Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 2

Pro-Corbyn Facebook groups containing antisemitic content
I've deleted the lengthy section called "Pro-Corbyn Facebook groups containing antisemitic content". This is another 'three stages of separation' smear on the Labour Party, with no evidence at all that the alleged antisemitism is coming from Labour Party members. After all, the Wikipedia article is called "Antisemitism in the Labour Party", not "Antisemitism on Facebook". Sionk (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point actually, anyone can join facebook groups, and there's no evidence given that the said messages were left by Labour Party members. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS trump editorial opinion on the merits of the argument. This has received world-wide coverage, and top-notch sources such as The Times and the BBC have clearly covered this in the context of antisemitism in the Labour party. In as much as there is an attributed statement that calls this intense media coverage a "'three stages of separation' smear on the Labour Party, with no evidence at all that the alleged antisemitism is coming from Labour Party members" - then one could place such an attributed statement (if not UNDUE - should be a widely covered stmt by a notable figure) - in the article. An editor saying this is a "smear" - is not policy grounds for content removal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the subject of antisemitism on Facebook has received press coverage, it is not press coverage about anti-semitism in the Labour Party. This is not editorial opinion, just plain fact. It's WP:OR to say "This Facebook group supports Jeremy Corbyn"+"Jeremy Corbyn is leader or the Labour Party"+"People in the group have allegedly made antisemitic comments" = "Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are antisemitic". Sionk (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No OR required when RS cover this as antisemitism in Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources that have been used (and the text of the paragraph, and the title of the paragraph) don't talk about antisemitism in the Labour Party, so you'll have to try harder than that. The press are free to write about whatever they want but, on Wikipedia, we should stick to the subject at hand. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

OK lets make this easy, can a user provide a direct quote from one of the sources that say this is about the labour party? A user is saying they do not exist so why not prove them wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * an illustrative example: Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of hiding his links to anti-Semitism after he deleted his personal Facebook page.The Labour leader deleted his account this morning after it emerged he was a member of five groups which contained anti-Semitic posts. - the Labour party leader generally connected to the Labour party. Or Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour party, was an active member of a Facebook group which contained Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, it has been revealed.. The party itself Labour has suspended several party members who posted in a closed Facebook group which featured a number of antisemitic messages confirms this is connnected to the party. And there are godzillion other sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So Sionk hot do you say this is not about the Labour party?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If Labour suspended several Labour Party members for making anti-semitic comments on Facebook, then that is clearly of some relevance. For that matter, if some anti-Jew comments were made in the Labour Party Forum Facebook page, then that certainly has more relevance than anything said on the miriad of 'I Love Corbyn' pages. If JC left a FB group because of anti-semitic comments from unidentified FB members, or if JC was a member of a FB group where AS comments were identified, then that isn't anti-semitism in the Labour Party, or anti-semitism of Corbyn. In fact, if he left the groups it's exactly the opposite to anti-semitism. Stay on topic folks! Sionk (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then as long as RS say this (and we say it) this is a wording, not an exclusion matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not even included at the moment. If someone wants to include AS in the Labour Party Forum Facebook page, or LP members suspended because of FB comments, then that is entirely in keeping with the subject. The current paragraph remains off topic until it is re-written. It is about Antisemitism in Corbyn-supporting Facebook groups, not Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Sionk (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is all clearly tied to Lavour per multiple RSes. I will note Corbyn deleted his facebook account which is a few steps beyond leaving a group.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

notable POV
If the POV of some unimportant reporter is worthy of inclusion why not the POV of multiple independently notable political activists?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in truth mostly opinions and views and little examples of antisemitism. There are several competing reasons for the apparent smearing of Labour, not the least of which is the desire to link any criticism of Isreal's actions to be seen as anti-Jewish:  Then we have the desire of the Tories to paint their main political competition with a smear and conservative media outlets being more than happy to help beat that drum, and then we have the bias in much Arab and Muslim oriented news that is very anti-Zionist; all this raises quite a mess for Labour being viewed as less than favorable towards British Jewry.  As Labour has more active members from minority and immigrant groups, for example, Pakistani background, where antisemitism in Urdu language news outlets in the UK is common place, it is not hard to see this bleed over into public comments of such Labour members.  This is problematic for Labour, but hardly a party wide rise in antisemitism, from what I've seen.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Labour has antisemitism problem, 51% of voters say"
 * "Shame of Labour party antisemitism"
 * "Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem"
 * If a 'Labour' news outlet like the Guardian is running such articles, there is a problem. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to judge the veracity of the claims (or the rebuttals) just to report them. All I am saying is that if we include the opinions of none notable people there is no valid excuse for excluding this of notable people.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A thought: Comments by non-notable persons should be groups together and not specifically named in this article while comments from could be named and quoted, regardless of position.  But all this should be done with some care for possible motivations of why people are making the statements in the first place as not all motivations are virtuous.  This is my opinion. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No they should not, we do not censor. We should not try and second guess motives. If it is the case then frankly almost no opinion should be allowed as all can have nefarious motives attached to them by Edds.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When you have The Daily hammering on and quoting only Tories, one does not need to "second guess motives"; merely list clearly the sources. People can draw their own conclusions.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The issue is excluding the opinions of those people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Naming the sources are as important as naming the people; for example, the Guardian is very solidly 'Blairite' and anti-Corbin. The problem is when an article is nothing but opinions, polls and perceptions, then it can be slanted so it is best to have more factual items.  This is not the Sun, after all.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said I am not disagreeing with that. But I am not sure what you mean by "more factual items" in the context of this discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Back to the original point, are you referring to a particular example of reporting opinion as fact? or making a general point? I would think we should be distinguishing between 'opinion' and 'fact' when we build balanced Wikipedia articles. Sionk (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not my original point, mine was about allowing POV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist vs. Anti-Jewish
The use of the term 'antisemitism' within this article and many of it's quotes appear to mix or confuse the two very different issues of Anti-Zionist vs. Anti-Jewish sentiment. Jeremy Corbyn's Passover actions with Jewdas is far from 'antisemitic' but very much anti-Zionist as an example. This article has lost all NPOV - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We follow what the sources say. In this regard, many comtempprary antisemitism scholars view one as, for the most part, cover for the other.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To act in an anti-Zionist way and speak openly in support of (any) Palestinian rights, will cause someone out there to label you as anti-semiotic; this does not mean it is true or that it should be included for that matter. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a case for reporting the news accurately, rather than describing allegations as fact, I agree. All reputable news sources describe anti-semitism allegations as allegations, rather than unquestionable fact. Partisan editors here shouldn't be reaching their own conclusions prematurely. Sionk (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why report smears and allegations like this at all? Soon we will have topless photos on page two.  Just because allegations are made and reported does not make it a factual event or we would also have have articles on the 'giving birth to aliens' as fact as well.  Just because someone calls anti-Zionist actions anti-semiotic does not make it so, nor rise to the factual levels to include it on wiki.  IMO - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many RSes disagree with your ORish assertion, reporting this as AS.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not the reporting that's the problem, but the WP:UNDUE given to opinions and allegations with huge amounts of coverage in this article that call into question it's neutrality. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And as I mentioned above, reporting allegations as fact is also OR. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just the sheer volume of opinions and allegations in this article is problematic and it also gives rise to making this very much about the past few years by regurgitation of the tabloids. Hiding behind the 'It comes from a RS, repeat it.' does not change mean it is always worth repeating. It gives WP:UNDUE to allegations and opinions.  Sure it's reported as allegations and opinion, but these claims are given more coverage than the original act.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would that not depend on who says it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

political leanings
Why do we need to know if people are left wing, but it is POV to list other people as right wing? Either we list all affiliations or none, doing anything else if POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are left wing is the thing making them notable here - the fact that Guido Fawkes is right wing doesn't make a difference to this particular report. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not, surely that has also been noted and thus is notable?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone is described as left wing and someone else as right-wing, or Blairite, or Conservative supporter etc., then this is relevant. I agree we shouldn't be cherry picking who we label and who we don't. Sionk (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially when the justification for exclusion is "well they are telling the truth" (the implication is any other label is to imply they are lying). That is a Gross violation of NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Describing the Guido Fawkes blog as right-wing is accurate and reflects the background of its creator, Paul Staines. However, editors who try to make a point of labeling the site as being right-wing (and the reverse also often applies elsewhere) are trying to use the label to dismiss its reporting. It is true the blog has a mixed reputation for accuracy, but it is being mentioned here when a reliable source, The Times, has followed up on its coverage. Philip Cross (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No more then labeling Judas as left wing is, either we list all leanings or none (as long as RS report them).Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the reason that Jewdas were notable is because they are left wing - that is the whole point of the story and the reason for the controversy. Guido being right wing is not relevant to this story. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Labeling Jewdas as left wing, or even fringey left-wing - within the Jewish community - is due. This is not a random Jewish group - the reason this elicited pushack (perhaps misguided) from the larger Jewish community is the rather extreme views of Jewdas within the spectrum of the Jewish community.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know it is not just some random group who happened to invite him? And why is it also not due that the man who "uncovered" this is not right wing? Also did it illecite push back form the larger Jewish community, it seems to be a lot of Jews push back against the push back.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is not a "random" group - far from it - they are notorious (in the Jewish community) for being anti-Zionist and anti-Israel (they are also full of satire). Per their own webpage - "Radical Jewish Voices". Per ITV -  "defended his decision to meet with a radical Jewish left-wing group". Per NY-Times -  - " Jewdas, a self-described radical leftist Jewish group", "The group’s very name — a play on Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus Christ — is a provocation, one that has angered many of those encountering the group for the first time. Some critics say that Jewdas’s name, and antics, risk stoking age-old myths and hatreds that have led to anti-Semitic violence.", "the group may be best known for its vociferous criticisms of Israel and its policies toward Palestinians", "“It’s a radical diaspora Jewish group that has taken an explicitly non-Zionist stance, alongside satirizing the many absurdities of the British Jewish community and throwing excellent parties,” according to a founder of the group, Joseph Finlay.", "In a tweet the group posted at the end of last year, it called Israel a “steaming pile of sewage.”" - all of this leading to (per ITV) "The Campaign Against Antisemitism described his actions as "a very clear two fingered salute at mainstream British Jewry"." Being a (possibly satirical in part) radical left-wing, anti-zionist, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish establishment group of Jews - goes to the core of what Jewdas is.
 * As for Guido Fawkes - it is a meh - frankly one might ask whether we even need to mention that he broke this. If this were only reported by Guido Fawkes - we wouldn't have included this. As it is - he broke a story, and we picked it up for coverage here since it became a national and even an international news item.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to mention Guido at all, would be much simpler with just "In April, Corbyn attended ....". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Removed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see so the fact they are left wing tells us what we need to know, but the fact this was propagated by a right wing blogger is not? Well consensus is against me, but I see this as POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If Corbyn had denied it, then it might be more relevant, but as it has been reported by many other news agencies and Corbyn said that he went there, I don't think it is relevant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Guido Fawkes was relevant for a few hours - when this broke. He had absolutely no relevance a week later, and none today - look at when RSes mentioning Corbyn/Jewdas stopped mentioning him. Corbyn going to the event wasn't a secret - Fawkes was simply the first one with the scoop - we don't credit scoops in most of our articles - especially when they aren't particularly relevant to the article at hand. There might be other places in the article in which it might make sense to attribute someone as "right wing" (who merits inclusion in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged causes section
Is this really appropriate. Is supposition from about an underlying aim for a bunch of mainly unconnected events really adding to the article? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * AS in Labour is being covered in RS as a connected series of incidents.Icewhiz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was that trying to add information about an alleged secret policy being behind the various examples is getting into conspiracy theory territory. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is beginning to sound like we might need an RfC on renaming the article: "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party" given the large part allegations consume in this article with little or no underlying support.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, yes we do now need an RFC over this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that we continue to go in circles on the Talk Page on this and other topics, it might be best to start using the RfC format to settle some of these issues. Slatersteven, would you be willing to write up an RfC on the name for starters, I'm afraid I will not be able to be write it in a neutral voice at the moment.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you think an RFC on this will resolve.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Attempting to show how much of this article is based on 'allegations' (claim without evidence). There is also the continual issue of mixing up anything anti-Israel or anti-Zionist; and claiming without evidence that it is also Anti-Jewish.  These are the issues that it appears have not been fully worked through on this article.  How much of an article can be allegations and opinion, before it needs to be titled as such?  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Philpot": From Jewish Voice for Labour:  From Jon Lansman:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Labour Party Neutrality
The neutrality of this article's extensive use of allegations and opinions, call into question the basic neutrality of the article as well as giving WP:UNDUE to these allegations and opinions. There are also questions regarding surrounding WP:BLP and WP:CHERRYPICKING of sources. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If at all, we are giving UNDUE weight to rebuttals by the Corbyn faction - which are, for the most part, ignored by mainline RS. We are also, perhaps, overly cautious in attributing allegations of AS - instead of outright stating that this is AS per most RS.Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * e.g. in the mural episode - it seems RS have not problem simply saying this is AS or contains many AS tropes - . However are overly cagey - starting with the title "Corbyn and a mural" (it would seem the mural is not the issue, an AS mural is), and continues with a very cautious description of the mural - "mural, Freedom for Humanity by Kalen Ockerman, known as Mear One, which was considered antisemitic, a claim the artist denied" - which makes it sound as if there is some weight to the position that this did not contain AS tropes. The Guardian, hardly a conservative outlet, says straight out: "In a Facebook post in 2012, Corbyn offered his backing to Los Angeles-based street artist Mear One, whose mural, featuring several known antisemitic tropes, was due to be removed after complaints." - as do other sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have 3 paragraphs on people saying it was, and one on the rebuttal and you claim it is unbalanced to towards the rebuttals? I also note your guardian source also has the rebuttals (well some of them), if they think they are worthy of reporting why should we exclude them?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We're taking a different tack in our voice - creating a false balance (which is not present in the RS) regarding the AS of the mural. Certainly we should include notable rebuttals - but do so inline with WP:BALASP - and not lend weight to minor opinions beyond what is present in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation, a person accused of something cannot be said to not have a significant viewpoint on that accusations. Indeed wp:blp comes into this. We also have other issues, such as the opinions of notable peoples as opposed to unnotable ones. Also there are other issues, do all sources agree on something (such as a source that says that something is only alleged "Jeremy Corbyn was right to express regret for sending an apparently supportive message to the creator of an allegedly anti-Semitic mural." (BBC) or where a comment is only regarded as possibly supportive "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apparently backed the painting of a mural which was condemned as having antisemitic undertones "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apparently backed the painting of a mural which was condemned as having antisemitic undertones" (JC)). Things are very rarely that clear cut where BLP's a concerned. So unless every single RS says something is a fact we cannot imply it by omission of opinions that contest the idea it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OK lets re frame this, what are we talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the opinions of non notable (in their own right) people?

 * You've already raised this above. Why raise it again here? Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To try and know who actually supports what.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wiki notability of a wiki article (not the same - one could create an article) - is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the opinions of academics whose area of expertise is not political or antisemitism?

 * Would someone who doesn't have an informed opinion ever be reported/repeated in RS's? If it isn't widely reported, then we wouldn't repeat it here, would we? Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If widely covered - then yes. Note there are a few other expert areas that may be relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the opinions of writers or artists?

 * Well, we have quotes from Sneider and Baddiel, both prominent comedians and some of the UK's best known Jewish personalities. Why single out writers and artists? In fact, artists and writers are probably the best people to sum up a situation in one or two pithy sentences (probably why the aforesaid two writers were noticed in this instance). Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have made it clear I mean anyone who is a Celebrity.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Depends on coverage - if they received wide coverage, then yes.Icewhiz (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all 'coverage' is equal, The Times of London is not The Daily or The Sun. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In wide coverage - I was implicitly assuming weighting per the quality of the RS involved - and I would tend to exclude non-RS all together (though if the daily is re-covered by a RS saying according to the Daily... it is sort of in the middle).Icewhiz (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the objections of the accused?

 * Of course. In the interests of BLP concerns as much as anything else. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Sionk (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, however we should not give UNDUE weight to such content or include tangential figures (e.g. Mear One who is not the subject of this article (or coverage) - which is focused on Corbyn's response). We should, also, take care not to repeat anti semitic speech if there is no compelling reason to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A BLP is A BLP, we identify someone as having committed an act then we have to give them a right of reply.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that in WP:BLP anywhere? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but this []b implies that yes that is what we should do. BLP it not the only rule that apllies here, it is just that BLP reinforces their importance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As Mear One's authorship and reply are off topic - the correct choice would be to simply exclude the artist who created the mural - avoiding this pickle all together.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me - or just say that he denies it being antisemitic and leave it at that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that we can still identify them by the subject. So either we remove all mention of this being antisemitic, or we include the artists denial. But I have no objection to just saying they have denied the accusation, we do not need a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we do not identify them - we do not need to provide any such detail on them - particularly when an outside party would only identify them if they knew about this mural debate to begin with. If someone sees the identification following through one of our references to a RS - they can see the coverage of the pros/cons of the mural in the reference. Placing Mear One's denial creates a NPOV problem - as we can not and should not devote the space needed here for the countering viewpoint which is much more prevalent (or nearly universal) in this case.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if they can be easily identified then we are accusing them, just using weasel words to avoid having to including their denial. I think they NPOV problem of saying their work is antisemitic (or alleged to be) and not allowing for the accused to deny this if far worse. It is not as if every source says it was antisemitic (just that is was alleged to be). Are you really saying that in a 4 paragraph section adding the text "the artist denied it was antisemitic" is undue?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not alleged to be AS - it was reported by mainline RSes as containing AS tropes. Including Mear One's stmt that this was not AS would be grossly UNDUE without including the multiple, and nearly universal, opposing viewpoints. Our current text - which was considered antisemitic, a claim the artist denied. - is a NPOV issue. As it is - we can simply omit Mear One from our article - as we are interested in Labour's actions/reactions on the mural issue - and not the artistic merits or lack therof.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * [],[], [], [], no it was not universally reported as antisemitic, so yes it was "alleged to be AS" by many RS. This is not a review of its artistic merit, it is an accusation of wrong doing (and possibly illegality).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine in terms of the denial, but there should be more about who considered the mural antisemitic and why. I also think we can remove the artist's name as it doesn't seem particularly relevant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Corbyn himself, and most (or all?), of Labour consider it AS - I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and antisemitic - there is no real debate on this. Beyond the NPOV issues - there is also an issue of us promoting AS discourse.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What? How the hell is allowing someone to deny they are antisemitic promoting AS discourse?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include allegations without direct evidence in word or deed of antisemitism?

 * Yes as long as we a clear that are only allegations, and as long as RS have covered them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So wiki becomes a tabloid filled with unproven 'allegations', that does not seem very encyclopedic. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, what matters is coverage. It is not up to us to evaluate the merits of the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Like counting the number of re-Tweets? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that, and that would seem ORish. I was referring to coverage in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between counting re-Tweets and the number of times conservative rags bounce a juicy story around to up readership? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One would be OR, the other would be use of RS.Icewhiz (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because an allegation is being reported in circles of RS, does not mean it is fit for wiki; for we would have an 'Presidential wee wee video' article. There has to be an underlying act that is verified for a swirl of allegations is worth more than a footnote, if any mention at all.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as the instances were widely reported in mainstream RSs and they are clearly described as allegations (and they are allegations of antisemitism and in the Labour Party) then I don't see the problem. The bigger problem is where Wikipedia editors claim allegations as proof, or start wandering off writing about allegations of something else (like my favorite bugbear about inclusion here of stories about people being a member of a social media group where some other members of the group, maybe or maybe not LP members, made allegedly antisemitic comments). We need both focus and balance. Sionk (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, great, we need both focus and balance and with that wiki should not have an article with larges parts sections based only on allegations. This begins to look more like a smear article in the Telegraph when you have no underlying act of antisemitism, merely the repeating of allegations.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because the title of the article doesn't have "allegations of" prefix. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Should anti-Zionist or anti-Israel views be considered antisemitic?

 * If RS make the claim we report it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However not all RS are created equal and are not always reliable for all issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We should include what RS report as anti-semitism or allegations of such. If something is report just as AI or AJ - that should not be in. However something being AI or AJ does notmpreclude it being AS. In any case editor opinion on the merits of the claim (or the reliability of well established RS) - are utterly irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So Corbyn shows up at an anti-Zionist Jewish group dinner during Passover, some one calls this anti-Semitic, that gets reported in RS and you say it has to be included? Why? There is no underlying antisemitism in the original act, only 'accusations'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well - being Jewish does not preclude being anti-semitic. The question is not whether the claim is correct or not, but whether the claim has received coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nae, the First question should be whether the claim has any hint of merit, then consider the coverage. This is not The Sun, but Wikipedia!  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but we do not judge the merit of a claim, only its coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is sorry if you are willing to list out allegations without any supporting evidence, or pattern of actions to support it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The question to ask is not what editors think of the merits, but whether this received non-dismissive coverage in mainline sources (not the Sun or Daily Mail).Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about listing allegations without evidence (I assume that the allegation was made, not that it is true, as even RS are not infallible and make mistakes). If RS make an allegation we can include it, if they do not we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

{od} So if allegations with little or no merit make up the bulk of many sections of this article, the article should then be titled - "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party" for in truth you care not for the factual nature of the allegations, just that the allegations are in the RS media cycle. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that is what many of us have said form the start. Many of these allegations are just that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And many are not, with Labour itself recognizing them as AS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which ones?Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope you all are watching the debate about antisemitism in the house of commons today. Here's a taste and I'm sure you can find the rest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question "Should anti-Zionist or anti-Israel views be considered antisemitic?", whether it could be considered anti-semitism is dependent upon a number of factors. The ADL defines anti-semitism in relation to Israel as: "Anti-Israel activity crosses the line to anti-Semitism when: All Jews are held responsible for the actions of Israel. Israel is denied the right to exist as a Jewish state and equal member of the global community. Traditional anti-Semitic symbols, images or theories are used." MP's like Ruth Smeeth and Luciana Berger (and others) have certainly been victims of that kind of abuse. Brough87 (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not automatically hence why the category Category:Anti-Zionism in the United Kingdom should be removed as that isn't what this article is about, which only serves to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism. It's also POV to make that judgement too. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we include a section explaining why the antisemitism accusations only suddenly appeared shortly after Corbyn was elected leader?
AS long as we have RS say why yes, but I thought we did have material about this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article says nothing about antisemitism in the Labour Party during the 1990s and the 2000s. There is nothing about antisemitism in the Labour Party under Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or John Smith. This needs explaining. Many have asked why did no one notice this problem prior to September 2015. In other words, only after Jeremy Corbyn had been elected leader. Garageland66 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make a change of this nature you need to provide sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements; the opinions of "Many" is irrelevant. But besides that we do mention antisemitism prior to Corbyn's election, see the history section of the page. Alssa1 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell us who this "we" is. Garageland66 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's rather disingenuous to claim that "we do mention antisemitism prior to Corbyn's election". You're deliberately missing my point that there is nothing about antisemitism in the Labour Party under Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or John Smith. Either add the relevant content or accept that there is a problem here. Garageland66 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not my responsibility to make edits to support your position. If you want to include anti-semitism under Miliband, Brown etc it's your responsibility to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements. In regards to your first question the "we" is the community of editors that surround this page. Alssa1 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty transpartent to anyone reading this article that the issue only surfaced when Corbyn became leader. I'm not sure it needs stating explicity. Even the "1980s" section is based on the book The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism. Sionk (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay some progress is being made. If, as is implied, there was no antisemitism problem in the Labour prior to October 2015 (under Miliband, Brown and Blair) because the election of Corbyn attracted antisemites into the Labour Party, then this needs to be explained with evidence and with reliable sources. Garageland66 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't get to ascribe your interpretations to a WP page like that. If you wish to make a change to this page, that talks about antisemitism under Miliband, Brown and Blair you need to find some sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements. Alssa1 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point; maybe deliberately. I'm not suggesting making "a change to this page, that talks about antisemitism under Miliband, Brown and Blair." I'm asking that if no antisemitic incidents took place under Miliband, Brown and Blair; then the article needs to explain this. There is no explanation on the page for why these incidents only seemed to start happening after September 2015.Garageland66 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that make that claim? if you do, add them in. If you don't, than it's better to have the article remain silent on the issue. Iffy★Chat -- 11:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You're wanting to make an addition to this article, you need to provide justification for that change that meets the aforementioned requirements. If you want to make an addition that says it wasn't a problem prior to Corbyn's election, you need a source that supports that claim. If you want to make an addition that says differently, you again need sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements. The current format is the objective position of the sources, and you can only work within those confines. Alssa1 (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * furthermore I feel I have to make an accusation of WP:NOT HERE because of this edit your political opinions as to what makes a "Israeli advocacy...organisation" is totally irrelevant to any discussion. Alssa1 (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will note that per some definitions of anti-semitism, e.g., the ADL's - "Anti-Israel activity crosses the line to anti-Semitism when: All Jews are held responsible for the actions of Israel. Israel is denied the right to exist as a Jewish state and equal member of the global community. Traditional anti-Semitic symbols, images or theories are used" - ascribing Israeli actions to Jews at large - is anti-semitism. Per such a definition, labeling a Jewish organization, combating racism, as an "Israeli advocacy ... org" would quite questionable - all the more so since such labeling was done without a supporting source.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's concerning that Garageland66 thinks it's acceptable to label an organisation as a "Israeli advocacy" group simply because it uses a definition of anti-semitism he doesn't like. I note from his block log that this not the first time he has engaged in edits that could be described as going against WP:NOT HERE; he clearly is not learning... Alssa1 (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The irony of this edit done right next to (and part of) the ADL's definition of AS in regards to ascribing Israel to all Jews is a pretty big jaw dropper.Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Alssa1 Firstly the ADL is an Israeli advocacy group. Is anyone claiming it isn't? And I moved your contentious ADL reference to the conference section as a compromise. Any chance of compromise and consensus; rather than edit-warring? Garageland66 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to make that judgement. You have got to provide evidence that they are, that meets the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements. Thus far the only identifiable reason that you could consider them an "Israeli advocacy group" is the fact that they are a Jewish body; which is an ironically anti-semetic position to hold. Your move does not build consensus nor is it an effective compromise. Alssa1 (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ADL's definition has no relation to Labour Party, the organisation isn't even British. The topic of this article isn't designed to display for lists of POV antisemiticm definitions from primary sources without any context and/or support from secondary sources as to its relevance and relation to Labour. Also, the source that was used is neither WP:IRS nor WP:NPOV. The editor moving it to another section let alone reverting this doesn't appear to be disruptive.


 * I also would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem comments about editing history and repeated accusations of WP:NOT HERE is unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Link to the NPOV discussion on the Noticeboard
For those of you who question the balance of the page, please take your discussion to the NPOV Noticeboard. Alssa1 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC On new article title
Given the nature of the debate as well as denials and accusations of bias from both sides in the off wiki reporting should this be retitled as "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party".Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per common name.. Might be justification for adding saga or row. Note that the party itself has admitted AS multiple times (and has taken action against members), for instance lately here. It seems there is no doubt (Labour admitting as much) that this is an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Icewhiz covered all the bases. COMMONNAME, and Labour admitting there's an issue and vowing to fight it seems to make a weasel word unnecessary here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Prodcedural close Why have you opened an RFC instead of an RM? Also, this is just another rerun of this RM, which took place less than 6 months ago. If this RFC/RM stays open, then No per IceWhiz and the reasons for not moving at the previous RM. Iffy★Chat -- 08:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A user asked for one above, this was not my idea (I have no idea why they even want it), maybe next time I should just say "do it yourself if you want one".Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure is to clarify in the text that you are opening this on behalf of another user. We do the same on WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No There's controversy regarding which members are really engaged in antisemitism, but Labour itself admitted this problem exists within the party.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MY appolgise I thought it was clear form the thread above that it was was being launched at the request of another user.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Alssa1 You've gone nosing through my profile. Well done. Try and stick to the issue, rather than judging people by their political beliefs. The antisemitism claims are highly controversial throughout the Labour movement and throughout the Jewish community. Garageland66 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No per common name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per common sense, the article mostly cites allegations, rumour and speculation from dubious primary sources .jasmallman (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No (hasn't this been discussed before?), per WP:COMMONNAME, though I can understand why the issue has been raised again when certain editors insist on adding every example of rumour and insinuation. Sionk (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per NPOV. "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" is a declaration that there is antisemitism in the Labour Party. The modifier "alleged" keeps the title neutral. The fact the Labour Party itself has said there is antisemitism in the Labour Party is still just an allegation; organizations cannot declare something about themselves and that thing simply becomes a fact. This is as true for negative statements as it is for positive ones; for instance, Acme Company's declaration that it is "the best dish soap in the world" being used to declare Acme the "best dish soap in the world" in its corresponding WP article. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No because its not "alleged", its fact... over and over evidence has been presented which shows antisemitism and people have been suspended. This is not a conspiracy theory, its actually happening. When you have Labour supporting newspapers like The Guardian publishing reports and organisations like Momentum telling its supporters that "antisemitism in Labour should not and cannot be dismissed simply as rightwing smears nor as the result of conspiracies" and also saying that anti-Jewish bias is "more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago" then its a real problem. The current title of "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" is neutral based on the references, putting "alleged" in the title makes it POV as it supports the conspiracy theory that its just a smear campaign. ThinkingTwice contribs &#124; talk 21:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No per common name. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:COMMONNAME; it's not an NPOV issue. Also worth looking over WP:ALLEGED. Ralbegen (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the dispute appears to be over the extent of antisemitism in the party, not whether it exists at all (Icewhiz gave some examples). The proposed title would therefore be misleading. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the name "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party" would suggest that antisemitism in the Labour party is non-existent, which goes against what the Labour Party, academics and victims of the abuse have said, Furthermore there are wiki principles like WP:COMMONNAME which must be adhered to. Brough87 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No  - Summoned by bot. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No - The Labour party itself has accepted that around 500 cases of anti-sematic individuals exist. Although this is a extremely small percentage of their membership (liberally 0.1%) it is not an alleged claim it is founded. Some changes need to made to the article, as the above talk section "Alleged causes section" says that the suggestions of why this behaviour has occurred poorly articulated and borderlines on the conspiratorial. Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes  This is a highly controversial issue. Most of the allegations of antisemitism are exactly that; allegations. Garageland66 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No  As above, WP:COMMONNAME. It's only a controversial claim amongst self-identified "Communist(s), trade unionist(s) and anti-austerity campaigner(s)." Its existence in the Labour Party is not denied. Alssa1 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem WP:PERSONAL attacks are unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Blog posts from Open Democracy
I removed content supported by blog posts on Open Democracy and London Review of Books. These do not seem like useful additions to the article. They don't seem to be adhering to NPOV. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are both reliable journalistic sources with an editorial team. LRB is also a printed bi-monthly magazine. Maybe you don't like their opinions, but neither are used extensively here (in contrast to some other partisan publications). Sionk (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs are generally not RS unless by noted experts or as the opinion of the subject of the article. Which of these do they meet?Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you got that bit of guidance from. Reliable sources are ones with a reputation for fact checking etc. If a reliable source (e.g. newspaper, magazine) publishes pieces in blog form, that doesn't make them automatically unreliable. Sionk (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but they have to (under those circumstances) actually be by professional journalists or are by experts in the field, ad are subject to normal editorial control. Just being hosted by a news organ is not enough. SO are they?Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making this up as you go along. I've given my opinion to the OP, the removal of the content has been reverted anyway. It added a welcome, pertinent and brief response to the largely one-sided description of events. Sionk (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:UGC "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources ".Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of either publication being blogs, they're both reliable sources. They're probably not useful if the intention is to present a one-sided POV of the article, however, in order to provide balance they will be. I'm not sure how either aren't NPOV either, both have a wide range of contributors, I can't see this being any different to the left-wing New Statesman, the liberal The Guardian, and conservative The Daily Telegraph or The Spectator etc. RS relates to sources and POV/NPOV relates to the content anyway.


 * As far as I'm aware both publications are subject to editorial control. The writers who have been used here are an independent researcher, an Israeli historian and a former appeal court and ECJ judge. The content from these sources have been published in secondary sources too which have now been added to the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Jewdas visit
I restored the sentence (about the Jewdas group who organised an event that Corbyn attended) The group has suggested that allegations of anti-Semitism within Labour are a political plot aimed at discrediting the party as well as tweeting that Israel is "a steaming pile of sewage which needs to be properly disposed of". This was removed by Garageland66, saying "This article is on antisemitism. Jewdas's views on antisemitism or on Judaism would be appropriate here. Not it's views on a middle eastern state." Garageland66 also added the content Jewdas stated that "Jeremy Corbyn accepted our invitation to join the Jewdas community Seder. Jeremy was a 10/10 guest and provided delicious maror from his allotment."

I'm not really sure how this is more relevant, the reason Corbyn was criticised in many RSs was specifically because of Jewdas previous comments. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Jewdas are a satirical group. It's their stock-in-trade to make daft, controversial statements. Of all the irreverent statements they've ever made why has this particular one about Israel been selected to be used here? There is enough controversy about opposition to Israel being conflated with antisemitism without adding to it here. It is illogical to claim that it is somehow antisemitic for a Jewish group to criticise Israel. So either find something of relevance to the issue of antisemitism (the subject of this article) or remove it. Garageland66 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't see how saying that the only Jewish-majority state should be "properly disposed of" could be seen as problematic? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Many don't see that it is fallacious to identify the motivation for condemnation of a state as its ethnic or religious identity when there is nothing in the statement to suggest such motivation. There exists no other example of a state being condemned in which the said state's ethnic or religious identity is invoked to explain the condemnation. Indeed the very fact that Jewdas is a Jewish organisation, makes it all the more preposterous to claim that their motivation is Jew-hatred/antisemitism. Lastly please try not to use "you", try to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF Garageland66 (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think they have been criticized for just this, hell look at the fact we also point out they are lefites.
 * Reason he was criticized, Their name (yes seriously, it stokes up antisemitism), criticisms of Israel and support for the Palestinians, being left wing and anti-capitalist, satirizing more established Jewish groups, holding disruptive demos.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't normal criticism of Israel, it was specifically saying that it should be "properly disposed of" which was the issue leading to claims of antisemitism, as was discussed extensively in RSs. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And all the stuff I mention was also in RS about Corbyns visit and why the official Jewish leaders have criticized his attendance (indeed you only have to read our section to see the "lefty" accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Middle East
The Wikipedia definition of antisemitism is "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism." However a lot of this article refers to the conflict in the Middle East. Couldn't editors focus on the subject of this article which is antisemitism in the UK Labour Party rather than UK Labour Party policy on Israel/Palestine. A page could be created for that, but that is not the subject matter of this article. Garageland66 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Contemporary antisemitism is usually tied to hostility and demonization of Israel (the Jew among the nations), that's what the sources you removed reflect, at least as accusations against some Labour Party members.--יניב הורון (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a significant overlap between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, with the former forming a front for the latter per several of the sources in this article and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed very much with the statement above.--Autospark (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry יניב הורון but that is not what the Antisemitism Wikipedia page says. Try editing that to change the definition. If there's a consensus on that and the definition is changed to include anti-Israel, then fair enough, change this page also. Otherwise there can be no justification for including so much on Middle Eastern policy. Garageland66 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read Antisemitism and New Antisemitism--יניב הורון (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal by Jewish labour groups
Garageland66 added a paragraph about some Jewish Labour groups saying that the antisemitism claims were stirred up to hurt Corbyn. I reverted this change, saying that the paragraph was sourced only with primary sources (and therefore not suitable for the main article, let alone the lead. Garageland66 reverted this, saying that it was properly sourced. Could you explain why you think primary sources are appropriate here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk primary sources are appropriate because they're not filtered through third party re-interpretation. This are statements directly from these Jewish Labour/socialist organisations. So they're completely appropriate and they help the balance of the article which is out of kilter at the moment. Garageland66 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are permitted for the opinions of the people in question. However secondary sources would be preferable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So lets have a few .Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the opinions of the people are notable in the context of the article, then they should be included, e.g. Corbyn writing an article describing himself as a socialist would be acceptable for his article as it is clearly notable in that context. However, this is not the case here. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability, especially for the lead . Thanks for those articles Slatersteven, but those certainly does not establish enough notability for the lead, compared to the large numbers of articles about other things mentioned in this article, e.g. Corbyn's meeting with Jewish community leaders and their description of him failing to meet the "minimum level of action" necessary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about Jeremy Corbyn, it is about rte Labour party, and they are members of the Labour party (Jewish ones, this is also about Jews).Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is the danger of edit-warring starting over the inclusion in the opening paragraph of the views of Jewish Voice for Labour and others. The balance of the article has been disputed. Doesn't including the views of JVL help create balance? What's the consensus? Garageland66 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't make accusations of edit warring given your history and your recent WP:NOT HERE edit. Alssa1 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * JVL is a clear fringe group (of people who have chosen to declare they self-identify as Jews - "Ms Manson recently admitted she only “began to identify as a Jew in order to argue against the state of Israel”.") within the UK British community. Adding the commentary of this WP:FRINGE group in the lede is clearly UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a reason for this. Editors should be addressing the neutrality issue. The removal of the responses of Jewish groups such as JVL and JSG is tilting the balance back again. Garageland66 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you don't establish "balance" by appealing to WP:FRINGE groups; that is simply not how "balance" is achieved. You're certainly not going to achieve "balance" if the legitimacy of those groups is in question. Second, there has been no discussion on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding the balance of this page, so I don't why we even have the tag on there. Alssa1 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These are not WP:FRINGE groups. They are central to the debate. They are Jewish and they are part of the Labour movement. These views must be included if the article is going to achieve neutrality. Garageland66 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are fringe groups within the Jewish community - and merely a front through which Labour can issues statements sourced to "Jews supporting Labour". Some of the leadership in JVL didn't even identify as Jewish prior to deciding to join JVL.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the Jewish community. And does "not identifying as Jewish" mean you are not Jewish? Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are clearly a fringe group: they have a tiny membership, the article you cite lists that their combined signatories only managed 57 people, both the JfJfP and JSG WP pages are marked for a variety of issues and that a number of their members only: “began to identify as a Jew in order to argue against the state of Israel”. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think they are not WP:FRINGE? We don't include fringe groups simply to provide a 'neutrality' that fits in with your previous WP:NOT HERE edits. Alssa1 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To say "they are fringe groups within the Jewish community" is not the point. This article isn't about the Jewish community, it's about the Labour Party. Jewish membership within the Labour Party is, of course, relatively small. So within the Jewish membership of the Party these groups are significant; as is the "Jewish Labour Movement". Garageland66 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that they are fringe groups within the Jewish community, it's that they are fringe groups. One reference you are so desperate include in the beginning is a petition run by the JfJfP and JSG which managed to garner a grand total of 57 votes, all of them by people who are totally obscure figures. You say "within the Jewish membership of the Party these groups are significant" where is your evidence for this? Does this evidence meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements? If you are unable to produce any evidence (that meets the aforementioned requirements), you are giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to fringe groups in an attempt to forward your political viewpoint under the guise of "balance". Alssa1 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Garageland66 you re-added the disputed content with a secondary source. This secondary source mentions Ken Loach referring to the Jewish Socialist Group. I can't see anything in there about why the groups you have mentioned would be notable. By the way, you are in danger of breaking WP:3RR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutelypuremilk The point is that Ken Loach sited them as support for his position precisely because of the respect they have within the Labour movement. The latest argument from Alssa1 is that JVL and JSG don't have enough influence in the Labour movement. This article if full of content that is sourced from individuals (Howard Jacobson, Jonathan Freedland et al) for whom there is no evidence of sizeable "support". A source does not have to have sizeable support to be relevant. Surely no one can dispute that two Jewish socialist/labour groups are (by any stretch of the imagination) appropriate in an article about Jews and the Labour movement. The opening paragraph has references to the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Has anyone asked Alssa1 to provide evidence of support for this organisation? No. Little wonder this article has a problem with neutrality. Garageland66 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any secondary sources saying that they are mainstream groups or/and "central to the debate"? The Campaign Against Antisemitism is notable in its own right (hence why it has an article) but it is also notable because it commissioned the poll mentioned in the lead. Basically unless you can find a secondary source saying that these are important Jewish Labour groups then I will remove it from the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the JVL and JSG you have made the positive assertion that "within the Jewish membership of the Party these groups are significant", where is the evidence for this? Thus far the only indication of their size and significance is that in a joint petition they only managed to get 57 signatures from a number of obscure individuals. In almost every interaction I've had with you, you seem to totally unable to grasp the fact that the burden of proof for your claims/assertions IS ON YOU. Editors (including myself) dispute the inclusion of such groups because of the principles of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT; we don't throw such principles out because of your unreferenced political opinions. When it comes to the Campaign Against Antisemitism survey, the only edit I made to that (viewable here) reported on further findings from the study that stated: Jews in the UK were more concerned by (what is defined) as far-left antisemitism than they were about Fascist antisemitism; but certain editors were not comfortable with such an edit (I wonder why). You can only hold me responsible for the edits that I make, you can't hold me responsible for the edits I have nothing to do with. Alssa1 (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I've put back the useless empty unsourced paragraph that was in the intro before I began trying to edit this article. Presumably you'll all be happy with this weak and unsourced version. Ironically it included the JSG. Alssa1 presumably didn't mind the inclusion of this "fringe" group when it lacked analysis and was unsourced. I despair with Wikipedia. Garageland66 (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you seem to fail to grasp (among other things) is that your "analysis" is totally irrelevant to wikipedia. Alssa1 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you fail to grasp is that it's their analysis not mine. Their analysis (the JVL and JSG) has now been placed in the rebuttals section. It'll be interesting to see if editors are happy to see it buried away down there or will someone go and remove it from there as well. Probably. Garageland66 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If judgement is made on group(s) being fringe based on opinion then this only serves to further present the article from a one-sided POV. All notable Jewish groups who have an opinion on the matter should be presented neutrally.


 * I don't think the views of one member should be used to discredit the whole organisation, (although I do understand the irony of making this statement here).


 * I also would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem comments about editing history and repeated accusations of WP:NOT HERE is unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The question as to the legitimacy of those groups is not simply based on opinion, but based on a number of different factors such as their size and the total lack of evidence as to their 'expertise' and relevance. If you wish to include them, you've got to deal with the concerns of other editors and therefore demonstrate that they are not a fringe group whose inclusion in this page would constitute WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Alssa1 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Size is irrelevant in terms of notability/noteworthiness, relevance and expertise well they're all British Jewish groups who have opinions on the topic of antisemiticism; JVL in particular are a Jewish caucus within Labour. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So any group, no matter it's size and the makeup of its members should be included provided they identify as a Jewish group? Alssa1 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

willful misrepresentation of source
article entitled "Anti-Israel activists attack JC for challenging Jeremy Corbyn", which includes fringe wing nuts like Ilan Pappé, becomes in the text "47 prominent Jewish activists" - ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Dozens of prominent anti-Israel activists have signed an open letter attacking the JC for highlighting of Jeremy Corbyn’s links to antisemites and Holocaust deniers.", note the use of the word "prominent".Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "willful misrepresentation", because the source definitely uses the word "prominent" in the opening sentence. But if we're splitting hairs, maybe "47 Jewish activists including dozens of prominent personalities" would be a more acceptable wording (considering the source doesn't say all 47 were 'prominent'). Alternatively " doxens of prominent Jewish activists signed an open letter..." Sionk (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should say prominent, we link to the particularly notable ones. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source actually says "Dozens of prominent anti-Israel activists have signed an open letter" and it's the Jewish Chronicle. If anything they'd be expected to be hostile to these activists. So the word 'prominent' should obviously be included. Garageland66 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Who am I dealing with here? "prominent anti-Israel activists", not "prominent Jewish activists". Are a couple of people here (a) unable to distinguish between being "anti-Israel" and "Jewish"?; (b) illiterate?; or (c) trolling? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is it you actually object to?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ZinedineZidane makes a fair point, we are all too het-up on the word 'prominent'. Though are any of the signatories not Jewish? I don't think we can describe them as "anti-Israeli" activists, because that is the tabloid headline of the JC - you would have to say "activists who the Jewish Chronicle described as 'anti-Israel'". Unless someone can see significant numbers of signatories that aren't Jewish, there isn't really a problem here. Sionk (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * His point was originally that using the word prominent misrepresented the source. He has still not acknowledged he was wrong and rather resorted to strawmaning and PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "prominent anti-Israel activists" does not equate to "prominent Jewish activists". Correct or incorrect? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, in response to your new point. This is a valid objection. Whilst they all do appear to be Jewish the source does not say they are.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Recentism tag
What outstanding issues with recentism are there that need to be resolved? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most if the article is still about events over the last two years. The controversy is recent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is because that is when most sources about this topic were written. Are there any less recent topics or issues you want to include? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but then I do not think it is an old issue, it is one that come about after Corbyns win. That is why this tag is in  place, because this issue is only three years old.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you want here - are you saying we should remove this article? If we agree that there aren't particularly many sources pre-Corbyn then how can we focus more on the older issues? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am saying why the recentism tag was placed. It is down to those who wish to remove it to prove it is not just a recent controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The tag says "This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events." If we both agree that it is a relevant recent controversy then this tag doesn't seem to apply? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it is slanted towards recent events, because recent events is all we largely have. I have no idea what you statement about a relevant controversy has to do with anything, relevant to what?Slatersteven (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With the benefit of hindsight (after the issue dies down in the news) the real problem is likely to be 'excessive detail' because there is a tendency to include ever small scrap of allegation and controversy (when the issue is fresh in the news). Recentism is sort of stating the obvious - it's an issue that has only been under scrutiny in the last couple of years. Sionk (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not disputing that, but until such a time as (With the benefit of hindsight) we can actually wrote an encyclopedic article about a historical event it surfers from (as you say) too much detail on every trivial incident. Thus there is no valid reason for removing the tag (the fact it is obvious seems to be lost on at least one ed).Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's try this again. What events do you think are covered in too much detail or shouldn't be covered at all? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is the overall tone, the fact that the article discussed events that have only occurred over the last three years. But lets see, we give more coverage to a few events in 2018, then the preceding three years (and that is including the fact that much of the pre 2018 material consists of such notable cases as a housing campaigner and other similar high profile figures). One reason this article is so long is because we have every damn incident people can dig up from 2018, so we have to have every rebuttal of those incidents. The simple fact is we do not know which of these are actually significant (such as the Passover event or the Mural (even though that was not in 2018, just the digging it up was)) as it is too early.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The recentism issue is that this article doesn't explain why the controversy has only been very recent. The controversy only began after Corbyn was elected leader in the Autumn of 2015. There is no explanation for why this problem had not been noticed in the Labour Party prior to 2015.Garageland66 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As you have been informed repeatedly, if you wish to add instances of anti-semitism prior to 2015, you need to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements. Alssa1 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid 'you'. This isn't personal. My point about events prior to 2015 is that such sources don't exist. This therefore opens up the question why did this alleged problem only appear, after over 100 years of the Labour Party's existence, in the Autumn of 2015? Garageland66 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

How is this relevant to improving the article, which should be based on what sources say? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that whilst sources discus this we give recent events huge coverage (such as every accusation made about Corbyn this year). It is not down to us to provide the balance, but those who wish to remove the tag. The article has always suffered from this, just a catalog of recent accusations, with sections only getting trimmed when a new year (and new set of accusations) starts. We should concentate only on major party figures, and only an a few of the more salient incidents.08:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When "YOU" Garageland66 are the fundamental obstacle to achieving a good article, and you consistently go about engaging in edit wars (and then blanking your talk page) I see no issue in referring to you personally. Your theory of this problem only coming into existence in 2015 is only relevant if you can provide sources the sources that meet the necessary WP requirements (another point you have been told repeatedly already). Alssa1 (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That was me, I forgeot a tilde.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's repeatedly been explained that the problem isn't that we've not found enough evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party prior to 2015, but that evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party prior to 2015 doesn't seem to exist. That being so, this article fails to explain why this controversy only started shortly after the election of Corbyn as Labour leader. This point has been made a number of times, but the problem is not being recognised or dealt with. Garageland66 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that discuss this point, then feel free to add them to the article. It really is that simple. Iffy★Chat -- 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1 please note WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF Garageland66 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. You are trying to implement/enforce a change which features your theory regarding anti-semitism and Corbyn's election as leader of the Labour party. As you were told on 18:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC) if you wish to include your theory, "it's your responsibility to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements." You keep bringing this subject (among others) up as if we haven't already had these discussions previously and you repeatedly engage in edit wars (as a look at your talk page history and block log will show). Rather than telling others to note "WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF" why don't you note WP: DGF? Alssa1 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point being missed is that there has been no attempt to explain why accusations of antisemitism only began shortly after Corbyn was elected. It's that simple.Garageland66 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Whitewash for peerage? Criticism of Chakrabarti.
Re the text: "The report was described as a 'whitewash',[37][38] and as a "whitewash for peerage scandal".[39][40][41] Shami Chakrabarti led the inquiry and joined the Labour Party on the same day she was appointed to chair the investigation.

This has a number of issues, partly PoV but mainly clarity and ordering so I'm starting a new section rather than posting above.

Firstly "whitewash for peerage scandal" implies that there was some general scandal - that this was the commonname for the public reaction. AFAI can see, only one group referred to "whitewash for peerage" - the BB of Deps. There obviously were many people reacting negatively to the report and using angry/negative terms - "whitewash" etc, and people reacting negatively to the peerage. But if we want to use that specific phrase "whitewash for peerage", it should be attributed to the only people who used it (others - papers - merely quoted BB of deps I think), or rephrase the whole thing.

Secondly "Chakrabarti led the inquiry and joined the Labour Party on the same day she was appointed to chair the investigation" is "guilt by inference" - it makes more sense as part of the reasons given for people, criticising her findings - at present it reads as 'this is obviously fishy' - although she gave very clear reasons for joining the party long before the criticism, I believe.

Thirdly, would it not make more sense to draw all the criticisms of Chakrabarti's report together and prune them somewhat, such as Jacobson's "a brief and shoddy shuffling of superficies … … etc", which appears to be longer than anyone else's reaction (a great wordsmith, but not the most authorative voice in this context). That prominent Jewish organisations and some prominent individual Jews reacted very negatively, does not seem disputable, but how is that reaction best summarised?

One of the most to-the-point criticisms of Chakrabarti's report IMO was made by MP Joan Ryan, quoted in the same JC piece as Jacobson's "We wanted to see in that report clear lines drawn, where criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic … and we did not get that.” Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
What outstanding issues with neutrality are there that need to be resolved? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for a start are they Jewish, Prominent, Anti-israli (or whatever?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a fairly minor issue, is there anything else or can I remove the tag? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose removing the tag for two reasons. Firstly, because much of this article is based on two books: David Hirsh's and David Rich's. Neither of these are neutral. They are both hostile to the British left and the Labour movement. Secondly most of the claims of antisemitism do not fall under the accepted definition of antisemitism, which in the Wikipedia article is described as "hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews". Most of the examples in this article constitute condemnation of, or criticism of, Israel or what some, controversially, call new antisemitism or more accurately anti-zionism.Garageland66 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think Garageland66 will ever accept a page that criticises his espoused political viewpoint as neutral. As a cursory glance of his talk page history will show, he's quite adept at engaging in numerous edit wars when his views are not implemented. Alssa1 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Garageland66, I can't see a single example of where criticism of Israel is framed as antisemitism. In fact, the only mentions of criticism of Israel is 1. people saying that constructive criticism of Israel has strayed into antisemitism 2. Rebuttals saying that criticism of Israel should not be seen as antisemitic, but not giving specific examples. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The main examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party e.g. Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone are all about condemnation of Israel, Zionism and Zionists. As are the examples of Facebook groups. There are no examples of Labour Party members attacking Jews or the Jewish community. No examples of them calling for the funding of Jewish schools or Jewish community centres etc. to be stopped or reduced. The author David Hirsh is a well known advocate for Israel and has described supporters of the campaigns to boycott Israel as antisemites. But it's his book that is regularly sited in this article. On the Talk Page it was argued that this criticism of Israel IS antisemitism it's in fact new antisemitism. So yes Israel is at the heart of this rather than traditional antisemitism. Garageland66 (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I love how every time you come up against a definition for anti-semitism you don't like you instantly assert that the source is a "well known advocate for Israel". You did this for the ADL in this edit. Please remember that WP is not here for you to forward your political viewpoint. Alssa1 (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of definitions being liked or disliked. It's a matter of making clear whether this article is dealing with traditional antisemitism, new antisemitism, anti-Zionism or simply criticism of Israel. David Hirsh being an advocate for Israel, is an issue here because his definition of antisemitism is often a synonym for criticism of Israel. Garageland66 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Every time there's a discussion about anti-semitism with a source, your response is X is a "well known advocate for Israel" is everyone a "well known advocate for Israel" in your view? Alssa1 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the accusation against the Labour Party is for criticism of Israel then it is criticism of Israel and not antisemitism. It's false synonym to suggest otherwise. Garageland66 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's been an interesting letter published this week in the Guardian and signed by 27 prominent Jewish figures, on this very topic. Though I don't know whether it's had any secondary coverage yet. Sionk (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Off-topic perhaps, but I agree that it is an interesting letter - and personally I would agree with every word of their definition, but as ever, the devil is in the interpretation. Except in the most blatant cases, who is ever going to agree on what criticisms are "motivated by anti-Jewish prejudice"? Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Definition of antisemitism
The previous version of this content "The new code of conduct includes part of, but not all of the definition of antisemitism provided in the IHRA working definition and guidelines on antisemitism." was changed by Garageland66 to "The new code of conduct included the same definition of antisemitism, that's provided in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition on antisemitism". The sources clearly say that the definition has been changed, wth Sky saying

"But the document, drawn up following protests by Jewish groups earlier this year, does not adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition."

and the Times saying

"the party approved a new definition of antisemitism.", "Labour’s new definition of antisemitism" and "The code adopts part of, but not all, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and guidelines"

It is misleading to say that the same definition is used when that is not what the sources are saying. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be good to add how their definition is distinct from the IHRA definition? So using the original sentence but elaborates clearly and concisely. That way the readers are clear. Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what the original content did, I think. "The new code of conduct includes part of, but not all of the definition of antisemitism provided in the IHRA working definition and guidelines on antisemitism. It removed or amended four out of eleven of the examples of what allegedly constitutes antisemitism, and amended points showing how criticism of Israel can stray into antisemitism." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the lede, we should not introduce unnecessary extra detail in an attempt to seem neutral - we should state the noteworthy facts as supported by the sources, which in this case are that Labour changed the IHRA definition, prompting a Labour MP to call Corbyn a racist and 60 rabbis to write a joint letter. I don't see anything else in there that is noteworthy enough for the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Both the IHRA definition and the Labour code of conduct contain the exact same definition. '''Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'''

The area of controversy is of course with the examples. The IHRA statement has eleven examples, the Labour code of conduct has fourteen. The Labour code has omitted or completely changed three of the IHRA examples not four. The three are:

7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

8. Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Some media outlets have wrongly concluded that the Labour code has omitted four examples, the fourth being this '''6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. However this is in fact included much further down in the Labour code of conduct under example 14 as follows: It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.'''

Hope that's clear. Garageland66 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to revert four->three until you provide a reliable source which states this.


 * "Both the IHRA definition and the Labour code of conduct contain the exact same definition." So in other words you think that your interpretation that the basic definition is still the same overrules the reliable sources which are in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the two documents. This is not a matter of my "interpretation". There is no dispute over the exact same words being used for the definition in both documents. It's the examples that differ. Please read them. I have edited the page again stating that three examples have been removed. I've added a reference to the Jewish Chronicle which provides the full Labour code of conduct (it can also be downloaded in pdf). I've also added a reference that explains that "the ‘loyalty’ example (the first of the four). This reappears in par. 14 of the NEC Code in the following form: “it is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”." But please read the two documents. Garageland66 (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see anywhere in the sources you have added that mentions three examples rather than four? The NEC code alters the loyalty example by saying it is merely wrong rather than inherently antisemitic. This is why the sources are saying that four have changed rather than three. But this would all be avoided if we simply used the sources rather than relying on counting them ourselves. I'll add a further BBC ref which also states that four are absent. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly I stated above precisely how the secondary source (Open Democracy) details the repeating of the loyalty example in Labour's code of conduct. And the other secondary source (the Jewish Chronicle) has the full Labour code of conduct in pdf format. Absolutelypuremilk please read it. the Labour code of conduct says:

to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

While the IHRA statement says:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

They are the same. We have a duty to get this clear for the readers. Garageland66 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Again, that is your interpretation. You are reading the primary sources and drawing a conclusion that is not supported by secondary sources (and indeed contradicted by them). This is literally the definition of WP:OR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to say there is a one word difference that does not change the meaning, so if this is an example of what is being complained about it speaks volumes. So What do the sources say "but critics point out that it leaves out four examples from that definition:", "I shall come to specific objections to the NEC Code in due course. I think these objections are largely (if not wholly) misplaced". So not they do not say " but it removed or amended four out of eleven of the examples" they say it has been accused of doing this (in one case wrongly). In fac trhe second source says exactly that Garageland66 is saying, that the above says the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutelypuremilk If your interpretation is that they're different. Please could you explain the difference. Garageland66 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is this secondary source which actually argues that only one example has been completely removed from the Labour code of conduct. But I don't want to get into an edit war. Could someone else, perhaps, have a look into this? Garageland66 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My personal interpretation is that the full definition says that it is antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to their nation, whereas the Labour definition merely says that is is wrong to do this. But it doesn't really matter what my personal interpretation is, because I'm going by what the secondary sources say, which is that four have changed, not three. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is not what the sources say, if they do provide the quote here please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I said it was my interpretation. I'm not trying to put it in the article. The article should say that four examples have changed, because that is what secondary sources say. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then provide a quote where they say they have altered the definitions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From the sources in the article - From the Sky article "But it omits four examples from the IHRA list:" From the Times "Labour accepts the IHRA 38-word definition of antisemitism, but omits four examples included in the IHRA official guidelines." From the BBC "critics point out that it leaves out four examples from that definition:" Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we have a serious problems because another sources say it does not exclude them. And indeed explicitly says it did include at least on of the definitions that it is being accused of omitting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which source are you referring to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This one [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That source says "Four examples from the IHRA list do not figure in the NEC list in par 9...... They are not, however, absent from the Code altogether." I think "removed or amended" is a fair description of that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Err removed is not a far description of "They are not, however, absent", t have been removed they have to be absent. Also (and following your quote) "Accordingly, in subsequent paragraphs they discuss these examples", so they are there just not as worded by the IHRA. In fact it actiualy goes on to say that the NED code is in regards to these examples slightly stronger worded.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Garageland66 this is an article by someone on Labour's NEC, so not exactly a secondary source. It even states "Three of the four examples that the party has been falsely accused of omitting are explicitly discussed in the code.", implying that those three have changed, but are still included in a different form in the guidelines. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we include a letter from prominent people about antisemitism?
Should we include this content about a letter from prominent people to the Guardian about antisemitism? I don't think so, because it doesn't mention Labour in the source. I guess you could argue that it sets the scene for the debate about the IHRA, but there is already quite a lot of scene-setting which does actually mention Labour.... Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No more or less then anyone else opinion of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, beyond the puffery of "prominent", this is an open letter that does not even mention Labour and that has not been particularly covered - UNDUE and offtopic.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a lot of material in that section that is about the definition of antisemitism, and not the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I will remove that content as well as the Tomlinson, Feldman, Stern and Liberty content in the first paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Other parties
Have the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats accepted the IHRA working definition, including all the examples? Has anybody asked them? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be relevant if RS make the comparison. Apart from that this is not a soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NYTimes on three Jewish newspapers on Labour leadership being existential threat
I think this merits inclusion in the article and quite possibly the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And elsewhere - e.g. Guardian and Reuters. Certainly highly significant that we are discussing a threat level equivalent to the pogrom of York and the edicts of 1275 and 1290.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it to the article, I'm sure my entry can be improved. I do think that someone should write it better for the lead.Sir Joseph (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RS reported this as prominent and it's reporting what rs says. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, this clearly has widespread coverage. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Recentism suggests one should wait,a and not showcase this for the moment hysterical trivia in the lead. It is a patently stupid piece of hot air, trimmed for the occasion, now that Israel has just recently enshrined in its basic law a ruling that the state is ethnocratic, something Israeli centrists and 'leftists' have unambiguously described as 'racist'. The coalition of the three newspapers writing up the nonsense that all British Jews face an existential threat because the Labour Party refuses to ban discourse among its members asserting what Israeli reformists claim is 'racist' is contextually a preemptive move to  censure debates in England. Icewhiz's remark:'we are discussing a threat level equivalent to the pogrom of York and the edicts of 1275 and 1290,' is hallucinating in its paranoid hyperbole, but explains why he at least considers this important: it's the Netanyahu ploy after 2015 in France, sending the message that no one is safe in the diaspora- ergo make aliyah to save yourselves from Corbyn and co. It's a bit like writing up the Benny Morris page making much of his argument that Israel's ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians was a measure against 'anniohilation' (existential threat, again), and that those who remain are a ticking time bomb for Jews ('The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb . .within the next twenty years we could have an atomic war here.') Morris stated that, and like so many genocidal or racist threats made by everyone from top politicians, field commanders and rabbis, it remains a blip, because it happens to be the mirror image of language that is problematical only when Israel's status is questioned.
 * When Ken Livingstone mentioned Morris at the time (2004), he got lambasted as an anti-Semite, way before the lead's statement that anti-Semitism on the left dates to 2011 onwards (You Can't Say That: Memoirs 2011 p.511). The Jewish Chronicle's credibility is dubious: they even complained when a church hall was rented out to English Palestinians to commemorate the nakba.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some editors are opposing the use of the opinions of the Jewish Labour Movement, Jewish Voice for Labour and Independent Jewish Voices. What's the consensus on this? Aren't the views of left-wing Jewish groups relevant in this article? Garageland66 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. They're no more relevant than the fact that Corbyn was present when Meyer said Israel's treatment of Palestinians was akin to Nazi German treatment of Jews down to 1939. This conflicts with the meme now spreading like wildfire in the NYTs, Guardian etc that Corbyn sat silent as Meyer ostensibly compared Israel's behavior to the Nazis Holocaust, something never said. The poor bastard is even apologizing for hearing what, 8 years later the Guardian, Times et al., state Meyer said though he never said it. The point of the article is to show that despite the poll figures that show Labourites are the least anti-Semitic of English parties, they are singled out as the most anti-Semitic by Jewish voters - a miracle of hysterically contrafactual spin. So, no, we shouldn't cite anything that contradicts the meme.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I would remind eds this is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Advice accepted. But editors should be aware that the press reportage, mainstream or otherwise, has utterly failed to set the record straight, leaving us, as editors, forced to report falsehoods. That pisses me off because there is no redress, unless an RS picks it up, for the falsehood reliably reported.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I.e. we have from the Guardian (and it is repeated elsewhere)
 * "presided over an event in the House of Commons where Holocaust analogies and discourse were used to criticise the Israeli government, with the main talk entitled 'The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes"
 * As far as I have been able to find out, the Holocaust analogy was never used by Meyer in that 2010 talk, and if one listens to the prefatory remarks introducing his Irish version of his talk, and Meyer's comments, underwriting the denial that such a talk had anything to do with Auschwitz analogies, then it is patently obvious that the press reportage we use here contains a falsehood. Meyer did mention the Holocaust, and his vehement criticisms are directly against its use in Israeli politics.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll put back the rebuttal by the Jewish Socialists' Group and Independent Jewish Voices. If editors have an issue with this, then please discuss it here on the Talk Page. Garageland66 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are described in mainstream sources then they should be in the article. Currently the article has the Morning Star and Ekklesia as sources. If we can't find better sources then I don't think it should be in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to include those views. As mentioned above, they are not RS. Not sure why User:Garageland66 added it back and is not following BRD. This was challenged and it's up to you to bring in a RS with those sources, especially since the article already mentions the Labour response. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but these are reliable sources. The JSG and IJV are used throughout this article and, indeed, this very content is used on the Jeremy Corbyn Wiki page. If it's reliable enough for the Jeremy Corbyn page then why Sir Joseph is it not reliable enough for this article? Garageland66 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. To remove a Labour newspaper source like Morning Star, which was attacked as anti-Semitic, and defended Corbyn, can't be explained any other way than as cogging the dice in favour of negative criticism, in order to violate WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you above said yourself that it shouldn't be there. Secondly, I have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about adding a response to the newspaper by some fringe group which is certainly a WEIGHT issue. The response here is already done by the Labour party, adding a fringe response by some group is just NPOV. And I will ask you to AGF, we don't need your usual shenanigans to cloud every article you edit in. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Shenanigans means, I presume, that when a patent miosrepresentation is afoot, as usual, I, like a handful of other editors, spend a few hours tracking down the way the meme got into circulation. There is no evidence here that the Morning Star represents a fringe viewpoint. The topic is Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, and that obliges us to cover all angles concerning the Labour Party constituency, which, as in most democratic parties in the West, is a variegated coalition, an ensemble of groups, who vote Labour while, on the finer points, disagreeing among themselves. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While we should represent Labour's response as it is represented in top-line RSes, we should avoid using marginal tabloid sources affiliated with a group with antisemitic issues for coverage of antisemitism. We should also avoid over representation of highly fringe front groups who have "Jewish" in their name, but do not represent the Jewish community at large or more specifically are much opposed by most of the Jewish community and have a very small support base (which, for one group, includes people who did not previously identify as Jewish but chose to identify as such in order to join the group).Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely subjective. As someone who tries to ground articles exclusively on top RS, I constantly have problems with editors who have no coherent approach to RS. Here you prejudge the issue by saying euphemistically that the Morning Star is anti-Semitic, and therefore cannot be used. 'coverage of antisemitism' requires top-line RS. ertc. OPh really. Look at our Antisemitism. No one objects there (save myself), one of the most closely watched pages on Wikipedia, to this trash sourcing:


 * Sky News
 * Haas School of Business.
 * Executive Council of Australian Jewry
 * Tikvah.
 * www.app.college.police.uk.
 * Townhall.com
 * Myjewishlearning.com
 * Forbes.com.
 * ReformJudaism.org.
 * Tablet Magazine
 * nbcconnecticut.com
 * Jewishjournal.com
 * New Haven Register.
 * Eusccr.com.
 * www.thejc.com
 * Ukrayinska Pravda
 * Kyiv Post
 * Arutz Sheva
 * Algemeiner Journal
 * The Local,
 * Wiesenthal.com
 * Malaysia Insider
 * levandehistoria.se
 * NATIV Online
 * The Daily Beast.
 * Vos Iz Neias.
 * Nrc.nl.
 * NRK Lørdagsrevyen
 * You can't have it both ways: argue for only high mainstream reportage (which contains the false meme I indicated verbatim across numerous articles) on an article to screw the UK Labour Party, by denying the page reasonably informed sources inside the Labour movement re Anrtisemitism, while ignoring the fact that this criterion is wholly absent from the Antisemitism page, and willfully so. Double standards.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you strike the comment on double standards - beyond this being a possible personal attack, and some of the sources listed above not being "trash" (in fact one source is an expert source, a number are long standing magazines/newspapers, and other sources seem to be used for local incidents that pass V - though some of the 27 do fit the bill of "trash"), you are accusing an editor of double standards due to the existence of "trash sources" in an article he did not edit - as we well know, there will always be some "trash" on Wikipedia (WP:WORKINPROGRESS - we can't clean up or delete all of this immediately) - so such a grave accusation beyond being beyond the repair of any single or even collective group of editors - is counterproductive since the conclusion of the argument is that we accept "trash sources" that are challenged as long as "trash sources" exist in some other article (i.e. always).Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. You wrote:' we should avoid using marginal tabloid sources affiliated with a group with antisemitic issues for coverage of anti-Semitism.' You are suggesting the Morning Star is anti-Semitic and a 'tabloid' among other things. The intensely edited Antisemitism page is proof most editors couldn't give a stuff for such a strict reading. It's a fair observation. All of the sources I listed 8and there are many more) are garbage for such an important topic which has all of its angles multiply-covered by reputable academic specialists.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. After making a deeper than intended dive in the WP:RSN, I conclude that there is no general sentiment against using the Morning Star as a either a source for facts or part of the balance of WP:WEIGHT on WP. Its editorial oversight and fact-checking seem to be superior to many other sources available (and used here), and its perspective to the left of the Labour party seems highly relevant in this instance. The form factor it is printed on is not strictly relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the sources use on Jeremy Corbyn, I have added a tag as WP:BLPs specifically exclude tabloid sources such as the Morning Star. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, those sources aren't used to reference anything particularly controversial in Antisemitism - if you think they are, then open up a talk page discussion there, don't use it as an excuse to add poorly sourced content here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter Willsman
Is his contribution worth adding? Labour action urged over Peter Willsman's anti-Semitism remarks
 * I am not sure half the stuff we have is, we cannot just make this about every accusation that gets reported. That is precisely why the POV and recentism tags exist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection to this page is needed
There is a huge amount of editors in this article who sign up using their ip, they have done lots of mess which have changed the neutrality of this page. I suggest best thing to do is to semi-protect this page. SharabSalam (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support this, the controversial nature of this topic is bound to generate vandalism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Placed request at RfPP for ECP.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)