mural whose removal Corbyn protested in a recently-resurfaced 2012 Facebook posting contained shockingly obvious and explicit anti-Semitic stereotypes.[14]. One should note that a source using alleged does not contradict sources using this in their own voice - if a particular source did not vet the information, then it will attribute/reserve itself - however a preponderance of sources do use the label in their own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean I looked for sources that said alleged yes they were cherry picked, just as you looking for those that call it antisemitic could be called cherry picking (I.E dismissive of sources that do not out wright say it was antisemitic,). It is clear that not all RS consider is definitively antisemitic, so we should not. This is especially poor as many of the sources we are using say explicitly it is only an allegation (in text rather then as a click bait headline), yet I am the one accused of cherry picking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"alleged X" or (the more common) "widely thought to be X" does not preclude "X" - there is no contradiction between them. Unless you have a source saying "not X", finding a few sources saying "alleged X" (when the same source elsewhere says "X") - does not refute "X".Icewhiz (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Its also not a piece of landscape art, its a group portrait. This really does make the article look ill informed and dumb.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What’s another word for “a mural"? GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea, you could also re-write to not need extra usages of the word, verbosity not being the usual way to do it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yea, I think you are right.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've put back the word "allegedly" in the opening paragraph and provided two reliable sources. Yes there are also sources out there that don't use the word "allegedly" but the word had been in the opening paragraph for months and there had been no discussion about removing it. It's been replaced and is now backed up with two reliable sources. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It all (as does the edit changing mural) all looks a bit like "making a point". This was stable until we had to say something like "the allegedly antisemitic mural which was allegedly antisemitic was a mural that was allegedly antisemitic".Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

At this time it is clear there is no consensus for adding extra "antisemitism", I ask eds to remember wp:consenus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Similar to what happened here, whether the mural is antisemitic, allegedly antisemitic, anti-capitalist, 1/3 antisemitic and 2/3 anti-capitalist (as 2/6 bankers were Jewish) - this should go in its own article (Freedom for Humanity) not here. Here it should state that it was condemned as x but it's not Wiki's place to present opinions as fact nor make judgements. RevertBob (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Alleged?!

A well sourced edit was reverted [15] with the claim that "It IS an allegation. Some allege the mural is not antisemitic, some allege that it is. Whether it is or not (as with so much art) is a matter of personal subjective. Two sources were then added that use antisemitic in their own voice (a rather odd contradiction), however regardless cautious usage of alleged in some sources does not contradict the assertion. @Garageland66: - please back up, with mainstream sources your assertion that "Some allege the mural is not antisemitic".Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

We also have plenty of sources saying it is alleged, thus we must reflect all relevant POV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that many. WP:ALLEGED. And someone saying "alleged X" does not contradict multiple sources saying "X" without alleged.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No, and we have others who do not use the word alleged but do not say it was antisemitic either. And numbers do not matter, we reflect RS and there are plenty of them that say it is only an allegation (at least 5). And again WP:ALLEGED does not forbid the use of allegation, there is no ban on its use. But if you have an issue with the word find another way to say that this was not universally condemned by RS as antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz I've provided two sources that clearly state that the mural is "allegedly" antisemitic. Neither of the sources could be remotely described as sympathetic to UK Labour or to Jeremy Corbyn. There are plenty more, including the BBC. And the artist that painted the mural has himself stated that it was not antisemitic. [16] Garageland66 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The two sources provided actually use, or also use antisemitic without alleged or any qualification (not that this matters, as "alleged antisemitic" does not contradict "alleged"). Any actual sources saying in their voice it is not?Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not required for the source to say "not" if the article doesn't say "not". The article says "allegedly antisemitic"; so to do the sources. As does this BBC source [17] Garageland66 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

At this time it is clear there is no consensus for removing the long term title, I ask eds to remember wp:consenus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the the text does not match up now with what the RS are saying. - JEREMY CORBYN SAYS REGRETS DEFENDING ARTIST BEHIND ANTISEMITIC MURAL.[18] GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Do any sources claim that the mural is not antisemitic other that the narrative of its creator? GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Then try reading some of the sources we have already provided here that either are dated the same date or latter that use alleged. Do we have this one yet [[19]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn stated, “I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-semitic.”[20] ... deeply disturbing and antisemitic. So? GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

And what the source (not a quote from Mr Corbyn) said "Jeremy Corbyn has expressed "sincere regret" at failing to look more closely at an allegedly anti-Semitic mural in London before questioning its removal." So it supports the claim it is only an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The mural was clearly antisemitic and the use of "allegedly" ought to be dropped. Random Redshirt (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I am happy with either allegedly antisemitic or antisemitic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Most recognize that the mural is undoubtedly antisemitic. I’m leaning towards discarding the word “alleged." Maybe “exposed to be antisemitic”? GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

How about accused of being antisemitic, or we could go with what at least one RS says and go with "widely condemned as antisemitic"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Editors saying that the mural is 'obviously' or 'clearly' antisemitic have to understand that that is only their subjective POV. The sources being used to reference this issue, repeatedly state "allegedly antisemitic". Indeed, the whole problem with this controversy is that the mural is open to interpretation. This article still has the template at the beginning stating "The neutrality of this article is disputed". Neutrality is not going to be improved if this mural is declared antisemitic as an objective, neutral fact. Garageland66 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support compromise - "widely condemned as antisemitic" per Slatersteven, to replace every instance of alleged. This is a factual assertion which does not cast false doubt. Alleged is discouraged per WP:ALLEGED - and in this case is particularly egrigious when multiple sources say antisemitic in their own voice and even Labour accepts this. This image is not open for interpretation - no mainstream source has said it is not antisemitic and a majority said that it is.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support compromise wording suggested above. 'Widely condemned as...' is the best wording as it doesn't violate WP:ALLEGED and reflects what most RS say. – Bangalamania (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose slaterseven's "widely condemned as antisemitic" compromise wording. Mear One the street artist denied that the mural was antisemitic; he was quoted in The Independent as saying that the mural was about "class and privilege", and pointed out that the figures depicted included both "Jewish and white Anglos". The intention was to attack the injustice of wealth and privilege of the "elite banker cartel". Though many will passionately believe the street art was antisemitic, it was not intended by the artist as an attack against all Jewish Semites, unfortunately for this article two of the six richest families in the world represented in the mural happen to be from Jewish hereitage. So I think we must be careful of the artist's WP:BLP. When Corbyn first questioned the piece he did not realise (for whatever reason) that the anti rich artwork might be deemed antisemitic, later on he might have realised the possible offense it caused. So his original defense of the piece was not intended to be antisemitic. (we must be careful of Corbyn's BLP). We must rightly steer towards neutrality and say as many of the neutral sources state ~ 'Allegedly antisemitic' and let the reader decide. WP:ALLEGED may guide us away from using alleged but it does say alleged is appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. "Widely condemned as antisemitic" is exactly the same for all sense and purposes as saying the artists work was antisemitic, it is not a compromise. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(*boldly changing the colour of this part of the discussion to distinguish it from the "widely condemed" discussion.)

Simple solution: Corbyn and the Freedom for Humanity mural. EddieHugh (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

RSes for the most part do not use the title - merely saying antisemitic moral- nor should we promote a euphemism promoting the message of an image filled with antisemitic tropes.Guardian RSes do not use the name in their titles, and many do not even mention it in their body,eg Independent promoting Mear One's message beyond being offtopic (what is relevant is Corbyn's response, not Mear One's message) is a big NPOV and FRINGE problem.Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support EddieHugh's more neutral and objective Corbyn and the Freedom for Humanity mural ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC) _{and agree with Sionk}
• Support "Corbyn and the Freedom for Humanity mural" as more objective and factual - the reporting, allegations and counterclaims can be described in the body of the section. Sionk (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude the term “antisemitic”, it seems to be supported by RS. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Then I would argue as above it would need to be "allegedly" .... EddieHugh solution simply avoids the editor argument whether its alleged or not, and lets the reader decide. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The preponderance of RSes saying this is antisemitic, blatantly antisemitic, or widely condenmned as antisemitic would disagree. Furthermore - using the title of this WP:FRINGE item would have use promoting antisemitic views in our voice - many RSes have avoided using the title all together when describing this item - whose WP:COMMONNAME is various forms of antisemitic+mural (and on the reverse - if you google "antisemitic mural" - this is probably the more known (google-wise) antisemitic mural out there.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What about “mural identified to have some antisemitic features” to smooth it a little? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

And around it goes ...shall we have a RfC? Is it possible to have RfCs if the are 3 or 4 possible answers ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd give it a day or two. If we don't compromise (e.g. to "widely condemned as antisemitic" per Slatersteven) - then yes - RfC it shall be.Icewhiz (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support compromise wording "widely condemned as antisemitic". Is it really necessary to have an Rfc on this? It seems that Slatersteven's compromise has garnered wide support, with how much opposition; one? Two? The Wikipedia policy on consensus says that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) . From what I can see, we have consensus now and it should be implemented: the term "allegedly" should be changed to "widely condemned as". Let those opposed to this consensus bring an Rfc to reverse it if they like; but the results of that seem predictable, if the opinions given above hold. Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Reliable sources repeatedly describe the mural as "allegedly antisemitic". It is not explicitly antisemitic e.g. there is no Star of David or reference to Rothschilds etc. In addition, the entire public debate took place around the question of whether or not the mural WAS antisemitic. Garageland66 (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  Anything resembling a RS backing up the assertion that this mural was "not explicitly antisemitic" (describe as a "blatantly anti-Semitic mural" in an RS [21] as well as by several antisemitism expert) and that there was actual debate - e.g. anyone of note or a RS (aside from Mear One, or Corbyn who has since admitted this was antisemitic) saying this was not antisemitic? Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support compromise wording as factual while still giving information as to why it was controversial. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion. Rather more neutral language is used as in this Wiki article [22] Garageland66 (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the is potential confusion here as we are supporting and opposing two conflicting proposals ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, I wish people would just vote on one suggestion. If you want to make a new one make it separate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for being part of the second proposal ...should we cut and paste the 2nd proposal to make it separate ...how do we ping everyone involved in that 2nd proposal to respectfully ask their permission.

Yes I think kit should be appended as a new suggestion, it would make it easier to see what consensus we have.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The edit mentioned by Icewhiz was quite rightly reverted. For something to be stated as a fact, reliable sources must agree about it, which they don't in this case. We are dealing with two positions, each of which should be summarised: the mural was antisemitic because it depicts Jewish stereotypes; the mural supposedly depicted real people (bankers and, according to the artist, Alister Crowley) rather than stereotypes and since most of them were non-Jewish the mural wasn't antisemitic in intent. As far as using the word "widely" is concerned, you would also have to prove that is a "fact", for which you'd probably have to produce a non-partisan source saying that it is the case.     ←   ZScarpia   10:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Similar to what happened here, whether the mural is antisemitic, allegedly antisemitic, anti-capitalist, 1/3 antisemitic and 2/3 anti-capitalist (as 2/6 bankers were Jewish) - this should go in its own article (Freedom for Humanity) not here. Here it should state that it was condemned as x but it's not Wiki's place to present opinions as fact nor make judgements. RevertBob (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Slaterseven's proposal. This seems like a perfect balance, alluding to the coverage of it without taking a position in Wikipedia's voice.--Calthinus (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Do we need to find out whether this article about a UK political party be reasonably construed as being part of Palestine-Israel articles ARBIA rules. I started writing a question on "Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment" but its a scary page for a little editor and thought i better ask fellow editors here first. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I had considered whether this fell under ARBIA myself, but like you (I think) I'm not entirely sure. I'm certainly leaning towards yes, and definitely think the issue should be raised on the noticeboard, as (a) a lot of the claims of antisemitism since Corbyn's premiership of the party are directly related to individuals involved in pro-Palestine activism (mentioned in RS), and (b) a lot of the back-and-forth edit conflicts on this page have been caused by advocates of one side or another with regard to Israel-Palestine (or those perceived by others to be advocating for one side or another). – Bangalamania (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I hold no authority on the matter, and would never pretend to, imo this topic is by its very nature ARB(P)IA and should be treated as such with the appropriate caution. It would be imprudent to pretend this page is going to be a welcoming environment, even though it would be much better if it was, and it is better to edit with caution and make a conscious effort to avoid misunderstandings. Imo. --Calthinus (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• (my opinion carries no weight - it is merely an editor's opinion - however I am familiar with the ARBPIA sanctions regime) First of, it is WP:ARBPIA (and WP:ARBPIA2 (not too relevant though) and WP:ARBPIA3 (relevant)). ARBPIA has two different standards of application (neither of which require per article logging) -
  1. WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions - " All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." - so discretionary sanctions apply on broadly interpreted.
  2. WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction (and a few other provisions) - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. - so this applies on reasonably construed.

  While a UK political article - and even specifically an article on antisemitism wouldn't be ARBPIA in general - as of this timestamp - Israel/i appears 119 times in the article, Zionist/m appears 45 times, and Palestine/ian appears 45 times (other terms - Hamas, Hezbollah, West Bank, Gaza, etc. also appear - with lesser frequency). On a paragraph level - more than half (my eyeball estimate is around 75%) of the paragraphs in the article contain Israel*/Palestin*/Zion*. The main crux of argumentation by the more vehement Momentum elements has been that they are not antisemitic but merely anti-Israel/Zionist and/or merely criticizing Israel - basically this response, which is covered at length in the article (per the hit counts above) - tie this to the conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How many times does it mention any of them in combination?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Please remove the most recent addition sourced to Twitter. [23] Twitter is not a RS and anyone can come out with a statement. 24.217.29.219 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I need to find my password to login. :) 24.217.29.219 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• This needs to be reverted again. Twitter might be RS for a verified person and for that specific person. But in this case we have an anonymous Twitter user posting a message. That is not RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.29.219 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This was reverted, with the edit summary saying that this was acceptable under WP:TWITTER. If this was an article about those particular rabbis, then I would agree, but it is not and it seems undue to include such a letter given it has not (yet) been covered in secondary sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Plus WP:TWITTER doesn't apply, for example: TWITTER is only used when:

it does not involve claims about third parties;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; We're not talking about a verified Twitter account making a statement about that person.

This is a statement by an unverified Twitter account, making an unverifiable statement. It MUST be reverted. 24.217.29.219 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Regardless of whether this twitter account is reliable in any way shape of form (beyond that named accoutn tweeted that...) - it is clearly UNDUE if no one of note has picked this up. Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've found mention of it HereHere and Here in the Jewish Chronicle (albeit with a negative spin) and Here in the Jewish News. G-13114 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes - this has received a bit of minor coverage due to it being a forgery - [24] - shame on whomever involved in entering this, in our own voice (not even attributed to the twitter account), to begin with.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

And here, https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lNh149rDPOU/W5km_S24yWI/AAAAAAAABWw/85NkLuKEiIYt9ynGa3aJ2iIsiFsNXaHvgCHMYCw/s1600-h/IMG-20180912-WA0010%2B%2528002%2529%255B3%255D is a letter from the UOHC denying the letter. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The JC and JN both say it's authenticity is disputed, but neither say it's a fake. G-13114 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: It appears that the JC now accepts that the letter was genuine [25]. 18:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the JC reports on only 3 Rabbis confirmeing they signed this. Eslewhere we have reporting this is a hoax.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Too much focus on individual incidents

The history section of this article has some issues (I keep finding things there that don't reflect what the source they cite say or which cite it in a lopsided fashion) but seems reasonably salvageable; most of the sources, when you read them, go into detail on what the actual disputes were in the 1980's and why the British Left turned away from its previous full-throated defense of Israel and Zionism towards a more nuanced view that was increasingly concerned with Arabs and Palestinians in a way that some commentators say lead it to harbor antisemitism. But once you go down past there, the page turns into a laundry-list of random incidents, especially in the 2017 and 2018 sections. I feel we need to condense and summarize these - devoting a massive paragraph to every scandal (many of which lasted only a few media cycles), followed by a wall of op-eds from people arguing with each other, doesn't produce a readable or useful article - it feels, instead, like people have been dropping whatever random factoids or events they could find into it to 'argue by proxy', so to speak. We should identify and summarize a useful timeline (one that draws on broader secondary sources rather than the primary sources covering each event), then cover the broad perspectives on that timeline in a more consolidated fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, it would be great if we could achieve this. I fear that any summary will be heavily disputed though, but feel free to give it a go! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that from 2016 onwards - we are essentially dealing with a political crisis or scandal (e.g. - WaPo) - that evolved blow per blow. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Like any political scandal. The problem is that we have to have every reported incident, not matter how minor. In same cases we have more on a specific incident then we have in the parent article of the object that caused it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, essentially. The purpose of this article isn't to detail blow-by-blow scandals from the tabloids; the purpose is to zoom out and provide a broad historical overview of the topic, with weight appropriate to the overarching historical context. The timeline should be condensed and summarized according to secondary sources, with a focus on sources one step removed from individual events (so they can provide us guidance with where each part fits in.) Individual incidents are better covered in-depth on pages devoted to those incidents. If you look at the sources for the history section, they provide detailed, overarching summaries of the direction Labour took and why; when we get to the 21st century it suddenly collapses into a list of tangentially-connected news articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS; we need to be looking for broader sources about what the 2017-2018 events and timeline mean, and condense the events under that list (excluding or drastically reducing the focus on anything that we can't find such sources for, at least for now.) In its current form it feels like the 2017-2018 section of the article and the opinion pieces below it mostly serve to try and make an argument to the reader ("look at all these things that happened! Now look at all the people saying it was fine! Now look at all the people saying it wasn't!") in a WP:SYNTH-y manner. What we need here isn't a newsreader or an argument, but a broad summary cited to sources appropriate for providing that level of summary. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Allington blog

Re this self-revert by Calthinus: Fact that Allington's analysis was in a self-published source doesn't exclude it given he has also published related material in peer-reviewed journals. WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with antisemitism in the labour party. Also is he a political analyst, he seems to be a media professor (which would not make him an expert in the field)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to the article. A number of sources on this page mention Jewish support going away from Labour to the Conservatives as a result of antisemitism controversies, which is what Allington is studying. That being said, I don't have any idea of his credentials. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bangalamania Actually what I'm trying to do his here is gather the sources that show that but also a more nuanced picture. A mountain of RS say that Jews went from Labour to Conservative but more indepth analysis finds some interesting tidbits -- Allington in particular was valuable because he unearthed that Jews in the Bagel belt actually seem to have defected to Lib Dems, not Conservatives. Another more fine-grained point that various sources have noted is that the apparent Jewish flight from Labour was not uniform, and in districts where Labour candidates made an effort to establish and maintain good relations with the Jewish community, they did better -- witness Streeting's unexpectedly strong performance against a Jewish Tory candidate who emphasized the Israel issue. (some stuff I left out: quite a few sources seem to think Newmark was "punished" by Jewish voters for running against a pro-Israel candidate and not (completely?) abandoning Corbyn, etc.)

Bobfrombrockley: I removed Allington except where he was cited by another because I figured caution on pages like this is better. I think the stuff I removed was valuable nevertheless; if there is a go-ahead from the community I will restore. @SS: Obviously, the discussion has a lot to do with antisemitism controversy in the Labour party, not least because it is widely quite explicitly asserted as the cause in WP:RS. As for Allington, his career is in sociology, which pertains both politics (especially where ethnocultural relations are concerned-- i.e., this.) and media studies -- he publishes and teaches most often but not exclusively in what you could call the sociology/media studies intersection (Some examples of his work pertaining to politics: The politics of English: conflict and coexistence, [Theorising postcolonial reception: writing, reading, and moral agency in the Satanic Verses affair], [Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities]); in his institution, media studies and sociology... happen to be the same department. [The media calls him a "professor of sociology" though.]--Calthinus (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I it was right to be removed, I don't think it'd be due to use the blog.

Also, the op-eds that imply that allegations of antisemitism failed to stop a Tory-DUP minority government is far-fetched given the vote share increased in all those constituencies of Finchley and Golders Green (UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s, Hendon (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s, Chipping Barnet (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s and Harrow East (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s, or that Hendon and Harrow East were lost in a general election when Milliband was leader (Labour's only Jewish leader) or that Chipping Barnet has always been Tory, and that Labour's lack of sucess in winnable seats in traditional working-class towns up north is more significant. RevertBob (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

RevertBob, why do you think the use of Allington is not due? It would be OR/SYN for the article to argue against these op eds, while using Allington's analysis would actually show that existing expert analysis refutes their speculation, wouldn't it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I said the use of the blog isn't due. As per Slatersteven, I can't see that Allington is actually an expert in the topic either. SYNTH is exactly what the op-eds are doing which shouldn't be presented in the Wiki voice i.e. because of allegations of antisemitism in Labour we ended up with a Tory-DUP government, this is journalistic speculative opinion rather than relaying facts. In other words it needs trimming. RevertBob (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@RB and Bobfrombrockley: There are some incorrect statements being taken for granted here. The text I wrote is clearly not repeating what they said in Wikipedia's voice, instead it says was argued to have manifested in the Bagel Belt, was attributed to, Freer... publicly thanked -- please carefully read what you are referring to, RB, before levelling such an accusation. And, do not call these guys here "op-eds", they are clearly not the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board -- [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]].

Anyhow as I see it, the Bagel Belt narrative is presented in media so it is notable and can be debated on the page. Both sides can be presented and if you have sources saying the opposite or adding nuance to this I would welcome them (as Bobfrombrockley pointed out, that is actually what I was doing with Allington stating they went to Lib Dems instead -- ironically). Some of the sources I have actual stats on the election juxtaposing the %Jewish of the (sub)constituency to its swing to Labour during 2017 and I think adding those, which are indeed facts will be a good way forward next. But this has received press coverage, statements by politicians and the like, so it is WP:DUE and notable. Likewise for the 2018 by-election in Barnet where Theresa May publicly stated that the reason the Conservatives managed to keep the heavily Remain seat was the antisemitism controversy-- stats exist on that too.--Calthinus (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, RevertBob, about WP:SYNTH. It is Wikipedia that shouldn't be synthesising; it is totally proper for us to report on experts who have synthesised. You're right opinion pieces shouldn't be presented in Wikipedia's piece, but Allington's post didn't really express opinions; it presented data, and Calthinus' rendering of it attributed it clearly rather than presented in the Wiki voice. Allington appears to be an expert on the topic, even if it's not his primary area. From his publications, he has one peer-reviewed journal article on antisemitism in the UK Labour Party[30] (with a short version on the academic website The Conversation[31], as well two New Statesman articles on Labour and a Jewish Chronicle article on antisemitism (written with another academic). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Emily Thornberry's speech on antisemitism

Thornberry's speech at a fringe event on the day of the Labour Party annual conference today, saying that Corbyn and the Labour Party did not deal with antisemitism well enough (but still calling Corbyn and the party anti-racist in principle), calling for a rooting out of antisemitic people using the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian people as a 'cloak' to hide their antisemitism, etc. etc.. Should this be included in the article? I know it's a bit of a rehashing of what has already been said, but Thornberry is a pretty high-up figure within the party and would warrant inclusion IMO.

Some sources:

• McGuinness, Alan (25 September 2018). "Emily Thornberry: Labour didn't deal with antisemitism well enough". Sky News. Liverpool. Retrieved 25 September 2018.
• Sparrow, Andrew; O'Carroll, Lisa (25 September 2018). "Antisemites on the left are like fascists, Thornberry says". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 September 2018.
• Merrick, Rob (25 September 2018). "Labour must root out supporters with a 'despicable hatred of Jewish people', says Emily Thornberry". The Independent. Retrieved 25 September 2018.

--Bangalamania (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It said a number of other things too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't sure what was else was new that would be applicable to this article. I know it's very much bloated at the moment. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

About the only thing new is the discussion of hurt it claims Corbyn has felt over the accusations, and I am not sure that is encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't matter much what she said today, does it? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Are we going to add a section, every time an MP says anything about the topic? If this speech gets significant coverage, and anybody still pays any attention to it a few weeks or months from now, then fine; add it with respect for due weight. In all likelihood, it won't have staying power and no one will remember the speech anymore. Adding it now would not be right, unless the speech itself causes the fall of the government or something equally important. Mathglot (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edit: Palestinian ambassador & "English irony" comments

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

---

Should Corbyn's (recently unearthed) 2013 comments on some "Zionists" not understanding "English irony" be included? Something like this, perhaps?:

In August 2018, MailOnline released footage of comments Corbyn made in 2013 at Friends House in Euston, convened by the Palestinian Return Centre. There, he defended comments made by UK PA representative Manuel Hassassian on the history of Palestine, which were "dutifully recorded by the thankfully silent Zionists" in the audience, according to Corbyn. He went on to say that these "Zionists" had "two problems":

One is that they don't want to study history and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either. Manuel does understand English irony and uses it very, very effectively so I think they need two lessons which we can help them with.

Corbyn's perceived conflation of the term Zionist with "an immigrant community of long standing in Britain, which he declined to name" and un-Britishness was accused by some of being coded antisemitism such as Labour MPs Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes (who told Labour MPs "I am not prepared to support the racist antisemite. Period.") and Catherine McKinnell; author Jeremy Duns and political strategist John McTernan. Simon Hattenstone, a supporter of Corbyn against previous accusations of antisemitism, said that while he does not believe Corbyn to be an antisemite, "what the Labour leader said [at the conference] ... is unquestionably antisemitic." Corbyn denied he was being antisemitic, saying that he was using the term "in the accurate political sense". Figures on the far-right, such as ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin and ex-KKK leader David Duke also tweeted favourably in response to the unearthed video.

Richard Millet, one of the bloggers to whom Corbyn was referring, said he feared for his safety following the publicisation of Corbyn's speech and called the comments racist, and a A number of Conservative MPs reported Corbyn to the parliamentary standards watchdog over the comments., and the groupLabour Against Antisemitism reported Corbyn to the Labour Party "for antisemitism and for bringing the party into disrepute". However, his Corbyn's remarks were defended by as well as shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who argued that the comments were "taken out of context". A Labour spokesperson said that parts of the speech which contexualised Corbyn's language were "edited out of the footage ... He had been speaking about Zionists and non-Zionist Jews and very clearly does not go on to use Zionists as any kind of shorthand for Jews."

Notes

References

Thoughts? --Bangalamania (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I've not included comments about David Duke or Nick Griffin supporting Corbyn's comments as neither seem to have any relevance in the UK imo. I was also considering trimming a few names on here too, but I wasn't sure if that would be seen as a sort of subjective omission. Bangalamania (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly widely covered. Definitely merits inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about I add that 'Figures on the far-right, such as ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin and ex-KKK leader David Duke also tweeted favourably in response to the unearthed video.' at the end of the first paragraph after the long quote? Additionally, I'd like to use the same source to add in brackets after Mike Gapes '(who told Labour MPs "I am not prepared to support the racist antisemite. Period.")', as this seems a notable quote to include, given the article's scope. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's too trivial to warrant inclusion. How is saying "Zionists don't understand English irony" any different from saying "Americans don't do irony" or "Germans have no sense of humour". Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact that he is being referred to the parliamentary watchdog over his comments, as well as the fact that number of high-profile people both in and outside of the party condemned these comments means that they should be included in the article, regardless of what one thinks of the actual comments. (re WP:SOAPBOX, I don't think it's wise on this talk page to say why one is better or worse than another but focus on coverage in RS). --Bangalamania (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a double standard. If Corbyn had said "Germans have no sense of humour" he would not have been accused of insulting all Germans but when he said "Zionists don't understand English irony" he was accused not only of insulting all Zionists but of insulting all Jews as well. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of people have read Corbyn's comments as coded antisemitism (including Corbyn supporters who have defended him against accusations of antisemitism in the past, as mentioned in the text), so I still think this counts as being notable. Double standards, real or otherwise, are not reasons for exclusion. As I've already said, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and objecting to inclusion of material because you don't like it doesn't really hold water. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Stormy clouds:, @Sir Joseph:, @Absolutelypuremilk: and @Slatersteven:, involved in the other proposed edit discussion. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: - seems like a balanced, sourced edit to me, so I'd say go ahead. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you also agree that the Nick Griffin/David Duke comments should be included as well? --Bangalamania (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns. the first is that apart from the Corbyns reporting to the standards committee this is just another unproven accusation, and I have said before we should not turn this into just a list of all the salacious accusations made against Corbyn. Also I am not sure what the feelings of just another blogger add to out understanding of antisemitism inn the labour party. Lastly I am not seeing what the Charkrbati report has to do with this incident.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I must add that being reported is not the same as being guilty, and it might be best to leave this out until the committee has made its report. I say leave it for now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit looks reasonable to me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, being reported isn't the same as being found guilty. But it's not every day that the Leader of the Opposition is reported to the parliamentary watchdog, and it's been widely reported. I was also dubious about the insertion of the blogger's opinion as well and I'll happily remove that if others agree with the removal; I just thought it added some context to the situation. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

True, but he has been reported at least twice now over the issue of Antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how that means that this report shouldn't be included, though? It still seems to be pretty notable imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like I'm jumping around a bit, but I just realised that I forgot to address the Chakrabarti report's inclusion. It's been mentioned in a number of RSes discussing the incident (e.g. in ref #1 (Guardian) and #2 (Times)) in explaining how some may see Corbyn's comments as coded antisemitism. I think it's important to add for the reader who isn't aware that replacing 'Zionist' for 'Jew' is commonplace in some antisemitic circles. --Bangalamania (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we go with what the RS say, not what we interpret them to say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems Corbyn is now a subject of an official complaint. 09:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We already mention that, ohn wait this is another report. So yes it is now one a day.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why that's a reason not to include the information in the article, though? Both reports are still pretty notable.

I'm fine with removing the Chakrabarti report comment in the notes, btw. I didn't think I was doing any interpretation as it's the same information directly cited by those sources, as far as I can tell. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Crossed out information as per Slatersteven's suggestions (Chakrabarti rep does seem a little WP:SYNTH as the full quote isn't in the sources after re-checking; blogger comments fail notability). Added information about KKK and BNP as well as other reports mentioned by other users (I cannot see any policy-based opposition to its inclusion and seems to be a case of editors just not liking its inclusion). Happy to bring this back to the talk if there are any issues, but adding this for now. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter what others did, this is the worst kind of guilt by association.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Griffin and Duke comments, I can see what you mean. Removed for now. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Still not happy with the amount of attention we are giving this. At best one or two lines.14:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This took place in 2013 and has been sensationalised by Daily Mail five years later, it needs to be placed in the context of when it took place. RevertBob (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No, if we include it we must include it when it became a controversy. Indeed this sums up the major issue here, no one gave a damn until now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Just because the Daily Mail reports something, does not make it non-notable (in fact, despite their non-reliability, it is an indication of notabilty/dueness - all be it a weak one). In this case, the endorsements by David Duke and Nick Griffin have been covered by - The Telegraph, The Times, CNN, and others. I strongly suspect these endorsements will be DUE for this article - however it is often best to wait a week or a month - and see that this has LASTING coverage (as opposed to single-cycle coverage) - though this probably will.Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In what way is endorsement by David Duke and Nick Griffin relevant? Jeremy Corbyn did not ask them for support. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't about Corbyn, it is about antisemitism in Labour. Shows of appreciation from notable figures in the field are often relevant -as indicated by RS coverage of said endorsements.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, anyone can say they agree someone, that does not mean they should be in articles about the subject. They are not left wing (tellingly they are right wing), they are not (and have never been) supporters of the Labour party (in fact the very opposite). This tells us a lot about how far the right wing will go to oppose Jewry, it tells us precisely zero about antisemitism in the Labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It may possibly be relevant if Corbyn acknowledged the endorsement. But in any case, it has no place for an article about antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Why is the recent response of Adam Langleben, a former Labour councillor (of which there's millions of in the UK), of particular note to this historic incident? RevertBob (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A good question why is this persons view of note, he is just another counselor?Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

An "ex"-councillor (no longer an official) to be precise. RevertBob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

References

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.