Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

BLP claim?

How is this a BLP issue? It is accurate to the source, and is supported by other sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well for a start is the accusation true? Also it should not be put in Wikipedias voice, it in one source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course It's true, she apologized 4 time over it Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Was she an MP at the time?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

See: "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Also note that you should have mentioned that the comments were made before the MP entered Parliament and she says she no longer holds that view. TFD (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As well as the fact this was in the lead, but no mention of it was in the body (nor anything about it's origins or the reaction y the creator of the map (or the fact it was a reteweet of a map not a...but why go on with just how flawed this addition was?).Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And the author of the story contributed to a book edited by David Horowitz. TFD (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing Naz Shah's stmts and apology reaĺly should not be a BLP issue, there are ample RSes covering what she said.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It is when we do not give the whole story. It is when we do not attribute opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It was a BLP issue as worded and as sourced. And people repeatedly saying/suggesting "she apologised" for saying what the lead fraudulently claimed she said are doubling down on that. As for the lead more widely, it now lists various alleged comments which, like Shah's post, are not specifically noted, let alone explained or expanded on, in the body. Also, it seems they are obscure comments made by nobodies on social media. That is not leadworthy. WP deserves much better than this sort of crap. N-HH talk/edits 18:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, material should not be in the lead that is not in the body. It is a summery, not there for emphasis.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Listing incidents

@Darkness Shines: - Seeing the scope of this article is limited to Labour, it might be a good idea to list the specific figures and statements involved? e.g. Naz Shah, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Nasreen Khan, and others (come to think of this, we might have a list long enough for a category)?Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC) And: Salim Mulla, Beinazir Lasharie, Mohammed Shabbir, Ilyas Aziz, Shah Hussain, Aysegul Gurbuz, Khadim Hussain, Miqdad Al-Nuaimi', Jasmin Qureshi, Shabana Mahmood, Andrew Murray, Tim Lezard, ...Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be too much information, and we would also have to have responses. Not sure it adds anything. Also why would we list people not notable enough for their own page?12:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a list. But rather notable incidents. When these incidents, involving anti-semitism in Labour, garner international press it is definitely of note in an article about Antisemitism in the Labour Party.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, it is only notable if they are (not something they say).Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability of a person has nothing to do with content, coverage in RS does. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, it is called undue. Just because RS cover it does not mean we have to have it, it just means we can. But if we include any Tom Dick or Harry we are going to end up with a worthless list.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly we wouldn't include party member Tom. However elected officials or senior functionaries in the party are definitely of note - as we see in coverage by RSes who cover them (while for the main part ignoring party members and supporters).Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, Wikipedia does not consider councelors (for example) as notable party figures. If someone is not notable enough to have a page here they cannot (by inference) be notable labour party members. I would say they need to first be notable party members, not notable for being antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(ecx3)Up to you, I'm going to be working on a background section, how the party has become antisemitic and why. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, please format refs correctly Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Galloway is listed above, he left the Labour Party years ago. As for going into any detail about other instances/individuals, we'd only do that if they'd attracted substantial individual attention and were major characters in events, wouldn't we? Sionk (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is what event, being in the Labour party or being antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Galloway made stmts considered as antisemitic while in the party, prior to leaving. He was subsequently imitated by other Bradfor Labour figures.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The list approach violates neutrality because it implicitly assumes Labour is anti-Semitic then provides evidence to support the thesis. It's the same approach used in the website "Republican sex offenders." TFD (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What is this page about

Is this page about antisemitism in the Muslim community or the Labour party, if it is then latter what the former think is irrelevant unless it expressly is about it's impact on the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This page is about anti-semitism in Labour. Per several sources, a major source of said antisemitism is by Labour politicians standing for election in constituencies with a large proportion of Muslims (e.g. around Bradford). This is stated by the sources cited.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

But the wide issue of antisemitism in the Muslim community is irrelevant to that (and smacks of synthesis). We can only uses soeruces (and make statements) that make the explicit link between labours antisemitism and Muslims.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This is what we're currently using "Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community", and According to anti-Semitism scholar Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld while not all of the most extreme anti-Semitic slurs were made by by Muslim representatives of Labour, they represent a disproportionately large proportion of anti-Semitic perpetrators. According to Gerstenfeld, Labour's anti-Semitic issues "demonstrate what happens when a party bends over backwards to attract Muslim voters". - direct quotes (or minor paraphrashes) from long pieces written specifically about Labour antisemitism - this is not synthesis.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it? it reads like it is truncated to me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Read both sources. There is no SYNTH here. In both this is the topic.Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this what our article says, or was it truncated?19:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

What I quoted above is from our article. Both Deech and Gerstenfeld wrote fairly long tracts on the subject - obviously what is in our article is shorter.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So (and let me get this right) you are saying that the material you quote above is in fact from the sources, not our article?Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Our article. In the case of Deech it is the same as the source - this is a direct quote of her own summary. Gerstenfeld is partly paraphrased above and partly quoted (in a faithful manner!) but he is writing about Muslim antisemtism in Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It was not our whole section though was it? so how does it reflect the point I made that we can only include material directly relating to Labour? I was of course referring to any materiel (that you may have inadvertently left out of your summery of out content) that was just talking about Muslim attitudes towards Jews, and not about the labour party specifically.

Do you agree we should only include material that directly relates to the Labour party as an whole?Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Both sources addresss the Labour party as a whole. In general I think that an article on antisemitism in Lanour should cover all significantly covered incidents as well as possible underlying causes and motivations for auch hate speech, societal and electoral ramifications (losing the Jewish vote (traditionally Labourfor many years prior to this wave), possibly gaining Muslims votes).Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no then?Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the 2 sources above, that was a yes. In general - I do not agree. If we have antisemitic speech by a significant enough Labour figure, amply sourced to RS of course, it should be here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with this article uncritically including material by Gerstenfeld. As he's described in his article here: Norway's largest newspaper and main newspaper of record, the conservative daily Aftenposten, has described Gerstenfeld in an editorial as a far-right extremist and fanatic. [...] According to expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hilde Henriksen Waage, Gerstenfeld is a central figure in a smear campaign against Norway on the Israeli far-right. Odd-Bjørn Fure, Norway's main anti-semitism expert and founding director of the Center for Studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities, has said that Gerstenfeld "is not worth arguing against. I prefer to deal with serious people. We do not take this person seriously." It's not due weight to give so much space in the article to a fringe figure, and, in my view, poor editorial judgment. Ralbegen (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pols in Norway do not like him, as Norway's current government is extremely hostile to Israel e.g. [1]. Gerstenfeld is a serious academic in the field of antisemitism studies.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) As you may see here Antisemitism in Norway, the view that antisemitism is institutional on the state level in Norway is far from a fringe view outside of Norway.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article you pointed me to in the Times of Israel reports remarks by Hanne Nabintu Herland, who, again from her article here: claimed that the predominant form of racism in today's Norway is "the racism against white people.". Anti-semitism is definitely a problem in Norway, but Gerstenfeld is not a commentator who deserves the weight given. In the material used here, he talks about Islam in the same way that people like Waters do. Gerstenfeld has written: After criminal Anders Breivik murdered tens of youngsters at the AUF camp on the island of Utoya in 2011, it became known that a substantial part of the camp was devoted to promoting hatred against Israel among its participants, the youngest of whom were 14 years old. Ralbegen (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

More BLP issues

What Hirsh said was "Your new Labour Party does not feel like a safe place for Jews.", not “new Labour Party‟ was no longer a safe place for Jews” (which was claimed by Lesley Klaff) and thus needs attributing to her.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue at all, looks like a fair paraphrasing to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It alters the meaning from a perception to a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy in rendering sources matters, but there's also an issue with just loading more and more (one-sided) commentary and individual assertion into WP pages, whatever they are about, to start with. This is just footnoted blog posting, not encyclopedia writing. Even if the authors are notable ones with valid opinions, this is a bad way to do anything. Sadly, it's how loads of people do things round here, before screeching "RS!" at anyone who objects. N-HH talk/edits 11:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from the the of the article (and statements like We know you don't hate Jews and you do hate Nazis.") that was not the writer intend to imply.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Jackobson

Is he such a notable author we need his views twice?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ya, as one of the UKs most prominent Jewish authors Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The second instance is not him by himself, but a trio - Howard Jacobson, Simon Schama, and Simon Sebag Montefiore - whose condemnation (in a letter to the editor of the Times) was covered widely in secondary sources in several RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

By whom tag

From the source "Chakrabarti, an MP who recently authored a much-criticized report on anti-Semitism" So why the tag? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A number of reasons firstly because our text says "the report was widely criticised and described as a 'whitewash'" that implies that several people characterised it as a "whitewash", that would be the most obvious reading and is patently not what the source says. Secondly, a single source does not constitute 'widely', especially when the source is not even UK and uses a vague term like "much criticized", which in the context of an article about criticism, could equally imply "and also widely praised". Thirdly it is fairly pointless to describe something as criticised without saying who and why criticised it, you might as well just write "BAD".

BTW, what number or percentage of labour politicians have been criticised? There is no attempt at present in the article to answer that question, which might provide some context and make it something other than an 'attack piece'. Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder whether the sockpuppeting, partisan users who range all over WP creating attack pages and content like this using cherry-picked sourcing and biased phrasing realise quite how transparent they are. N-HH talk/edits 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

QED. Anyway, whatever, if you just want to blanket revert and really can't be bothered to justify keeping this crap, despite clear explanations in edit summaries and all the points made above on the talk page. If WP processes work at all, the whole page will be gone soon anyway. N-HH talk/edits 09:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Jacobson was discussed above, i already gave a reason for keeping him in. Take your accusations elsewhere Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit which User:N-HH highlights above in which the inquiry is described as a "whitewash for peerage scandal", turns out to be the JC quoting the BB of Deputies again. No attribution though, implying that this was a widespread or universal view. The BB of D is a much respected voice of the British Jewish community - it is entitled to have its views represented - it does not however have a monopoly on opinion and requires attribution. That is even ignoring the BLP considerations of our implying that Chakrabarti "did a deal" to get a peerage - a pretty outrageous accusation if one looks at how long she has been a prominent lawyer in the human rights and public inquiry field. Even some of her critics acknowledge that she had a long standing reputation for scrupulous impartiality, 'exceptional claim' comes to mind, but no attempt to even attribute the claim is made. BTW the inquiry was into anti-s and other racism, though it was the anti-s element which drew most controversy and criticism. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You may have given a reason re Jacobson, but amazingly enough not everyone else agrees with it. Also, there are the issues re Chakrabarti detailed above. The latter are a BLP issue too, as you are essentially trying to make this page read as if she was suborned to produce the report. Oh yes, and my accusation that you are a sockpuppeting editor with a history of disruption and POV editing is not "ridiculous". N-HH talk/edits 10:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Attacking my history is contemptible, take a hike. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The linking of the peerage with the inquiry is far from exceptional, it has been linked by several sources. e.g: Jeremy Corbyn 'discussed Shami Chakrabarti peerage with advisors before asking her to conduct anti-Semitism investigation', Telegraph, Honours list: Jeremy Corbyn accused of 'buying' Labour anti-Semitism report after author is given peerage, Independent, Chakrabarti: ‘I would conduct anti-Semitism inquiry again’, Times of Israel, Was Shami Chakrabarti offered a Labour peerage before conducting antisemitism inquiry?, JC, Chakrabarti peerage timing a mistake, says Watson, BBC, Making Chakrabarti a peer was Corbyn's sign of contempt for Jews, says Howard Jacobson, JC, Ex-minister blasts Chakrabarti for snatching peerage after 'woeful' anti-Semitism report, Britain Cannot Ignore Human Rights Violations In 'Desperation' For Trade Deal, Shami Chakrabarti Says ("Chakrbarti faced a barrage of criticism after accepting a Labour peerage in the wake of chairing a controversial inquiry into anti-semitism in the party"), Labour’s Jewish Problem, American Interest. And heaps more sources linking the peerage to the report completed two months prior - hardly an exceptional claim.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Two points, One lets stop discusing users, this is not about them. Two are we talking about the allegation of shenanigans over the peerage or the idea the report was widely criticized?Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Telegraph says: "The shadow attorney general's name was added (to the Peerage list) before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party. The Telegraph text therefore implies there was no 'deal' and Telegraph is hardly a friend of Labour, Corbyn or Chakrabarti. The Independent says: "Britain's Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirivis, said the credibility of her report "lies in tatters" now she has accepted the peerage. He said: "Shami Chakrabarti has a proud record of public service, but in accepting this peerage ...". The Indy quotes another spokesman for an anti-sem organisation saying that her acceptance of the Peerage shows that she her report cannot be taken seriously.

The Chief Rabbi, the BB of Deputies - possibly many others were angered by the report and critical of the peerage. They collectively represent a significant body of responsible, mainstream, Jewish opinion, they do not represent WPVOICE and should be attributed or removed. I didn't read all the others since the first two did not endorse what you claimed, though several simply say that the timing of the peerage was a 'presentational' error.

Slatersteven, if people want to imply 'shenanigans' about the peerage (which present text does), they should at least be honest and clear about who made such allegations, not hide behind generalities. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly the inquiry for peerage angle shouldn't be in Wiki's voice - never claimed it should. It is a claim made by many - but a claim, not a fact. It is not, however, a fringe opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the criticism is attributable, it should be attributed and made rather clearer than the present 'snide' inferences. What is gained by pretending that these criticisms and accusations came from the Mothers' Union or somesuch? "There was a scandal", Yes? And? Who accused who of what exactly? Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Only to link antisemitism

Unless a source explicitly says something about antisemitism inn the party its inclusion in this article is questionable. If you want this article to be about anti-israleism rename it. Otherwise lets keep it on topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The june Edmonds sources does not seem to be talking about antisemitism, so it has no place here.It is pure synthases to say she is talking about antisemitism because another ssource discuses antisemitism in relation to antizionism. Anti-zionism is not the subject of this article, so material discussing only that is not relevant here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, the Liberal Party is not the same as the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No shit Sherlock, why ping me to tell me something I already know? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

DS did not add that material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've managed to glean from reviews etc, this book is not mainly about liberals OR labour, in its early sections, but about the 'New Left'. The book may well lead into some current labour people, who were 'new-ish left' in their early days, but the recently used text is SO off-topic, it's a joke. That is all before of course one asks why this particular book be given a single micro-gramme of weight. Strangely, this review text doesn't make it into any of the pages where the book is cited "It is one of the signal merits of this book that, in detailing how this campaign against antisemitism was won, it reminds us that there is a tradition on the Left of understanding, recognising and defeating antisemitism within the Left" . Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I echo the concerns about Edmunds and Vaughn. I haven't been able to access all the texts, but what I have been able to read is about anti-Zionism/anti-Israel-ism. Even if these books do refer to anti-semitism, some of the examples given by us are frankly silly at the moment. Does either Edmunds or Vaughn really claim that being opposed to selling weapons to Israel in 1972 is intrinsically anti-semetic? Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

Stop with the bulshit tags, how many? Go ask the fucking reporter Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, strange that you are happy to defend generic terms like 'widely', 'many', 'several', but are averse to any attempt to quantify. BTW in your haste to revert, you reinstated a factual error, the expulsion call was NOT at the event, it was at a fringe event according to the source, which, if you knew anything about UK political conferences, you would know there are 100s of. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Having lived in the UK since I emigrated here at 14 I know a little bit about the conferences here, so like the other ejit, take a fucking hike. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, so WTF did you reinstate info that you knew to be factually incorrect? Or could not be bothered to check? Not knowing the difference between the conference and a fringe event at least provided you with a potential excuse. Indifference to whether the text is accurate or not is a lousy defence. Pincrete (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not factually incorrect, fucking read it and it's obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So the text does not say that the call for expulsion was at a fringe event? Is that what you are saying? And you know enough about UK party confernces to know that there are 100s of fringe events, almost anyone can hold one. That doesn't make the call trivial of course, but it does make it relatively marginal, especially if we don't know how many or who made the call (Jewish Chronicle implies that most of the anti-JLM rhetoric was coming from radical Jewish speakers .... again, problematic, just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you have an open licence to make hate speech against your own).

But hey what would we know, we are all 'twats', 'ejits'. I have dealt with you before and always had respect, even for your directness. So it gives me no pleasure at all to see you advertise your own prattish indifference to knowingly "juicing up" here. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, you've broken 3RR with the edit warring over tags, Darkness. You need to self revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved editor please check the source and ascertain whether the source says at a 'fringe' event or not. I can't be bothered with the tag, despite finding its removal very indicative of the problems with this article. Luckily the our article is so patently an attack piece that no intelligent sceptical reader is going to be fooled for 10 seconds. It's a sad day when the Telegraph and multiple Jewish publications are presenting a calmer and more neutral account of anti-semitism in the modern Labour party than WP is. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness I think we are meant to infer that it was at the fringe events, given it's context. But I fail to see why I should have to point this out.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But the source does make it clear it was a Fringe event, so we should.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven I asked for someone to check the source text for a number of reasons, partly to defuse 'edit warring', partly to confirm that I had not mis-read and partly because the site demanded payment, although I had checked the phrasing three times previously for free. Thankyou for checking. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Lay of the PA'snow.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

subhead: 2015

I cleaned it up to follow the sources now on the page. I do not have time to finish cleaning up, formatting the sources. Source 20 needs to note that this is form p. 42 of David Hirsh's new book, Contemporary Left Antisemitism. Section can be expanded from the section in that and book (p, 42 ff.) and from the improperly formatted Journal article. There were articles about this extraordinary front page in a notoriously sedate newspaper in several major newspapers at the time. If someone has the time...E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Blatant OR

Re: Historically, British Jews supported the Labour movement and party, which, for most of its existence, was regarded as uninvolved with antisemitism. The Jewish Labour Movement supported the Labour Party, as did the post-WWII Labour Friends of Israel. The British Labour Party had an historical affinity for Israel both because the Labor movement was part of a broad, political left that historically supported national movements, and because it felt an affinity for Labor Zionism, which was the dominant movement within both pre-state political Zionism, and the political identity of the founding government of Israel in 1948 and of Israeli government until the election of Menachem Begin in 1967.

A completely uncited, one sided, personal essay. I doubt whether the opening sentence about political loyalty is wholly true, nor if anyone knows anything more than 'guesses' or anecdotally, because (strangely) nobody is asked to state their religion or ethnicity when they vote or join political parties in the UK. There have been, and are, many Jewish supporters of Labour, but Margaret Thatcher's constituency was one of the most Jewish in London and she largely enjoyed Jewish support there from the late 1950s.

To presume that 'Labour Friends of Israel' was a Jewish organisation is frankly insulting to 'gentile friends' within Labour, while to suggest that ANY UK political party has not been 'split' about its feelings towards Israel since at least King David Hotel, is naive. Criticism of, or scepticism about Israel is of course not anti-semitism though the article does its best to conflate the two. The OR and PoV is about as blatant and gaudy as the neons at Piccadilly Circus. Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Like that well known Jew Tony Blair?Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Historic Jewish support for Labour is not OR, and can be sourced. Jews (who were mainly poor working class immigrants) supported leftist parties and unions in most Western countries. See for instance here - [2] The Jewish Labour Movement, a group within the party, was registered officially in 1920 — 20 years after the party’s establishment. It was the first non-Christian minority group within Labour, according to Christine Collette and Stephen Bird, the authors of the 2000 book “Jews, Labour and the Left, 1918–48.”... But in 2010, when the party was headed by Ed Miliband, who is Jewish, Labour was still slightly ahead of the Conservative Party among Jewish voters (31 percent to 30 percent), according to a poll.. or coverage here - [3]. These things are measured - by opinion polls broken down by ethnic groups and religiously affiliation (as this interest political scientists and politicians - who craft their message per their target demo).Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to (properly sourced and attributed) accounts of the extent to which Jewish voters have previously supported Labour or other left-wing groups (post WWII or post 1980 to be meaningful HERE). I object to the simplistic rendering of that tendency here. Jews don't vote 'en masse' any more than other groups, nor have all the Jewish Labour MPs been unequivocal about the attitude Britain should take to Israel as the text seeks to imply. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Many demographic groups vote (or have voted) en-masse. e.g. African Americans have voted 89% for Clinton (and have been a stable demo for decades in the post civil-rights movement Republican/Democrat shift) last election (538 coverage of the black vote exit polls for 2016) - so I am not sure of your meaning of don't vote 'en masse' any more than other groups. The Jewish shift from Labour in the past, to Conservative post Corbyn (down to 13% support for Labour in 2017 - [4]) is quite pronounced.Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The source you cite records 13% support recently, up from 8.5% shortly before and down from 18% under Milliband,(who was Jewish, but fairly equivocal about Israel). I've no idea what the figure would have been in 1980 or 1990. I would imagine that it could well have been higher in the middle of the C20th, but don't know. Of course we don't know why there has been such a shift over the longer term - upward social mobility? worldwide disenchantment with socialist ideology? But do you really think these figures support present text? "Historically, British Jews supported the Labour movement and party"? They do support something no one disputes, that a lot of voters (inc Jewish ones), feel very sceptical about some of the "friends of Jeremy". Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've only just noticed your prev (New Statesman) source above, which I cannot read (paywall). Doesn't the fact that NS claims 31% support for Labour under Milliband, while JC claims 18% under him make you just a tad sceptical about inferring too much from these statistics? Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• The historic support for Labour by British Jews is certainly pertinent and a discussion of it is significant to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No one disputes that historic allegiance is pertinent, merely whether the present text is remotely balanced, clear, comprehensive (and supported by the best sources available ie the 1000s of accounts from respected sources, about the labour party, or simply a handful of cherry picked ones that support a particular agenda). It is a huge leap of logic to go from "the subject is pertinent" to "preent text is NPOV, RS and WEIGHTED". Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The article's present opening sentence says: Antisemitism in the Labour Party, a political party in the United Kingdom, has created controversy, leading to the party launching the internal Chakrabarti Inquiry in 2016.

I find this problematic in a number of ways, firstly it presumes 'guilt'. Almost as importantly, it does nothing to characterise the nature of the controversy. The sense in which this statement is true is that there was controversy as to whether there actually was Antisemitism, (as oposed to criticism of Israel/support for Palestinians), controversy over the scale of the 'problem', and controversy as to whether the party adequately recognised or dealt with the issue.

I suggest a rephrase to:

A controversy arose in (mid 2010s/XXXX year) over allegations of Antisemitism among some members of the British Labour Party, and the perceived failure of the Labour party to adequately deal with the problem. The controversy led to the party launching the internal Chakrabarti Inquiry in 2016.

I appreciate that there will probably be sources that do use 'allegations', as well as those who don't, and I would argue that it isn't possible - or even desirable - in the opening sentence to either prove or disprove the case. The existence of 'allegations' is verifiable and neutral, how true they were is up to the reader to decide after they have read the article.

I am specifying a date/approx. date because that it is the reality of the content. I am not doing so in order to 'outlaw' any 'background' or 'history' section - though I think the present 'backstory' is muddled and barely coherent. It makes little effort to distinguish "the left" (including liberals and the 'far left') from the labour party or criticism of Israel/support for Palestinian rights from anti-semitism.

The source used for the lead sentence is from Vox Jun 30, 2016. The Vox says:

"Right here, you see a major part of the controversy: defining when criticism of Israel becomes anti-Semitism."

"In the past year, the party has had to deal with a handful of accusations of anti-Semitism within its ranks. These comments point to a broader problem with which the British left has been struggling: a perception that it is having trouble drawing the line between acceptable criticism of Israel and outright anti-Semitism."

Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 18:5 but6, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As antisemitism incidents are well established by RSes, and the party itself admitted several incidents were antisemitic (expeling, suspending, or apologizing as the cas may be) - there is no need to use allegations.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

They were allegations, or at least questionable, otherwise they wouldn't need an inquiry. People are routinely suspended from their jobs/positions when allegations are made, pending an investigation. If you want to remove "allegations" from the opening sentence, you need to reword the paragraph. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The main point of my suggestion was to improve phrasing to something more informative and complete. I don't object to including in the lead para whatever extent the party did 'plead guilty', but it is pure SYNTH to leap from "the party expelled/suspended (some) people" to (all?) "allegations were true". AFAI can see, at least as many RS refer to 'allegations' as refer to a 'substantive fact'. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it's even worse now:

*Antisemitism in the Labour Party, a political party in the United Kingdom, is a contemporary phenomenon ...

Pincrete's suggestion above is obviously a far more neutral and objective phrasing, focusing on the fact from the outset that this is a controversy based on claims and allegations, many of which are disputed, and to the extent that they are admitted, relate to a tiny number relatively speaking of mostly fringe or marginal individuals. Also the "all [observers] agree" re the attention it got is very strange wording (and this is before of course we get to the body, which, as ever, is full of synthesis and negative partisan commentary). N-HH talk/edits 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for stating the obvious, but a contoversy is, by definition, a disagreement between strongly held opinions. I'm sure there are sources that regard the antisemitism as widespread, endemic and indisputable right through to others who deny its existence altogether, with a huge number in the spectrum in between. If there was not vigorous disagreement about whether it existed, to what extent and how vigorously the party should deal with it, what exactly was the controversy about? Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So clearly, you agree this is a contemporary phenomenon - with the controversy being over the extent of said phenomenon.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well if you tried really, really, really hard, you could read my post that way. Much easier would be to find all the sources that refer to "allegations" then all those that use the term "contemporary phenomenon", add in weight as to whether they are partisan and/or minor commentators and decide that way. What you don't seem willing to even consider is that by being determined to "get the knife in" in the opening sentence, you are depriving the reader of an account of how/why/to what extent this controversy evolved. The most partisan news sources, read as pillars of calm neutrality compared to this article.

The present article is so laughable that anyone with any experience of UK politics is going to be laughing within paragraphs. How come no one has ever heard of Peter Hain being an anti-semite? Why on earth is opposing selling weapons to Israel in 197X anti-semetic? If Mayhew voted with the Conservatives at that time, why aren't the Conservatives the real anti-semites, who en masse opposed the arms sales? Does Rich actually accuse any of these people of being anti-semetic (I've only read the reviews, but the answer appeared to be no) or is simply editors here imply that. If he doesn't why on earth are they here? Since there are probably 10s of 1000s of books discussing the Labour party/ Labour Govts since the 1960s (many of which would cover attitudes/policies to Israel). Why are only those books and sources which can be 'bent' to support a particular agenda being used? Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The allegations/controversy seem to be over whether Labour is adequately addressing (or harboring) antisemitism in a proper institutional fashion - and not whether members engaged antisemitic hate speech (which - given some of the party's actions seems to be self-admitted regarding some members who were expelled or suspended).Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

But this is still only a perception, and the lead sentence should reflect that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Livingstone was suspended for "bringing the party into disrepute" (don't expect me to defend his words, I don't and won't, they were crudely provocative - at least). It takes several levels of synth however to get from Livingstone was expelled for being needlessly offensive to therefore the Labour party is anti-sem. The opening sentence is not even meaningful, is there a-s in the labour party? Almost certainly, along with sexism, homophobia flat-earthism and 100 other frailties which flesh is heir to. I give in here, the article is such a blatant attack piece, wholly indifferent to whether anyone on the planet has ever accused Peter Hain of a-s, muddled as to why Mayhew opposing arms sales in 1972 is even here at all. Making sweeping claims about the traditional allegiance of Jews (some obviously will switch allegiance because of - what they see as - unacceptable attitudes towards them or towards Israel, but anyone who thinks that Israel enjoys unconditional support from UK Jewry is living a fantasy). Its biggest problem however is that it makes no attempt to differentiate between criticism of Israel and anti-sem, (nor between Labour, liberal or "the left") it's all one gigantic pea-soup in which being opposed to selling arms to Israel nearly 50 years ago (whatever the reason) is the same as thinking that Palestinians have got a raw deal and both are the same as blatant anti-sem. A third rate - partisan - tabloid could do a better job of covering this issue than this article does (and many good "Jewish" sources already do). If anyone wants to ping me, they are welcome, but otherwise I'm done here. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And hence WP's biggest problem on its political pages. Create a ridiculously partisan attack page that reads like a footnoted blog post rather than an encyclopedia article; wholly justified AFD ends as "no consensus to delete" so the page stays; the non-partisan, despite wondering why on earth they should help edit the mess in question, then at least try briefly to make it half-way objective and balanced; the authors and fanboys dig their heels in; decent editors actually interested in presenting information neutrally give up, leaving the field open to those with an agenda without any restrainting influence; and we're left with a risible article up under WP's imprimatur. Great work. N-HH talk/edits 16:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

1980's

Labour Herald newspaper adopted the "Zionism equals Nazism" trope with enthusiasm in the 1980s; perhaps the most notorious example being a cartoon which, under the caption "The Final Solution," depicted Menachem Begin in SS uniform, standing atop a mound of bloodied corpses, making a Nazi salute. In history section or a new section? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that the author of this Haaretz op-ed is describing this as a condensed version of a scholarly article to which the history section is already sourced. I think it would be better to red the academic article, and source any material you wish to add to that. But add the cartoon sourced to both Haaretz and the academic article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like cherry-picking quotes from what seems to be a fairly balanced and nuanced article. After all, it starts by describing how amenable the Labour Party was towards Zionism. And it's nuanced because anti Zionism doesn't always mean anti-semitic, though it picks out occasions where individuals have confused the two. Sionk (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That's an opinion and therefore weight comes into play. The scholarly article written by Vaughn has only been cited once, so his opinions expressed lack weight. Furthermore, there are only passing references to anti-Semitism in his article. His concern was the increase of anti-Zionism and left-wing radicalism in the Labour Party. That's the problem when we write articles without identifying a body of literature about the topic. TFD (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This issue was partially raised on the other page, when it was pointed out that antisemitism and anti-zionism are not the same thing. No we cannot use sources unless that explicitly are about antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We should of-course only mention sources that tie anti-semitim (often in conjunction with anti-zionism) in Labour. There are anti-zionists who are not anti-semitic, however many anti-semites use anti-zionism (including in a discriminatory anti-semitic fashion rejecting the right of Jews, as opposed to other people, for a country of their own) - the two are quite closely connected as pointed out in:

Taguieff, Pierre-André. Rising from the Muck: The new anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004.

Wistrich, Robert. "Anti-zionism and anti-semitism." Jewish Political Studies Review (2004): 27-31.

Herf, Jeffrey, ed. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in historical perspective: Convergence and divergence. Routledge, 2013.

Litvak, Meir. "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism." The Journal of Israeli History 25.1 (2006): 267-284.

Kaplan, Edward H., and Charles A. Small. "Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe." Journal of Conflict Resolution 50.4 (2006): 548-561.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism, it is about antisemitism. It does not matter if some people think they are the same, what matters is if the sources you are using thinks they are the same. If a source does not equate the two neither can we.,Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Many sources equate the two in regards to the Labour party. I agree we should stick to sources who make such a connection or who frame anti-Zionism as an introduction to anti-Semitism in Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify (in order to avoid any confusion) the two must be equated with reference to antisemitism withing the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well that is the thesis of an entire book: The Left's Jewish Problem. Unfortunately, I lent my copy to someone after reading it. Attempting to retrieve it now (or find a cheap, used copy).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So should we add the content about the image, along with how Labour used to be a welcoming home to left wing Zionists? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No as Zionism and antisemitism are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The image is antisemitic. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe (or maybe just anti-Zionist). But we cannot say that, we can say "X has said it is antisemitic". Also David Livingstone is not the Labour party. As such this would have to be used with care.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone I presume! Pincrete (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Labour Herald wasn't a Labour Party publication was it? It's described as a short-lived "independent" publication in List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom and was printed on the presses of the Workers Revolutionary Party (largely written by them too, by the looks of it). Unless someone can demonstrate that this was a Labour Party publication, the whole paragraph about it is off-topic. Sionk (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It was affiliated with some within Labour, as evidenced by the name and the men behind it - e.g. Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight (politician).Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What, it has LAbour in the title so must be linked to them, seriously? Ironically I would agree he was a well known Labour figure, but never a senior figure, and even at his height he was always on the loony Fringe. But your argument above is just bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean Icewhiz's argument? If there was a link to the Labour Party, it's very tenuous. I'm old enough to remember the WRP and they were certainly on the more loony fringe of the far left. If the Labour Herald is mentioned, it doesn't deserve such a full paragraph. After all, this article is meant to be about anti-semitism in the Labour Party, not Ken Livingstone's links to (possible) anti-semitism by outside publications. Sionk (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hain

What the hell?

How much of that section is in fact devoted to "the history of antisemitism in the liberal party". Really is this how we are going to prove this is not recentism? That whole section needs trimming to one line, as it is not about LAbour at all.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

We need to explain the relevance or remove the section. The right wing journalist Peter Hitchens was a Trotskyist before joining the Conservative Party. That doesn't mean that Trotskyism is a problem within the Conservative Party. This is the sort of 6 degrees of separation that one would expect to find in a conspiracy theory magazine rather than an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hain is in the history section in the context of the assertion by a scholarly source that he was a principle architect of a new, antisemitic, intellectual framing of Zionism (the idea that Zionism, long viewed by Labour as a national liberation movement, was actually a form of colonial imperialism) that first persuaded young, leftist political activists in Britain,then moved into the party mainstream. It is both usual and useful in articles about the history of ideas and politics, to show how great shifts in political ideologies and positions originated, when we have, as here, a WP:RS. Hain, of course, carried these ideas into the Labour leadership in his person, even though he was nt a Prty member when he began voicing antisemitic tropes. I have tweaked the text to make Hain's in sowing the seedbed of Labour Party antisemitism clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It goes into far too much detail into his time in the liberal party. I am not objecting to his inclusion, but to the amount of detail an other party gets.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from any consideration of whether Rich is discussing 'the left', 'the liberals' or 'the labour party', what reason is there to give this book any weight? And to put it in a section called 'history', which suggests widely accepted historic fact. Is this a history of anti-semitism or one (very marginal) writer's reading of that history in the left-wing in general? Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is a Dave Rich's doctoral dissertation. According to the book's Foreword, in 2011 he began work on a thesis "about the growth of left-wing Zionism in Britain form the 1960s until the 1980s." The dissertation earned him a PhD from the University of London; then Corbyn happened and Biteback Publishing offered him a book contract. He added material about the rise of Corbyn to leadership, bu that book is a solid piece of research, a carefully nuanced deep dive into the leftist politics of the era towards the Jewish State. It discusses the anti-Israel political activities of the left, and of the the Liberal Party and the Labour Party only when engaged in anti-Israel activity, which began to slide into outright antimemitism far earlier than many observers had realized before this book was published. It made a bit of a splash when it came out last fall. Rich is now a fellow at the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is this is not about the left, them , liberals or anti-Zionism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And you EMG (and possibly Rich) are happy to equate disagreement with Israel (even anger towards it?) with anti-semitism. The two may sometimes overlap (as disagreement with the Vietnam war, or the 'war on terror' can morph into anti-US, or at least accusations of such) but they are not synonyms. One is a legitimate right in a free society, the other is not. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The material I added to the article documents antisemitism in Labour Party-related corners of the anti-Israel left.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And the liberal...and so on, and no it does not, it document anti-Zionism which the author claims is antisemitism (I am assuming he does make that link).Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Precisely, what exactly are the "Labour Party-related corners of the anti-Israel left"? If you want to rename the article "Accusations of anti-semitism in (the) Labour Party-related corners of the anti-Israel left." There is a chance of it being on topic! Hell, why even limit it to 'the Left'. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Plainly ridiculous to go into detail about someone's comments or activities while they weren't associated with the Labout Party. I removed the section when it was first added but it's simply been added back with no justification. And again, his later comments appear to be anti-Israel with no evidence put forward they are anti-Jew. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just read 3 or 4 reviews of the book, almost all of them focus on Rich's criticism of New Left/Far Left rather than either young liberals or labour. The nearest they get to making a clear connection to the labour party is claiming that anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian groups and rhetoric has 'come in from the cold' under Corbyn and some of the anti-semetic rhetoric along with them. The claims in the reviews seem more pertinent than the parts of the book used here recently. Rich himself (if the reviews are to be believed), clearly distinguishes between criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism (ie criticism of the whole project) and anti-semitism, though he thinks that one is sometimes a cloak for the other. The recently offered text is, IMO, "firing grapeshot" at figures like Hain, who does not seem to be anywhere (in the reviews or elsewhere) accused of being anything stronger than critical of Israel/Zionism. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I hadn't been aware we had been relying on a PhD thesis subsequently published by Biteback as evidence of the significance of the problem and for content, including justifying all this weight being put on Peter Hain, before he was even in the party. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

By a non notable author, without his own WP page .. until one of the people arguing in favour of using his work created a page on him! You can't make this stuff up, to quote one of Britain's most boring right-wing demagogues. N-HH talk/edits 23:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved bordering on no consensus, but I think there is a strong enough basis in the naming policy (particularly appeals to WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY), that it tips the scales slightly to a close of not moved. Regardless either option would result in the page remaining at this title. There is no clear consensus to move it, so it remains here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Antisemitism in the Labour Party → Labour Party (UK) antisemitism allegations – 1) disambiguation. 2) NPOV. Existence of article under present title, equivalents of which do not exist for other parties, implicitly suggests there is an excessive amount of antisemitism within the Labour Party, when objectively all that can be said is that there is an excessive amount of such allegations. Mewulwe (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the sources in the article support that antisemitism existed historically, to a lesser extent still exists and is being dealt with. However UK is needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support a more neutral title. If this article must exist then it should not treat opinions as undisputed facts. G-13114 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support the least that needs to be done to start sorting out this ridiculously written attack page and make it resemble anything close to what a normal and unbiased reference work would have on this issue. N-HH talk/edits 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose page & topic alike are heavily sourced to scholarly books and articles, as well as to INDEPTH coverage in highly regarded newspapers and magazines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, though the corollary of this is removing all the paragraphs about anti-semitism in the Liberal Party, anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel in the Labout Party, etc. (about half of the 'History' section) Sionk (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per improving NPOV on this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The current title implies that anti-Semitism is an essential or unique aspect of the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - People bit, clawed, and canvassed to keep this POV "article". The best way to start addressing the several issues with this "article" is by changing the current title to the more accurate and neutral version offered here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support Whilst we are dealing with only allegations this article is more about perceptions then allegations. Also I agree with those who say the current title implies that this is an absolute proven and accepted fact.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• the fact that this is not about mere "allegations" is evidenced by the expulsion and suspension of Labour Party members (including elected officials) for cause due to documented antisemitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Only if they were expelled for "antisemitism", and not everyone agrees it was antisemitism, hence allegations. But as I said I prefer perceptions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Antisemitism within Labour is clearly established - both in terms of high profile incidents covered by RSes, the phenomena covered by RS, and the rather amazing polling data that 83% of British Jews "stated that racist sentiments were not adequately challenged by Labour members of parliament, members of the party, or Labour Party supporters", and British Jews "when asked to rank the degree of "antisemitism among the political party’s members and elected representatives" between 1 (low) to 5 (high), Jews ranked Labour at 3.94, compared with 3.64 for UKIP, 2.7 for Liberal Democrates, and 1.96 for Conservatives.".Icewhiz (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I don't know the research whose figures you quote, how reliable, how neutral etc., but I accept the premise that there is/was considerable concern among UK Jewry about the labour party - especially post-Corbyn (a concern not limited to Jews btw and not limited to Isr-Pal matters). Of course that is notable, whose opinion is more important than those who feel themselves to be the 'victims' of any prejudice, whether that be racist, sexist or whatever? However, at what point does it become nonsensical to claim that those 'victims' define whether there actually is prejudice? To choose the most extreme example, if the majority of Palestinians think that Israel is an illegal, racist state, does that make Israel's illegality and racism an objective fact? Or would the only objective fact be that they accuse it of being such? Explain to me the difference between my example and the survey of UK Jewry, which appears to me to suggest that they feel Labour to be untrustworthy on this issue, not that it is untrustworthy. Pincrete (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources confirm that is not just "allegations"--Shrike (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, so we keep the title as is, but remove any content that is not about incidents near-universally agreed to constitute actual anti-Semitism (as opposed to things just claimed to be by one or two partisan commentators, or general mud-flinging)? That could work. N-HH talk/edits 10:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As well as all materiel that is just about perceptions. This is about actual incidents.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"near-universally agreed" is not the standard of evidence on wikipedia; articles, including articles on political topics, include material when it is strongly supported by multiple WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, real-world consensus on what something is, and how things might relate to that, is exactly what is needed for a WP article to state something as if it is fact, especially in the title. The Nazi Party is an anti-Semitic party. Labour is not. Some people supposedly linked to the Labour party, mostly marginal and/or anonymous, have expressed clearly anti-Semitic views; others, including those with a higher profile, have been accused of doing so. People who cannot see the differences in all of this, and simply see this page as an opportunity to score dubious political points, should not be editing here. And "RS" is not an excuse for chucking in any contentious material that happens to have been published, although it is often tediously exploited as if it did mean that by people with an agenda in order to include whatever commentary they can find that they happen to agree with. N-HH talk/edits 22:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Following this logic we would name it Instances of anti-semitism amongst UK Labour party members and allegations of anti-semitism against the UK Labour party. However I think the current title is more concise and does not suggest that the Labour party is antisemtic - does Antisemitism in Europe suggest Europe is an antisemtic contienent, or does the article simply cover instances of anti-semitism that have occured in Europe? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at exaggeration, but the proposed title is not of course that long or convoluted, and no one is suggesting it needs to be. Also, Europe does indeed have a long and deep history of actual and uncontested anti-Semitism, even if one would not say it was anti-Semitic per se. Perhaps I could have used a better example for contrast (as ever) than Nazism. And as noted, if pages named to this formula "simply cover instances", then allegations and claims need to be excised from this one. N-HH talk/edits 09:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I also note that that article does not give over half it's length to the last few years (and here I am being rather generous). The issue here is balance. The article that this talk page is about is largely made up up very recent articles, and material that was published in then last few years. With a sizable amount of it not being actual incidents but rather peoples impression of what the labour party is doing about it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is quite new, and should be expanded. Currently the history/1980s section is overly longed compared to the rest - however the solution should be beefing up the 2000s and moreso 2015 and onwards. As I see it - there are are some hare-bringers in the 1980s, incidents in 90s-2014 from Ken Livingstone, George Galloway (yes, he was Labour once) and possibly other Bradford area incidents, and then a pretty large scandal from 2015-present - of which quite a bit is missing (for instance, Momentum (organisation) co-chair Jackie Walker (long saga, some summary here - [5]) is missing).Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe people should stop adding material relating to contemporary perceptions and lists of recent incidents and start to expand the history section with sources more then 5 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose based mainly on the clumsy English in the proposed new name --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the use of brackets. Would you oppose Allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I might or might not have done, but per Necrothesp below, I'd oppose it now. The current title is fine on the main point. I might possibly support the addition of a WP:WORLDVIEW disambiguation to add "UK", but I think that'd need a separate discussion. Which would be less contentious I think. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title encompasses anything on the subject of antisemtisim in the Labour Party, including actual antisemitism and claims there is no antisemitism. The proposed title is too specific, the article as it stands is clearly not solely about allegations, for example the section on "public perceptions". --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support as TFD put it, "The current title implies that anti-Semitism is an essential or unique aspect of the Labour Party". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  Quite to the contrary. Had the title been Antisemitism of the Labour Party, then this argument would've been correct. As we have an "in" and not an "of", the title implies this isn't a position that encompasses the whole party - and possibly only affects a small part of the party. We are beyond allegations - as the party itself and several members have admitted antisemitic speech (e.g. - Naz Shah: My words were anti-Semitic, BBC, and there are several more) and mainstream reliable sources have used the antisemitic label on several other incidents.13:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per above. This title has the effect of unnecessarily amplifying the actual allegations. --RevivesDarks (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perfectly good as it is. It's not saying the Labour Party as a whole is antisemitic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  Hadn't thought of that. Excellent point. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that this is a COMMON style for page titles: Racism in the LGBT community, Sexism in American comics, Anti-Western sentiment in China, Homophobia in the African American community, Misogyny in rap music, Antisemitism in Canada - a longstanding title that no one takes to imply that all Canadians are antisemitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per conventions listed by E.M.Gregory. There's no need to introduce unnecessary expressions of doubt, especially in the title of the article. Ralbegen (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst I applaud the proposer for his attempt to rescue this 'attack page', the proposed title is still inaccurate. A more proper title would be something like 201X Labour Party Antisemitism controversy, which is the real subject of the article, since the previous 100+ years of the Labour party are not even discussed, except in terms which an adolescent history student could demolish in 10 minutes. Drivel such as the opening of the history section "The British Labour Party had an historical affinity for Israel both because the Labor movement was part of a broad, political left that historically supported national movements, and because it felt an affinity for Labor Zionism". Does no one know that it was a Labour govt immediately post-WWII that did its best to prevent mass Jewish migration to Palestine and to prevent the formation of the 'Zionist' state of Israel? Not in itself 'antisemetic', but hardly indicative of an 'historical affinity for Israel' or support for "labor Zionism". Of course there are sources that say that Labour is antisemetic, though most of even the most partisan qualify that extensively, of course you can SYNTH your way to arguing that Labour suspending some members (pending investigation) is an admission of 'guilt' (then 10 minutes later argue that re-instating them, is also further proof). THAT IS WHAT A CONTROVERSY IS, when people hold strongly opposing views on a subject. I could forgive some of the sources used - such as the UK Jewish Chronicle - if they were very angry and partisan on this issue, in fact most of those I have read are models of calm and fairness compared to this article, which does its best to "throw mud" at all and sundry. No sense of proportion, no attempt at context (most of this controversy is 'overspill' of attitudes to Israel-Palestine) no attempt to WEIGH sources used (how many 100s of books have been written about Labour-Israel relations, how many tens of thousands of scholarly articles? A small handful of not-madly-notable ones are used here which support a particular agenda). Most seriously of all, the article conflates attitudes to Isr-Pal with antisemitism, I know there are those who believe the former is always a mask for the latter, they obviously have their fans among WP editors. Unfortunately, what could have been a useful article about both acceptable limits to criticism of Israel and whether Labour adequately dealt with criticism of some of its members, actually does more to advertise the unreasonableness of those on WP who are criticising Labour. Pincrete (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Declaration—I am a member of the Labour party. Antisemitism does exist (even if members try to deny it). 'Allegations' would be my preferred option, as those who say anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli things generally do so unintentionally, ie they are just trying to express a view. It clarified only this year that we are allowed to speak freely about the State of Israel. There have been suspensions, etc, for raising anything to do with Israel in meetings. I am not sure that that should be defined as flat-out antisemitism. –Sb2001 02:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So as a party member you say there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, at least two Labour mp's also say there is antisemitism in Labour yet you think our article on the subject should say allegations? Even though there is antisemitism in the Labour Party? That makes little sense to me Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because a lot of what is labelled 'antisemitism' is not that. Like discussing the State of Israel. We used to be advised against that, and were told that anything anti-Israel was also antisemitic. –Sb2001 02:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Two MPs out of 220+ is hardly conclusive, is it. And while there may have been some proven anti-semitism, most of it appears to be allegations by political opponents. Sionk (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course there is almost certainly some antisemitism in the labour party. A party which counts its members in 100s of 1000s probably has its fair share of Pole-haters, mysogynists, drunken drivers and adulterers. I looked at how WP characterised Trumps "Mexican rapists" speech - we could certainly find 100s of sources that described Trump's remarks as 'racist', we could then add into our logic that some of his own party denounced them, case proven. We don't, what we say is that some of his own party accused him of "appealing to racism". Why do we do that? Because we want to be nice to Donald? No, because it is more informative. NPOV isn't solely, or even mainly about being 'fair' to the accused, it's about being more informative to the reader. Do the overwhelming majority of sources treat Labour's antisemitism as a proven fact? I doubt it, if they are 'weighed', even less so ie 'allegations' or 'controversy'. The impression I got from reading this talk page on my first visit is that some editors are only going to be happy when the article says "Labour hates Jews, it supports those who want to destroy Israel". No attempt at context, no attempt to quantify or characterise, no attempt to distinguish between criticism of Israel/sympathy for Palestinians from outright antisemitism. Ironically the same editors who think that Labour suspending some members is an admission of 'guilt', also think that Labour insufficiently deals with a-s. Damned if you don't deal with it, damned if you do! Personally I think the LP has in the past been over tolerant of some of its fringe, but I formed that opinion by reading the (mainly Jewish) sources, not by reading this 'article'. Pincrete (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I could quote the 2006 parlimant report on anti-semitism, and I will - [6]"Many witnesses told us that the latest mutation of anti-Jewish prejudice is now infused with a ‘social conscience’, focused on the role of Israel in the Middle East conflict. Jews are seen as natural supporters of Israel, regardless of whether or not they actually are, and some of those who are hostile to Israel make no distinction between Israelis and Jews. Jews throughout the world are seen by some extremists as legitimate targets in the struggle to establish a Palestinian state or to eliminate the State of Israel.". I could also bring numerous scholars of anti-semitism who show how supposed anti-Israel is actually a cover for anti-semitism (not all criticism of Israel, of course), but I will leave you with the following illustrative example of how one crossed into the other: [7] "According to the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, a Jewish student, 18, said he did not favour a Palestinian state. Several classmates of Arab background then surrounded him, with witnesses reporting that one girl yelled “Hitler was good! Because he killed the Jews.” The Jewish student told the Juedische Allgemeine weekly that he also heard someone say “You are child killers” and “they should cut off your heads.”". Justifying Hitler, attacking Jews for being Jews, or discriminating Jews whether on the basis of party membership or national rights (arguing the right of Jews for self-determination is different from other groups) - is antisemitism by any regular meaning of the word.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course criticism of Israel can be a mask for a-s, just as criticism of Mugabe or Obama (birther?) can be thinly disguised racism. It is however a very dangerous step to assume all criticism (or even wish to see a better deal for Palestinians) is a-s. I'm old enough to remember when every UK critic of US actions in Vietnam was "anti-American" - a few probably were. It's off-topic, but if you can show me another instance of Western liberal opinion supporting a "right to self-determination" of a people in a land they largely left more than 1000 years ago - and which other groups have lived in during the intervening years - I'll plead guilty to inconsistency. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the state of Israel, including the events of WWII Europe, it's circumstances are unique. Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see how "allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party" or whatever is more NPOV or accurate than the present one. "Antisemitism in the Labour party" is the topic, including allegations of anti-semitism, demonstrated cases of anti-semitism, and denials of anti-semitism - is the proposer saying that only the first of these is to be covered? FOARP (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is fine on both points. As others have said, you can have an article on a topic without having to say in Wikipedia's voice that it's categorically true. "Antisemitism in the Labour party" is clearly a discussion on whether there is such a thing. As for the UK disambiguator, there seems to be no need for it. There's no other article on other Labour parties and their possible antisemisitism, so until there are, the (UK) would be superfluous and against the spirit of WP:CONCISE.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we stop discusing what is and is not antisemitism, this is about renaming the page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

British UK perceptions regarding Labour antisemitism in the lede

As opposed to soft data, editor opinions, and stmts by people whose best friends are Jews - we have hard reliable polling data - the perception of British Jews regarding antisemitism in Labour. This is lede worthy material, that should appear in the lede in a summarized form.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Good point, the shift away from voting Labour and sourced perceptions well-sourced of British Jews that the party they long supported has suddenly turned anti-Jewish should be mentioned with summary in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I agree, we have data on 'recent perceptions' we don't have (or currently use) any data as to what extent Jewish voters previously endorsed Labour, merely the claim that historically it was so - as though it was an obvious given. Nor - except for post-Corbyn, any indication as to why they have shifted, merely the inference that there can only be one possible reason. Anyone familiar with UK politics will recognise current text as a crude over simplification of how/why Jewish voters have given their allegiance in the past.

I think it is fairly RS that some voters (not only Jewish ones) feel extremely uncomfortable with the extent to which Corbyn has historically defended/befriended 'enemies of Israel' including some who happily use anti-sem rhetoric in their cause. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about perceptions of the labour party, and the lead has been written in a way that makes that quite clear. IN addition the material added made up almost half of the lead, to summerise one paragraph in the article about two polls (and was almost half the length of that single paragraph), when the rest of the 30 years of "allegations" get about a paragraph in the lead. This does not summarize the article, not give us any greater understanding of why (and if) the labour party is antisemitic. This is massively undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

UK Jews have opined not only regarding their degree of support for Labour, but also regarding the degree of antisemitism in Labour. Measuring the perceptions of the targeted population in relation to the degree of hate speech is a common way of assessing the degree of hate speech. In this case Jews rate Labour 3.94/5 for "antisemitism among the political party’s members and elected representatives" and 83% state that "racist sentiments were not adequately challenged by Labour members of parliament, members of the party, or Labour Party supporters." These are hard, cold, metrics assessing the degree of the phenomena - and should be in lead.Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Then the lead to be re-written to make it clear that this is about (and indeed the article needs to be renamed) "perceptions of antisemitism within the labour party". Also "racist sentiments were not adequately challenged" does not mean "they are antisemitic" (which is also an alteration of what then pool asked “Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of antisemitism among their MPs, members and supporters?”).Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In this poll British Jews directly ranked Labour's degree of antisemtism: when asked to rank the degree of "antisemitism among the political party’s members and elected representatives" between 1 (low) to 5 (high), Jews ranked Labour at 3.94, compared with 3.64 for UKIP, 2.7 for Liberal Democrates, and 1.96 for Conservatives. and not just their perception on the appropriateness of the reaction of Labour to antisemitism within Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So their perception of how antisemitic the labour party is is not a perception?Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming quite metaphysical - in a sense, a Jewish man who has his skull bashed in by an assailant who shouts an antisemitic epithet prior to doing so is perceiving antisemitism. Likewise, a Jewish woman who sees antisemitic hate speech on social media posted by some politician is perceiving antisemitism. Hate crimes or hate speech almost always involves an element of perception regarding the motivation or interpretation of the interlocutor.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And this is soapboxing. We are not talking about assaults, but inclusion of polls in the lead about "the perception of British Jews regarding antisemitism in Labour".Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for this addition, and it might be better if all this effort was put into making the lead less about the last year or two. This article is not about public perceptions is it? A single paragraph in the body has no place being summerised in the lead, not when the last 30 years get not one mention.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Ice-whiz. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: We have a multi-page article. The lede should summarize - and not be a 2 sentence affair about the internal inquiry in 2016. This article is much wider than that. The perceptions of the targets of the antisemitic hate speech, i.e. British Jews, is clearly relevant. Instead of attempting to redact the lede - how about focusing on additions? We can easily have a couple of more paragraphs, including on post-inquiry internal efforts to "clean up" the party (e.g. NEC).Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I made the point that we should be trying to expand the lead with relevant material, not a sufferance to a single poll (which the article is not about). Yes the lead is for a summery of the article, this poll tells us nothing about antisemitism in the Labour party. But I cannot revert it without edit warring, but re-emphasis it is an addition against consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It is actually two separate polls - and they tell us that British Jews, as of 2017, consider (83%) antisemitism incidents as not appropriately handled by the party AND that British Jews consider (3.94/5.00) the party to have a high degree of antisemitism. British Jews may or may not be correct in their views, however this is a relevant and well established position.Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It is also still only one paragraph that talks about the last couple of years, in an article that is sup[posed to be about the history of antisemitism in the Labour party. Thus I disagree that Jewish perceptions about how the labour party reacts to allegations is relevant to the lead of an article about those allegations. The lead needs to be about the whole article, and not have (about) a third of it devoted to one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My perception of the article is that this is mainly a 2015-present scandal, with some closely related prior antecedents (Livingstone, Galloway, a few others) in the past decade or two and possibly some roots in the 80s. I am not aware of say a 1930s issue of antisemitism in Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not the impression I got from frequent discussions here, and it certainly is not the one you get form the article title. Even if this is true, it is still half the lead taken yo with a summery of a single paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Of an extremely short lede that should be expanded. Constructively, this article should be expanded both in the body and the lede - both in terms of incident coverage and in terms of Labour efforts to prevent.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, we judge the lead by what it is now, not what it might be in a months time. If the lead needs expanding expand it, rather then putting so much effort to justify the inclusion of two polls. Maybe if you had put this much effort into expanding the lead I could not say we are taking up half the lead to summerise one paragraph. There is no consensus to include this material and it should be removed until there is (and any suggested passages should be brought here for discussion).Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• The lede, as it presently stands, is problematic because it focuses too tightly on the Chakrabarti Inquiry. The lede, like the article, should be expanded, including the Inquiry within the context of the recent nature of antisemitism among Labour voters and politicians, and the ongoing nature of the antisemitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Except there are no sources for that. Maybe it would be better to explore the entire relationship between Jews and the Labour Party including historically (after all we're adding Liberals from the 1960s.) Out of curiosity, why did you choose to write about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and not the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP, the National Front or the BNP? Certainly there's more material there. TFD (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Recent antisemitism in Labour is a very well covered topic, with plenty of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, no, other than opinion pieces that fail rs, there is little or nothing outside the Chakrabarti Inquiry. TFD (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Um,... have you looked at the sources now in the article? They include INDEPTH mainstream journalism, scholarly articles, scholarly books....E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it is recent, much of it is only perception (not actual incidents) and no one has really demonstrated it is worse in the LAbour party (with some evidence it is not). Thus is can be said that whilst there is RS for there being accusations of widespread antisemitism in the LAbour party there are really not that many RS proving there is. In fact we should not forget that even nay of the RS caveat with statements like "alleged" or "said to have", rather then coming out with accusations. Thus the lead cannot overweight the claim that the Labour party is antisemitic (as it practically does now).Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It may or may not be worst. It is definitely perceived as much worse by British Jews, who is a 2017 poll said - when asked to rank the degree of "antisemitism among the political party’s members and elected representatives" between 1 (low) to 5 (high), Jews ranked Labour at 3.94, compared with 3.64 for UKIP, 2.7 for Liberal Democrates, and 1.96 for Conservatives.. Antisemitism in Labour in a high-profile news item (as well as a books and scholarly coverage) with in-depth coverage for the past two (at least) years - in the UK and Jewish press. This is not the case regarding other parties (either due to lack of a problem, or lack of general interest in the party at all (e.g. - BNP which is quite defunct/fringey)). We follow the sources, not what we think about the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC) And yes - there are actual incidents - for instance Naz Shah who per her own words Naz Shah: My words were anti-Semitic, BBC - admitted to it.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

This has been discussed for a while now and there's been some silly edit-warring in the article. Let's straw poll it to see how consensus is coming together. Should we include or exclude the material about the poll on the perception of the Labour Party among British Jews? Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• YES. The perceptions of the alleged victims or targets of hate speech or crimes are clearly relevant regarding said alleged hate speech or crimes.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Obviously as it relates to the article Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely it should be included.--Autospark (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2017 (

Are people saying "yes we should exclude it" or "yes we should include it"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes iVotes above are unambiguously saying: Yes, include it. I concur that Yes, it is significant, pertinent information that should be included.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• No It should not be included as presented in the contested edits. It is not a poll about being victims of antisemitism, but about Labours reaction to allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes [include] It seems relevant, notable and well sourced. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment It is singularly pointless to be holding a straw poll when neither the proposed text nor the source, nor the context within the article is even mentioned in the above discussion! Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, though the paragraph could be better worded. However, the discussion above is about whether it should be included in the lead intro (of which my opinion is "no"). I can't see how this straw poll will be helpful. Sionk (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I had not picked up on that (well maybe I did just not concisely). I have to say that yes this poll is very poorly worded and does not actuality ask about what the debate is about. Why was the question asked in this way, rather then what the debate was about?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No one disputes it should be in the article, the dispute is over the lead. So I shall now ask the right question.

Straw poll

Should this Paragraph (As written) be in the lead

Incidents continued in 2017, and British Jews polled on the subject in 2017 have ranked Labour at 3.94 (from 5) for "degree of antisemitism among the political party’s members and elected representatives", and 83% stated that racist sentiments were not adequately challenged by Labour members of parliament, members of the party, or Labour Party supporters.

Oppose

• Oppose as written, too much detail, on a single paragraph, for the lead. It also says incidents continued (rather then allegations, and is thus a BLP violation it also fails to make clear these incidents were not senior party members) and seems to combine two polls to make it read like one (which is going to happen when you try and truncate one paragraph).Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

WE have had the discussion now lets have a vote.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We had a vote above, why are you rehashing it? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No we did not, it did not ask about the lead (at least one other user has pointed that out).Slatersteven (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It was removed from the lede, it is obvious that's what the whole discussion and then the poll was about. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well as at least one edd had to make two votes (one for the question asked and one for what we were talking about) this will clear up any potential confusion will it not, even if in the mind of only one user.Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

History

If we are going to have a history section it must also mention when (and if) people were members of the Labour party. If it is important what people did before they joined (for example) it is also important when people left.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're specifically referring to the places I removed parenthetical clauses that noted that Mayhew and Galloway later left the party. I really don't see why these should be included? Mayhew's departure was nothing to do with antisemitism or the LMEC, nor was Galloway's expulsion to do with antisemitism or BAZO. As I read it, those are details that belong in the individual's respective articles, not here. Ralbegen (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well lets see, Mayhew left in 1974, yet our article says his rhetoric through to the 1980s "blurred the boundaries between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism", how therefore is it not relevant he was not even in the LAbour party for most of this period?. The same with Galloway, surely the party expelling members is relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the mention of Mayhew leaving not knowing 1984 was an error, and have restored a correction. The placement of this detail may be an issue, not least because Mayhew's policy clashes with Harold Wilson may be relevant here as Wilson was sympathetic to Israel. User:Slatersteven is right about his rhetoric through to the 1980s being questionable for this reason, as the issues around Peter Hain being included have been before. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

At this time the section largely reads as "Antisemitism in the Labour party began with the liberal party and continued with the liberal party through the 1980's".Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is bizarre that we have a whole section that can be read as "antisemitism in the liberal party" but have no such article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the reference to Mayhew as any any change in his attitudes in the 1980s, let alone after 1974, is beyond the remit of this article. The expulsion of Galloway from Labour in 2003 was not connected with this issue, and is irrelevant here. Philip Cross (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Studies

So lets see, two polls should be in the lead, but three separate studies should not have a mention? Why?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid Slatersteven you are mistaking this with an encyclopedic article. Why; well a number of things: POV, recentism, "good" news, and selective sourcing -- the whole works.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone is interested in having an article that reflects policy, we could refocus it to either alleged left-wing anti-Semitism or the relationship between Jews and the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links

Does this video from a 'Youtube channel' in External links contribute at all to the subject? I've watched it right the way through and, apart from the inflammatory comments of Ken Livingstone and possibly clear anti-semitism by "a councillor in Basingstoke" it doesn't seem to take the debate forward. Admittedly there is strong criticism of Chakraborty's report in the video's conclusion, but that is already well-covered by other reliable sources. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please as this feels like more Corbyn bashing without context or relevance to the larger issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

News article: How Some Wikipedia Editors Tried—and Failed—To Erase Antisemitism in the Labour Party this article

• How Some Wikipedia Editors Tried—and Failed—To Erase The UK Labour Party’s Anti-Semitism Problem]. POV editors making Wilipedia look bad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This page is about improving the article, not slandering other editors.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tabletmag presumbly fact checked prior to making assertions regarding editors. Some bits in that article worth incorporating here - e.g. the 100 MPs denouncing the way this was handled by the party.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no suggestion of an edit, I see an attack on other editors. I ask for it to be struck (and I was not talking about that article, but the accusation made about POV editors making Wikipedia look bad, which had nothing to do with the subject of our article).Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like "Partisan online article making Wikipedia look bad" should be the strapline. Sionk (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven this is nothing new for Gregory; he has already done this at the Linda Sarsour talk page. Apparently, here, Gregory is proud of the canvassing that it took to keep this "article". That is the only thing making Wikipedia look bad.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rather like the canvasing on social media for votes when the article was up for AfD, these actions surprise no one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Can this be hated by an uninvolved editor, it is on e thin g to ask a user to not make PA's. It is quite another to accused them of making others on other pages. This is not about us (or him) this is about antisemitism in the Labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If edds have evidence of canvasing it needs to be reported to admins, not discussed here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It was brought up on the AfD page[8] and there was evidence [9] but I'm not going near that one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not care this is not the right venue to discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This Tablemag article is a further escalation of what has been happened regarding this article for a while, it is relevant to the discussion. This is my point and I will say no more. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have now raised the issue at a more appropriate venue [[10]], please take any further discussion on this matter there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Belongs on List of Wikipedia controversies not hereDarkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Astonishing! I mean how on earth did the Tablet find out that all we editors who proposed that the content would be better framed as a recent controversy and/or incorporated with the enquiry, were ALL secretly Labour members and supporters! Yes, even those who have voted Plaid Cymru all our lives, have never been to the UK and/or don't even have votes in the UK. We thought we had hidden it so well! Wow again! Astonishing piece of investigative journalism! I suggest a compulsory question on AfDs in the future "Are you, or have you ever been a member of the Labour Party?" "Just answer the question!!.Pincrete (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a soapboxSlatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I was soap-boxing, merely pointing out (with heavy-handed irony perhaps), what blatant nonsense the Tablet piece is iro coverage of WP editors' motives, and an unjustified attack on any group of WP editors, is an attack on us all. However, I see a stoical effort on your part to maintain neutrality here, and I would not want to impede that, therefore matter closed AFAI am concerned. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Labour party are not far left

What the far left thinks is not all that relevant to a party that is center left. If we are going to include surveys at least make sure the results are relevant to the labour party and not just some minority fringe of that party. It just makes the article look like a hatched job. Please do not reinstate contested material without first discusing it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Momentum (organisation) (currently in control on the party, no? Hard to call to call Corbyn a small minority fringe post 2015) is a bit on the edge, no? Wouldn't they be described as "very left" (the survey does not actually use "far left")? The section you are striking out also contains Elevated levels of anti-Israel attitudes are also observed in other groups on the political left: the fairly left-wing and those slightly left-of-centre. - which would apply to non-Corbynite factions of the party.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Are they, the article calls them left, not "very left" (which must be different form Far left of course), so how does the report define "very left"( here is a clue " Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ ", so it appears that yes "very left" means the far left)? Also why not then give the figures that would apply to the whole party, and not one section of it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There are obviously far left elements in the party. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course there are, But what does their views tell us about the party? We are giving (yet another) paragraph over to something that is not about the party (just a fraction of it) that even the report makes clear may not even be antisemitism, thus fails undue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Had this article been about "Antisemitism of the Labour Party" you would have a point, however it is about "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" - covering the minority, though perhaps a sizable one, of party activists and office holders that have made antisemitic statements - said minority is, in general, on the leftist edge of the party in terms of the inner spectrum.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also not called "anti-Israelism in the Labour Party", and the report makes it quite clear that a antisemitism and anti-Israelism are not synonymous. So this is not about antisemitism in the Labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The report itself explicitly points out they are correlated.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No it does not, it says that they are sometimes correlated when a person holds more then one anti-Israeli attitude. " A majority of those who hold anti-Israel attitudes do not espouse any antisemitic attitudes..." That is pretty damn unambiguous. So this tells us nothing about the degree of antisemitism in the LAbour party (which is, is it not, the point of quoting those figures?)Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We discovered that anti-Israel attitudes are not, as a general rule, antisemitic; but the stronger a person’s anti-Israel views, the more likely they are to hold antisemitic attitudes. A majority of those who hold anti-Israel attitudes do not espouse any antisemitic attitudes, but a significant minority of those who hold anti-Israel attitudes hold them alongside antisemitic attitudes. Therefore, antisemitism and anti-Israel attitudes exist both separately and together. That's a pretty strong correlation. The report itself ties between the far-left and labour - Given recent concerns about antisemitism in the Labour Party, there is a strong case for looking closely at the far-left, and given several high-profile terrorist attacks on Jewish targets in France, Belgium and Denmark in recent years, there is clear reason for an examination of at least parts of the Muslim population.. Furthermore regarding very left wing respondents, the report says A strong majority of very left-wing respondents align themselves with the Labour Party - so the metric relevant to very left-wing applies to the Labour party.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No it applies to some in the LAbour party, so a minority of some does not act as a counter point to "the left are not significantly antisemitic".Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The Survey evidence section violates synthesis, because it implies that Labour=Left. While Labour is to the Left of the Conservatives, it is not clear where on the spectrum Labour begins or ends. The argument that some Labourites are very left or far left is disingenuous. All kinds of people belong to Labour. We wouldn't include a profile of bank robbers in the Labour Party article on the basis that some of them belong to the party. Furthermore, most left-wing people in the UK do not belong to Labour. Fewer than 1% of the UK population are members. The section should go, unless reliable sources connect it to the party. TFD (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

As the report itself makes the connection (as well as addressing antisemitism in Labour) - it is not SYNTH - "A strong majority of very left-wing respondents align themselves with the Labour Party" - which is stated right next to the statistics in question.Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note the article is about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, not about people outside the party who vote for them. As I mentioned, less than 1% of the population belong to Labour, yet the party received 40% of the vote in the last election. That's the problem when one creates an article about a subject that does not exist in reliable sources. None of the sources one finds have direct relevance. TFD (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Is BAZO part of the LAbour party, how about the liberal party, are they a branch of the Labour party?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A strong majority of very left-wing respondents align themselves with the Labour Party, what exactly does 'align with' mean? Support? Vote for? No political party on earth is ever called upon to be responsible for the views of everyone who supports it. The article is called A.S. in the Labour party, not among those who align themselves with the LP. Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

David Collier

If we are going to mention the chakrabati report (and corbyn being in contravention of it) lets also have the fact he left this forum before the publication of the report.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No reason to mention the Chakrabarti report because it isn't mentioned directly in any admissible source so far, except indirectly by the BBC here. Philip Cross (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is still worthy of mentioning how a short a time he was a member, and that someone else had enrolled him. We have to ensure we do not try to imply anything that would breach BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I also think we need to make clear that the Labour party was already dealing with some of these people, as we are implying the Labour party only took action after this dossier was published (which in some cases is not true).Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah are already mentioned, plus one or two more individuals, and there are plenty of additional sources about the others, but the article should not get bogged down with too many cases. Corbyn was moderately active within this group for approaching two years. Philip Cross (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Then we must re-word it to not say that they were doing nothing until this dossier was published.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Also the only actual case the sources talk about is corbyns, and he left in 2015, so it is a historical (not current) incident.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Still going on

For incidents to still be happening both the report of the incident, and the incident must have happened after 1/1/18. If a source does not say "and in 2018 this happened" we cannot imply that any incidents have happened in 2018. We cannot put words into sources mouths, if they do not see fit to explicitly say it we cannot say they have.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

They are emerging all the time, and being reported now. Corbyn's membership of two Facebook groups full of antisemitic garbage has been covered in the last month, and has gained attention for the first time. The issue of his 2012 response to the Mear One mural has been a largely unreported issue since November 2015, but the spokesman for Corbyn accepted it was antisemitic today. "Incidents", or "accusations" of Labour antisemitism, often with a direct Corbyn connection, are indeed ongoing. Philip Cross (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But the incident did not happen in the last few months, the reporting of it has. WW2 is not ongoing just because people are still writing about it. The event and the sorry about it are not the same thing, this is why (in crime prevention for example) the crime is listed as having occurred at the time it was committed, not reported.Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reporting of the issue, e.g. the Facebook group thing, is ongoing. Seems Corbyn also apologized last Friday [11] for something else. Therr is a billbpard initiative [12]. The PM May has spoken about this recently as has opposition inside Labour to Corbyn, e.g. [13]. Various accusations in local Labour politics [14]. Seems quite alive.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the reporting is. But that is not what we said. we said the incidents (in other words happening) were still ongoing.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to include stories from the Times of Israel that were not widely reported. It's not a major newspaper. While I do not doubt its reliability, "Balancing aspects" requires that stories be widely reported. TFD (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

ToI is a major Jewish/Israeli paper in English. Per WP:NOENG, we prefer English sources over non-Englishnones if similar quality - which isnwhy ToI is often used on enwiki. Non English coverage of this subject does exist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Responses

About (and recent controversy) the recent demo a leading British labour figure responded to the latest accusation Corbyn not doing enough, why is this less relevant then some Jewish leaders saying he is not doing enough? NPOV means both sides have to be put. Both sides must be given equal weight.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Board of Deputies of British Jews is one of the leading Jewish organisations in this country. Multiple sources indicate they seldom intervene politically, so of course their "enough is enough" letter is a notable development, whereas Rebecca Long-Bailey's comments are not. You might find usable RS comments from Jewish Voice for Labour, who had a much smaller counter-demonstration yesterday, if you are that desperate to make Corbyn look good, despite the vast number of sources to the contrary. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Do they [15], looks like intervention to me (they have commented on Corbyn repeatably, this is nothing new). RS have noticed Rebecca Long-Bailey's comments, so they are notable [16]. This is a BLP and NPOV issue, it is about Wikipedia polices, not making Corbyn look good.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Surprising it is the article's only mention of BOD in that case. However, the recent letter will have received a greater amount of media coverage, unless you can prove otherwise. Corbyn's earlier "zero tolerance" against "antisemitism and racism" have greater weight because the media cite them so often. Philip Cross (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Err, this is irrelevant, it is clear they have commented on Corbyn before. As to the second part, we are talking about what Rebecca Long-Bailey has said, and RS have reported what she has said. So there is no reason to exclude what is a direct response to the demo and the letter. If the letter and the demo are worthy of inclusion so must Labours response to it be (that is how NPOV works, all notable POV are presented).Slatersteven (talk)

Ohh and here they are really not interfering in politics [17], so it is not a surprise that an organisation that hopped he would lose an election will have criticized him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Much better to cite from Corbyn's response, as he is directly criticised by BOD/JLC. He has only commented about four times since Luciana Berger challenged him about the mural last Friday, so plenty of comments to choose from. Philip Cross (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Mear One

Saying that one or two figures in a mural represent one or two people is not saying all of them do. We can say she said X, but we cannot say it meant Y. So we either give the full quote and then the fact (attributed) that someone said it meant Y or we do not try and accuse someone of supporting a position they have subsequently say they did not intend based upon a partial description of the mural (even if they did say it). BLP even applies to antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors convey what is said in reliable sources whether we like it or not. The Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source, therefore an assertion from the artist himself is legitimate. In the circumstances one would expect him to give different responses. The full quote gives Mear One no more credit than his comparison of Rothschild and Warburg to "demons" which demonstrates antisemitic intent. No one is saying it isn't antisemitic, and after six years Mear One has no case to claim Lutfur Rahman libelled him in 2012. See here:

"I have received a number of complaints that the 'New World Order' mural on Hanbury Street has anti-Semitic images," said Lutfur Rahman, the mayor of the local council, Tower Hamlets.

"I share these concerns. Whether intentional or otherwise the images of the bankers perpetuate anti-Semitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial and political institutions. ... I have therefore asked my officers to do everything possible to see to it that this mural is removed." Philip Cross (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not said we cannot repeat what they say, I have said we cannot say what they have said he meant is what he meant (especially when the artist has explicitly denied it). And no comparing Rothschild and Warburg to "demons" is not demonstrating antisemitic intent, as he also criticizes non Jewish bankers (The artist himself denied being anti-Semitic, saying the mural is about “class and privilege” and contains a group of bankers “made up of Jewish and white Anglos”). So yes someone is (he is), and yes he did give a different response. As I said we cannot say he said (or imply he said) "yes this is meant to be antisemitic", unless he used those words, we can say he was accused of saying it was meant to be antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As for the creator's intentions we do not need to comment (nor does it seem relevant). The mural itself has been referred to as anti-Semitic by multiple WP:NEWSORGs - e.g. Sky, Guardian, and The Times. If they do so - then so do we.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. In his apology Corbyn himself described the mural as "deeply disturbing and antisemitic.". Concur with Philip Cross and Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is an issue of a living person being accused of something they deny.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A wall mural is not a living person, at least per my understanding of life and personhood.Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No, but the person who painted it is, thus accusing it is accusing them. I think this need taking to BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[[18]], please explain here how accusing a persons act of something is not accusing the perpetrator of it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A mural may be seen as representing something, while it was not the creator's intent. Regardless, Mear One is WP:WELLKNOWN, and it seems just about every WP:RS is WP:SPADEing this. This is not Mear One's article (and this merits inclusion there) - but an article on a completely different subject - in our particular context, we really do not have to mention Mear One - as it seems he is irrelevant here - the relevance here being the mural and comments of Labour politicians on the mural.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And if we say it in that way (it has been seen as, or Described as) fine. We do not We (as in Wikipedia voice) says it is. ANor does it matter if this article is about him, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." so yes if we discus the actions of a living person this makes it a BLP about him.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It is usual to identify individuals related to the subject under immediate discussion on Wikipedia (the passage on Jeremy Corbyn's disapproval of the mural's removal ("Why?") in image in 2012 (even then accepted to be antisemitic by Lutfur Rahman), so users are able to find more information on the subject. Why remove Mear One? He is the most directly relevant individual after Corbyn, ahead of Diego Rivera, Nelson Rockefeller of even Vladimir Lenin whom Corbyn also mentioned, and the article does too. Philip Cross (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Information Clearing House - Jonathan Cook - The Sharks Circling Around Corbyn Scent Blood, 27 March 2018: "Not that anyone is listening now, but the artist himself, Kalen Ockerman, has said that the group in his mural comprised historical figures closely associated with banking. His mural, he says, was about “class and privilege”, and the figures depicted included both “Jewish and white Anglos”. The fact that he included famous bankers like the Rothschilds (Jewish) and the Rockefellers (not Jewish) does not, on the face of it, seem to confirm anti-semitism. They are simply the most prominent of the banking dynasties most people, myself included, could name."
• The Independent - Rob Merrick - Jeremy Corbyn forced to backtrack over apparent support for antisemitic mural, 23 March 2018: "The artist himself denied being anti-Semitic, saying the mural is about “class and privilege” and contains a group of bankers “made up of Jewish and white Anglos”."
• International Business Times [BLOG] - Geoff Whitehouse - Mear One's Brick Lane Street Art: Class and Societal Inequality Not Racial Hatred, 08 October 2012: "Kalen Ockerman, aka Mear One, on his Facebook page explained: "I came to paint a mural that depicted the elite banker cartel known as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, the ruling class elite few, the Wizards of Oz. They would be playing a board game of monopoly on the backs of the working class. The symbol of the Free Mason Pyramid rises behind this group and behind that is a polluted world of coal burning and nuclear reactors. I was creating this piece to inspire critical thought and spark conversation." However a day or so later he added: "A group of conservatives do not like my mural and are playing a race card with me. My mural is about class and privilege. The banker group is made up of Jewish and white Anglos. For some reason they are saying I am anti-semitic. This I am most definitely not... What I am against is class.""

    ←   ZScarpia   23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Mondoweiss - Jonathan Ofir - Jeremy Corbyn and ’anti-Semitism’ – making sense of the hysteria, 29 March 2018: "Ockerman has identified the men it depicts as, from left to right, “Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie & Warburg“. Of the six men, only the first and last in the list were Jewish. One, Aleister Crowley, was noted for his anti-Semitic views."     ←   ZScarpia   22:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is a fringe outlet with is highly polemical. Shouldn't be used in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I quoted the article here, wasn't to suggest that it should be used as an article source, but because it was the first place I came across a full list of who the people portrayed in the mural were and because nobody else had yet provided that list on this talkpage. I'm sure that all the contributors here will be glad to know that, contrary to what a lot of regular news sources stated, the mural probably didn't in fact portray random antisemitic stereotypes, that real historical characters were shown and that four of the six weren't even Jewish. Hopefully, having provided the list, it should be possible to track down a reliable secondary source which reports Ockerman's statement, or ,at least, the place where it was first published (which looks to be the artist's Facebook page and one or more YouTube videos).     ←   ZScarpia   17:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC) (Note: This skwawkbox blog article lists those portrayed in the mural as given above. In the comment section, when questioned where the list was obtained from, skwakbox replies that they contacted the artist and the list came directly from him.) (MEAR ONE - FALSE PROFITS (London, 2012): YouTube video showing the creation of the mural with Mear One's commentary)

I tried and could not, make of that what you will.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly whether the intent was or was not to be AS, it was perceived as such by a very wide cross segment (probably due to the overall motif and not individual faces) - which in terms of UK politics and society is probably all that matters.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe but not in terms of Wikipedias polices, which (for example) means we cannot say it was antisemitic (even in the section title).Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Anshel Pfeffer

I think it demonstrates an opinion of how foolish some Jews think this was. It very strongly expresses then opinion that this undermined the accusations against Corbyn and the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So Pfeffer is chosen on the basis of his ethnicity?Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

To a degree yes, after all is that not what we have constantly justified the inclusion of material for, the fact that it is a Jewish opinion? Why suddenly is this an issue, and why is this not important, why is her opinion not of note?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a he, and he has immigrated to Israel and mostly covers non-British affairs (general European color pieces - not "hard" journalism or politics).Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Howard Jacobson cover hard Journalism, or any of the others we give voice to? This is an article (not an op edd or open letter) in an RS by a staff reporter. This is as notable as many of the other opinions we give here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jacobson is quite notable in and of himself. I see you've sourced other opinions. I do however think that the criticism of the criticism is become a tad unbalanced, perhaps to be balanced by more criticism or redaction of some of the criticism of the criticism?Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree as this is covered by most of the sources. If you want to add some more opinions attacking him fine. In many ones it seems that the "not all Jews are bad Jews" is more newsworthy then the attendance itself.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)