Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 5

Antisemitism infobox
I recovered this because the article is still concerning antisemitism. The infobox has been altered prior with no valid objections/arguments such as “It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic”. - according to what rule? Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The one on the page Category:Antisemitism. Its a direct cut and paste. As to why now, maybe because we all assumed good faith and did not think of looking at the inclusion criteria for the category until now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Had this been about antisemitism of Labour - there would have a been point in discussion the inclusion criteria. However, this is about antisemitism in Labour - and elements/incidents in Labour have been unequivocally classified (including by Labour itself) as antisemitic. As such - this is similar to Antisemitism in Sweden (or any of the other multiple in articles) - which do not assert that the entire country/organization are antisemitic and are for obvious reasons in the sidebar (as well as in the category - see Category:Antisemitism by country). Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The infobox contains the Judenstern. How many Jews has Labour had murdered? Nearest million will do. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Should remain - Quite obviously, the antisemitism sidebar should remain. The article is about antisemitism in Labour (as opposed to of Labour). Labour itself has admitted, harking back to at least 2016 (suspension of MPs and party members due to antisemitism) that there is antisemitism in Labour - and Labour continues to say it is addressing the problem in Labour - so we even have Labour admitting this exists (as have some of the formerly suspended MPs - e.g. Shah apologized when she was reinstated). Per Bloomberg - "U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apologized to Britain’s Jewish community for the “real” problem of antisemitism in the nation’s main opposition". Not that Labour's self-admission matters much. What does matter - are sources - and there is not mainstream source asserting there isn't an antisemitism issue or crisis within Labour - and a preponderance of sources assert the problem - Atlantic, Bloomberg, Washington Post, Vox, CNN, New Yorker, New York Times. Objections to the sidebar appear to be based on IDONTLIKE - and not on actual sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is this is not just about the admitted cases, but also the denied ones. And the category criteria are clear we do not include unproven accusations as they also deny others. And no trial by media is not conviction or proof. So this page is wither about accusations (which means it fails the inclusion criteria), opinions (ditto) or actually admitted or proven incidents (it would pass the criteria).Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again - in vs. of. See Category:Antisemitism by region, Category:Antisemitism by country - in the cat and in the sidebar.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, it does not matter if it is "in" or "by". most of the accusations are still not proven, thus we cannot imply by inclusion is that category that they are true. The category is about proven (not alleged) antisemitism, so either remove all the unproven accusations or leave it out of a category that is only for proven cases. Otherwise this is a gross BLP violation by the back door, as we are saying they are all antisemitic when it is not demonstrably true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Labour (or Sweden) is not a BLP. The "unproven" assertion above is not sourced (and would seem to be contradicted by mainstream reporting and experts on antisemitism), and irrelevant regardless. Finally we do not say that all Swedes, most Swedes, or even a significant proportion of Swedes are antisemitic by including Antisemitism in Sweden in the category and sidebar. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about "by" it is about "in" which means we are talking about the actions of individuals? Ohh and Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, not just pages about people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can someone kindly link me to the info-box use instructions. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:Bodney GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't Corbyn a part of the Facebook group in which explicit antisemitic content was posted? What about cases were Labour Party members were suspended or removed following antisemitic remarks such as: “teachers are brainwashing our children and us into thinking the bad guy was Hitler” or “What have the Jews done right in this world? etc. - It’s all in this article, and it's all documented antisemitism. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said if we are going to make this only about admitted cases fine, lets do that (and no membership of a facebook group does not mean you are antisemitic, and if I recall even the person who uncocvered this never said it meant Corbyn was antisemitic.). But if we include every unproven accusation and rumour and every talking head opinion then we cannot imply it is all true.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The contention that Labour has an antisemitism problem is hotly disputed, and including a templates which displays the Judenstern, the most famous badge of shame in existence, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Userbox Should remain. removals of infoboxes should not be done before a community consensus is established for its removal. As for the title "Antisemitism in the Labour Party", community consensus has already been achieved under that title, firstly at an RM in December 2017 and at an RFC in April this year. The idea that you can remove the anti-semitism userbox from a community-agreed wiki page about anti-semitism is one of the most strange edits I have ever seen in my time on Wiki. Alssa1 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Remain not complicated guys, it's obviously relevant as the page is about Antisemitism. We have the infobox Antisemitism in the United States for example, that is not implying the US is an antisemitic entity, but simply that antisemitism there is part of a broader picture. It's essentially a fringe view at this point to claim there is zero antisemitism in Labour (is there zero anywhere that Jews are? Not really, same with any other form of bigotry). Really the arguments on the other side don't hold much water.--Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism: "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic."
 * Comment Happy to follow the rules ...what about :-
 * Doesn't apply. Category != infobox.--Calthinus (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic principle is the same, though (especially in the absence of a policy for the template), since the core reason for that guideline, common among contentious categories and infoboxes, is because a category or infobox cannot provide context (eg. who is making the allegation and why). In that case it is better to address it in the text where we can give a more complete view. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic principle does not apply, we are not talking about allegations; we are talking about the widely accepted existence of antisemitism in the Labour party. This has not only been accepted by a number of reliable sources, but has also been accepted by Corbyn himself. Further to this (and as I have stated already) we have already reached community consensus regarding the title: "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party". Alssa1 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove per my reasoning above. Categories and templates should only be used in unambiguous situations core to their topic; using them in an article like this, where so much of the topic is in dispute by reliable sources, is not useful. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the staunchest "defenders" (incl Corbyn himself) have admitted there is antisemitism in Labour. This is not in dispute. If the Tories had a page about antisemitism in their party (which does also exist), the infobox would belong there too.--Calthinus (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is antisemitism8n every political party. in some - UKIP, for example - this is ignored or excused, to keep the racist base on board. In mainstream parties like Labour it is not. For the most part "Labour antisemitism" is a montroversy ginned up by party opponents, and I am sure they absolutely love the prom8nently displayed Judenstern. Mission accomplished, opposition distracted and undermined, now back to the business of redrawing the boundaries to give a permanent one party state. 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is your personal opinion. It really doesn't have much weight policy wise. Most people on this talk page are probably well read on the issue already. I would personally add, it is entirely possible for a real scandal to nevertheless be exploited by certain politicians for cynical purposes. See also Islamophobia. If you wanna debate/chat, it can go on my talk page, not here. --Calthinus (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove The Labour Party has never endorsed antisemitism or any antisemitic policies. The banner implies that it does and is therefore inherently non-NPOV. The presence of a small number of antisemites in a political party (which exist in every party) does not mean the party officially endorses their views . G-13114 (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with your position is a simple one: the removal of the anti-semitism userbox from a community-agreed wiki page about anti-semitism is a totally unjustifiable edit. As for your claim about the existence about the extent of anti-semitism in Labour, that is just your opinion. Alssa1 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't it was the opinion of the Home Affairs Select Committee which found that there was "no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party." which has been backed up by polling by firms like YouGov. G-13114 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The existence of a contrary opinion by a HoC committee or a firm YouGov are both worth an appearance on this page, but it doesn't overturn all the other sources on this page. Please explain why the existence of a anti-semitism userbox on an article about anti-semitism is in some way against the WP:NPOV. Alssa1 (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Remain this is an article about Antisemitism in Labour. As such, it makes perfect sense for the infobox to be in this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove As per Aquillion ~ Categories and templates should only be used in unambiguous situations core to their topic. And as per  G-13114 ~ The Labour Party has never endorsed antisemitism or any antisemitic policies. And as per Guy ~ including a templates which displays the Judenstern, the most famous badge of shame in existence, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel this discussion is missing the point. This article is Antisemitism in the Labour Party not Antisemitism of the Labour Party. See also Antisemitism in the United States, which has the infobox -- is the US an entity that is antisemitic or currently has antisemitic policy? No. Is there antisemitism in the US? Anything but yes is deeply fringe. Is there antisemitism in Labour? Again, anything but yes is deeply fringe and held by no one whose opinion matters to us -- notably, Corbyn and his strongest defenders in Labour also confess that there is antisemitism in Labour -- however they argue they are adequately handling it-- not that it doesn't exist. When and if Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party is created, the same argument should apply there, and the infobox deserves a place there too. The importance of the infobox is ironically because (ironic because this is a point that should be on the "other side") antisemitism is not a specifically Labour phenomenon.--Calthinus (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for a start it ids about a nation of 100 of millions, not a political party, secondly, it does not give as much space to accusations against a single person, or over such a short period of time. Hell it gives less space to an antisemitic president then we give to once minor incident about a mural. This is the difference, it is one of tone, of content (this is practically a Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic article).Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic article, it shouldn't be. It is true that it has a lot of WP:RECENTISM. Although Jews were quite influential and important in Labour's earlier years, there was antisemitism throughout its whole history that can be discussed. And it should be. There are some parts of the page that do take a more historical perspective. --Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is why we cannot have this in the infobox, this is both a direct BLP, and an indirect one. As far as I can tell the US article does not have one accusation against a living person, this article has many (a lot unproven). The two article are different in tone and content, and until this article matches the other in those (for a start not being a BLP) we cannot use one as a comparison with the other.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We could try removing the WP:RECENTISM here, but unless the "Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi" POV pushers are reined in a bit we'll just go back to having even worse WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE issues at Jeremy Corbyn as quite a lot of material was shunted recently from that article to this one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who exactly are these "Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi" POV pushers? I don't seem to notice them. Are they me? Because if so, really you're wrong, and I'll have you know my personal opinion is that the man himself is not antisemitic personally, but I do take issue with "reactive" portrayals that end up accusing (without balance in the least for a possible BLP issue) his detractors of all sorts of colorful things (including being part of what is portrayed as some sort of vast international conspiracy to unseat Corbyn). As far as I've seen  and  have been fairly accommodating at points.  has supported the insertion of pro-Corbyn material at at least one point. Everyone else who has not tended to vote consistently "pro-Corbyn-ly" doesn't edit enough here to make a difference. I ask you to strike this statement, as it is unfair and not assuming good faith, and uncivil. Don't pretend to know why others edit, and if you do, at least give the benefit of the doubt, that's all I'm asking. --Calthinus (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does indeed very heavily suggest to the reader that the has been a rise in antisemitism in the Labour Party ever since Corbyn took office. I do appreciated your earlier point, but feel the relatively few examples of accusations in this Antisemitism in the Labour Party, whether events or people, that it does not merit the infobox, that tars the whole party and Corbyn himself specifically. I agree with the WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE  and WP:BLP issues in this article and wish the was an independent editing team that could rewrite this article.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the level of antisemitism has increased under Corbyn - I am not sure I saw an actual RS measuring this. However, what is manifestly clear is that this has been a political issue for pat two+ years and a full blown crisis in the part year - and full blown means that much of the British media and moreso (proportionally to the amount of coverage they give to the opposition in the UK) world media - e.g, WaPo, NYT, New Yorker, Atlantic, CNN, German press, etc. - who are treating this with several full length features on the Labour/Corbyn antisemitism crisis... This is not RECENTISM, but a significant scandal. As for BLP/DUE - we should foloow the tone set by the NYT and WaPo - as opposed to the Morning Star or Squawkbox.Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not RECENTISM, but a significant scandal ...aha!  Reading that gave me an idea that might improve the article's neutrality.  Would you endorse renaming this article to something along the lines of 2017-2018 Labour Antisemtism scandal?  That would make the excessive weight paid to that era more appropriate and would give us a more clear topic. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - yes - I would - to 2015-2018 Labour Antisemtism scandal (or 2015-present) - definitely began prior to 2017 - though in 2015-6 this wasn't about Corbyn but about how Corbyn and the party were dealing with the problem - but there were some rather significant issues (Shah, Livingstone, Chakrabarti inquiry, various other expulsions, etc.) This is what this article is about anyways. Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also would agree with a retitling along something along these lines, as I have said before. Until then, the recentism tag stays IMO. And getting at some earlier points raised, I really don't have any POV to push at all; I just want Wikipedia to more accurately reflect RS coverage. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally think Scandal comes across a bit POV, would prefer a more neutral sounding word. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * .... 2017-2018 Labour Antisemtism scandal suggests the whole labour party is part of the scandal, the Tory press would love it. 2015-2018 Allegations of antisemitism incidents within the Labour Party maybe. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Labour admitted (and expelled) several outright cases of antisemitism - these are not allegations (beyond RSes treating these as antisemitism - Labour, including Corbyn, have admitted there is a problem and have claimed they are attempting to address it). I do agree scandal is not the most common, but per NYT, New Yorker , The Nation , WaPo (and others...) it is a crisis. Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes the have been some individuals who have been expelled, but is the number of cases any where near 1% of the party. We are talking of a very small percentage of the party... so no ~> words like Scandal or Crises are UNDUE. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So? We still cannot say X is guilty, just because Y was. Either have only the proven cases (thus fitting with the criteria on the Antisemitism project page), and leave out all the unproven accusation or opinionating. Or include them, and thus subject this page to BLP restrictions (we cannot say an accusation is true, even indirectly).Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ergo crisis, used by several news orgs, does not take a stance on the veracity of events - but ties this to the political crisis. Note that antisemitism, per-say, is not a crime in the UK (not only that - but it would seem circulating what has been described as "blood libel" against Jews is not a crime per CPS.) - so questions of "guilty" or BLPCRIME are irrelevant. They are furthermore irrelevant since the involved are all WP:PUBLICFIGUREs - in which case policy directs us to "simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" - so if WP:RSes say X is antisemitic (or accused, or alleged, or whatever) - we are supposed to reflect the language in the sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP is not just about crime, it is about any accusation that could be considered libelous (for example). And this is not about content in the article, it is about applying a Wikipedia label that explicitly says it is about actual incidents of antisemitism. Yes we can say there are accusations, WE cannot say they are true.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Labour is not a BLP. For individual politicians in Labour, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE - we reflect what the sources say on public figures - if high quality sources say an accusation is "true" regarding a public figure - so do we. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A BLP is any page (page, not just article) that contains information about a living person. And as far as I can tell most of the accusations have not been said to be true by RS. AS I said if you want to include a label about real antisemitism, then we remove anything that is not a proven accusation. And no WP:PUBLICFIGURE does not say we put accusations in Wikipedias voice, it just says " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". I am not saying we cannot include the accusations, only that we cannot say they are true, only that others do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * would you be able to explain the legitimacy of removing an anti-semitism userbox from a community-agreed wiki page about anti-semitism? You seem to be rehashing the arguments that were already decided at an RM in December 2017 and at an RFC in April this year. Alssa1 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove as per and  Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Should remain This seems like a complete no brainer to me. This is an article about antisemitism, so there's no reason for it not to have the template. The template in no way implies the party is antisemitic. Other articles that currently have this template include: Antisemitism in the United States, Antisemitism in Turkey, Antisemitism in Europe, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Antisemitism in Norway, Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and Antisemitism in the Soviet Union, and the appearance of the template in no way implies the US, Turkey, Europe, the Arab world, Norway and the UK are antisemitic. The discussion above of "guilty" and "allegations" would only carry weight if someone tried to add the template to the actual Labour Party article. As this is an article about antisemitism, it is straightforward that the template is proper here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Should remain - Because this is an article about antisemitism so the template follows the usual convention. TrabiMechanic (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hungary
Recently, the Conservative Party became the only governing party in the EU to support Hungary's far right government. Its government supports the conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by an international Jewish conspiracy, which is a classic anti-Semitic canard. Corbyn mentioned this support at the recent Labour conference. That should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is classic Whataboutism. It has not place on this page as it is flagrantly off topic. However Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party could be a notable topic if you would like to make a separate page. [Conservative support for Hungary however, is not itself inherently anti-Semitic in the same way that Corbyn supporting certain individuals isn't inherently anti-Semitic in isolation though both can be argued to imply a lack of concern -- some other things that have gone on within the party in the past were]. --Calthinus (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is about the Conservative Party opposing an EU vote to censure the Hungarian government and leader Orban, on issues closely connected with racism. I can think of cases where Corbyn supported controversial leaders for profound moral principles such as the Palestinian right to determination, but not on a vote so closely connected to racism/ anti semitism such as this. I understand Corbyn instructed Labour MEPs to support the vote, I can't see any reason this can't be included. I also think the contrast with the Conservative vote is significant considering the Tories were one of the few parties to support Orban, yet this is where many accusations of antisemitism against the Labour party arise. --Andromedean (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * *Closely connected with issues of authoritarianism. The EU tolerated his racism for years, when it didn't threaten EU interests, especially before the refugee crisis. Of course, Tories can be susceptible to arguments from Hungarian nationalists about their sovereignty being threatened, Corbyn can end up favoring Palestinian and also Arabist/Islamist nationalists (Hamas) if he feels their constituent nation is oppressed -- same shit vis-a-vis Irish nationalists (with their flourescent white skin and first world economy...) in those 2/3 of Ulster, and Kurdish nationalists, but not Albanians when they were being ethnically cleansed from Kosovo, not Bosniaks, not Croats, not Ukrainians nor Crimean Tatars, nor Cambodians; while Milosevic and Pol Pot recieve his sympathy he says Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. So as you can see there are ... complications... with this argument. --Calthinus (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly offtopic in regards to antisemitism in Labour. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually on topic since Corbyn raised the issue. TFD (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Corbyn did raise the issue, so it wouldn't just be whataboutery to include it, but it feels a bit presentist - is Corbyn's comment on this of sustained interest? Should all the times a Labour leader has commented on something related to antisemitism be mentioned in this article? We're in danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an article specifically about a problem within the Labour Party, if we start throwing in random things that are happening in other parties it is just going to become a pointless mess of unrelated commentary RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic for this page. This is not the Conservative Party article and we don't need whataboutism here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetchie Mankala (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Corbyn's statements specifically can get one sentence with no commas, colons, dashes, semicolons or dependent clauses. No more. If anything. Belongs on a page about the Conservative Party, if you actually care, create it.--Calthinus (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism
There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#RfC_about_a_letter_from_Orthodox_RabbisBurrobert (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

comments from Richard Millett's video
Surely [|we need to add Richard Millet's comment]s about 'Zionists don't understand English Irony', as they are an integral part of the story. If Corbyn claims he was referring to specific Zionists, and one of the Zionists thinks so as well, surely that's important. Whether it is 'his opinion' or not is irrelevant. I suggest this slightly revised version.

"One of the activists Richard Millet recorded a video for Mail online in which he stated Jeremy Corbyn was referring to him:


 * "Hi there, I am Richard [Millett], the blogger which Jeremy Corbyn says hasn't got a sense of English irony". Later in the interview he explained how well Jeremy Corbyn knew him. "He knew my name, he knew I was Jewish, in that context he made the reference othering me saying I had no sense of English irony".[66] --Andromedean (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate the Mail is not RS ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to reference the Mail is flagged; but there are exceptions to the rule, and I don't think it was intended to cover exclusive interviews, simply that opinions and interpretations by Daily Mail editors/journalists should be avoided and the Mail should always be avoided where other sources are available. It is a fact that Richard Millet said what he did, and I don't think anyone reasonably disputes that fact.--Andromedean (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is Mr Millets own opinion (and why would he be singled out, who is he?). What makes this dubious is that Corbyn talked about people, he used plural language. This I think there are serious undue issues here. Added top which it is sources to the Daily Myt. I see no value to this material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He is 'singled out' because once Hassassian’s speech was over, Millett confronted him over what he had just said., but he was accompanied by other well known Zionists including Jonathan Hoffman, who travel around disrupting Palestinian speaking events, as described here with respect to this event.
 * Possibly the loudest and most obnoxious are Jonathan Hoffman, a former vice-chair of the Zionist Federation, and the blogger Richard Millet. Both attempt to derail Palestine events by heckling and interrupting speakers.
 * Here's another source via LBC, from Millet himself again.
 * Here Millet writes in the Jewish chronicle
 * "Soon after that event Jeremy Corbyn said, in recently revealed footage, that I and the other Zionists with me “clearly have two problems”. We don’t want to study history and we don’t understand English irony."
 * So both prosecution and defence agree Corbyn was referring to a particular Zionist group, although Millet of course interprets singling out any group of Zionists for having no sense of English Irony as being anti-Semitic. Of course these other links which back up the story could be added if you like. --Andromedean (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets continue with the quotation from LBC, shall we - "Speaking to Maajid Nawaz on LBC, he called Jeremy Corbyn "deeply anti-semitic". "He knew I was Jewish, he knew who I was five years ago, we used to mix in the same circles," he said. "It was an insinuation that I don't belong in the United Kingdom.". If you want this in - you do not cherry pick. Or if you want to quote the JC - "I’m convinced Corbyn knew I was Jewish when he made his “English irony” comment. It’s still inexcusable if he didn’t know, as it could only apply to someone he doesn’t believe to be properly English. Had Corbyn been caught on film saying the same about a member of any other minority group he surely would have had to resign.".. IMHO, Millet's comments are rather irrelevant, however analysis by Lipstadt (who is an expert) on the matter - Jeremy Corbyn’s Ironically Ahistorical Anti-Semitism, Deborah Lipstadt - is relevant in terms of analyzing the statement. Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Corbyn's comments can't be interpreted fairly or accurately without the knowledge that a a small group of vocally aggressive Zionists follow and confront Palestinian supporters during such events. The main defence of Corbyn's comments are that he was referring to this small group. The 'small group' claim isn't only the view of the Palestinian supporters as indicated in the links, but confirmed by Miller's inadvertent admissions during his video and radio interview. So this combination of evidence is conclusive. I would certainly hope that if Lipstadt was aware of all this she would withdraw her accusations. Clearly Corbyn and these Zionists have little respect for one another, so Millet's further comments are indeed just personal opinion and has no bearing on anti-semitism in the Labour Party. --Andromedean (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * EI is far from a reliable source. Please be aware that WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages as well. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All evidence I can find about Electronic Intifada is that reporting of facts is of a high standard according to fact checkers on which this score is based
 * In reviewing fact checks we could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources. We did however find a case where EI refuted a pants on fire claim from Politifact that stated the Baltimore police were trained by Mossad.
 * Blog or not, this subject can never be balanced by relying on press based around one religious community without alternative media such as Electronic Intifada and Mondeweiss --Andromedean (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * EI is regularly raised on the RSN, with the consensus that it is a borderline source that can be used only be used with great caution and with attribution. The specific EI article linked here is clearly an opinion piece. The language ("fanatical", "obnoxious") is obviously the language of an opinion piece (as well as steering into BLP violation territory if we quote it). The piece can only be used as a source for Winstanley's opinion, not for facts about Millett (in fact, it doesn't even spell his name correctly. If we are putting accusations about Millett in because we believe the story can't be interpreted without these facts, we are committing textbook SYN. If that's the interpretation of RSs, we can cite them; if not, it's synthesis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So EI has glowing reviews from the FT, the Web Review, and even the Jerusalem Post. This seems to back up the Media Bias/Fact Check rating. All the AS charges against Corbyn are based around speculative opinions, there's nothing conclusive at all.  Take out opinion and there's not much left.  That said, the EI has specific claims that aren't opinions, these are either right or wrong, and fact checking have shown them to be accurate. I don't see whether it matters if these are part of an opinion piece providing we don't quote opinions. The most useful with regard to Millett case is this one, I think we should use it in conjunction with the Video and Radio Interview. --Andromedean (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That EI piece at least doesn't call Millett a "fanatic" or "obnoxious" and spells his name right, but it is still very obviously an opinion piece. I would strongly recommend taking this to the RSN before including it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle is the source we can agree on, with regard to who Millett was referring to. However, it makes far more sense if we include the EIs initial explanation of the previous speech and confrontation as well. I suggest:
 * Corbyn’s remarks were made in reference to an earlier speech by Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority’s ambassador to the UK, and an incident after the speech in which Richard Millett a Zionist campaigner, confronted Hassassian over what he had just said. Millett himself later wrote that Corbyn's remarks were aimed at himself and "the other Zionists with me". --Andromedean (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP on Berger, Newmark, and other Jewish and non-Jewish dissenting Labour members
The page has a series of … interesting, conspiratorial, statements... many from opinion pieces by either non-notable or non-British authors, regarding the alleged motives of dissenters in the Labour party on this issue. A number of these may present BLP concerns. Here's a sample:

"a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents"

" part of a wider campaign against the Labour leadership"

"a political plot aimed at discrediting the party... the work of cynical manipulations"

"attempts to discredit a left-wing politician who has put forward a manifesto seen by capitalists as too radical in favour of working class interests... The smear campaign against Corbyn is a dangerous attempt to sabotage the struggle for left and socialist solutions" (this from a totally unknown fringe organization not even in Britain)

"deliberately manipulated to serve a pro-Zionist agenda"

Finkelstein, an American: " exploited for an ulterior political motive."

John Newsinger: " sustained attempt made to discredit the Corbynites … politically motivated smears, perpetrated by people completely without shame"

Finkelstein again, with Chomsky, another American with no relevant credentials: " calculated hoax … "

I fear there is a BLP issue here with this conspiratorial language. Leading members of this alleged "campaign" against Corbyn (or against anti-Semitism, depends on your personal POV...) happen to be Labour MPs, some of Jewish background, some not, who often have dedicated their careers to Labour and left-wing causes. Meanwhile, as per Falter in Al Jazeera : "For this to really be a smear campaign, it would require that every Jewish major institution in the Jewish community as well as the vast majority of Labour MPs to have conspired to attack the Labour Party, which is a party that the Jewish community played a huge role in building and which most Jews used to vote for." Considering the relevance of conspiratorial narratives in the background of the issues relevant to this controversy, implying that dedicated Labour MPs (who have often, like Newmark, taken heat from other Jews for sticking with the Labour party!) are in some conspiracy to "attack" Corbyn and their own party, whether on behalf of Israel (classic accusation of double loyalties, anti-Semitic canard here.), the Tories (need I say more...), or both, is more than a little fucked up. Worse, is that because these colorful accusations happen to be placed in a section titled "Rebuttals" (…), there is no room for a response for balance, so this slander against Berger, Newmark and the rest stands without response. These are men and women, like Berger, Newmark and others, have to deal with harassment now in their daily lives, not only from hotheaded "Corbynite" grassroots activists, but also from members of their own Jewish community, who have called them all sorts of astonishing things, and accused them of being Uncle Toms for continuing to fight for the Labour Party which hardliners in the Jewish community, despite often having once voted for it, are now calling an "existential" enemy of the community. One need not look hard for other voices from the Jewish left condemning this conspiratorial defamation [] [] []. We can effing do better than this. --Calthinus (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this wall. Unfortunately here you need to meticulously quote everything or people will think you are lying. Tldr: this needs to be taken into account and handled, conspiratorial language concerning dissenters must be weighed against WP:BLP just as much as it would be if it were concerning Corbyn and the likeminded.--Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a lot to read and consider, Calthinus, but are you suggesting that Corbyn's political enemies (mostly non-Jews) are not using the antisemitism charges as a means of discrediting the Labour leadership? Because it is widely understood - both by media and academic commentators - that they are. This is neither an EXTRAORDINARY claim more a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I'm arguing. As I have already stated, it is absolutely true that the right in Britain has exploited the issue, while predictably some righties in Israel have predictably aped the Islamist tactic of redirecting attention away from their own failings (cough cough) by talking about how everyone hates them. But that is not all that was being discussed. These quotes target more than just them. For example, we have Fink saying the whole "campaign" is a "calculated hoax" (Trumpism a la carte). If it is a hoax, he is implying those who have been leading voices calling for reform, like Berger, Streeting, Newmark, the former of which who "opened" one of hte scandals are guilty (hoax implies malintent, if he said dissenting Labour MPs were misunderstanding things, that would be different). We have Gideon Levy, but we don't have the rebuttal of Daniela Peled, a leftist journalist who formerly admired Levy's work in exposing the transgressions of Tel Aviv, to Levy's Trumpist rhetoric [], where he among other things accuses the "Jewish establishment" of "taking out a contract" with Israel against Corbyn. I confess the situation has gotten better since when I first crafted this post (backlog), but there is still an issue here. Now that we're clear, can we address this specific issue and quit talking about Tories or Likudniks, where we agree? --Calthinus (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Most mainstream sources are treating antisemitism in Labour as a serious issue. You see conspiracy theory claims in publications such as Labour List or Morningstar.Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally the first three sources I found on this topic are this, this and this. None are "far left", none are "conspiracy theory", and none take the STRAWMAN position of denying the seriousness of anti-Semitism but they all make exactly the same point I asked about in my previous edit, which I repeat, is neither extraordinary nor conspiratorial. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most mainstream sources have been found to be heavily biased in this area. This is hardly surprising, there is no mainstream source editorially supportive of Socialism or Palestinians (to the point of making a real difference). [| Labour list] is a centre-right publication, full of Blair supporters! I'd be amazed to find much support of Corbyn in there. --Andromedean (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LabourList is strongly associated with Labour and is funded (in part) by trade unions - it is far from a center-right publication. We follow, generally, the POV balance in mainstream sources - not fringe outlets, activists, or opinion pieces penned by Corbyn supporters.Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I cited three mainstream publications. And this section isn't about balance anyway; it's about whether a certain line of interpretation is FRINGE or conspiracy theory. It isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you cited an oped in scotsman, an opinion piece on a blog (Medium), and the one actual usable source - a mixture of reporting and opinion/analysis on NYR which does not quite support your assertion (yes, sure, it supports this is also happening - but not that this is the main thing).Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Icewhiz, my point was that it was "also" happening, not that it was the "main thing". I don't know why (or how) you would read my post otherwise. I also don't know why you would disparage the Medium as a source except that you disagree with the one article. Anyway, while op eds can't be used to cite matters of fact, they are certainly relevant to determining what views are and aren't marginal to public discourse. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Medium is a blog host. It is not a source we generally use. The author of the piece is notable - Owen Jones (writer) - as a socialist, admirer of Hugo Chávez, and a left-wing activist.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Any "left-wing activist" notable enough to be given op ed space in The Medium should not be so lightly dismissed, IMO. The above comment seems rather POV. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This all seems to be yet another bizarre attack on any reliable source, or notable expert on the Middle East such as Chomsky or Finklestein, that certain editors don't like. The purpose of the Rebuttals section is to put a bit of perspective on the whole situation. Generally it's not 'fringe'. And I can't see any connecton between BLP issues and the quotes listed by Calthinus. Sionk (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so for you it is okay to publicly state that living people are perpetrating a hoax when they themselves deny that, meanwhile keeping alternate opinions off the page? The offending quote from Finkelstein (notwithstanding hte various iterations of it), lest we forget, quoted in of course Mondoweiss, the most neutral of sources :) : [| "The rational conclusion is that the brouhaha is a calculated hoax—dare it be said, plot?—to oust Jeremy Corbyn and the principled leftist politics he represents from British public life."]. Quoted on this page : . He is literally saying the entire thing is a hoax, and why, to oust Corbyn of course. So, he is accusing living people of perpetrating a hoax -- and better yet, a ****calculated**** one. With zero, nada, balancing opinion offered. --Calthinus (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the rest of the article offers multiple opposing opinions tbh. I don't think the Finkelstein quote represents what any reader would take away from the article as a summary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't want anyone to read your comments, post lots of paragraphs, per too long didn't read. It is not conspiracism to say that the reason Tories and New Labour oppose Corbyn is that they are political opponents. TFD (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * TFD - literally no one is arguing that, don't derail with intentional or unintentional strawmen. I'm not actually sure what your comment means (there is a subjunctive with ambiguity here) but if it's that this is somehow balanced by the rest of the article, please tell me where and how this alleviates the BLP issue of Finkelstein accusing living persons of a "hoax"? And well, I wasn't the one who chose to put that quote, "representative" or not, into the article, if you haven't noticed....--Calthinus (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that. You began this thread by saying the article has a series of conspiratorial statements regarding the alleged motives of dissenters in the Labour party. How else could someone interpret your statement? TFD (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having adverse motives is not a "conspiracy". Nor is it a hoax just because of whatever motives someone may have (by the way if hte page also had large amounts of unrebutted text about someone's alleged motives, this could also lead to BLP issues -- but I am not arguing against this in this thread). You are conflating. --Calthinus (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If anyone was making a political attack or accusation against an individual, it would clearly need to be well sourced to avoid BLP issues. But none of the quotes listed at the top of this section are aimed at particular individuals. Unless Calthinus wants to provide specific examples. In contrast, many of the accusations of anti-semitism have been aimed particularly at Jeremy Corbyn, or because of Corbyn's leadership, so there's evidently a BLP reason to represent alternative arguments (and clearly a need to give a balanced article rather than a one-sided one devoid of context). Sionk (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike many of the accusations we parrot here, which do name individuals and yet are unproven.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm a couple questions. Where on WP:BLP does it say the target has to be explicitly named in the original source for it to be a BLP issue? Second, Slaterseven himself has argued that having the antisemitism infobox on this page is itself is a "gross" BLP vio [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party&diff=859827108&oldid=859826618

] "by the back door". The antisemitism infobox clearly doesn't name individuals, so it is clear that this line of BLP argument is no stranger to at least one person disputing this point here. --Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but this article does, thus we are (in effect) saying they are antisemitic. The whole point is we do name ans shame individually. So before we remove BLP's based upon comments aimed at an unspecified or vaguely defined group we should first remove any that directly name individuals.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have said I am sympathetic to this. But we have a whole section of "rebuttals" where it concerns the "Corbynite" side, in addition to inline rebuttals. As a result, as has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of opinion articles on the page favor one side. Yet that same section, ostensibly justified by BLP is, intentionally or not, featuring quotes which imply Berger, Streeting, Newmark etc are perpetrators of a "calculated hoax". And this section is structured to prevent any alternative viewpoints, including when individuals are made into calculated hoax perpetrators. As if it was made for people who can't see irony. --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd as we have multiple opinions by multiple people (including open letters) attacking Corbyn and others (by name, not by implication). The reason the rebuttals section is so large and so full of opinions is that is (pretty much) what the rest of the article is. I have argued long and hard to remove all opinions form this article and just have proven (or admitted) allegations in it. But if we are going to have opinions lets have both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But you don't have both sides on this anymore. You now have Berger, Newmark, Streeting and so forth painted as hoax perpetrators, with zero alternate opinion. And you see no problem with this? None at all? --Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We could put all the opinions on both sides into a different page, Reactions to the antisemitism controversy in the UK Labour Party.--Calthinus (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not have both sides, so we do not have an open letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council stating that Corbyn was "repeatedly found alongside people with blatantly anti-Semitic views" mentioned, or the opinion of the Israeli labour party? Do you really want a list of the direct (not indirect) accusations that fill this article? The idea that this article does not contain direct accusations made about named person is...well I am dropping out now with just this as I find this just stunning beyond words. I oppose any removal form the rebuttals section alone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. WP:BLP is about adding info about living individuals. If WP:BLP was designed to prevent any information that someone somewhere might decide is maligning a living individual but without any evidence, then 80% of this article wouldn't exist. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's always sad when people get outraged at things I didn't say. I never said there were not (named) accusations against Corbyn. What I said is you have both sides on that. And I also think it is important we have both sides on that, as this article should not be about defaming Corbyn, as I have said repeatedly. Thank goodness we do have both sides. But we do not have both sides where Berger-Streeting-Newmark-etc are implied in calculated hoax perpetration. And that is wrong. And you still haven't addressed that. Please do.--Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And you haven't addressed where exactly anything maligns Berger-Streeting-Newmark-etc (you're the only person naming them, not anyone anywhere else). So until we are actually talking about actual things, this conversation is going in circles. Sionk (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have addressed it four times independently now, and yes it will go in circles if you keep (2nd time) asking me to rehash something I've already said. WP:BLP does not require the source to explicitly name the affected. "Whole campaign was a calculated hoax" implies that individuals who played a critical role in that "campaign" (Berger, etc...) are perpetrators of a calculated hoax. --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this is the case when no names have been used in any of the quotes but reference to the topic rather than BLPs. But even if they did I don't see how it would be an issue when Dame Hodge or Rabbis Sachs publicly accused Corbyn of being an antisemite. RevertBob (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether this is an issue is 100% independent of whatever is said about Corbyn. It is not okay to murder someone because someone they opposed was murdered.--Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have a view on the BLP issue, but the conversation here has included a number of inaccurate assumptions. People are arguing we need to include defences of Corbyn in order to balance allegations about him. That's true of course, but there are different ways of doing it. Take Finkelstein, an American with dubious expertise on antisemitism and no expertise at all on Labour, Corbyn and UK politics. His defence of Naz Shah is rightly included in the section on the 2016 incident involving her, because he was notable enough to be quoted in news sources responding to it (the meme she used came via him). But this does not mean we should also quote his published opinion pieces on anti-Israel websites, just to achieve balance (especially if it veers at all into BLP violation territory); instead we should focus on reliably sourced notable rebuttals, such as Len McCluskey. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The same can be said of a number of the attack comments as well. As I have said when I see all the direct BLP violation and "not an expert" opinions removed that attack Labour I will support removal of similar material that defends it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, Slatersteven, that it could be said of negative comments about Labour too, and I would support the removal of those. But there are very few of them, compared to a large number of extensively quoted Labour-positive comments. My key point, as I don't think I expressed myself very clearly, is that "balance" should not trump other WP policies such as BLP and notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there very few of them, the article mainly consists of such accusations (and as I said against individuals, not vague and unspecified groups). Notability does not apply to article content, and BLP applies just as much to "small amounts" of information as large swathes. So as I said, when I see all the person specific BLP removed, then we can start to discus indirect BLP violations.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think the article mainly consists of such accusations, you misread what I said. If there are news reports and scholarly articles about notable instances of alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, these should be in this article taking care to report them neutrally. Opinions about antisemitism in the Labour Party, unless notable enough to be widely reported, should not be in this article. There are lots of the latter, around 33, overwhelming weight of them, I think all but 5, are defensive. Of the 28 defensive ones, there are a subset which make an allegation against those claiming to see antisemitism in the Labour party, of a smear campaign - the subset Cathinus believes are potential BLP violations. Again, if this counter-allegation is reported widely (e.g. McCluskey's comments) then it should be in the article, if worded neutrally; if not, they shouldn't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And so should rebuttals, AN accusation that is unproven is just an opinion (not a fact). So (as I said) when I see this article being about only proven incidents I will take BLP seriously, until then I will apply the same standards of "any old tittle tattle.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Although there are a million responses I could give to this exchange, I will choose this one: I have acknowledged throughout this whole debate that BLP concerns regarding Corbyn and allies are relevant. The difference is that this page give them and their defenders their right of reply to said accusations. SS, you want to make the article only about what you call "proven incidents". But you know that is unrealistic. So instead, you and others have settled for "balancing" them by including more Corbyn(ist)-favorable opinions on the page -- which I agree with. However, we have an entire section, imprudently titled "Rebuttals" which has among other things not only a defense, but also been coopted for a counterattack whereby men and women who have made great sacrifices to stand up for what they rightly or wrongly believe in are smeared as perpetrators of a "calculated hoax". And unlike Team Corbyn, when so smeared these dissenters are afforded no right of reply. And while you use the same arguments for the other side and even implicitly acknowledge the parallel by making the comparison to BLP issues on Corbyn yourself, you are implacably hostile to addressing the same issue when it is not "your" side being maligned. We all make mistakes. I do too. It is not too late to work together.--Calthinus (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would it be unrealistic to include only proven or admitted incidents? And lay of the PA's. I have said that all BLP violations should be removed, not just those I disagree with. But I have said there is a distinct difference between a direct accusation against and a vague undirected accusations of a general issues (such as "an "Arab Lobby" is to blame for anti-Zionism in the Labour Party"). When we remove all the direct BLP violations we can then start to work on the indirect one (and I will support it). But I cannot support removing indirect BLP violations (if we accept them as such) and allow direct ones to stand.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * you actually misunderstand me. I am saying this needs to be handled somehow. I am not necessarily advocating deletion of these actually. Proposal: gather all of these in one part of hte rebuttals section, and balance it by including also the views of Daniela Peled in response to these, as well as one or two of the responses given by the figures themselves (Falter, Newmark have both commented on these smears). I would be satisfied with that. Does that work for you?--Calthinus (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be better if we did not have the article structured as it is at all. What it should not be is not a list (this is what much of this article is in practice. But rather an essay about the general accusation with appropriate responses, and maybe some specific examples. I think that moving the rebuttals to other sections (and doing away with the specific section) would be better then what we have now. As to additions, that is a separate issue. For now lets just discuss moving the rebuttals.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I think getting rid of the "timeline" format of the article at the current moment might not work because (a) it is currently the one thing giving the article a structure that readers can easily follow and (b) this happens to be how news media are reporting it (as time goes on this style will likely change, especially if and when it is no longer a current event). A structure that could replace it would have to be built from the ground up. I would suggest at this point making a Discourse section which will discuss all the various aspects overall of the ongoing controversy. Within that section, I think we should move from the rebuttals section all of the offending quotes listed above, into a subsection titled Allegations of political smearing-- not sure on the exact title. In that section, for NPOV and BLP reasons, the defenses given by Peled, Newmark and Falter should also be juxtaposed with the "offenses" given by Finkelstein, Chomsky, Jewdas, etc. Other subsections of the Discourse section can include a section about accusations of double standards being applied to Labour while allegations of antisemitism among Tories (Gestapo house parties, bacongate) does not get the same press. Also, a section for discussing the role of views of the I/P conflict in it, hopefully with balance (Levy-Shlaim-Finkelstein-Chomsky are just one view that is found mainly among Jewish BDSers and a certain 50s/60/70s kids intellectual elite clique -- there are also many, probably more, lefty Jews who are critical of Israel and also critical of Corbyn's handling of the controversy -- and sources are easy to find). Also perhaps in the Discourse section can go discussion of the specific events if we don't want this in the event listing themselves -- responses to "English irony" and responses to those, accusations and perhaps defenses regarding softcore Holocaust denial, etc -- but I'm agnostic on this specific last point, just throwing it out there. Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Days without an antisemitic incident for Labour 0
"Jews, journalists and anti-racism campaigners are among 10 people banned from event starring Labour's shadow Chancellor John McDonnell" Random Redshirt (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The daily Myth is not an RS (and this article continues to claim the clap trap about millet).Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ohh and here is why [], so not only is the story no longer true, but it was due to not following correct application process (pay for a ticket).Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source says, "It is understood that the Jewish News was also blocked from the event, as were David Collier and Euan Philipps, two prominent campaigners against antisemitism" So how is the report no longer true? Random Redshirt (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It also explains why, which is what the DM left out, also the fact that now the press are being allowed in.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is the DM banned as a reliable source in Wikipedia, but headlines are never acceptable as reliable sources. Note the headline is misleading. There was no ban on Jews, just that some of the people excluded were Jewish. On the bright side, good to see the DM has moved on from the days when it used to back Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. TFD (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to JVL, accredited journalists registered and came. Only a few individuals with a record of disrupting meetings were banned --Andromedean (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They performed a u-turn when the reports came out, so the reports on this were not wrong, also "This morning it also emerged that several people with “Jewish-sounding names” have had their tickets for the event cancelled, according to senior member of the Jewish Labour Movement, Adam Langleben" Random Redshirt (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The DM story was updated after the "u-turn" and makes no mention of it, thus it is incorrect. As to "Jewish sounding names", is that even an RS? (and is Appleby really a Jewish sounding name?, and I note that yet again it seems they had not paid). This really does looked very made up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not "made up" "Labour is facing a fresh antisemitism row after Jewish activists were banned from attending an event with John McDonnell" Random Redshirt (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RR -- whatever the case -- you are not likely to get Daily Mail onto the page. And I am an editor who has been arguing with SS here elsewhere. It's not a good source for this page, and the complications above screw the nails on the grave of any chance it had. --Calthinus (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this was a Labour Party event (not JVL) so party members were invited and some journalists who would they assumed would provide a balanced view. Not surprisingly they failed. I suspect they refused some of the well known troublemakers who go around disrupting events. Here's an account of their behaviour outside the event caught on their own video. I also think Labour had to be cautious who they let in after receiving bomb threats to various other events. Unfortunately, the Jewish press won't report on the embarrassing incidents, and love to spin ones such as this. I doubt if Labour had much choice. This is why we need sources for balance which is surely lacking here. --Andromedean (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The DM is not an appropriate source. However, this was reported originally by The Independent, and then covered by multiple other RSes - so definitely fit for inclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a Labour Party event, Andromedean, it was a Barnet Momentum event, albeit with one of Labour's most senior figures (McDonnell) speaking. I don't think this talk page, let alone the article, is a place for us to speculate on whether the organisers had a choice. Our question is whether it is noteworthy enough to include on the page, and if it is sourced to RSs. Clearly, DM is not an RS, but it looks like Independent and some Jewish media have covered it, which are RSs. But I'm not convinced it is noteworthy enough to be included in the article; certainly more than a sentence would seem undue unless the story develops. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that we are just getting one side of the debate. Here's Rabbi Rich who doesn't even support Manson being intimidated on the way in.--Andromedean (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets also have the full story, such as why the organizers say the press (well some press) were not being admitted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously we can't use Facebook videos as a sourcethough.--Calthinus (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not in this case, just another blogger.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

New academic report into media bias

 * Full Report: Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm (Media Reform Coalition) - Justin Schlosberg, Laura Laker - September 2018.  (posted by       ZScarpia  )


 * Executive Summary: Executive Summary: Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm (Media Reform Coalition) - Justin Schlosberg, Laura Laker - September 2018.   (posted by       ZScarpia  )


 * Introduction to the report on the Media Reform Coalition's website: Media Reform Coalition - New MRC research finds inaccuracies and distortions in media coverage of antisemitism and the Labour Party, 27 September 2018.  (posted by       ZScarpia  )


 * Letter with 28 signatories to The Guardian which discusses the MRC report: The Guardian - (Letters) Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour Party: Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, Ken Loach, Brian Eno, Des Freedman, Justin Schlosberg and 21 others write about a recent report by the Media Reform Coalition, 30 September 2018.  (posted by       ZScarpia  )

This was released yesterday. A new report from the Media Reform Coalition carried out by Dr Justin Schlosberg, a Senior Lecturer in Journalism and Media at Birkbeck, University of London, and freelance journalist Laura Laker strongly criticizing the media's coverage of the Labour antisemitism issue. Of course it's very unlikely to get any coverage in the mainstream media (further confirming that the claims of overwhelming media bias made by Corbyn supporters are correct) but it has been covered in some alternative sources like Evolve Politics. Personally I think this is highly relevant to the article and should be included. G-13114 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I was going to mention it here, but I posted on the [| reliable sources noticeboard]. I think is probably counts as an academic report since it has the Birkbeck college University of London logo on it. WP:V states "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" Dr Justin Schlosberg can be considered a source of reputation. (Andromedean (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC))
 * This is not peer reviewed, nor does it quite cite sources all that much. Would be akin to an opinion of an academic - placing a logohead does notnaccount for much. Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's self-published. That's not an insurmountable problem, but the low quality of the research itself (look at the full, pdf version for a prime example of how not to conduct or present research) undermines any case for using it. And there's the main author's affiliation: "He is an active member of the Labour Party and the associated group Jewish Voice for Labour" (pdf, p4). That's a major COI. Even missing out my view of the quality of the work, a self-published piece by someone with a COI isn't a good choice for inclusion in any article. EddieHugh (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it rather bizarre to call a statistical study by an Academic of a University 'low quality', whilst there are sections in this article by the ultra-Zionist David Collier, and journalists from the Sunday Times. These allege anti-semitism via association with Internet groups, and data scraping of vast amounts of material which I expect have been conflated with anti-Zionist views. These are not just very low quality in statistical terms, but possibly irrelevant unless Corbyn actively engaged with these people. Topicality in the mainstream media which themselves have now come under scrutiny seems to be the only reason why these are included. --Andromedean (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I made no comment on the quality of other material. The quality of other material has no effect on the quality of this material. Alas, being an academic at a university (or even an Academic at a University) is no guarantee of high quality either. EddieHugh (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all you need to explain in more detail what you mean by 'low quality'. Surely it exceeds the standard written by most columnists. If we are being fair and consistent, we would have to consider removing other sections of the article on the same grounds. --Andromedean (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Standard caveat: do your own reading; I may have got some things wrong. Low quality: the authors don't provide a date range for the material collected; they don't state which author did what; they don't state how disagreements were resolved; they present inter-rater reliability data for only some of their analyses; using "a combination of key-word searches on Google.co.uk and the news archives held at the British Library" is not a robust approach to identifying what to include; they do not distinguish the severity of inaccuracies; they provide no explanation of how they calculated the proportion of coverage that they say was inaccurate or misleading; the same parts of the study present multiple analyses, but the sources of what they analysed are not consistent; they don't mention how they identified radio broadcasts, yet they use them extensively; they claim that the BBC's "Hodge has been told she can expect disciplinary action within 12 hours... very promptly" is an example of "Hodge was consistently framed as a victim. In contrast, aggression was ascribed to the party's official response" ... that's an imaginative interpretation; they found "34 reports" from "the main evening bulletins on BBC One, ITV and Sky, and with the addition of BBC's Today Programme on Radio 4" and online (34 appears to be both of these combined, but it's not made clear) on the Corbyn wreath-laying controversy... that seems improbably low; the sampling is altered again for the final study, this time adding "Evening Standard online in view of its relatively intense coverage of the incident and its reputation for influencing the wider news agenda", but they provide no empirical information to back up these claims; there's no comparison made between what they present as being inaccurate or misleading on this particular topic and typical levels of such things in the media, so it's not possible to assess to what extent this might differ from the norm. That should be enough. EddieHugh (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The report covers various incidents, some of these start at a well defined time such as the illustration titled "Failures in reporting the Mark Wadsworth’s comment at the launch of Labour’s antisemitism report, 30 June 2016". Others appear to be a general search on items without date limits "played out in reams of column inches and air time since 2015, and with particular intensity during the spring and summer of 2018". Occasional references to isolated reports are made before this on the Mural for example "covered by the Jewish Chronicle in 2015" to demonstrate the lack of reporting, until it became politically convenient to do so.


 * Regarding who did what, is this normally stated in reports with multiple authors? However, this issue was addressed: "The framework was tested using a sub-sample that was analysed separately by both researchers. This yielded a 93% agreement across the coding decisions related to inaccurate or misleading coverage. Using Cohen’s kappa statistic (which takes account of random chance agreement), this resulted in a score of .91, which is considered near perfect agreement and indicates highly reliable findings."


 * I agree there are some loose ends here, and this isn't nor claimed to be a peer reviewed study, but that isn't the minimum standard required for Wikipedia entries. We can't apply a double standard, one in which criticism of media reports require near perfect academic rigour, whereas politically motivated attacks on Corbyn can be used by scraping as many alleged remarks of anti-semitism from the Internet in a haphazard and undefined fashion. --Andromedean (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So long as it's properly attributed I can't see a problem with using it. One editors opinions on the quality of the research aren't particularly relevant here. I'm sure the readers can make up their own minds as to its quality. G-13114 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who did what is not addressed (and it needs to be): what you quote is their check on one area for inter-rater reliability ("a sub-sample that was analysed separately by both researchers"), but they don't state who did the coding for the whole sets of data that they collected. And how big was the sub-sample? How was it selected? Etc, etc. But the lack of quality is a relatively minor issue – it's a self-published piece by someone with a considerable conflict of interest. That's the big problem with using it. EddieHugh (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another indirect method of assessing this is to see if there's been evidence of systematic MSM bias against Corbyn as assessed by the Media Reform Coalition that has been backed up by an independent study. The answer is yes; this report by the LSE provides support for the Media Reform Coalition's reputation on reporting, and problems with the reporting of Corbyn more generally by the media.
 * "The first, published by the Media Reform Coalition late last year, examined newspaper reports during Corbyn's first week as Labour leader, which it found to be overwhelmingly negative. That was followed by a much more extensive piece of research carried out by academics at the LSE's Department of Media and Communications, published last month. That research affirmed those earlier findings."
 * from a less technical viewpoint, it's been the elephant in the room since those AS protests back in March. The supposedly 'reputable' media turned on Corbyn and the leadership in an exceptionally hostile fashion similar to that of the Mail and Express. In one of the worst examples, even the BBC had to offer a rare apology. --Andromedean (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of this article is to add facts rather than debate the moral implications and motivations of the various people reporting it. Bias has no place on wikipedia and articles about bias either way belong on a different article to this RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As the comments section on that webpage say, the mainstream media are reluctant to report criticism of themselves, so chances are, at the moment, the report will remain self-published. While that may be a shame, it also means the wider public won't find out about it unless they specifically look for it. So if it's added to Wikipedia is needs to be a sentence at the very most. I would hope though, that in the fullness of time, there will be a more public analysis of the whole sorry episode. Sionk (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Eddie Hugh about the apparent poor quality of the research, but I don't think that's for us to judge; if the report is written by recognised experts who have published peer reviewed material about the same topic, Wikipedia guidance suggests that even self-published sources are OK if they meet other requirements. (I'm not sure if it is self-published; there is a Birkbeck logo on the report but it does not appear to have been published by a department or research centre at Birkbeck but is co-written by an academic based at Birkbeck (who is also a Labour and JVL member). The publisher seems to be the Meddia Reform Coalition, an activist group with media academics involved.) It seems pertinent to this article and probably due to have a sentence about it. In the absence of secondary coverage by reliable sources (news media or academic), it would be preferable to cite the report itself or the Media Reform Coalition article on it, rather than an open letter to the Guardian about it,  and we certainly shouldn't cite an "alternative" source like Evolve Politics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The attempt to remove this entirely without even attempting to even re-reference, is completely unwarranted and bordering on vandalism. The editor who did this is fully aware that we have accepted that letters to newspapers from a wide range of rabbi and respected academics are valid sources in the Jeremy Corbyn article. Moreover, in conjunction with the obvious superiority of an academic study over standard newspaper articles, the case for inclusion in some form has become inevitable. Personally I prefer to include some quotes from the newspaper letter since it provides a concern across wider academia and probably includes everything that is important. I understand Wikipedia encourages editors to use more than one source if possible, so we should reference both the letter and original source. I also notice it was moved to the IHRA section, yet this letter/report addresses a wider range of issues of biased reporting.  Shouldn't it be moved back to rebuttals? --Andromedean (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the Media Reform Coalition? Following a grant from the 'Leverhulme Media Research Centre, Goldsmiths, University of London, set up the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre withing its Department of Media & Communications in 2007. During the following five years, the Centre carried out research on "changing media spaces and design" which focussed on five main areas, one of those areas being "Project 1: Spaces of the News", which studied the impact of the Internet on journalism. Further grants allowed the Project 1: Spaces of the News reseach team to set up the Coordinating Committee for Media Reform, which was later renamed the Media Reform Coalition (MRC), in 2011. The MRC was set up with the specific purpose of influencing the Leveson Inquiry, the Communications Review and the white paper which was subsequently issued. The MRC contains 30+ pressure groups and numerous academics. Each of its sections, which are designed to campaign on a specific issue, has an elected chairperson, all of whom are members of the Project 1: Spaces of the News research team. The Centre's research has influenced Labour and Conservative Party policy and was cited extensively in the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Media Ownership.    ←   ZScarpia  19:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Justin Schlosberg has written this response to critics - Labour, antisemitism and the news: A response to critics --Andromedean (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure that (what is in effect) a blog post is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just come across this, 19 academics have backed the findings of the study Have only found two sources so far though, and the first one probably won't count not sure about the second  though. G-13114 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is an RS, make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I was aware of Medium not being a satisfactory source in itself, [|but there are exceptions] depending on the reputation on who has written the article. "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" --Andromedean (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In general - random open letters (signed by a random set of "leading" academics / doctors / lawyers / whatever label) - are just simply WP:UNDUE unless reported on significantly in a SECONDARY by RSes (and no - a letter to the editor does not count as being reported). Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He may have a point, but so may you. I think i need to see some demonstration that this man is a notable expert in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was assuming the experience and notability of the authors who signed the letter were of importance, not just the person on whose webspace it appears.--Andromedean (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note how RS works, what matters is where it appears, not what it claims to say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason for copying out [| this rule] was to refute this assumption.
 * "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications"

Clearly it's the reputation and notability of the signatories that can count, the source being less significant. Of course we have to be reasonably sure it's genuine, but other Authors on medium have little relevance.--Andromedean (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No its the reputation if the source that counts. If (say) the Daily Myth was to publish a letter signed by God, Mohammad, Buddha, Elvis, and The tooth fairy we would not go "but look at the signatures" we would go" Its the DM".Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We might be talking at cross purposes here. There's essentially 3 groups here. The joint author of the report Justin Schlosberg, an academic with some reputation, the writers and signatories of the peer review letter, which appear to be academics of particular distinction, most having Wiki entries. Finally the website blog host Medium which hosts authors of varied ability. This has mixed reviews.


 * "Relative to the rest of the Web, the quality is fairly high. Medium’s editorial team curates the site’s best writing and the company has even commissioned some stories."


 * Are you saying only the latter counts? If so perhaps we need to send it to the noticeboard because that wasn't my interpretation of the rule. --Andromedean (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that in terms of verifiability/reliability, the Medium blogpost is an SPS but fine if the author is a recognised authority who has published on the topic in RSs, so by that standard we only need to show that Schlosberg is such, which I think is probably not hard. However, the other consideration is due weight, and what an extra sentence about 19 academics reading the report adds to our article. For example, if we cite an academic journal article, we don't normally add a sentence about the peer review process it went through. So the sentence is being added just to show that the report is noteworthy, or because the fact that these 19 people read it is itself noteworthy. But that's a bit problematic, because really if showing noteworthyness is the intention then we'd want secondary sources. To keep adding weight to a report that still has not had much secondary coverage seems udue to me. I think we want to aim for encyclopedic concision, and keep it lean. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of Bobfrombrockley's points, however, I wanted to add the review partly in response to claims from a few authors above questioning the quality of the report, including BobfromBrockley himself, and a comment from the RS Noticeboard regarding the need to determine the reception the article has from academics. Perhaps others would have thought similarily without the review. --Andromedean (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Andromedean, some of the people here have questioned the quality of the original research, so the fact that some important academics in the field have backed it up is significant. It's hardly surprising that the research has had little coverage from mainstream secondary sources, because they are the very institutions who the report criticised. BobFromBrockley, you yourself said further up this thread "The publisher seems to be the Meddia Reform Coalition, an activist group with media academics involved.) It seems pertinent to this article and probably due to have a sentence about it. In the absence of secondary coverage by reliable sources (news media or academic), it would be preferable to cite the report itself or the Media Reform Coalition article on it,". Well now you have some secondary coverage from academic sources, so I don't understand why you're complaining about this being included. G-13114 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If it were noteworthy it would have been noted by other RS. Moreover (as I* have said) we have no way to verify if this letter is real, or if the people who signed it actually did. As I said I can claim any n umber of people have signed a letter, that does not mean they did. skwawkbox.org is not an RS, it does not matter what it claims.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re : Just to clarify what I said (or at least meant to say!) about the quality of the report: it is my personal opinion that the report is of poor quality and flawed BUT it is not our job to make that judgment; we need to be led by the weight of reliable sources. (If an article is published in a high quality peer reviewed journal, for example, even if we think it is dreadful, Wikipedia needs to take it more seriously than something published in the Daily Mail or in a random Wordpress blog - with a report written by recognised academics and published by an academic-led advocacy organisation falling somewhere on the better side of that continuum.) My issue with the report is not about reliability or verifiablility; it's about how noteworthy it is. Noting that it appears to have been endorsed by other academics (according to the author's Medium blog) is worth stating here on the talk page, to add strength to the argument for verifiability in the context of other editors doubting it. But is it worth noting in the actual article? Re, you say "now you have some secondary coverage from academic sources", but I don't know what secondary sources you're talking about. A statement by the author on his own blog is not a secondary source is it? Is there a secondary source we've missed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the academics wrote the article about the report, the author is not the source. since Medium has some degree of editorial influence on what appears on its pages, it is separate to Goldsmiths, so this could be taken to be secondary--Andromedean (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Medium doesn't have real editorial influence on what appears on its pages. It will take stuff down that has been objected to, and it commissions or curates material it features on its own front page, but it obviously doesn't review the vast number of user-generated posts published on it every day. A self-published post hosted on Medium has no stronger status than one published on other blogging platforms like Wordpress. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I wish it had been pointed out that in another long and winding thread one of my concerns had already been addressed. [] is a third party source reporting on this (and yes the letter does seem genuine, based upon this). I think it is now clear we can include this, an open letter by noted academics and experts in the field (media studies for example). This is why you should not add material to an existing post that had been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. That is a letter to the editor, and not secondary reporting. A letter to the editor, posted to the website, adds zilch.Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These are notable academics (thus yes this does pass SPS), thus I think it passes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A letter to the editor of a newspaper, organised by the publisher of the report, is not a third party commenting on it, and surely not secondary reporting of the report, any more than the report publisher's own blogpost on it or the author's own blogpost. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Also, re "These are notable academics". The letter (as opposed to the claim about peer review made on Medium) is signed by a mixture of renowned media scholars (e.g. James Curran), renowned scholars with no expertise in this particular field (e.g. Lynne Segal, celebrities who have no credentials for assessing the quality of an academic study (e.g. Francesca Martinez), and partisan activists (e.g. three representatives of Jewish Voice for Labour, Lindsey German of Stop the War Coalition). So if the letter is being presented here as strengthening the academic credential of the report, it's weak. If it is being presented here to show noteworthyness because celebrities have taken notice, it's also weak because it's just a letter to the editor organised by the MRC, i.e. similar status to a press release that quotes a celebrity endorsement. I don't get what mentioning or citing this adds to the article. I think a brief mention of the report now, citing the report itself, is fine, and we can always expand it if there is subsequent secondary coverage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said I think this passes SPS, but [], is this good enough?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure. RT is not considered a good source - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources It starts to show noteworthyness, but has low reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what BobfromBrockley calls 'no expertise in this particular field'. Most of these people seem to be academics in Media, Journalism and Communication. What more expertise do you require? I ran out of energy before finishing the list, but this gives you a rough idea.

Graham Murdock His research examines the role of the media as a public cultural institution of communication in the constitution of modernity. https://theconversation.com/profiles/graham-murdock-157460

María Lamuedra Graván is a Lecturer in the area of Theories of Journalism in the Department of Journalism I at University of Seville.

Phil Scraton is a critical criminologist, academic and author. He is a social researcher, known particularly for his investigative work into the context, circumstances and aftermath of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.

Peter Golding: His research interests are in media sociology generally, journalism, media political economy, social inequality, international communications, new media, and media constructs of public and social policy. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/sacs/staff/profile/petergolding.html

James Curran his research interests broadened to include the study of contemporary journalism. This gave rise to a number of books most notably Media and Power (translated into five languages) and Media and Democracy which secured the C. Edwin Baker Award. He also initiated or took part in four comparative studies of journalism, whose results are published in academic journals. https://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/curran/

Justin Lewis is Professor of Communication at Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, and Dean of Research for the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. He has written widely about media, culture and politics. https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view/182947-lewis-justin

Victor Pickard, an American media studies scholar, is a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He works on the intersections of U.S. and global media activism and politics; the history and political economy of media institutions; and the normative foundations of media policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pickard_(professor) --Andromedean (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To repeat what I said, some (such as Curran) have expertise in this field, but others are renowned scholars with no expertise in this particular field (e.g. Lynne Segal, celebrities who have no credentials for assessing the quality of an academic study (e.g. Francesca Martinez), and partisan activists (e.g. three representatives of Jewish Voice for Labour, Lindsey German of Stop the War Coalition). If the letter was only from the former, it would have some value in showing that the report is academically credible, although I still feel it would be undue to include it in the main article. But given that it is also signed by the author of the report, by a bunch of people who have no track record of doing academic media studies research, and by some of the very people who have been tangled up in allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, that value is diminished. Again, what is the argument for including a mention of this open letter? What does it add to the article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Genocide Memorial Day
I want to question this edit by, deleting mention of a 2011 motion. It is true that there were no sources from 2011 about Corbyn's attempt to abolish Holocaust Memorial Day and replace it with Genocide Memorial Day, but it was heavily covered in 2018, with articles in PoliticsHome (a weaker source, but they broke the story), the Times of Israel, Jewish News, the Mirror, and Ha'aretz. Pollock's comments, cited in JN, Ha'aretz and ToI, draw a link to the debate about antisemitism in Labour, i.e. show it is relevant to the topic of this article. It was also mentioned in other news reports about the debate about antisemitism in Labour, such as a Mirror explainer on the topic, the tablet, the Times of Israel again, as well as in noteworthy opinion pieces, e.g. by Labour's Chuka Umunna (For the sake of completeness, it was also mentioned in a 2013 article by Manfred Gerstenfeld although I'm not suggesting we cite that!) I guess there's a case for moving it to the 2018 section, as that's when it hit the news (arguably the Tunis wreath case is similar), but given that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and prefers later sources to breaking news stories, the gap between the event and the coverage is no impediment to inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support inclusion of this content, with the slight change "Labour responded" -> "the Labour leadership at the time responded" or something similar to remind readers that Corbyn wasn't leader at that time. Also "submitting" should be "submitted". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If we include it is must be clear the controversy is recent (even if the event was not). Nor did he attempt to abolish anything, it was a rename. Incidents should be places when they became antisemitism, not when they occurred.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It might have been covered in 2011 as well - however - regardless - we have quite a bit of SECONDARY coverage from 2018 (including from Politico - ) - as well as experts weight in - e.g. Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. This is exactly the sort of sourcing we should have in this article -SUSTAINED coverage in secondary sources years after the event. Renaming Holocaust memorial day is a rather big deal - per some a form of denial and distortion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support discussing this -- obviously it is a major source of ire and is widely covered. The page's "timeline" covers 2015 to present -- the chronology can be made clear this way. --Calthinus (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Were any of the so called anti-semitism controversies widely covered at the time? That is before Corbyn became leader? I certainly don't recall them. This is why I believe these are manufactured controversies for nefarious political ends, with little to do with anti-semitism.  Should this 'revisiting' well after the event bear as much weight as if they happened recently?   --Andromedean (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RECENTISM, such revisiting has much greater weight than a recent event.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That guide seems to be referring to the tendency of overemphasising a current or recent event. We should give appropriate weight to its importance or long term topicality. The reverse is the case here, which implies something peculiar is going on.  However, the Labour AS issue is certainly relevant as a purely political rather than racist issue, I grant you that.  If Corbyn resigned, and a pro Israel neo-liberal leader took over, all mention of AS in the Labour party would be forgiven and forgotten --Andromedean (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in 2018, if it is included at all, because that is when the controversy occured. If we put it into 2011, it implies it is a fact that it was an act of anti-Semitism, when it is actually an opinion expressed in retrospect. Here is a link to the motion. TFD (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There are no sources from 2011 "about Corbyn's attempt to abolish Holocaust Memorial Day and replace it with Genocide Memorial Day" because there's no evidence that such a thing happened. By they "broke the story" do you mean they trawled through Hansard to see what dirt they could find to paint Corbyn as an antisemite and this is the best they could find?

There's no sources of this for when it happened whilst Ed Milliband (Labour's only Jewish leader) was leader and considering Parliamentary motions are public nor is there any evidence of any antisemitism being present other a Tweet by Karen Pollock referring it as "denial and distortion" in reaction to seeing something which has been in public domain without any previous objection not least from Labour MPs like Hodge, Berger, Woodcock, Mann etc.

The full motion declared: "This House welcomes the Never Again For Anyone Initiative by survivors and descendents [sic] of survivors of genocides, which declares that every life is of value; notes that disabled people were the first victims of Nazi mass murder, that working class activists and trade unionists, many of whom were Jewish, were the first to be sent to concentration camps, and that Nazism targeted not only Jewish but also Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, lesbian, gay and bisexual people and others they deemed undesirables." I can't see what's antisemitic about this?

The 2013 article by Manfred Gerstenfeld is about a committee of Muslim advisers to Prime Minister Tony Blair suggesting that Holocaust Memorial Day be abolished and replaced by a Genocide Day.

Yes, you're right Wikipedia is NOTNEWS which this is. It sounds like a long line of calculated smear campaigns by the press against Corbyn. I think it's a BLP breach to make such a serious accusation based on such a weak tabloid journalistic claim. RevertBob (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing here was sourced to anything remotely resembling a tabloid. IDONTLIKE of the mainstream press is not relevant for WP:RS or WP:DUEness. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PoliticsHome who broke the story are not mainstream nor RS. RevertBob (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree PoliticsHome is a weak source, which is why I added the note of caution (it's never been raised on the RSN and is used as a source by 236 WP articles). But there are plenty of RSs: I listed some half dozen above, and we just need to pick one or two. The deleted text used ToI and Ha'aretz, which seems fine.
 * The point about "without any previous objection not least from Labour MPs like Hodge, Berger, Woodcock, Mann etc" is irrelevant, (a) because EDMs are not debated, so they wouldn't have had occasion to raise an objection; and (b) because all that matters from our perspective is whether there is a body of RSs mentioning it, sufficient for it to be considered noteworthy, which I think the number of sources I've listed above suggest it is. Also irrelevant whether we agree there's "evidence" antisemitism was "present": what matters is that RSs discussed it in relation to antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, the topic of this article. The deleted text seems to me to be carefully and encyclopedically written in an NPOV, balanced way, giving the last word to a Party spokesman. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No we don't, we have the Janury 2011 motion and then we jump to a Tweet over 7 years later by Karen Pollock referring it as "denial and distortion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevertBob (talk • contribs)
 * We don't what? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a body of RSs mentioning it as antisemitism in the Labour Party. RevertBob (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you open any of the sources I linked? - quotes Pollock who mentions antisemitism, and links EDM to the "series of scandals and controversies have ensnared the party" relating to A/S, files article under "anti-Semitism in the Labour Party" tag; - quotes Pollock and others linking EDM to antisemitism in party; - quotes Pollock, links the EDM to a "long-raging storm over alleged anti-Semitism in his party"; - a pro-Labour source, which lists the EDM among reasons that "Jeremy Corbyn [has] been dragged into the [A/S] row personally"; -lists the EDM report as "Among the scandals that have emerged in just the last week regarding Corbyn himself" in relation to A/S... I could go on, easily, but you get the point. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)