Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Proposed edit

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

---

• Hi. I was going to boldly edit the article, but, aware of the sensitivity of the subject, I have decided to defer to a mini-RfC regarding a proposed edit to this section, in the interest of WP:POV and balance on this contentious topic.

However, Chris Williamson, an MP for Derby North, defended Corbyn, stating that the joint editorial did not "speak for all Jews in this country (the UK)". He further cited Jewish groups, including the Jewish Socialist Group and the Jewish Voice for Labour, who did not endorse the editorial. The leader of the latter group, Richard Kuper, reiterated his defence of Corbyn, stating that he "is not and has never been an anti-Semite or a racist".

I have no affiliation to the Labour Party, nor Israel, and have no horse in this race. Just gauging the suitability of the edit in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks in advance for any views offered. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC) - Please ping me in replies. Thanks.

Who is Chris Williamson? We already have a reply from Labour. I would be OK with a JVL as well, but the other groups are fringe. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sir Joseph - Williamson's discussion only came to my attention as it diverted somewhat from the party line, represented the view of an elected official, and was featured directly by Jewish Chronicle. However, his relative importance means that his reaction is not crucial - the JVL's is likely more pertinent to the article. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also include Williamson's comment he has been notable/controversial within the Labour Party and beyond for his defence of Corbyn and views on antisemitism (as you can see by looking at his article), and also it shows that these group's views are backed up by elected officials. But the JVL comment should be included at the very least. Can we find another source other than RT, though? This page has enough RS issues as it is. -- Bangalamania (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)(See below --Bangalamania (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC))

@Bangalmania: - RT is normally dubious, but WP:RSN seems to agree that it is fine for straightforward facts. I couldn't find another source with the same interview, but in this case RT may suffice as the source contains a direct video of Kuper defending Corbyn, and as such shouldn't cause too much issue, as the quote is clear. However, I will keep looking. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If only RT is covering these fringe groups - it is WP:UNDUE - so that nukes the second sentence. This is a news event covered widely by mainstream sources (even in the US - NYT). As for Chris Williamson - he was not addressing the joint editorial, but rather the "Mr Williamson also attacked the Board of Deputies and the "self-appointed" Jewish Leadership council". Furthermore, if we were to use Williamson's remarks recorded by an undercover JC reporter, it would be due to mention that they occurred after he "When Mr Williamson returned to speak he failed to challenge the antisemitic conspiracy theory that had been given rapturous applause from the audience.: per the JC.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz, we need a better source than RT to show that the content is not WP:UNDUE. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Stricken my original comment as I can't seem to find any other sources discussing this interview. Same argument goes for these recently-del'd edits which are sources to Ekklesia/Morning Star. --Bangalamania (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to say the same as I do above, we should no more put in every defense then we should every accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven:, @Absolutelypuremilk:, @Icewhiz:, @Bangalamania:, @Sir Joseph: - I agree with most of the above, particularly in relation to balance. However, the section in question, at the time I proposed the edit, has no commentary on defence, but focused entirely on condemnation. Nonetheless, it appears that the wider media hasn't covered this, and RT likely cannot stand on his own. I also may have misunderstood the implications of Williamson's remarks, per above. As such, I will refrain from making the edit. Thanks for all the help. - Stormy clouds (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

References

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

Hodge calling Corbyn a racist and letter from rabbis in the lede

I think a Labour MP calling Corbyn an antisemitic racist and more than 60 rabbis writing a letter complaining about the anti-semitism definition change are notable enough for the lede. Tanbircdq disagrees. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say it's that notable really. After all, it's Labour setting out in detail a disciplinary procedure, with a definition and examples. It's not an example of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. That's what the article should really be focused on. Garageland66 (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If RS say it is antisemitism so must we, but if RS say "X has called it antisemitism" that becomes more iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Labour MPs calling the party leader antisemitic - and receiving quite a bit of coverage doing so - defimitely lede worrthy.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is standard - everyone who follows this knows it - so smear anyone critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians as anti-Semitic, and these publicity forays to create an incident are meant as pressure to void of a critical edge the one party that considers human rights abuses a serious part of its agenda. Wikipedia should not play up the endless trivia of sleazy sniping whose intent is political - to invalidate a party from being a democratic alternative because it happens to resist rewriting its membership rules according to texts imposed by an highly politicized lobby, for lobby it is.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, it's not an issue of 'playing up the endless trivia...' it's about what the reliable sources say. ThatMove (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for reliable sources, but am highly cautious when editors qualify marginal community papers as mainstream when the issue is one of sowing suspicion about a group or person, while, at the same time, erase, keep out or argue against equally somewhat 'marginal' (The Morning Star is a paper with a long history, and catered to a once thriving community) sources as not mainstream. What editors are doing is saying Jewish community papers are fine, but Labour-oriented communist papers aren't. It's a political double standard.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jewish media is quite relevant for coverage of antisemitism. Furthermore one should note that Jewish is a religion/ethnicity - not a political point of view.Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Who said they weren't? I stated that since they are used, so logically should labour party media covering all significant positions, be used. England, communists are just as much a community as Jews. Editors here appear to be saying minor Jewish papers can be used re anti-Semitism (fine), but minor Labour party papers cannot be used re criticisms of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. The double standard stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Join the collective you will be assimilated?Jonney2000 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The question here ought to be the reliability of the sources, not whether they are Jewish and/or political. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(Came here because of a link to this discussion posted on ANI.) @Icewhiz: You really should retract the above comment. Jewish newspapers that push a political point of view are definitely political, regardless of whether they are also Jewish, and this is an article about a political party; insinuating, even after Nishidani's response above, that Nish said something otherwise, as you recently did on ANI, is incredibly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're misreading Icewhiz's comment. They didn't say that Jewish media is not political, they said that Judaism is not a political point of view. Iffy★Chat -- 10:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not misreading anything; Icewhiz misread Nishidani's comment. Nishidani didn't say anything whatsoever about "Judaism being a political point of view", but rather was clearly talking about "Jewish media". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani made a political comparison between a partisan paper strongly associated with a political party (the communist party of Britain) and a fairly a-political 177 old Jewish newspaper that represents a highly diverse set of political views (though, as a Jewish community newspaper it does condemn antisemitism). There simply isn't any reasonable parallel here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... is it apolitical or does it represent diverse political views? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri and myself read Icewhiz's comment accurately. The farce here, above and below, is that we are accepting as RS 3 Jewish community papers while holding out against inclusion some Labour Party-affiliated newespapers, one of great standing, the Morning Star, which has never, by the way, advocated the kind of genocidal crap that columnists for the Jewish Chronicle like Geoffrey Alderman write. For the Jewish Chronicle having someone who has said halakhic law permits the mass killing of all Gazans who voted for Hamas on their payroll's okay, but Corbyn is an existential threat to British Jews. I'm fine with using the Jewish Chronicle et al., but accepting them, means there is no argument against excluding Labour-affiliated papers that have no parallel record of publishing religious fanatics who extol genocide.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki is not a place for polemicals please retract, the unsourced statement. "England, communists are just as much a community as Jews."Jonney2000 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't get much more hypocritical than demanding someone retract a benign truism, while defending Icewhiz's (repeated, unretracted) personal attacks on Nish... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so that we are all on the same page, the question should never be "does this source express extreme political positions" but rather, "does it have fact checking and appropriate editorial oversight". There seems to be a great desire from many contributors to this discussion to sort using a kind of "Overton window" of acceptable views, which is not the way WP is supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a "great desire" to use or not to use this or that or any source in particular: I just want Icewhiz (and now, apparently, Jonney2000) to stop putting words in people's mouths and/or deliberately misinterpreting them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

2010 House of Commons event does not detail why it was controversial

The paragraph regarding the 2010 House of Commons event in the section called "Incidents in the 21st century" which was officiated by Corbyn and Labour members downplays the nature of controversy by excluding why it was called antisemitic. It’s important to include this information otherwise readers will not understand why it was controversial and may just assume it was made up to attack Corbyn, a lie many of his most ardent supports repeatedly use. I attempted to expand the start of the paragraph on the 8th August slightly to give our reader the actual reasons behind the controversy without touching or removing anything else from it. This is the current text before my changes: "In 2010, during the Holocaust Memorial Week in the UK, Corbyn presided over an event in the House of Commons where Holocaust analogies and discourse were used to criticise the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians, with the main talk by anti-Zionist Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer entitled "The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes". During..." As you can see it does not provide the reader any real detail about what was actually said or what was antisemitic about the event.

Its important to include that Hajo Meyer’s speech repeatedly compared Israel's action to Nazi policies, the fact that he took aim at fellow Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel claiming he was the a "high priest" of a "Holocaust religion" and that Haidar Eid stated that the Jews had become Nazis themselves. This is what I changed it to: "In 2010, during the Holocaust Memorial Week in the UK, Corbyn presided over an event in the House of Commons where Holocaust analogies and discourse were used to criticise the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians, with the main talk by anti-Zionist Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer entitled "The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes" and came during a tour by Meyer entitled "Never again for anyone - Auschwitz to Gaza". During the talk he repeatedly compared Israel's action in Gaza to the Nazi policies during the Holocaust, and took aim at fellow Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel claming he was the "high priest" of a "Holocaust religion". Palestinian activist Haidar Eid also addressed the event saying "The world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims." During..." (Also see link here to the change). As you can see everything was properly referenced from reliable sources for accuracy and was short to the point to give maximum understanding to the reader without going off topic or rewriting the whole paragraph. I did not change anything after the word "During". I have followed WP policy and do not understand why the information has been removed. The remover did not give any valid reason to remove other then he thinks it looks “cottracky” which is not a word I nor Google search has ever heard off! It’s not even a WP policy shortcut as I checked.

References

Additionally as you can see from the change, I also filled in the detail of a missing reference using the {{cite web}} function in a completely different paragraph as it is a plain url link. Why WP:BURL needs to be justified on a talk page accepts me. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey. I think that these edits are good at providing context, although I can see why they may be seen as WP:COATRACKy (which is what I think the person who reverted your edits was referring to) or just a bit wordy in general. But I am personally inclined to agree with the changes. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The first version is right, the second just verbiage from an inaccurate and lazy journalistic source written to assume the reader will be scandalized. That is the point of the suggested addition -scandal mongering where there is nothing scandalous, and smearing by association. Corbyn presided over a talk where analogies were made (that have been made repeatedly by Jews (e.g. Victor Klemperer) since 1934) with Nazi treatment of Jews down to 1939 (that was Meyer's talk) said to be analogous to Israelis of Palestinians. One can try to work this up as hysterically as possible, for maximum impact, but it's intensely boring, and useless. What Corbyn listened to in 2010 was no different from what Gerald Kaufman used to state in parliament, which you can listen to in this youtube snippet from 2009. No difference. Why the British press almost a decade later finds scandalous Corbyn listening to Hajo Meyer saying in 2010 exactly what Gerard Kaufman said in Parliament in 2009 is beyond the reach of logic. It has of course a political 'logic', one of ensuring open debate in Great Britain must desist from any criticism of Israel's occupation that would not be approved by Zionist groups, but Wikipedia should not be sucked into this slime. Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That some Jews, or former Jews, endorse an argument is not an indication in regards to the antisemitic nature (or not) of the argument - pointing said "Jewish" positions is if at all an indication of something else. As for the outrage - lazy or not - RSes are reporting this, and it seems Corbyn did a bit more than just listen in this and in other events.[1].Icewhiz (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, just because Kaufman had said it previously doesn't make it any less notable that Corbyn organised an event saying it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither of you are being logical. Corbyn heard Meyer say what Kaufman and others said earlier in the British Parliament. Did anyone step up and made a scandal of Kaufman as an anti-Semite at that time? Probably not. But if a goy is present when another Jew makes the same point, specifying 1933-1939, then it automatically implies the goy here, Corbyn, must be an anti-Semite, and his election a threat to Israel. The Telegraph is not RS for this, not least because:-

In June 2014, The Telegraph was criticised by Private Eye for its policy of replacing experienced journalists and news managers with less-experienced staff and search engine optimisers. On 10 September 2014, the Telegraph Media Group advertised in the Daily Telegraph for a new Head of Interactive Journalism stating candidates should "have demonstrable interest in news and journalism (previous newsroom experience is not needed however)".

As I showed earlier, these newspaper reports on Meyer and Corbyn, and most recently the smear about Corbyn at Atef Bseiso's tomb, prove only that journalists are not doing their investigative work. Is there any video of the talks given? I can't find one. I did find a version of the talks he gave that year here

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

In the introductory presentation the speaker clarifies that Gaza is not Auschwitz. Meyer begins by affirming that, 7.05 minutes in, he agrees with 100% of the preceding introductory remarks. All I can see in all these articles is meme reproduction by lazy fleet street hacks.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that the 2010 House of Commons event is listed under "Incidents in the 21st century" rather than under 2018 events. It has been raised in 2018 as part of the ongoing campaign against Corbyn. Was it raised as an issue in 2010? I'm sure if it was, the sources would be readily available, it being relatively recent in the internet age. If it wasn't raised at the time, then the criticism is a 2018 event. The salient fact is "In August 2018, Henry Zeffman of The Times published an article about a 2010 Holocaust Memorial Week meeting chaired by Corbyn". Sionk (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note to allow editors to get perspective here on the 2010 stuff

Maj.Gen. Yair Golan in 2016

'“The Holocaust must lead us to think about our public life, and more importantly, it must lead everyone who can, not merely those who want, to carry public responsibility. If there is something that frightens me about the memory of the Holocaust, it is seeing the abhorrent processes that took place in Europe, and Germany in particular, some 70, 80 or 90 years ago, and finding manifestations of these processes here among us in 2016. Yoav Zitun IDF backs chief of staff candidate after Lieberman urged not to appoint him Ynet 13 August 2018

That was precisely the point made by speakers at the 2010 meeting. For listening to them, Corbyn is branded an anti-Semite. Having made the same analogy, an Israeli general is now appointed head of the IDF, despite some murmurs. One should keep in mind the huge press fuss now made of Meyer and Corbyn 2010 for saying or being present as such analogies were made, and the reception now of an identical view put forward by a leading IDF general. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Long-standing version removed

It would appear that User:Icewhiz and User:Sir Joseph are teaming up to removing whole information on this page to push their agenda.[2][3][4] This information includes information from publications including Jewish Chronicle, Times of Israel, Open Democracy, and from academics such as Noam Chomsky and Avi Shlaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevertBob (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

All my edits removed again![5]. Can someone who knows please report this abuse of editing? RevertBob (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. The content removed is far from long standing - it has been recently added. The cited policy reason is WP:UNDUE, and in some cases outright duplication] of minor fringe outlier opinions by activists - which in some cases rely on publications in fringe outlets, and in others while reported - not nearly significant enough. We don't include each and every opinion of an activist on this page - which is about antisemitism in Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if you're offended you removed information that had been on the page for months and when objected your colleague then removed it also. Undue and fringe aren't arguments to have the page dominated by a right-wing media narrative making it rather one-sided. RevertBob (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky goes back in

excising material on Noam Chomsky's views regarding anti-Semitism, Corbyn and the UK labour party as 'fringe American voice'.

Apart from the nescient puerility of calling Noam Chomsky a fringe figure, since the page is stacked with quotes people like Karen Pollock; Charlotte Nichols, Women's Officer of Young Labour and member of Jewdas; Jonathan Arkush; Actor and comedian David Schneider;Comedian David Baddiel; Rossendale Councillor Pam Bromley; Stephen Oryszczuk; Jamie Stern-Weiner, etc., it is patently obvious that removing Chomsky is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you take him out, then a dozen names of people with no particular knowledge of anti-Semitism, Israeli politics and the Labour Party's history would have to be scythed. Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There are indeed several other fringe figures (a collection of far left Jewish activists) quoted - which collectively are given way too much weight and should be pared back to actual coverage of them in mainline RS (as opposed to Counter punch).Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, we wouldn't have much of an article, since most of the attack-Corbyn papers are not worth a nob of goat's shit for a serious topic like this. It is inane to say Chomsky is a fringe finger. Read his biography. All over Wikipedia articles on I/P issues, two bit commentators and journalists are cited with alacrity. Chomsky is one of the foremost historians of this kind of area. I won't even argue the point, because it is ludicrous. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In other words, Icewhiz, you have to demonstrate that Noam Chomsky is a fringe figure, not simply claim it (and embarrassing knowledgeable readers in doing so) Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In the field of linguistics Chomsky is an authority. In the field of antisemitism and British politics - not - as evidenced by the lack of mainstream coverage of his views on this matter.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would the Jewish Chronicle citation not be sufficient in this context? An uncharitable observer might conclude that you are willing to defend the inclusion of Jewish Chronicle material unless it undermines your POV, in which case if becomes "not mainstream".

Also, I don't see why you are specifying "British politics" when you talk about Cbomsky's authority about antisemitism. His positions and commentary are undoubtedly notable and are prominent outside WP and also within, so again your insistence that his commentary on antisemitism "and British politics" is somehow parochially "American" seems bizarre. Would you exclude the views of Israeli commentators on the same basis? Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(a) In the field of anti-Semitism, almost no one cited on this page is an (academic) authority. Indeed most of the attack consists of newspaper reports by sources that ignore wholly the complex distinctions made in the literature.' The distinction assumed here is a 'political' - conflating criticism of Zionism with criticism of 'Jews' - not a historically or definitionally cogent one (as many noted critics have pointed out). (b) Icewhiz, you clearly have no knowledge of Chomsky's non-linguistic works: many of them are standard introductions to the Middle East, where he comments, with wide comparative documentation, the use of the anti-Semitism accusation to disarm or silence critics of Israel (pp.15ff, for example).(d) no one challenges the use of Chomsky at Guatemala or Indonesian occupation of East Timor, because he is not a Guatemala expert, nor an authority on Indonesia or East Timor, etc.etc.etc. 'Fringe'? I asked you to provide me with evidence that Chomnsky is 'fringe' for views regarding politics and Israel, when he has a couple of dozen books, widely quoted, on the topics. This is deeply silly. Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky gets way too much coverage on wikipedia for his inweighing into matters his degrees don't cover (i.e. what is really activism being presented as expert opinion). He's a very intelligent, very charismatic... and also very polarizing man (in linguistics and some other fields; in the former good men have lost their jobs merely for being on the wrong side of the Team Chomsky v Team anti-Chomsky debates). In politics, he has raised a lot of eyebrows for favorable treatment of bloodsoaked regimes like that of Pol Pot [[6]][[7]]. He's a pretty polarizing guy, he is not a politician or a political expert or an established expert on anti-Semitism (philosophy and linguistics -- we can quote him anywhere in those, but this is different). We have plenty of voices we can reference here, actually this page is quite long. Chomsky is not optimal. Don't fight for the sake of fighting. Additionally, the source was Counterpunch -- not ideal. --Calthinus (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

99% of modern press coverage on the world's woes and hotspots is 'polarizing'. So? All coverage of recent events is tendentially polarizing, and this page is an excellent example of one constructed on a highly politicized polarizing set of opinions. Activism' in the sense you use it is something I only encounter on Wikipedia, meaning 'involved, ergo no citable', which, given the journalists and sources we cite (The Jewish Chronicle etc., are all 'activist' in that sense) means no one can be cited on an article like this. 'Activist' in other words is a 'shut-up' term for what we userd to call public intellectual, people of high achievements in their fields who speak more broadly to their communities on general issues regarding the nature of our democracies. You can't cite Chomsky because of Cambodia? (read this summary. The meme is silly, esp. since Ben Kiernan, one of the world's leading authorities both on Cambodia and genocide, still uses Chomsky (Blood and Soil p.690-1 n.71,694) as a source for events on other areas (Burundi and East Timor for example ) where genocide has been practiced) is like saying you can't cite Benny Morris simply because he believes the ethnic cleaning of 700,000 Palestinians and stealing their land was a good thing. CounterPunch, per RSN, is perfectly acceptable for citing what any notable authority on a subject may say. I never fight for the sake of fighting. I dislike double standards: accepting poor sources if they espouse what an editor wants to hear, and expunging good sources if they contract that POV, a practice apparent all over this page. Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should balance public intellectuals on Counter-Punch with public intellectuals from Artuz Sheva? At least then we'd over-represent the radicals from both sides. Chomsky's opinion is all fine and dandy, but there's little indication that his opinion is mentioned by mainline sources covering antisemitism in Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nish: Benny Morris, like him or not, is a topic expert where he is relevant. He is controversial within that topic, but deserves mention as he is relevant there. Chomsky is controversial within linguistics but still he deserves much discussion there. The same is not true about politics or antisemitism -- he is an expert in neither, meaning he is just polarizing. I wonder, has CounterPunch survived an RSN? I'd be surprised. --Calthinus (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

... well, the last such discussion doesn't seem to indicate reliably that CounterPunch is... reliable. [All but one commenter argued not]. --Calthinus (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You miss the distinction. CounterPunch is not usable for facts. Counterpunch is eminently citable for the views of notable public figures who use it to publish their thoughts.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, last time Chomsky was in, it was sourced to the Jewish Chronicle, yes? How is that not a reliable source, in this context? Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a question of DUE, not whether we can reliably source what Chomsky said. However, I will note that the JC doesn't quite support what we were saying. We said: In 2017, linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky said: "I wholeheartedly support the right of anyone to criticise Israel without being branded antisemitic. That goes in particular for Jackie Walker.". However the JC said - The poster also includes a picture of Ms Walker next to a dangling rope, overlaid by the words “To oppose Israel is not to be antisemitic”. Near the bottom of the poster is a quote attributed to Noam Chomsky, the Jewish far-left linguist and philosopher. It reads: “I wholeheartedly support the right of anyone to criticise Israel without being branded antisemitic. That goes in particular for Jackie Walker”.. So - the JC is reporting that Chomsky's name was next to a quote on a poster promoting Walker's one-woman show called The Lynching at the Edinburgh Festival in August. (JC's piece is titled - Jackie Walker compares her Labour suspension for alleged antisemitism to a 'lynching'). So - we don't have a RS saying Chomsky said that, we have a RS reporting on a poster promoting a performance of Walker, in the context of reporting on Walker's performance - and not on antisemitism in Labour (which is mentioned due to Walker's suspension and due to Walker (or whomever drafted the poster) bringing it up in the poster promoting her show). Clearly UNDUE for this topic, and without a RS backing it up.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my skepticism, but if you applied such strict scrutiny and sourcing requirements to the commentary alleging Labour antisemitism in the article, the text would be much shorter and more balanced than it actually is. You seem willing to apply such a high bar only to the critics of the allegation. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

High bar? The JC reporting on a quote allegedly by Chomsky appearing on a poster for a one-woman show in a piece about Walker? That cited piece isn't even reliable for Chomsky saying it (it is reliable for saying whomever drafted the poster put Chomsky's name on a quote - as that is what the JC says about it), and definitely doesn't establish DUEness. Chomsky's quote is not about Labour in general, but about Jackie Walker. If this is the bar for inclusion - we'll be able to throw in a whole lot of counter radicals (and I am not advocating this).Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The point is not the Walter quote: it is whether a general comment by Chomsky on the situation is fair game. It is obvious here that those editing in the attack material on the 'Alleged' anti-Semitism in the Labour Party have a high tolerance of sources like the Jewish Chronicle which hosts people like Geoffrey Alderman, noted for their assertion that genocide is halakhically acceptable for the people of the Gaza Strip, but which attacks people appalled by that kind of mentality for being thereby 'antisemites'. It's a shit source, but I haven't protested its use, and by the same token, no one should object to Chomsky whose whole public life has been dedicated to chronicling genocidal impulse within states.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but you are moving goalposts here. Earlier you said "This is a question of DUE, not whether we can reliably source what Chomsky said." But you have not explained how one mention in the JC "counts" for DUE and BALANCE and another does not. You seem to decide that based on some kind of preconceptions. If you want to discuss whether the Chomsky quote - which is essential to the play - is accurate, we can do that, but that was not the question here which was your inconsistent application of sourcing criteria based on POV. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well - I looked at the source again - and noticed it doesn't even say Chomsky said it (but said it appears on a poster), and this in a piece covering a one woman performance. However, even if we were to have a Counter Punch article (which is where this came from in my mind previously, I must be confusing this with something else) - that would be reliable for Chomsky saying it - it still would be UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Undue is not supposed to function as a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are required to argue why some material is due, and other material is not. Normally due/undue refers not to this or that item being cited, but its proportionality. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

And to paraphrase myself a bit more bluntly, it seems that the JC counts towards DUE when Icewhiz likes the content cited but not when they DOESNTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to show why a brief blurb in a RS mentioning a Chomsky quote appearing on a poster for a "one-woman show called The Lynching at the Edinburgh Festival in August" is due for inclusion - it's not a question of this being the JC or the BBC - it's brief blurb about a quote in a poster in an off topic news item.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Lynching is already a notable contribution to the debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party. Whether or not it is a source for the Chomsky quite, it is not simply a "one-woman show at the Edinburgh Festival in August" any more than the Second World War was simply "a dispute among the great powers for territory and influence". You are simplifying and minimizing, Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A one woman show by a the former Vice-Chair of Momentum who was suspended by the Labour party itself for antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Which naturally makes if it highly relevant to the debate. But, just as naturally,YOUDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm putting back the information that was recently removed from the page which adds to presenting it as one-sided dominated by a right-wing media narrative. RevertBob (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Canary

Are we genuinely saying that the Canary is a reliable source? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any previous talk discussions anywhere that has systematically ruled-out it's use as a reliable source? Their writing is clear, well researched and with editorial oversight. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

They are regulated by IMPRESS, that should qualify them under WP:RS. G-13114 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is regulated by the IPSO, yet we've deemed it unreliable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's rather a poor comparison, The Daily Mail had 37 complaints against them upheld for inaacuracy by IPSO during 2017 alone, they have a well established reputation for inaccuracy. As far as I can establish, the Canary has had one complain upheld against it since it started in 2015, which is considerably less than some of the news organisations we use as sources here. G-13114 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If one were to normalize the amount of complaints by readership (and possibly number of published news items as well), the Canary and DM would come out as quite comparable.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

What's readership got to do with it? Any source to back up that claim? G-13114 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Same for shoddy journalism on a fringe website. Specifically the Daily Mail is the second ranked newspaper in the UK in terms of print circulation.[8]. The Canary doesn't do print - it is a website - its alexa rank is 50,638 (or 1,743 in the UK) - [9]. The Daily Mail is ranked 141 globally (and 22 in the UK).[10] So yes - the Daily Mail is read more - much-much more than The Canary. As for number of published items - this is clearly evident even in a brief examination of both websites.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a terrible publication and has been accused of clickbait. Apparently journalists get paid by how many clicks their articles receive.

On the substance, the list of supporting groups is posted at [11]. Looking just at the UK signatories, there are 7. Every single one's existence is focused on Palestine (Independent Jewish Voices, Manchester Jewish Action for Palestine , Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Voice for Peace members in London, Free Speech on Israel) or the Labour Party (Jewish Voice For Labour , Jewish Socialists’ Group) - or, I suppose, both. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it has not be found to not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those who would seek to use a source, not the other way around.Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Says nothing about RS. If you want to object for another reason fine, but I am not seeing anything about this that renders it non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Which part of the story quoted in the Canary article is inaccurate or misleading? It's as far as I can see a bona fide story reported accurately about a real event. G-13114 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Canary does not have a reputation for reliability or fact checking. It is tabloid-style coverage on a web site. Sources are presumed non-reliable unless there is positive affirmation that a source is reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not my understanding, a source has to be shown to not be RS, else we would not have been using nth DM for years. How do you even "prove a reputation for fact checking" What you can do is prove is has a bad reputation, care to provide some evidence for that?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather we linked to the primary source (which includes the list of organisations) than a secondary source that is clickbait and has dubious reliability. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail was actually a tougher call - as it is an established news org with a wide circulation. This particular site in question does not have much of a circulation/impact.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

My mistake I thought we were talking about reputation for accuracy, not popularity.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Its clearly WP:UNDUE no major news outlets picked this up --Shrike (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally a valid reason.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"a coalition of 36 international Jewish anti-Zionist groups signed a letter of opposition, calling the IHRA definition a “distorted definition of antisemitism to stifle criticism of Israel”. The Guardian July 17. So the existence of the letter from 26 groups is not disputed, the only question is what WEIGHT to give to the subject.

There are also two discussions about the definition issue, here and and here by Brian Klug. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Canary, Morning Star,(strikethrough – see below --Bangalamania (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC))Express and Skwawkbox really ought not to be used as sources. Opinion pieces and self-published sources are also pretty bad to be including here, regardless of political bent. I've removed a lot of these as of now; since these all engage in tabloid journalism or are generally considered non-RS. I think the onus should be on why such information should be included in the article, not the other way around. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I really don't think we can use The Canary as a source. It really isn't reliable. ThatMove (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We can't really cherry pick which papers to use and which not to. The Morning Star is a well established daily newspaper that's been in circulation for over fifty years. Garageland66 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Morning Star is no more partisan than the The Jewish Chronicle. However, there is no evidence that any of these sources meet Wikipedia's definition of tabloid such as the Daily Mail which the community has deemed non-RS because of its inaccurate reporting. Subjective opinions such as ownership and circulation aren't valid reasons for deeming a source as unreliable but its fact checking. RevertBob (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was wrong to include the Morning Star as an example there; I see it has been used on other pages with no issue and I agree with what people have been saying here. That being said, I really don't think we should be using the other sources I mentioned, though (with the exception of the Jewish News story, which is clearly notable in its own right). --Bangalamania (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Every source on this page needs to be reviewed.

I've been looking over sources, and several of them flatly do not support what they're being cited for here. The first two I looked at had glaring problems. The Independent piece mentions Keir Hardie only in passing and did not ascribe antisemitic views to him personally, while Vaughn is much more cautious in his wording than what he was cited for here (mentioning antisemitism only in relation to Mayhew personally, not Labour as a whole, and with careful qualifiers at that.) These errors are serious enough that I have to conclude that whoever added those sources didn't actually read them thoroughly (or that the text cited to them has undergone successive revisions to make it more aggressive without consulting what the source actually says), which suggests that other sources on the page likely have similar problems. EDIT: I also removed a bit on the 13% / 14% polling. This one was somewhat more defensible (the source does at least contain those numbers), but it was being used here for the opposite of its purpose in the source - the source is clearly providing it as context to say that Corbyn hadn't significantly shifted Jewish positions on Labour. Corbyn’s difficulty appealing to Jews at the ballot box must be put in context. A Survation poll before the election found only 13 per cent of Jews were planning to vote Labour in 2017, but two years earlier, in 2015, just 14 per cent said they were backing Miliband's Labour before Corbyn’s ascent to the leadership. Yet anti-semitism does come up on the doorstep... Taking something from a source and using it out-of-context in a way that implies the opposite of what it did in the original is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I propose that this article be renamed Alleged antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. For more information, see Talk:Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This proposal has been rejected twice, at an RM in December and at an RFC in May. There's no reason to bring this up again only 3 months after an RFC rejected the proposal. Iffy★Chat -- 12:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. I expect we shall soon have an article Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party [12] so the same question will arise with that. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss this in depth, then go ahead and create the article. Iffy★Chat -- 14:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on it. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mock wurzel soup: I have already created Racism in the UK Conservative Party, which deals not only with the recent allegations of Islamophobia but also puts it in a broader historical context (Smethwick by-election, 'Rivers of Blood', Thatcher & apartheid, etc.). I hope you don't mind me putting the Islamophobia redirect to that page for the time being, and I'd greatly appreciate any help on that page too. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fine. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Racism and Islamophobia are two different things. They shouldn't be conflated like antisemitism and antizionism shouldn't be. RevertBob (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I expect you are right. Can you suggest a term which includes both? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Otherstuff is not a valid excuse. Also take this to the Conservative page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You might say please. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to do some standardization here. I suggest moving Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party to Discrimination in the UK Labour Party and Racism in the UK Conservative Party to Discrimination in the UK Conservative Party and putting both in Category:Discrimination in the United Kingdom. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about discrimination, it's about antisemitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

True, that does not mean it cannot be expanded.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This page is already in that cat, and the purpose of this page is antisemitism, if you want to discuss other forms of discrimination, if there is RS and notability then create a discrimination page, but this page is long enough as is, we don't need to expand the scope. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally would agree. As for the standardision issue, I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a separate Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party page, if people object to its inclusion in the racism article. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I would rather we did not discus other pages here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. The Labour party is in the midst of a rather major antisemitism crisis with international coverage of this. If there are other forms of discrimination, they can be discussed in a different page.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz, discrimination is too wide a topic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• No Antisemitism is the COMMON term, commonly used in discussions of this phenomenon in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

From the "Rebuttals" section:

In April 2016, independent researcher Jamie Stern-Weiner's review of the cases of antisemitism suggests, even some of these examples were tendentiously represented in the national media, so that in some cases at worst crude or tone-deaf comments about "Zionists" were treated as equivalent to antisemitic conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial.[216][217] As of May 2016, just 0.4% of the parliamentary party, 0.07% of the councillors, and 0.012% of the membership had been suspended for antisemitism, which was a total of 56 just people.[216][218]

Bolding mine. The fix should be self-explanatory. Here is the edit where the current wording was introduced, it's been in its current state for nearly three months now. WonnE66 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RS please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this covered?

• Ewen MacAskill and Ian Cobain, Israeli diplomat who plotted against MPs also set up political groups The Guardian 8 January 2017

An Israeli embassy official who plotted to “take down” MPs regarded as hostile has also set up a number of political organisations in the UK that operated as though entirely independent. Shai Masot was filmed covertly as he boasted about establishing several groups, at least one of which was intended to influence Labour party policy, while appearing to obscure their links to Israel.The disclosure comes as Labour demanded the government launch an immediate inquiry into “improper interference in our democratic politics”. A former Tory government minister also called for an inquiry into the Israeli embassy’s links with two organisations, Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI).

• Yumna Patel, Israeli attorney files FOIA request to determine govt role in anti-Corbyn campaign Mondoweiss 24 August 2018 Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: And this is relevant how? As an attempt to counter antisemitism in Labour?Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No, as an attempt to counter fake antisemitism in Labour. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

However infuriating it may seem, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. There would need to be some strong reliable sources linking this to the issue of Labour Party antisemitism for it to be included in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Is The Guardian not a reliable source? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Al Jazeera investigation.[13] If this isn't a strong link, I don't know what is. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian and Al Jazeera are both perfectly RS (and more reliable than a number of sources used on this page already); that isn't the issue here. I was just saying that the quoted content about the Israeli embassy isn't really about antisemitism in the Labour Party, but Israeli influence in UK politics. Only Mondoweiss directly links this to the issue of antisemitism (and there are RS issues there), not The Guardian. Al Jazeera links this to the issue of the Israel's role in UK politics, not antisemitism in the Labour Party. That is discussed in other parts of the documentary, which I would argue could be included here. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll start a new article: Israeli interference in British politics to match Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, no need! It's already in Israel–United Kingdom relations. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing, at this time there is not direct link made. It's obvious there is, but we need RS making the link.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on neutrality and recentism tags

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

---

There are two tags on this page. I would like to remove them, but as per the above discussion, Garageland66 and Slatersteven disagree. The discussions don't seem to be reaching a conclusion so I have opened this RfC. Should the tags be removed? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support I think this article adequately summarises the relevant sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The 'recentism' seems self-evident. I was one of those who previously argued for a rename - since the subject of the article is patently the recent scandal. Such a rename would not have precluded some 'back story', but it would meant that the article would no longer need to pretend to be covering the 100+ years of a party. Much of the present 'history' section is simplistic in the extreme - "The Labour Party had a historical affinity for Israel both because the labour movement was part of a broad, political left that historically supported national movements". Somehow that sentence ignores that it was a Labour Govt post-WWII that vigourously opposed Jewish migration to Palestine and the formation of a Jewish state - not of course evidence of A-S on the part of that govt, but omitting that key fact leaves a very simplistic analysis of the relationship between Labour and Israel (and by extension Jewry). The rest of the scant history uses a handful of sources - which thankfully are attributed, but how many thousands of history books have been written about the Labour party and Labour govts? Regarding neutrality, there has been a massive improvement since I last looked at the article - paticularly in later sections, but clean-up and context is still required. Most of Rich's analysis - perhaps that of others - is about 'the Left', some of it about people who have never been Labour members, or have already been expelled for other reasons (Galloway?). This is akin to holding the Republican party responsible for every far-righter it has ever had contact with. At times there is still confusion between criticism of Israel and AS, and 'guilt by implication' by us. What am I to conclude from: Mayhew was one of the 15 Labour MP's who voted with the Conservatives in favour of imposing an arms embargo on Israel? That not wanting to sell arms to Israel was inherently A-S by Mayhew? If so, pretty obviously, the Conservatives were the main antisemites, but it would be nonsense to claim either. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of the 'recentism' template. It's a recent issue, since 2015. It would be disingenuous to add a history to suggest the Labour Party had major issues with anti-seimitism accusations prior to 2015. As for the 'neutrality', I'm on the fence. There is no doubt going to be an ongoing opposition of views as to where the balance should lie. In general, the article is much less one-sided than when it first appeared. Sionk (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a recent story, unlike say the real anti-Semitism in the Conservative Party that formed party of official policy and statements until at least the Second World War. TFD (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are clearly still problems with recentism and lack of balance. This is a highly contentious topic. Everyone knows there are claims out there that this issue only surfaced in 2015 following the election of Corbyn. JVL, JSM and others have said it's being used to undermine Corbyn and to deter criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. When I've tried to add material on this, it's been removed. The only pre-2015 material in the article is sourced to the Rich and Hirsh books. Both these authors hold the controversial view that condemnation of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians constitutes antisemitism. So yes, problems with neutrality and recentism remain. Garageland66 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Elements of the Left have had a longstanding problem with antisemitism as an offshoot of a pro-Palestinian position. While criticism of Zionism and Israel may not be antisemitic, crossing the line and using the word "Jews" instead of "Israel" most definitely is; and a sitting Labour MP (Tam Dalyell) was doing just that 15 years ago, with his "cabal of Jewish advisers" outburst. As Sean Matgamna said, "Learn how to do it in the modern fashion, comrade Dalyell. Of course you didn't mean "Jews", you meant "Zionists", didn't you? Anti-Jewish feeling and ideas are usually now wrapped up in anti-Zionism. Not all "anti-Zionists" are anti-semites, but these days anti-semites are usually careful to present themselves as "anti-Zionists"." Then there was Martin Linton in 2010, and his "long tentacles of Israel" imagery. Or Gerald Kaufman and his assertion that "Jewish money" was a malignant influence in British politics. Ken Livingstone, anybody, and his Labour Heralds 1982 front cover showing Begin in an SS uniform, atop a pile of Palestinian skulls with the slogan "The final solution? Shalom"? Peter Hain denouncing "greedy" and "racist" Israel's right to exist? Recentism? I think not. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Gerald Kaufman was himself Jewish and was even a personal friend of Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. He also once said in Parliament "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszów. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed. Madam Deputy Speaker, my grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count." He uses the words Jews and Jewish and he condemns Israel. But surely it can't be claimed that the son of Jewish refugees such as Kaufman is an antisemite. Every example that's been provided above relates to Israel. The elephant in the room is the Palestinians. Garageland66 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Kaufman was Jewish. Did you bother to read the link? Where the Palestine Return Centre "distanced the group from Sir Gerald's comments" and said "We have often had events with Sir Gerald, but we have never had him saying anything like this. We do not tolerate antisemitism whatsoever. We understand the difference between antisemitism and criticising Israel. We can't tolerate any antisemitism. What [Sir Gerald] said is representing his own view." Or Ruth Smeeth, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, saying: "I think that these are not just unfortunate, but these are disgraceful remarks from the Father of the House and they cannot go unanswered." Or Louise Ellman: "These are despicable statements which support antisemitic conspiracy theories, and Gerald should withdraw them immediately." Or the Community Security Trust: "The language invites antisemitic interpretation about Jews, money and controlling politicians; and the belated hand wringing from others in the room is meaningless if they did not actually protest when the remarks were made." Or the Board of Deputies of British Jews: "We condemn Sir Gerald's outrageous comments... We also invite the Labour Party to initiate disciplinary proceedings to investigate his disgraceful words." The elephant in the room is antisemitism - it's wearing an anti-Zionist lampshade as a disguise, however. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Neil S. Walker, I think you might be misunderstanding WP:recentism. The discussion isn't about whether a-s is a recent phenomenon in the LP, it's about whether the article is over-skewed to representing recent events. Since most of the individuals and incidents you mention are NOT in the article, it would suggest that you think the article doesn't adequately cover pre-Corbyn. I am certainly not expert on any aspect of this subject, but found in 5 minutes that Ernest Bevin was accused of a-s for remarks he made at the time of Israel's formation - and I find it difficult to believe that the post-WWII Labour govt itself was not criticised for opposing Israel coming into being at that time. Not a word of any of this in the article. Everything was luvvy-duvvy between the Labour party, Israel, and both UK and world Jewry until relatively recently we are told. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely correct: I am interpreting incorrectly. The article does not adequately cover the pre-Corbyn era. Having been corrected, I have struck my support. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose See threaded discussion immediately above. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of recentism. Undecided on POV tag (and the article keeps changing, so...). The issue of AS in Labour has indeed surfaced, as a public issue, since 2015 - it wasn't as a significant issue previously. Hence, focusing on post-2015 events is DUE as that is what WP:RS cover.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above argument – this article describes a mostly post-2015 phenomenon, so accusations of recentism aren't really applicable.--Autospark (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support the removal of both. This is an article which is well sourced and details only information which is found in those references. There are enough editors here who read every edit to check it against the source material. Reading though it again it is clearly neutral and has been written from a NPOV, it even has an extensive rebuttals section. As for the recentism tag, the events and issue of AS in Labour has become public only since 2015 and the focus on the recent time frame is therefore coming from the references. However a lot of those events happened before 2015 and only surfaced now that people are calling the AS out for what it is. Perhaps more could be added but that can be said about any article. Remember this is an article about the current scandal in the Labour Party not a general article about AS in the political left. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 15:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Re "Remember this is an article about the current scandal in the Labour Party" Then why does the title not reflect that, and why have editors fought tooth and nail to keep the current title? Can one imagine a scandal caused by some outrageous statements by marginal Clinton supporters being called "Racism in the Democratic Party?" A financial scandal in Israel being called "Nepotism in (name of party)"? Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The current title is right, AS in Labour predates 2015 however what I was talking about was that it's only recently come out into the open since Corbyn took over. PS there is a lot of racism in the democratic party both historically and currently... the difference here is that labour used to be pro Jewish and pro Zionism. The democrats have always has racism. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 11:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Re:the difference here is that labour used to be pro Jewish and pro Zionism. That's what the article does its best to imply - by jumping from the 1920s to the 2000s, with a few mentions of the 70s. This is highly simplistic and ignores inconvenient facts like the 1948 Labour govt's vigourous opposition to the state of Israel even coming into being. There has long been a Jewish presence within the Labour party - and it may well be true that the pre-WWII Jewish communities in predominantly urban working class areas had a natural affinity for Labour (I don't know the figures, but it may well be true), but as one of the sources says - for a long time now - there has been no distinctive 'Jewish vote' in the UK - Jews show the same tendencies as other demographics, women, the young, those in public services, those who aren't very religious are slightly more likely to vote Labour - others more likely to vote Conservative or Liberal according to the same variables as any other UK social group. Any notion that Labour has historically been pro-Zionist, or pro-Israel is simply not borne out by the facts. There have always been a range of opinions within Labour (and other UK parties) about Israel - pragmatic acceptance of its existence and a wish to remain neutral AFAP, probably being the dominant one. That some of the more marginal anti-Israel, or pro-Palestinian voices on the left have come to the fore recently is the essence of what has happened. Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Neil S. Walker, I added the events you mentioned (the ones I could easily find sources for) to the article. Are you still concerned about recentism in this article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because this article will always have recentism and POV problems as long as it has this title. While the article does say multiple time that the issue of antisemitism in the UK Labour party was bought up by pro-Israel opponents of Jeremy Corbyn who conflate his opposition to specific Israeli policies with antisemitism, and that inquiries and surveys showed there was no prevalence of antisemitism in the labour party compared to other political parties, the title and the lead gives the impression that antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is a major problem, or "subject of discussion". This is exacerbated by the presence of the antisemitism infobox. The article is mostly about the recent discussions about allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, so the article will always be slanted toward these recent events if it attempts to encompass all incidents of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, as this title suggests. Similarly, the article will always violate WP:NPOV if the title doesn't say these are only mostly allegations that are being discussed. The third paragraph of the lead does show the survey data, of which a simple analysis reveals that antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is very marginal, however this analysis is not given until the Survey evidence.

Also, section 1980s; proposed origin of new antisemitic attitudes conflates antisemitism and opposition to Israeli policies. Emass100 (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose still an inherently dubious article in many respects. As there is a widely held and well referenced view that the current supposed antisemitism scandal is nothing more than a manufactured politically motivated attempt at destabilising the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn by his various opponents. I would second what Emass100 said. The very title of the article is non NPOV in my opinion, as it gives automatic credence to the notion that there is some kind of serious or exceptional problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, when there is really no objective evidence to support this idea, as long as this is the case then the article will have an inherent POV and recentism problem. G-13114 (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion the title is changed to 'Allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party since 2015'. Garageland66 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Rename per Garageland66. We should not be advancing the idea this is proven fact in Wikipedia's own voice. As for the original question, list me as unopposed/neutral at present. Recentism can still happen in an article about something that's post-2014, just on a smaller scale (e.g. regurgitation of news stuff that's only a few days or weeks old and primary and questionably encyclopedic, but desired to be included just because it's "hot". But being very recent doesn't make it wrong to include if it's reliably, independently, secondary-sourced and is clearly not trivia. It's going to be a case by case basis for any of this stuff. The PoV tag would be fixable with a move and then a tweaking to make sure the text fits the "allegations" model. The recentism tag is going to take more of an claim-by-claim analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  There has been an RM in December and an RFC only 2 months ago on the name of the article, and the consensus was to reject Garageland66's position both times. There is no basis for renaming now, just as there was no basis for renaming either of those times. Iffy★Chat -- 11:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  Then rename differently. A consensus against one proposed name is not a consensus to never, ever move. There is no such thing, and the PoV problem with the current title is clearly evident, so the issue will never go away until it is actually handled.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Any rename that purpots to fix the "POV problem" by adding an expression of doubt just creates a different POV problem in the opposite direction without any benefit to the encyclopedia. Also, it's possible for a moratorium to be placed on move discussions, as what happened at Sarah Brown. Iffy★Chat -- 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support for reasons adumbrated by Absolutelypuremilk ThatMove (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Pincrete, TFD and I also support per Garageland66 and SMcCandlish's observations above a name change to the neutral 'Allegations'. The title as it stands is an extraordinary violation of WP:NPOV in assuming these obsessively repeated allegations are a reality, made worse by the fact that we appear to have no comparable page, and the intense editing this gets to the detriment of neutrality, (?) for British political parties with a, according to polls, high anti-Semitic profile than the BLP. Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current article is an absolute mess that puts far too much weight on a handful of WP:FRINGE publications, op-eds from Labour's political opponents, and the like. This article is nearly at WP:TNT levels of poor sourcing and WP:UNDUE weight; the idea that either of those tags could come off of it while its problems remain so severe is absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of tags. As has been said above, for as long as this article has this title there will be recentism issues as most of the content is post-2015 (as, indeed, is the vast majority of newspaper coverage). I also agree that title change would be good for this page. – Bangalamania (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the neutrality tag

Others have posted about normal criticism of Israel being viewed as antisemitism, but I can't see that anywhere in the article. The only possible examples are where criticism of Israel goes beyond normal criticism of a state, e.g. wanting to forcibly relocate Israel to the US. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is an example of the problem, no party member has said this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The first example after Corbyn was elected is the accusation of antisemitism among members of the Oxford University Labour Club. This was precisely because of the OULP's support for Israeli Apartheid Week.Garageland66 (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that the OULP's support for Israeli Apartheid Week is antisemitic? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Go to the sources. https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/oxford-university-labour-club-anti-semitism-report-baroness-royall-jewish-students-a7170446.html https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/labour-condemns-antisemitism-oxford-university-labour-club-claims Garageland66 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So not in the article then. Even in those sources, I can't see anywhere it saying that it is antisemitic to support Israeli Apartheid Week. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. If the sources don't say anything directly claiming that this is antisemitism, then why has it been included in the article? This is all part of the problem of balance. So many of these allegations are really rather tenuous. Garageland66 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid Week isn't mentioned in the article though. The Independent article is used as a source for there being antisemitic incidents at Oxford University Labour Club, not for anything to do with IAW. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are having to put after every instance of an accusation "antisemitic" then that does rather imply that not all of them are in fact that strong, and rest largely on perception. If we have to identify every incident as antisemitic then we are in fact cluttering up the article with so many random accusations that we have to tell the reader what they are supposed to be seeing (rather then giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume they can think "well in an article about X this must be about X"). It does in fact give the impression that even those who are adding this material think it is not all that obvious (or are just adding any accusation even if it is not about antisemitic, and just need to make sure the ones that are are said to be). We do not have to keep saying teh Sea is wet in an article about the sea.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the recentism tag

Garageland66 and Slatersteven say that the article focuses too much on the period after Corbyn was elected leader, i.e. after September 2015, while agreeing that this is the time period of most of the sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The issue has only been made an issue since Corbyn was elected. That is the essence of the topic. Even the overview of things prior to 2015 is sourced to a book about Corbyn. It would be more disingenuous to create a history, from recent sources, to give the impression anti-semitism was a major issue prior to the current campaign. Sionk (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should not let some new blood take a look and comment?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not it was an issue pre-Corbyn is something the article must address in order to avoid recentism. Thatcherism explains when it became dominant in the Tory Party and traces its antecedents, even though the name of the topic is self-explanatory. TFD (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sionk, I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, but editors can't have their cake and eat it. Either the article is blatantly recent-ist, or it is mis-titled. We don't have Extreme weather phenomenon in the Atlantic or Corruption in the US Republican party. I'm sure there is a back story of the shifts in the relationship between the Labour party, Labour govts, UK and world Jewry, the state of Israel etc - and accusations of AS as part of that story. This article doesn't even attempt to tell that story except in terms that are so simplistic that a schoolboy could demolish them in two minutes - everything was luvvy-duvvy, Labour loved Jews and loved Israel, till Jeremy and his friends came along. There is equally validly an article about a recent scandal. It can't be both unless it sheds 9/10ths of the present content, which I suspect no one wants to do. I decided to withdraw from this article months ago - partly for the Machievellian reason that the article was such a blatant attack piece, that anyone reasonably familiar with the UK political scene would see the article for what it was. It has improved a lot since then. Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why that was addressed to me in particular. But I'd strongly urge not conflating Labour party members' attitudes to Israel, with Labour's record on anti-semitism. They're not the same subject. I've had a keen interest in UK politics for 40 years and I'm unaware of any significant accusations of anti-semitism aimed at the Labour Party until recent years. Gerald Kaufman will be turning in his grave! Sionk (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It was directed at you only to the extent that you are defending post-2010 content, but apparently unconcerned about the mis-match with the title. I certainly don't confuse views on Israel with a-s, but the most problematic incidents have been about the acceptable limits of the former, and sometimes even, when is a cartoon just tasteless? Kaufman was of course himself accused of making a-s remarks. I'm no expert in this topic area, but I found this easily on Bevin's page Critics have accused him of being anti-Semitic. One remark which caused particular anger was made when President Truman was pressing Britain to immediately admit 100,000 Jewish refugees, survivors of the Holocaust who wanted to immigrate to Palestine. Bevin told a Labour Party meeting that American pressure to admit Jews was being applied because "There has been agitation in the United States, and particularly in New York, for 100,000 Jews to be put in Palestine. I hope I will not be misunderstood in America if I say that this was proposed by the purest of motives. They did not want too many Jews in New York." That's a Labour foreign minister talking at one of the most sensitive moments in Jewish history - not a councillor from Billericay making a crass statement at a fringe meeting - or a young Peter Hain comparing Israel to S Africa. I don't mind whether the article is about the broader history or the recent issue, but it should make up its mind and match title and content. If it IS about the broader history, it conveniently skips from the comradely 1920s to the growth of a particular kind of criticism of Israel in the 1970s (sometimes very nasty, but often only very tenuously linked to the LP), leading inexorably to Jeremy. (incidentally, I don't have any loyalty to the LP, think Corbyn is a disaster area, and despise 'Ken', for reasons unrelated to his recent crassly insensitive remarks). Pincrete (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but odd. The quote gives the impression that Bevin is accusing New York of being anti-semitic, it's difficult to see how it can be construed that Bevin is being anti-semitic by accusing someone else of not wanting their Jewish population. But whatever. As for the recent UK events, I wasn't defending anything, just stating the obvious. Sionk (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the inference was they want us to take them only because they think they have already got too many of their own. Bevin claimed to be repeating what the US Amb had said to him (which one doubts - certainly not in those words). Bevin was of course noted for his blunt manner. The point is though that he WAS criticised for a-s heavily at the time. As were others around that time and that issue - but no suggestion of this in the article - in fact a very clear inference that the LP, UK and foreign Jewry and Israel have all been bosom buddies from 1920 .... till. Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete. I think the problem is why is the Labour Party being singled out. Is this a stand-alone article, or do we have articles on Antisemitism and the ...party in every Western democracy? On Bevin, the wiki article, like all of our articles incomplete, gives a selective record. The issues are historically very intricate because Great Britain had legally binding obligations in Palestine which the USA did not. From a British perspective it was all very well for Americans to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude telling the Brits to put Jewish refugees in their own administrative back yard (after the shabby treatment of refugees before the Holocaust) and cope with the Arab response, while covering their own backs electorally at home. Truman at one point in exasperation at the intense lobbying surrounding these issues for some years said:'Jesus Christ couldn't please them (Jews) when he was here on earth, so how could anyone expect that I could have any luck'. You won't find that typically anti-Semitic style of remark on the Harry Truman wiki page. He cast the decisive vote for Israel after all, so all is forgiven. My impression is that our representation of anti-Semitism in these contexts depends solely on whether or not the record shows consistent iron support for Israel, and relative silence about its problems with the West Bank colonial project. Racists like Geert Wilders and Viktor Orbán here have a far-more outrageous history of extremist racist comments, and are associated with known anti-Semites but have been embraced in Israel because of their unqualified support, and wiki articles show no interest in this side. I'm biased, of course. I've observed up close for some decades Italian fascists, who were anti-Semitic/Judeophobic, suddenly flipping into being passionate 'philosemites', by simply embracing Israel's cause uncritically and retaining their pathological hatred of semites in concomitant campaigns against the Islamicization of Europe. They have chosen the primrose path to successful post 89 careers, but, in my view, remain anti-Semites, just like a large number of Christian Zionists. Support for Israel is no more a proof of not being anti-Semitic than criticism of Israel is proof of an anti-Semitic attitude, whoever much the endless Orwellian attempts to get binding legal force behind the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism would have us blur the issues. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Frank Fields

Has resigned the Labour whip citing the antisemitism issues surrounding the party, "The party's toleration of antisemitism must cease" ref, Sky News, ought to be added. 82.31.120.65 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's Frank Field. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

This article appears to be aimed at UK Labour people, accusing them all of being people who hate Jews. This is merely someone's opinion and is certainly not educational in any way. It will form a good analysis of what people did think in 2018. In 2230, it will provide a good laugh. I expect that this article will be archived in a similar way that opinions of French people were in previous biased documents. In the 1820s, French people were thought of as being the most evil people in history and in the 1820s, anti-Semitism was thought of as being a good thing. Wallie (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree So much of this article is based on unfounded claims, distortions and baseless accusations. Much of what's being described as antisemitism is often support for Palestine and opposition to Israel. Anti-Zionism perhaps but certainly not antisemitism. Is there evidence of members of the Labour Party attacking synagogues? Kosher food outlets? Jewish-owned businesses? Jewish schools? Jewish religious beliefs? No. The title of this article should at least be reviewed. Garageland66 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it will still be here, but will be written in an honest way. It is in the tradition of swiftboating, where one side accuses the other of something that would otherwise be their own weakness. In the most egregious example, the British National Party has joined on the bandwagon, accusing Labour of anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets not soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's try to make constructive contributions to this discussion about problems of neutrality in this article and the problem of it being slanted towards recent events. Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a platform to regurgitate media campaigns. Garageland66 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, so lets discus that (in relation to RS) and not discus unrelated matters. Or engage in analyzing or assessing the bias of RS. That is what I meant, it does not mater if you or I think the sources are bias and this is just... but this is not a forum for discussing this issue, it is a talk page for making constructive suggestions about how to improve it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

British Left's anti-Semitism Problem Didn't Start With Corbyn. It's Been Festering for a Century

Posting this having read the discussion on the recentisim tag, Ref Random Redshirt (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet (apparently) Jews did not have an issue with this when they supported Labour before Corbyns election as leader. That is why we say it is recentism, it has only been a major (or even minor) issue in the last couple of years.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Who says they never had a problem with it before Cornyn? Random Redshirt (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources that all say that, that until corbyn British Jews supported Labour, they are linked in our article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I recall complaints regarding red Ken before Cornyn became leader. [14] Random Redshirt (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Errr that source is form this year. But you are correct, There was some minor controversy, that is why this article is so heavily slated to this year, then to last year then to the year before. And only then is there a tiny section about (less then 25%) about the previous 100 years. Because they were insignificant controversies no one really cared about. That is what the recent tag is for, articles slated towards recent controversies.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Jews largely supported Labour until Thatcher when Jewish support fell to 15%. Under Blqir, the vote was evenly split until falling under Ed Milliband to 14% and 15% under Corbyn. Prior to the Second World War, Conservatives were often overtly anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Working Definition of Antisemitism

Editors working on this page may also wish to contribute on Working Definition of Antisemitism which needs the scrutiny that this page gets. RevertBob (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is far too large, and is in danger of making this article about this alone. It needs trimming.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nearly 40 per cent of British Jews would 'seriously consider' emigrating if Corbyn became PM

ref Random Redshirt (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Certainly a significant indication regarding the perceived threat to the Jewish community in the UK.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not (however) the subject of this article. This is not about Jewish perceptions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The perception of UK Jews regarding antisemitism towards them is clearly relevant to this article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And we mention it, I fail to see why this adds any greater understanding. This is just another factoid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• As I noted below, it doesn't mention antisemitism at all. You might well choose to interpret it that way (or even conclude that the source intended it to be interpreted that way), but that is not what it says. --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

First, you would need to show that the poll has received attention in mainstream sources which as far as I know it has not. Then we would have an idea about the reliability of the methodology and the interpretation of the results. For example, while the reason for wanting to emigrate may be fear of anti-Semitism, it could also be fear of socialism among Conservative voters. TFD (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't mention antisemitism at all, as far as I can see. Putting it here would be WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  It would seem the JC is using what it (and others) considers to be synonymous. However, further secondary analysis in other outlets does cover this in the spelled out context of antisemitism - [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] [20]. Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yet not one of them say that this poll is (or was) explicitly about antisemitism. And I recall every damn election they manage to find some who will emigrate if LAbour is elected, including Jews (such as Maureen Lypman (when a Jew was head of Labour)).Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  Politico - "Anti-Semitism latest: The Jewish Chronicle has a troubling survey that suggests nearly 40 percent of British Jews would seriously consider emigrating ....".Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Still not seeing that those magic words. Again this article is not "Jewish support for the Labour party".Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Politico makes a crystal clear connection - same sentence - between antisemitism in Labour and this survey. We follow what the sources deem relevant, and it seems that real world consequences of antisemitism within Labour is deemed relevant by the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

it's a click bait headline, not a statement. At no point do they actually say "due to antisemitism". And as I have said this is not the first time this has been said, So why is this new? What does this tell us about the situation, Jews are unhappy at labour, we have known this since 2015 (when a Jews was its choice of PM). That they might leave (why? did they say?), might (not will). I really fail to see what this adds beyond another Nowism news soundbite.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic content

I deleted stuff that's not about the topic of this article – Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. "in the UK Labour Party" means its members, not its voters, not self-declared supporters, not media- or survey-based interpretations of 'the left', or anything else. This has been reverted. So, we now have lengthy reports on surveys of "supporters" (not members) of UK political parties, plus more on a survey of people on "the left", "far left" etc (not members of the UK Labour Party). I'm not bothered either way by the inclusion of this information, but the article will be a free-for-all dumping ground for anything peripherally related to anti-Semitism in Britain and British politics if this sort of thing stays in it. Luckily, there's a different article for that – Antisemitism in the United Kingdom – and I suggest that such things are put in that article, not this one. EddieHugh (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have been selective. You left in, for example, "At that time, a coalition that included Peter Hain (later a Labour MP) and Louis Eaks of the Young Liberals "pioneered" the reframing of Zionism as an imperialist project imposing apartheid on an indigenous people." TFD (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

First I get condemned for taking out too much, then I get condemned for not taking out enough... The 'is it anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism?' matter is also something to consider, but is one that I'll happily leave to others. Back to my point: what do you think of including surveys that aren't on the UK Labour Party? EddieHugh (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I completely agree there's been a shed load of very tangential allegations and cynical mudslinging, by people, politicians and media outlets who are not generally Labour (or Corbyn) supporters. Unfortunately it's all part of the context of the subject. The mainstream media have gleefully reported it at length, so it's unavoidably part of the timeline. Fortunately this Wikipedia article is a lot more balanced than it used to be. I guess at some point the subject will become 'history', rather than the current 'ticker tape' reporting of every current pronouncement and allegation. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that the content you removed would be better on the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom article, perhaps under the section talking about political antisemitism? FWIW, I also disagree with the stuff about Hain (it mentions the Young Liberals, not Labour, although it is obviously related to the topic), and would gladly see that go over there too. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that the views of Labour supporters and voters is not relevant to and article about the Labour Party. Also the JPR report said (and I don't have the figure to hand) that a large majority of those who regarded themselves as on the left supported Labour. G-13114 (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would rather such huge reverts were not made in bulk. But if we are going to remove anything not directly related to the party, then that would include surveys of Jews (or the wider British public, after all if the views of LAbour supporters do not matter why anyone else?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The survey of Jews, reported by The JC, asked about "the political party's members and elected representatives". The elected reps will also be members, so it was about Labour Party members, which is what this article is about. The other surveys are not about the Labour Party itself, so are not (should not be) within the scope of this article. (G-13114: you "disagree", but could you explain your reasons?) EddieHugh (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So lets see what someone thinks the party members think is relevant, but not what those party members say they think?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This highlights the confusion: the surveys I cut were not of "party members"; they were of "party supporters". This article is 'Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party', not 'Antisemitism in supporters of the UK Labour Party'. All party members are supporters, but not all supporters are members. Surveys of and about members, therefore, are within the scope of this article; surveys of and about supporters are not. EddieHugh (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Its also not "Jewish perceptions of the Labour party", it is "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party". So it is not about "perceptions" but the parties actions and attitudes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As you say, and as I mentioned above, other things could also be cut on grounds of relevance. Do you agree that the surveys I cut should not be included in this article? EddieHugh (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? EddieHugh (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? OK, because I think it is relevant to say what the parties supporters (the people who will vote for it) think. Far more relevant then people who may not have voted for it anyway. Because it is far more reflective of the actual reality (A few bad apples in a party of thousands) then what non party supporters think. It is a relevant and notable viewpoint of people who actually can (and do) affect party policy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Really? Yes: it's difficult to form a consensus on a set of principles if people don't explain the principles that lead them to a certain conclusion. On your points: if it's their effect on party policy that makes views relevant, then it's within the scope of the article to include the views of Labour Party supporters, opponents, critics, and things more to do with anti-Zionism/anti-Israel than anti-Semitism. I'd prefer that this and other '...ism in party X' articles took a narrower focus – because, as I wrote in my initial point, "the article will be a free-for-all dumping ground for anything peripherally related to anti-Semitism in Britain and British politics" – but if the principles used to establish scope are to be broad, then the contents will be too. EddieHugh (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have long argued this should be about incidents and polices, not some talking heads opinions. But if we are to have them then those of Labour supporters are at least as relevant as anyone elses (in fact more so, as it is about the party). But what Labour voters think is germnain, because it does affect how the party performs, and thus affects what they do and say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is taking the page title a bit literally tbh. Given that certain people are making out that Labour has some kind of exceptional problem with antsemitism, it does seem to me to be quite relevant to the article that several prominent surveys have its voters and supporters are no more antisemitic on average than society as a whole. I fail to see how this is not germaine to the topic of the article. After all would Labour's voters (who are mostly not antisemitic) still support them if they believed they were? G-13114 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My point is that you cannot only take some of those surveys. Either everyone opinions are relevant (as long as they have an interest, anbd reported by RS) or no ones are.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)