Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 6

intro: a little fault
Quote of a part of the introduction: "...although it removed or amended four out of eleven 11 of what allegedly constitutes antisemitism, added ..."

"11" should be deleted, right? Atomiccocktail (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * yes.--Calthinus (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Me very very brave editor, I deleted the '11' error off the page. I would like to thank all other editors who have helped me achieve this. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol--Calthinus (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Should we include this sentence about protesters at the talk "The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes"
The sentence "One eye-witness complained about pro-Israel protesters and their hounding of genocide survivors during the meeting." was added to the article with references from the London Progressive Journal and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. Should we include this sentence? It seems to be WP:UNDUE to include it when it has not received coverage in mainstream media and doesn't seem to be relevant as to whether the meeting could be seen as antisemitic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in two minds, but given that a number of incidents (including this very meeting) seems to hinge on "the wrong type of Jews" yes I could see a reason for inclusion (so as to demonstrate this is not quite the open and shut case some would like to portray it as. But certainly only if RS have mentioned the incident.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's undue. It's not about antisemitism in the UK Labour Party; it's about the stupid behaviour of a tiny group of right-wing protestors, which is not relevant to our topic. Plus I'm not sure it's verifiable. The IJAN statement is sourced here: https://www.ymlp.com/zCLdnk It's not even from the IJAN website - does anyone know what ymlp.com is? And I don't think Indymedia is RS - I think it's user-generated content with no editorial control, so it is basically like citing a reddit forum. I am a bit uncomfortable about linking to non-reliable sources which name the alleged saluter too. I think we need to swiftly delete this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The protesters were protesting about antisemitism, or antiZionism, depending on your POV, and Corbyn was there, so it seems to be highly relevant. [|The London Progressive journal] seems to be reliable, so I can't understand why it's been reverted. Perhaps one or more of the other source links could be removed, but that's not an excuse to revert. --Andromedean (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the protestors were protesting about what they perceived to be antisemitism, but I don't think we need to go into detail about them. It'd be like if an article on Margaret Thatcher digressed for a couple of sentences to talk about bad stuff people did while protesting against Thatcher. This article is excessively detailed, so do we really want this kind of digression? The first deleted sentence, which cites the London Progressive Journal, is not as bad as the second one. I've never heard of the London Progressive Journal so don't know if it's a reliable source. The author of this piece also writes for Red Pepper, so may be legit, but I just looked at the front page and see some articles re-blogged from the rather dodgy Oriental Review (articles which have also been reblogged by conspiracy sites like Zero Hedge and The Duran) so I think it might not be RS. Maybe one for the RSN? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not just a case of people protesting against something, it is people verbally attacking (not just "doing bad stuff") targeted at the very thing they are saying should never be attacked in any way. But I would remind eds, a link must be made by RS (not us) to this and labour antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One eyewitness complaining is probably not necessary to cover in this (already too long) article unless it is covered by several sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources, but probably none you will accept. How Israel lobby attacked an Auschwitz survivor to smear Corbyn The Corbyn anti-Semitism row reveals how desperate Israel and its lobbyists are In memory of Hajo Meyer It forms a clear picture of what really happened. --Andromedean (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * re Andromedean: None of those are really RSs (they're all opinion pieces, at least certainly the second and third are, so shouldn't be used as sources for factual claims; Middle East Monitor is not anyway considered a reliable source; EI we've discussed here before, ruled borderline by the RSN; JVL a fringe group reblogging a self-published blogpost...), but even if they were it wouldn't make the protests relevant to this particular article. This article is about antisemitism in the Labour party, not about the offensive actions of right-wing Zionists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually at least one (the clue is in the title does address exactly that, this incident in relation to the antisemitism claims. Not sure the sources are good enough, but that is a different issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Middle East Monitor opinion piece is about the Labour antisemitism controversy, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is relevant to an understanding of the controversy. That piece names the alleged Sieg Heiler, describing him as "an Israel lobbyist" - I think if we are going to link to such BLP allegations, don't we need to be 100% sure they are RS and that this is due? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Only to the same degree with have with allegations made (for example) about the person who was the subject of the attack. AS I said I want better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree allegations about the speaker at the event need to be careful too, respecting BLP guidelines (although he is passed away so not under BLP policy exactly), but at the moment it seems neutrally worded and strongly sourced. So, let's see if anybody can propose stronger sources for the stuff about the protestors before we go into whether it is due or not. [I failed to sign this comment, which must have been from around 31 Oct BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)]


 * This is clearly UNDUE. If all you have is fringey sources making this rather wild claim - with MSM reporting matters differently - it shouldn't be in. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's UNDUE because of poor, FRINGE sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Police investigation
I can see several problems with this.

First of all aren't some of [| Icewhiz's comments linked here], equally relevant to this article?


 * Revision as of 10:17, 3 September 2018 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Icewhiz (talk | contribs) (→‎Criticisms: Not a RS. Not reported by anyone else - so UNDUE. Anyone may lodge a complaint, and it seems the police confirmed (to a non-RS) that someone has lodged such a complaint. Language such as "accused" is inappropriate where there hasn't been even a whiff of a charge.)

Secondly, the statement can appear as if the Labour Party themselves are being investigated. The Police confirmed the Labour party was not being investigated. As far as I can tell, files regarding an investigation of some Labour members has been leaked to the Police, and some of these, if proven true, might constitute a criminal offence.--Andromedean (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz's comments are not relevant to the amendment I made. As for your second statement, I simply don't accept the reasoning for your removal of my edit. Both your source and mine (both reliable) state that the police are investigating allegations of Hate Crimes within the Labour party. Please explain why a police investigation into antisemitic hate crime in the Labour party should not be included on a wikipedia article about antisemitism in the Labour party? Furthermore, I would like to point out that Bobfrombrockley has kindly thanked me for my edit. Alssa1 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced there's much difference between the two situations, both are allegations not proven, so we may have to include, both or neither. If we do accept the articles we must also point out that in this case The Met Commissioner made it clear the Labour Party itself was not under investigation. Also Bodney reverted a similar attempt to use the same material at 9.33am this morning for different reasons (see the history), so I suggest you address those issues as well.--Andromedean (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The section did not imply in any way that the Labour party itself was under investigation. If readers want to read that into it, that is their fault, not Wikipedia's. --Calthinus (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll make a few points clear then. Firstly, Icewhiz is an editor like everyone else, the opinions he holds and the editing principles he espouses are not to be taken as holy writ; they are all open to question. The principles acted-upon on other Wiki articles do not carry-over to this one (particularly when they are not arrived at via community-consensus). Given what I've just said, perhaps you'll explain why you're citing Icewhiz and his edits on other pages in support of your position?

Secondly, the reliable articles say either "within the Labour party" or investigating "Labour members"; perhaps you'll explain your issue with the terminology used in the references?

Finally, like Icewhiz, Bodney is an editor like everyone else; their views are not to be a taken as Holy writ, why do you take their views as such? Alssa1 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a rolling repository of every news event, and we do not need to a rush to add the latest half developed news story, especially where all details surrounding the allegations are unclear and unproven. This section has been included too early, the Police are just starting to investigate the allegations, not one charge has been made yet, never mind a case etc ... at this stage we do not know if it will lead to anything at all. We have no names, nor we know their connection to the Labour Party. To include it on this page at this stage is a bit POV pushing and it adds nothing to the overall quality of the article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a static textbook released once a year. We update pages based on new information supported by reliable sources. If we were to apply your principle to wikipedia generally we would get rid of the "recent events" page of wikipedia, we wouldn't update the deaths of famous individuals until their autopsies had been completed and we wouldn't create pages for criminal investigations until the conclusion of the relevant court cases. The idea that mentioning a relevant criminal investigation in relation to Antisemitism in the Labour Party is somehow  "a bit POV pushing" is a ludicrous assertion that requires a great deal of justification on your part. Alssa1 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If an edit is contested it's customary to remove it completely until agreement. However, I attempted to enter a compromise edit which described the situation accurately and fairly, however within minutes Alssa1 reverted it. Please don't edit war over this and follow rules. The reason I don't like the original edit is because several sources are already spinning it to appear as if the Labour party itself is at fault. Responsible wording is essential. All we know at present is that a Labour party dossier was leaked to LBC. In LBCs opinion it contains Labour party members, however I don't think this has been established. Neither has it been established that if they constitute an offence. Irrespective of Icewhiz's views we also need to establish if this should be re-inserted into the Campaign against Antisemitism article for the sake of consistency, since these comments were also social media posts. This was the original article text which was removed:
 * "The CAA is being investigated by the Charity Commission and police over suspicion of engaging in party-political activity and its petition that has been accused of inciting death threats against Jeremy Corbyn"--Andromedean (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bodney's comments about WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS were well-founded; an investigation is just that, and there's no need for Wikipedia to try to keep up with breaking events, or follow every twist and turn in an investigation. Alssa1's comment about not reporting deaths was silly, and is in no way similar.  When you're dead, you're dead; they won't be undead next week. If they died and we have a reliable source, there's no need to wait to report it,   That said, we do wait for reliable confirmation before reporting a death, especially on their own page.  Humans have a bias toward recent events, because that's what we remember best and what affects us most.  An encyclopedia, online or not, should not have a bias toward recent events because it very easily falls into the trap of being massively WP:UNDUE, with far more words expended on what happened in the last two weeks, then what happened during a comparable investigation in 2008, even though two weeks is still only fourteen days no matter when it happens. If this ongoing criminal investigation is something that is important and deserves to be in the article when we look back at it in a year or two, then by all means, add it.  If it's something that's being added cheifly because it's big news right now and everybody is talking about it, but will be forgotten soon enough, then it doesn't belong; that's what newspapers and magazines do. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said in my previous edit, Icewhiz's edits on a separate Wiki page do not carry over to this one. If you wish to start a discussion with Icewhiz about the inclusion of a Morning Star article (which if you do wish to include it, I think you should familiarise yourself with WP:Reliable), take it up with him on the Campaign Against Antisemitism talk page. As for your opinion of "Responsible wording", I would say that that is neither here nor there and your opinions of media "spin" borders on WP:NOR. The reliable sources have X terminology, if you think the edit does not sit in line with that terminology, by all means explain how it doesn't. Alssa1 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The facts are:

45 cases have been handed over by LBC – ‘some’ are being investigated

Offences relate to online activity – Met has not confirmed Labour members involved

Met Police Commissioner has said: “we will not be investigating the Labour Party

Statements such as the police investigating hate crimes ‘within the Labour Party’ is misleading considering these facts. The majority of people skimming over such terminology would automatically assume the Labour party itself is responsible, rather than a group of people being investigated by the Labour party. Obviously, the investigation may result in some of those being members or even prosecuted. Alternately they might not be.

With regards to reliability, a majority of people regard the Morning star as suitable reference on the RS board. I suggest you read about the reliability of the MSM regarding antisemitism before you assume their statements can be entered verbatim.

I think consistency across related articles is a topic worth discussing --Andromedean (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not mention me - without pinging me - particularly if my unrelated comment is being misrepresented. That being said my comments in the other article were based on a totally different rationale - this was reported by a single fringey source (the communist newspaper in the UK), regarding charity regulations and that reporting was limited to the existence of a complaint. Conversely the criminal (a more serious matter) Police investigation against Labour members has been reported by Wapo, Guardian, CNN, Times of Israel, BBC, Reuters, Jerusalem Post .... And just about every media source that even remotely covers UK politics and antisemitism in the UK. Those accused of antisemtism are all WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, so BLPCRIME is not an issue - as they are public figures we, per policy, merely reflect what the sources say. This clearly should and will be included in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The are zero facts currently available that support a claim that the allegations relate to WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, this is misinformation. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the police opening an investigation into possible antisemitic hate crimes by Labour members would satisfy WP:NOTNEWS for an article on antisemitism within Labour. It is very well sourced and in my view it should be in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The bar for PUBLICFIGURE is very low - people locally elected or party officials are public figures. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think people are confused here. Nobody has said that the police investigation refers to individual members (yet) except for Bodney and Andromedean, making this a likely unintentional strawman. Being a BLP issue is not necessary for inclusion on this page -- actually more the opposite. As far as we know, the investigation is solely about antisemitic acts within the party. It is entirely possible it comes out "negative", which would be good for Labour. This is the accurate and neutral way the text was presenting it: . I do not see anything in that sentence that incriminates anyone yet. Regarding WP:RECENTISM, it's been pretty much agreed by both sides that although long term background is relevant, this page covers the 2015-2018 current event.--Calthinus (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding Milk's suggestion to put it in the lede -- personally I'd be against that. That is too soon. One two sentence paragraph is not, the two sentence paragraph is due. --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem (as I see it) is that what we have is an accusation handed to the Police (which is not itself proof of wrong doing) that as far as I know does not (at this time)m name any specific person, and which may not in fact be labour party members. I think this should wait until charges are in fact pressed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From the CNN article "British police have opened an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party." which means that the police think it is a strong enough accusation to open an investigation. Also from that article: "According to LBC, one case involved a party member who posted on Facebook that a Jewish Labour lawmaker was "about to get a good kicking." LBC also alleges that a serving Labour counselor inflicted "ten years of hell" on a child by calling him "Jew Boy"" so it involves at least two Labour members. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think most of the sources say the police have referred this to the CPS to see if it warrants a criminal investigation, not that there is one. I would also point out the Met have said that some of the material may (MAY) indicate a crime had been committed and as such they are required to investigate. And LBC are not the police, so what they say is irrelevant to what the Police might be thinking. As I said nothing is lost by waiting until we see if this is smoke or just November the 6th mist.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt the statements were made. The sole question here is a legal one - whether such antisemitic statements/incitement constitute a crime under British law (as antisemitism per se is not a crime in the UK (which is also the case elsewhere)) - e.g. in a possible similar case - Blaming Greyfell tower on "zionists" - the CPS made a determination that in their view this was not a crime in the UK. However - regardless of whether this is or is not a crime (which is perhaps a question of a permissive legal environment in the UK promoting and allowing such stmts) - the investigation of these statements is highly noteworthy for a page on antisemitism in Labour - and given police scrutiny, we should of course also cover the stmts themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It may well be clear the statements were made (though it might be fairer to say "There is no doubt the statements were handed to the police, LBC may well have been handed a fake dossier"). It is not clear who made them, where or in what context. This is why I think thus has no place yet, No charges, No names, no statement by the police really on what incidents they are actually investigating. By the end of this this may well be a wholly different story, and nothing is lost b y waiting until we do have the whole story, we are not a live news feed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the material, with this response from Lord Hain Anti-Semitism probe would not occur if Labour tougher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Redshirt (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not Peter Hain who "pioneered" the reframing of Zionism as an imperialist project imposing apartheid on an indigenous people and who helped originate the "new antisemitism" in the Labour Party, or is this another Lord Hain?Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, 'giving a good kicking' is a phrase sometimes used metaphorically. For example David Cameron said Gordon Brown 'deserves a good kicking' in the commons. The comments on the CAA petition were far worse and included clear death threats against Corbyn. --Andromedean (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that your opposition to including the Police investigation into antisemitism comes from a personal ideological affiliation with Labour rather than a wish to improve the article. Almost any phrase in the English language has a metaphorical use, why do you think it's necessary to point that fact out? And what makes you think the use of it in this case is metaphorical? Also what relevance does 'but Corbyn has had mean things said about him too', have to do with Antisemitism in Labour and the police investigation into these allegations (and whether or not we should include them on this page)? Alssa1 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please can we keep all personal comments about other editors off this page. At all times debate the subject, not against your fellow editors and assume good faith. ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have assumed good faith, however the last comment by Andromedean suggested to me that they do not have the objective of improvement in mind. What relevance does "nasty comments" against Corybn have to do with whether or not we should include a police investigation into antisemitism on a page titled "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party"? Alssa1 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1: I've explained it several times, and printed it out for you. Compare the equivalent case on the Campaign for Anti-Semitism. Here it is again. This edit was taken out permanently, despite clearly being true: "The CAA is being investigated by the Charity Commission and police over suspicion of engaging in party-political activity and its petition that has been accused of inciting death threats against Jeremy Corbyn" I can't accept the edit on here, unless it's also included, and it mostly the same editors who are involved, this seems fair to me. --Andromedean (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works; as I have told you already, positions espoused and acted upon on one Wiki page do not carry over to another. If the issue of the CAA means so much to you, go to the Campaign Against Antisemitism talk page and talk to Icewhiz and come to a consensus about it. However that issue is entirely separate from the topic of inclusion here. Whether we include the Police investigation should (and will be) based on the community consensus around the individual merits of its inclusion. It will not be based on a personal issue you have with another edit, made by another editor on an entirely separate Wikipedia page, after all WP:NOTBATTLE. Alssa1 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alssa1: I'm only discussing a point, not warring. I'm sure Wiki has a policy on whether decisions on one subject can carry over to others with similar issues, but I can't find it on WP:NOTBATTLE. Certainly the basic rules and regulations carry over. Also certain decisions reached such as what constitutes a reliable source on WP:RSN over to others. It's something we could raise and get clarified elsewhere if you wish. --Andromedean (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes rules and regulations certainly carry over. But the idea that your interpretation of a position espoused by one editor on a separate page somehow carries over to this one is patently absurd. The idea that you will not accept the inclusion of the police investigation on this page unless you get the edit you like on a different page is also absurd. As I have said before, the decision to include or exclude mention of the police investigation should (and will) be based upon the individual merits of the case. Alssa1 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, if there are decent sources for the CAA investigation, I don't see why it shouldn't be included on the CAA article. If was just one, the Morning Star, it'd be hard to make the case it was noteworthy. There seem to be at least two more, but they don't say exactly what the MS says, and three is still quite low for establishing noteworthyness. This Labour case, in contrast, is very widely reported, with multiple possible sources, though so the noteworthyness here is clear. Reading WP:NOTNEWS, I think the inclusion of this issue in one or two scrupulously neutral sentences is appropriate: we are not doing original reporting; we are not reliant on breaking stories or primary sources; it can be written in an encyclopedic way. So long as we are very clear that the party itself is not being investigated. Might also be worth (as per SlaterSteven above) explicitly say the police are seeking advice from the CPS on whether any of the material is criminal (which is mentioned in one of the sources cited in the earlier edit), although (as per Calthinus), it's worth remembering that antisemitism itself is not a crime, so something doesn't have to be considered criminal by the CPS in order to be considered antisemitic by us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bobfrombrockley, is that the main difference between the cases are the sources. However, I suspect our opinions will diverge on what constitutes a reliable source, since the MSMs impartiality on antisemitism have been questioned, and the alternative media, who widely reported on this, have been necessary for balance and perspective IMO. The same applies to this section. This is why I suggested this more neutral version:
 * In September 2018 LBC Radio obtained some social media posts from an internal Labour Party document, and passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. Two months later, the Commissioner announced the police were beginning an investigation into alleged on-line antisemitic hate crimes, but the Labour party itself was not under investigation.--Andromedean (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We still should wait until we have any some clear evidence of an antisemitic act, an investigation is not enough. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * why is it not "enough"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssa1 (talk • contribs)
 * I think that compromise wording looks OK. I don't think we need to wait for evidence of an antisemitic act: the actual social media posts are not in dispute, and they look clearly antisemitic to me, and they are being widely reported. The outstanding issue is their legality, which we will find out in due course. I appreciate that we should go slow with this type of stuff, and better to keep the text out until we can reach something satisfactory, but I really don't see the problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored the content with the requested caveat. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether a criminal or antisemitic act as happened, almost the same response we should not rush until we have more evidence ...As per Slatersteven "We have is an accusation handed to the Police (which is not itself proof of wrong doing) that as far as I know does not (at this time)m name any specific person, and which may not in fact be labour party members. I think this should wait until charges are in fact pressed" or we have clear evidence of a anti-Semitic act.. As per Mathglot "An investigation is just that, and there's no need for Wikipedia to try to keep up with breaking events, or follow every twist and turn in an investigation....If this ongoing ... investigation is something that is important and deserves to be in the article when we look back at it in a year or two, then by all means, add it. If it's something that's being added cheifly because it's big news right now and everybody is talking about it, but will be forgotten soon enough, then it doesn't belong; that's what newspapers and magazines do." Even if was non 'criminal', but likely to be antisemitic we should edit with the same objective restraint. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the text 'within the Labour party' part which I object to most, and this has been re-entered. All we know is that the dossier was obtained from the Labour party, so they would be investigating if Labour members were involved.--Andromedean (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should talk to the publishers of all three of the sources, which say Police have begun an investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party (Sky News) Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party (BBC News) British police have opened an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party (CNN). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I will say again, we do not know if these posts were even by labour members. That is the whole issue here, we do not know if a crime was committed, by whom, or even when.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be cautious and not hasty on this, but (a) it doesn't matter whether a crime was committed for it to be due to include here, as this article is not about criminality in the party but about antisemitism in the party; and (b) our job is not to weigh up the evidence and attribute guilt or not but simply to report what the weight of reliable sources say. There is a vast quantity of reporting on this story, and so long as we describe it in very careful, neutral and encyclopedic language I just don't see what the problem is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is an encyclopedia, not a news feed. We are supposed to provide details, not headlines. Nothing is lost by waiting until we can actually say something beyond "a accusation was made", one of the reasons this page has so many issues is the fact that every accusation (not matter how unspecific) that is made had to be mentioned. This adds nothing to our understanding of the issue, and that is what this page should be about, informing the users about the issues. So no I do not think this is encyclopedic, this is not a list (despite the fact this is how it appears).Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Jewish groups in the lede
This article has quite a long lead section. The long third paragraph includes these three sentences: In addition, a number of Jewish groups in the Labour Party have disputed the antisemitism claims. These include Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists' Group; all of whom have said that accusations of antisemitism against the Labour Party have a twofold purpose. Firstly to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel in order to deter such criticism and secondly to undermine the Labour leadership since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader in 2015. As per MOS:LEADREL, emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. It seems to me odd that that we dedicate space in the lead to these three very marginal groups. We say "a number of Jewish groups in the Labour Party", but there are only two Jewish groups in the Labour Party, the large and long-established Jewish Labour Movement and the small JVL, which was established precisely and solely to dispute accusations against Labour. The other two groups we mention are not associated with the party, although individual members may have joined post-2015, and both are fringe and small. (In contrast, the mainstream organisations of British Jews have been among those making allegations of antisemitism, widely reported in mainstream sources, so it seems odd that we ignore them in the lead in favour of these marginal groups.) These groups are not too fringe to be mentioned in the article of course, but I don't see why we give them such weight in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of stuff has been removed, it did used to list quoite a lot of the stuff about polls, ect. But it would seem fair to mention the fact that the claim has been disputed by some Jewish groups (but not all of them are ion fact Labour groups).Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a sentence saying it has been disputed would be totally due, just not the current amount. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said I have no idea why the material about the accusations was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I think this version is much better - encyclopedic, neutral, concise, and everything here is adequately followed up in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Mentioning fringe groups in the lede is UNDUE. Stressing these groups as Jewish - as opposed to pro-Corbyn organizations is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are they all pro-Corbyn, do you have an RS for that claim? The material was long standing but as you appear to have objected to my edit I shall revert to the old version.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

So lets analyse it bit by bit. Are Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists' Group part of the Labour party?Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of them are part of the Labour Party. The most public spokespeople of the each of them, Richard Kuper and David Rosenberg respectively, have both become Labour activists since 2015 and are publicly associated with the leadership, although they hold no particular office. But as organisations they have no link to the party, JSG often criticising it from the left prior to 2015 and JfJfP avoiding involvement in domestic politics. I guess it's fair to say, though, that they are broadly supportive of Corbyn. I don't think it is misleading to call them Jewish groups, and the formulation Although all mainstream Jewish groups have condemned the Labour party, a number of Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims makes it clear they are not mainstream. If necessary, could say something like Although all mainstream Jewish groups have made allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party, some left-wing Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims. That would also have the advantage of also not portraying mainstream Jewish groups as blanket anti-Labour (the Jewish Labour Movement is pro-Labour, even though it raises the antisemitism issue, and many key figures in the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council are Labour members). Would that work? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I do not like the idea of masking assumptions based upon support (say) for one issue. Sure two of them are clearly left wing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask we revert back to the last stable version whilst this is ongoing, none of the changes made have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which version do you mean? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We usually mean "the last stable version" the version made that existed the latest round of edits. So it would be this version [].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The latest round of edits" is pretty subjective, so I think you should make a case why you are choosing the edit which focuses on non-mainstream groups and ignores the mainstream groups. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And I would remind edds again that you stick with the last stable version, so why are we not doing that? The new lead does not have consensus and so we should revert back to the last consensus version, that is how we do it. I wonder why the rules do not apply now?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Promotion of fringe groups, while excluding mainstream groups, can not remain in the lede. Nor can an internal inquiry described as whitewashing for peerage, be used without such relevant context. There is no consensus to promote fringe groups in the lede, nor has a policy based rationale been presented for promotion of these fringe groups.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, it does not alter the fact this was long standing material and until there is consensus for removal (or alteration as I did) it should not have been removed. That is what we do. Revert, unrevert, talk. That material has been in the lead for months unchallenged, it was then removed and the removal was rejected. We should now discus before it was removed again, what you have done goes against the principles of BRD and consensus building.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the paragraph - either we replace it with a balanced paragraph which mentions that Chakrabarti was given a peerage and gives more space to mainstream Jewish groups than non-mainstream groups, or we remove the paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again fair enough, but this does not alter or contradict my point, until we have consensus it should be reinserted according to policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe is right about the last stable version, which we should leave until we reach some kind of consensus, but I think we can move easily to consensus. I think Chakrabarti and maybe the HAC report should be in the lede, but the Chakrabarti content should not be sourced from Seymour's opinion piece and Chakrabarti is in the previous para so shouldn't get too much space. I think it would be wrong to give too much context in the lede, which is long. And I would have thought we could all agree on the inclusion of mainstream Jewish opinion.
 * Can I propose something like this: The controversy prompted Corbyn to establish the Chakrabarti Inquiry to investigate the allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which found that although antisemitism and other types of racism were not endemic within Labour, there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere". The all-party Home Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry into antisemitism in the United Kingdom the same year and found "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", but that the leadership's lack of action “risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic”. Disciplinary investigations have led to some party members being expelled or suspended for bringing the party into disrepute. Livingstone resigned from the party in 2018 after being suspended for two years. Corbyn himself was the subject of controversy in 2018 after his comments on Facebook in 2012 concerning the removal of Freedom for Humanity, an allegedly antisemitic mural, were brought to public notice and for being a member of three Facebook groups in which antisemitic content was posted. Although mainstream Jewish groups such as the Board of Deputies have raised concerns about antisemitism in the Labour party,   a number of more left-wing Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims. These include Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialists' Group. Would that work? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That looks better, although I would include the Jewish Leadership Council and perhaps the Jewish newspapers as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I thought the whole point if this was the lead was too long?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer: this includes the previous paragraph, where Chakrabarti is first mentioned. But your're right. This version (including refs) is 40 words longer than the last stable version, which is a step back in terms of trimming - although it is a lot more balanced and accurate. One of the reasons it's longer is that it includes Icewhiz's footnotes re the mainstream community, which are 87 words long - the actual text is shorter if the footnotes aren't counted. Is there somewhere in the body where these footnotes can go? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure they are needed as the material should already be in the body, if it is not it has no place in the lead. Nor do I see a need for a list of examples, it should just be enough to say these opinions exist, not who holds them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bob's version is a step in the right direction. I do think we should pare Chakrabarti (both paragraps) further - not only due to this be internal and with a quid quo pro peerage scandal - but mainly simply since it is old and does not reflect subsequent developments. In terms of timeline - it was a big event in 2016 - but the scandal, and scope of antisemitism in Labour, has expanded greatly since 2016. If you look at profiles covering the entire scandal - Chakrabarti does not get nearly as much space as we allot to it in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but we do not base our articles on unsubstantiated claims of wrong doing. For that reason alone I must oppose this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What about replacing the last two sentences with (including the references I've taken out here for ease of reading): Although mainstream Jewish groups shave raised concerns about antisemitism in the Labour party, a number of more left-wing Jewish groups have disputed the antisemitism claims.

That should be short enough. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * More or less what I had altered it to (with you adding the stuff about them being "left wing"). Not sure I think we need teh left wing caveat, but also not sure it is a huge problem, just unnecessary. I can live with this change.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Jackie Walker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Add more information before Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of the Labour Party
Labour Party have been accused of antisemitism allegations since 1980s, not only since Jeremy Corbyn become the Leader of the Labour Party (UK).Paul Lincoln (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what many of us have been saying, reduce the stuff about Corbyn and make this a more general page. But you really need to get consensus for this. All of the sources for the 80's claims come from recent sources. We need some accusations from the time to say this was a problem at the time. The problem with hteis page is it relies too much on recent events and recent sources (hell we even have the same thing happening now with Corbyn, with people only now going "but that was antisemitic" about events years before). Any inclusion of "historical" antisemitism must be carefully worded so as not to give an incorrect interpretation of how prevalent, common or noticed it was (unless we use contemporaneous sources).Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of police investigation
Should the article contain this content on the police investigation into antisemitism? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote

 * Yes, it is widely covered and clearly relevant to the topic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,. widely reported and obviously relevant to the topic. Alssa1 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite obviously - even on a doh level. Very wide international coverage for the alleged antisemitic hate crimes by Labour members. The stmts themselves (and their nature) aren't in doubt - though whether they are "just" antisemitic (including calls for genocide) or a bona fida hate crime in the UK is perhaps an open legal question. e.g. "We shall rid the Jews who are a cancer on us all." ... rferring to Jewish people as "devils" and suggesting the Red Sea would be an "ideal destination" for them, they added: "No need for gas chambers anyway as gas is so expensive and we need it in England" is obvious antisemitism.WaPoNYTCBCIndependent In any event the nature of the statements made by Labour members, and the fact that the Police is actually investigating this is extremely widely covered (quite possibly meeting WP:GNG for a standalone article - however it would be better to include this in this article and not spin it out). Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, as per my comments above, we do not need to rush to include until the clear facts are known (the is no print deadline in Wikipedia). The Independent's report is shockingly concerning, but we still need to know more solid evidence about who was actually involved in those potential acts of antisemitism, where and when and what are their relationships to the Labour Party, before adding it to this encyclopedia. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per available coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No until more facts are known per User:Bodney, the fact that an investigation has been started is not in itself worthy of an encyclopedia entry, however much coverage it has received. Bear in mind WP:NOTNEWS. G-13114 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No longer I hadn't reached a fixed position on this, and was willing to compromise, providing an alternate neutral text, but this was just used as a excuse to revert and re-insert phrases which implicated the Labour party. So I think it's better left out completely until more information emerges.--Andromedean (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No What we have is material so vague as to not be encyclopedic, it is a list entry at best. We do not know who, why, when or what. In fact most of this is one radio stations speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No per Slatersteven and others, needs more coverage and to move from just starting an investigation. The source itself says "Labour sources indicated the leaked file formed part of the party's own investigations into antisemitism claims." so the position is confused and we should wait. -Snowded TALK 11:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes in an age when the UK police are cautious about initiating political investigations (eg hesitated for a long time over allegations of illegal Brexit referendum spending as the evidence built up (for example) I think this investigation is significant and relevant. TrabiMechanic (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per nom. This is well sourced. Bondegezou (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, well sourced, not POV in the way it was presented, due for discussion on the page as per media coverage.--Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No – A vague announcement of an investigation isn't encyclopedia until there's coverage of clear facts are known as per NOTNEWS. RevertBob (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources are credible and the political ramifications are news. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No; mentioning an investigation (when so little is known) usually has a pretty high bar, and there's insufficient coverage here to justify inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - Seems to be properly sourced. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a very wide range of reliable sources have given it coverage, clearly showing its inclusion is due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes: The event is recent but seem to have garnered enough media coverage already. We can always re-evaluate in six months or so and see if the content still merits inclusion. ImTheIP (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is virtually what policy says in reverse, that we should not include because we can revisit in 6 months (when, if this is still a thing, we can include some actual information about who said what and what they were charged with).Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet This is an investigation of postings on internal social media, and that's thesort of thing we're most cautious about.  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)`

Discussion
Maybe we should let uninvolved eds vote, out opinion are already known.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the issue has now progressed to a vote, perhaps you should take part? Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No it has progressed to an RFC, you do not need an RFC to have a vote. As I said I would rather we waited for new blood before re-iterating out opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that, although I am obviously a yes supporter, I agree with Slatersteven here. Regular editors of this page have generally reached fixed positions which will shape how they vote here. We need un-involved editors to have a say, as the main issue at stake here is how we apply policy, in particular WP:NOTNEWS, and I would like to see uninvolved editors' views on that. I should add that almost none of the RfCs above seem to have reached consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction needs to be drawn between 'reaching consensus' and having a unanimous voting result. There are a number of RFCs that have votes that far outweigh the other side. Alssa1 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You assert that "4 to 3" isn't consensus, can you tell me what number is consensus? What is the justification for removing the edit when the majority of people (expressed thus far) are in favour of the inclusion of the edit? Alssa1 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would point out that some of those opposed to the edit had not voted (expressly to give new eds a chance).Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Snowded makes a point I think I had picked up on but had not properly formulated. This was a leaked Labour party document, do does it in fact contain anything that was not already out there? If these are old accusations just dredged up are they even prosecutable (assuming there is anything here to actually prosecute?). Let me illustrate, say the "social media" messages are the same anonymous ones we already mention.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delighted to see so many editors vote 'No'. Presumably on the same basis we should remove almost all of the article. which relates to individuals who have been suspended pending an investigation, but deny antisemitism. I'm all for that. But on the basis of simply noting that an investigation has been launched by the police, people will draw their own conclusions about innocence or guilt, per every other incident so far. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should, lets start by a EDM which as absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism also being on this page. RevertBob (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording proposed seemed likely to suggest conclusions -Snowded TALK 12:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think any one is saying "innocent until proven guilty" they are saying "we do not even know what the charges are". What we have is an internal investigation, which oddly no one actually seems to have published, no names, no dates, Not anything that might actually be libelous. It is not even clear that this is actionable (after all what the sources say id the police have handed this to the CPS to determine if anything prosecutable may have occurred).Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To put this in context, here we have a statement from the Metropolitan Commissioner of police reported on the 2nd November by the BBC "She made it clear the Labour Party itself was not under investigation. We would always want institutions and political parties and similar to be able to regulate themselves. However, if somebody passes us material which they say amounts to a crime we have a duty to look at that and not just dismiss it." This may or may not amount to anything. The report also makes it clear that the material came from internal Labour Party investigations. The debate here is not about if it should be mentioned (it should) but the wording used. Some of the include votes seem to be unaware of this. In this respect the RfC is badly phrased - it should really be about a change to the way the material is referenced (the actual link provided). The proposed wording is not neutral in so far as it does not fully report the context. I also think it doesn't deserve a full section but just a brief note at most. -Snowded TALK 07:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we phrase the material? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way is the proposed wording "not neutral"? Alssa1 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't make it clear that the Party itself is not being investigated and ignores the fact the police are obliged to investigate any such allegation - it will become a news item if they take it further.  The most I think we can justify is a simple sentence that says In September 2018 LBC Radio obtained social media posts from an internal Labour Party document, and passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. The Commissioner confirmed that they would look into the matter, but the Labour party itself was not under investigation.  It does not justify a section or any implication beyond that -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That terminology would suggest that no member of the Labour party was being investigated, when in fact all of the reliable sources (The Washington PostBBCThe GuardianThe Independent) say that the criminal investigations are against Labour members and activists. I would suggest that the terminology "the Labour party itself" refers to whether the leadership is being investigated. Alssa1 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All we know are is that an internal labour party document identified social media comments - we don't know from who, how prevalent, if they were major figures or minor one.  We need to wait a see and for the moment and see what happens - oh and you should not confuse the identity of a Party with that of its Leadership. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I note the same sources say that the police have said the Labour party is not being investigated. This is exactly why this needs to be left out until we know what (and who) is being investigated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about antisemitism in Labour and not antisemitism of Labour, the investigation of the party itself or lack thereof is immaterial. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I was responding to someone who said the party was being investigated. It is not (however) irrelevant that we do not know who is being investigated (or even if the CPS will support an investigation), precisely because the kind of mistake about "this is an investigation of the Labour party) is going to happen given how little we actually know about this. If eds making argument for inclusion are making this mistake then we need to ensure that whatever we write is not informed by the same beliefs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which person said that? My point is that the suggested terminology doesn't actually explain what it means by "the Labour party not being investigated". The sources say that Labour party members and activists are being investigated rather than the operational nucleus of the party. Alssa1 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My error I assumed that " I would suggest that the terminology "the Labour party itself"" meant you felt the labour party (and thus the leadership) was being investigated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What I intended to suggest was that the terminology "the Labour party itself" was referring to the nucleus and operational aspects of the Labour party (thereby meaning that they weren't under investigation). By saying this, I was trying to highlight that using the "the Labour party itself" without further clarification might suggest that no Labour member or activist was under investigation by the Police. Alssa1 (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not following your reasoning, who has suggested that if we include this we cannot say that labour party members may be being investigated? I think all that was said is that the suggested edit does not make it clear the labour party itself is not under investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that anyone has suggested that. What I was trying to say earlier is that we should provide a bit of clarification so as to avoid any confusion. By all means we should say "the Labour party itself is not being investigated", but should we say that we must also make clear that that does not mean that individual Labour members and activists are not under investigation. Alssa1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well as we do not know who (or even what) is being investigated (or even what the scope of the investigation is) I doubt we can. We could at best say that comments alleged to have been made by Labour members and activists are being investigated. I am not sure that is very encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We know (because that is what all the reliable sources say) that there is a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members and activists. We know the former senior police officer Mark Chishty reviewed these allegations, and he said 17 instances should have been reported to the police for investigation, and another four were potential race hate crimes. We know that the things said included things like: "“We shall rid the Jews who are cancer on us all…” Another allegation talks about how a serving Labour councillor is accused of carrying out a “10 years of hell” campaign of intimidation and harassment against a child, including calling him “Jew boy”. The fact of the matter is, we know the nature of the allegations, the categories of individuals in question (and their relationship to the Labour party). I'm not sure why you think we don't know these things. Alssa1 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not know who said what. We do not know which of these allegations are being in investigated. We do not know if any of these investigations can even be linked to know individuals.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, how is that relevant to whether it should be included in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we do not have enough to make this an encyclopedic entry that tells the reader anything usefully. We (literally) cannot say who said what, if it is old or new (we may already cover many (if not all) of these incidents), we cannot say they were labour party members (as the police have not said this, and no proof has been offered), we cannot say they were antisemitic (as no prosecutions have yet occurred), or even of the ones that are were said by labour members (as opposed to sites visited by them). All we could say is "allegations have been passed to the CPS to determine if any criminal activity was involved and could be prosecuted", that is not encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources say "it was reported the leaked dossier included a total of 45 cases of alleged antisemitism by Labour members." (Sky) "Police probe into anti-Semitism claims against Labour members" (BBC). Just because we do not have further information than that does not mean the current information isn't useful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Every single reliable source we have says that they are Labour members, I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that "we cannot say they were labour party members". Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members, according to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police.", So they say these are "alleged antisemitism by Labour members". The fact they do not say alleged Labour members would be because it would be redundant, as they make it clear these are all just allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ohh lets add "It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.", so lets stop saying that all the RS are saying this was a Labour document.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but no one said that all the RS say it was a Labour document. All RS do say that the police are investigating Labour members and activists. You previously said "we cannot say they were labour party members", have you changed your tune now? Alssa1 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think what I said it we cannot imply it is proven they are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone was suggesting that we can imply that those under investigation are guilty of the allegations against them. However if you're saying that we can't say that those under investigation are Labour members and activists, then I can only say that the RS state that they are Labour members and therefore we are entitled to point that out. Alssa1 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the alleged antisemitism refers to Labour members? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that RS are saying that this is LBC saying they are. So we have to also point that out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So even though the RS say explicitly that Labour members are being investigated, you think they are just going on the word of LBC? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. We have to go by what the RS say, and they do not say they're just going on the word of LBC. Alssa1 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media. So yes an RS is saying this is LBC's claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that the RS would have checked with the police themselves whether Labour members were under investigation before writing that "Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members, according to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police." etc? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are news sources reporting a statement - and the statement says internal documents/hate crimes it doesn't say yet who is being investigated just what. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 09:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And some also make it clear the claims are only those of LBC, this is why we need to word this carefully. You will note the police do not actually say (in quotes of the police) who is being investigated, not even if they are labour members. Hell one your quotes only says "linked to" not "by" (for example, and the only one that actually says this is what the police said). So no it is not at all clear what the police are actually investigating, what we have is some media speculation. Now if you want to actually present some suggested text we can discuss adding it (after all at least one user has objecte based upon the text, me I doubt it will win me over but you never know).Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It has now been nearly a month, any more information?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the lack of information a month out indicates that (like a lot of things that are rushed onto this page) this was a tempest in a teapot and nothing came of it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Or it might mean the investigation is ongoing. It's not our job to make inferences either way, but to accept what reliable sources say. If we make a brief careful mention of it now, nothing stops us editing later in light of any conclusions reported. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Or (as policy says) we can wait until what is going on is clearer, and nay long term effects are noted. Nothing stops us leaving this out, and coming back to it latter, when we can write a far more informative piece.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust/Genocide Memorial Day
Should content about an early day motion proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day to Genocide Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page? RevertBob (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * RevertBob, see request for clarification below. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey
Yes, seems very relevant. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Highly notable, widely covered, directly ties to antisemitism and denial by senior Labour leadership.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No – This section is NOTNEWS based on a Politics Home blogger who trawled through Hansard to see what dirt they could find to paint Corbyn as an antisemite and this is the best they could find. We have a January 2011 motion and then we jump to a Tweet over 7 years later by Karen Pollock referring to it as "denial and distortion".


 * There's no sources of this for when it happened whilst Ed Milliband (Labour's only Jewish leader) was leader, and considering Parliamentary EDM are public, nor is there any evidence of any antisemitism being present other the 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?


 * 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 journalistic claim. There's no evidence that the EDM was antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article. RevertBob (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, widely covered and "but they didn't respond at the time so it must be a smear" is not a reason against inclusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, for all the reasons given at length last time we discussed this a couple of week ago. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously relevant. Alssa1 (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See the Comments section below: one person, Haren Pollock's, statement doesn't deserve the amount of text which was devoted to it, particularly when she didn't actually make any explicit accusations of antisemitism. The sources used have a common bias and failed to describe the early day motion accurately or in detail. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia
 * Yes, relevant, widely reported, properly sourced, duly weighted content. No policy based reason to not include this text has been presented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in its current state, it needs to be altered.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No per weight. The vote occurred years before anyone commented on it and has too little coverage to report in a neutral manner. We have one commentator saying it is holocaust denial but too little coverage of that opinion to know whether it is a meinstream view. TFD (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No per TFD and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs)
 * Yes Notable incident covered by many sources. Random Redshirt (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Highly relevant and notable, amply sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion isn't about the content being notable per se but if it should be given DUE WEIGHT for inclusion within the article's topic. RevertBob (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, briefly explained and with multiple citations so people may read further, should they so wish Aboudaqn (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So do you think as written it fits this criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No per RevertBob, ZScarpia, TFD and others, this was not in fact widely covered at the time and has been picked up by a biased media.
 * Zero evidence of anti-Semitic intention, but a wish to remember all who have been subjected to and suffered the extremely inhuman hate crime of genocide. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 20:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes - Seems to be relevant and properly sourced. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No per TFD and Bodney, why would it be anti-semitic to change the name to recognize all genocides? One tweet by Karen Pollock is not something that we need to report. If editors are going to insist on invoking the label "anti-semitism" to describe this type of petty political back and forth, then we are going to need a new word for what the Nazis were. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak yes. Fairly widely covered by reliable sources and clearly relevant to our article. Not our job to say if EDM was antisemitic or not, simply to reflect the coverage of the weight of reliable sources which connect it to antisemitism. The tweet relating it to our topic is clearly a mainstream view, evidenced by the fact the tweeter is widely cited by mainstream sources on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is our job to prove if it's relevant to the topic. If it was a mainstream view then it'd have been covered in more RS and we'd have a bit more than just one vague tweet. RevertBob (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Accusations of antisemitism should not be thrown around lightly on Wikipedia. Since it is clearly so that reasonable people think that the motion does not imply antisemitism, then it shouldn't be included. ImTheIP (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Our job is to give information. The extent to which it shows the party anti-Semitic is to be judged by the reader. The wording of the motion is a concise encapsulation of its present problems. It seems that mainstream sources refer to it because they consider "some of whom were Jewish" as diagnostic of very slightly disguised antisemitism) Whether readers agree or not is something they can decide themselves, but this is the best place to include it.,   DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - Notable. Well-sourced. Encyclopedic. Due. As to the question of "why is this anti-semitic?", our answer to that is irrelevant. Rather, it's our job to note that various Jewish groups and activists saw the move as anti-semitic, which is obviously notable. The reader can reach their own conclusions regarding who is right. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Why has this RFC been opened, I was not aware there was currently a dispute over this that needed an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, here. Please note the discussion is about what evidence is there that the EDM is antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article. RevertBob (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That has not been active in over two weeks, and no challenge has been made to the current material in (about that time?)). So again I fail to see why we need an RFC on what looks to be a resolved issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are we re-litigating this three weeks later? I also thought we reached agreement on this, that it was worth inclusion but should go in the 2018 section as that is when it was controversial. If we didn't, shouldn't the RfC be placed within that section on the talk page, so people can read the discussion before voting? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion this immediately follows on from has been (prematurely in my view) archived here, which is a bit frustrating as we have rehearsed the arguments at length which are now being re-litigated. I recommend people read that discussion before voting here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The text which was inserted in the article was cited to articles in two Israeli newspapers and an "essay" in a pro-Israel, rightward-leaning British newspaper  by Henry Zeffman, who, judging by this article and this, is distinctly unsympathetic with Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian section of the Labour Party. Those are reasonable sources for the reaction of pro-Israelis or anti-Corbynites, but, as far as the Early Day Motion itself is concerned, the meat of that is Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK’s Holocaust Educational Trust, saying "any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion" (one of the sources claims that Pollock directly accused Corbyn of "denial and distortion" though that doesn't come out in the fuller quote given in Haaretz), which, to justify inclusion in the current article, we have to accept as the equivalent of antisemitism, though that isn't stated explicity in the articles. In terms of neutrality, a policy requirement, depending on sources with a uni-directional bias isn't good. It's dubious that they fairly represent the Labour Party's response and it's noticeable that the Early Day Motion itself isn't described accurately or in detail. The Motion doesn't actually, as stated, call on the government, nor anyone else, to do or acknowledge anything specific. No mention is made of the Never Again For Anyone Initiative, which has a central place in the motion, nor of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network who are behind it (IJAN were also behind a letter to the NYT signed by 300 people which criticised an advert posted by Elie Wiesel). <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  22:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ZScarpia that Zeffman's essay is a bad source, as it is an opinion piece. (There are other sources if two aren't enough, which I listed here.) I disagree that one sentence is excessive amount of weight for Pollock. I disagree too about needing to simply "accept" that denial is the equivalent of antisemitism, as Pollock's quote explicitly mentions antisemitism: "But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity [i.e. the anti-Jewish specificity] is a form of denial and distortion." Her full statement is here, by the way, and adds that it causes "offence" to "the Jewish community", and locates it as part of a pattern of "persistent offending", which shows why it is relevant to our article. The motion is only described briefly in the inserted text, and to repeat the whole motion (as the cited Ha'aretz source does) would be adding even more weight in word to the incident, but the inserted text (following the sources) does accurately describe the actual call for action at the end of the motion, which was precisely the contentious element. If it needs to mention IJAN for context, that could easily be added, although the only source I can see which we could cite, apart from the primary source of the motion, would be this one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (In the following, for 'Park' read 'Pollock' and for 'IJAF' read 'IJAN'. Thanks to BobFromBrockley for pointing out the errors.) I must be being blind. Could you point out to me where Park [correction: Pollock] calls the content of the early day motion antisemitic. I'd be interested to know whether you think that using solely pro-Zionist sources to cover what anti-Zionists do or say is likely to result in a neutral article. This Mirror article refers to the Never Again For Anyone initiative mentioned in the early day motion as "an apparent reference to a campaign promoted by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)" and then goes on to describe what the IJAN says about it: "the initiative is intended to challenge the 'Zionist expoitation' of the Holocaust for 'political purposes' ...". The IJAF [IJAN] site is a reliable source for what the IJAF [IJAN] says about the initiative. The Electronic Intifada is a reliable source for what the Electronic Intifada says about the initiative, that it is "coordinated in part by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)". <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Park? Do you mean Karen Pollock? She does not explicitly say the EDM was antisemitic. She says it denies the antisemitic specificity of the Holocaust, and that makes it clearly relevant to the topic of this article. I am not sure it is appropriate to be calling Ha'aretz a "pro-Zionist source". If you think it is not a reliable source, I think you'd need to take that to the RSN, as it is used heavily as a source by several WP articles. Other reliable sources are available too, e.g. the Mirror article, so we can add that. I don't understand the reference to IJAF (you mean IJAN?) being an RS or what the EI article from 2011 adds: it doesn't mention the Labour Party or the 2013 EDM. Are you saying we can't mention this incident without a few sentences about IJAN? Wouldn't that give it undue weight and make it a bit off-topic? But if IJAN can be fitted concisely into the text without too many words, e.g. using the Mirror article, I wouldn't see a problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry I was referring to Karen Pollock (not Park) and the IJAN (not IJAF).


 * As far Pollock's commentary goes, I'd better start by repeating that, subject to provisos, I have no objection to the article referring to it goes. Having said that, I disagree with the argument you've given for doing so. There's a bit of a mismatch between the title of the article and its introduction, but going on what the latter says, the article appears to be about the current controvery in which allegations of antisemitism have been made against members of the Labour Party. In order to justify the inclusion, in two references to Pollock's statement, you have had to interpret in a dubiously valid way, inserting the explanatory text "i.e. the anti-Jewish specificity" in one case and, in the other, casting Pollock's use of the word "specificity" as "antisemitic specificty". Pollock's commentary is problematic as it's ambiguity makes it difficult to determine exactly what her argument is.
 * Pollock's tweet reads: "Holocaust Memorial Day already rightly includes all victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides. But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion." What exactly does Pollock mean by, "the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core?" And, "any atempt to remove that specificity?" Holocaust with a capital "H" is used in two different ways, one referring specifically to the Jewish Holocaust (Shoah), the other referring to all victims of the exterminatory policies of the Nazis . International Holocaust Remebrance Day commemorates the latter. Holocaust Memorial Day, the UK implementation of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in something of a fudge, commerates the Nazi's extermination victims as well as victims of later genocides (though not earlier ones including at least two in the 20th century). In the sense used by the Remembrance and Memorial Days, contrary to Pollock, the Holocaust was a set of crimes, rather than a specific one, those directed at non-Jewish victims having nothing to do with antisemitism, let alone having it at their core. Pollock is excercised by the name change. It's likely that she's exercised because of the motivations she perceives behind the push for the change. Presumably she perceives those as being anti-Jewish in some way relating to how she defines the Holocaust? That being the case though, is she not trying to have it both ways, protesting about how the UK Memorial Day already commemorates other non-Jewish Holocaust and non-Holocaust genocide victims?


 * Reliability operates on a sliding scale with academic sources near the top and news sources tending towards the bottom. Reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for fact checking. For academic journals that usually takes the form of peer review. Most newspapers may have lawyers, to avoid litigation, check particular articles and editors ensure that style guidelines are adhered to, but to what extent and how effectively they check facts is really anyone's guess. On Wikipedia, news sources really do have to have a poor reputation for bias or low quality in order to be disqualified as unreliable. News source may be accepted as reliable in general terms on Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are infallible. The Media Reform Coalition published a report on disinformation and inaccuracies in reporting on antisemitism in the Labour Party. Most newspapers will have biases of some sort, including political and national ones, which is why, of course their reporting is contradictory and varies widely. This LSE report describes bias in reporting on Jeremy Corbyn. In general terms, Haaretz is a paper of the Zionist left, which means that it's reporting tends to attack the Zionist right. Attacking the Zionist right does not make it anti-Zionist though. It also does not mean that it does not carry articles which do not follow its general editorial line. Some of its maverick contributors include Amira Hass (pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist) and Gideon Levy (post-Zionist is my guess - perhaps this piece could be cited in the current article: "The Jewish establishment in Britain and Israeli propaganda have taken out a contract on him, to foil his election: He’s an anti-Semite, Labor is anti-Semitic, Jewish life in Britain is in 'existential danger,' no less, as three British Jewish newspapers cried out in a joint editorial.") However, the Haaretz article under consideration follows the pattern which would be expected in pro-Zionist sources. Although not as militantly pro-Zionist as pro-Zionist sources come, I described Haaretz as such to contrast it with how anti-Zionist (or post-Zionist) sources would report on Corbyn and the Labour Party. See for instance (I'm not, by the way, trying to argue that any or all or the following are reliable for anything apart from their author's own views, just supply examples of what the anti- [or post-] Zionist viewpoint looks like): Jewish Voices for Labour ; Strategic Culture Foundation ; +972 ; Gush-Shalom ; Al Jazeera ; Media Lens ; Mondoweiss ; Electronic Intifada ; Middle East Monitor ; American Herald Tribune ; RT ; Information Clearing House ; International Socialism ; OpenDemocracyUK . Finally, there is the Finlayson article in the London Review of Books, which is an example of writing which is not pro-Zionist, but not necessarily anti-Zionist.
 * By "the IJAN site is a reliable source for what the IJAN says about the initiative", what I meant was that, so long as any statement is accompanied by a qualifier such as "according to the IJAN", the IJAN site would act as a reliable source for anything cited to it. A circumstance where you might want to do that is when that site contains the best explanation of what the Never Again For Anyone initiative is about. I included the Electronic Intifada quotation because, contrary to the Mirror article, it says that the initiative is only "co-ordinated in part" by the IJAN.


 * The cited sources fail to give an accurate or neutral description of the the early day motion or its intent. The Wikipedia article should. The fact that the initiative originated from a Jewish group whose members include camp survivors is significant I think.


 * Pardon me if that is garbled. I'm too tired to check it thoroughly. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ''(On doing further reading, I've noticed that I was mistaken about the way that the word Holocaust has been used. Although International Holocaust Remembrance Day seems to use the wider definition [the United Nations General Assembly reaffirms that "the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one-third of the Jewish people along with countless members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice"], Holocaust Memorial Day and the Stockholm Declaration which led to it use the narrower one, counting non-Jewish victims of the Nazis as "people killed under Nazi Persecution." ["On Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and the millions of people killed under Nazi Persecution, and in the genocides which followed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur."] That clarifies Pollock's argument somewhat. Since the narrower definition was being used, it's clear what she means by "the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core." However, although the narrower definition is being used, as other Nazi victims are still commemorated (and those of subsequent genocides in addition), her complaints about attempts "to remove that specificity" seem a bit overblown. Since "Holocaust Memorial Day already rightly includes all victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides," shouldn't it bear another name if the narrower definition of what the Holocaust was is used? 00:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC))


 * ZScarpia- I get your point about Pollock's ambiguous comment; she is not explicitly saying the EDM is antisemitic. All I'm trying to argue is that her mention of antisemitism, given that her comments are very widely reported in reliable sources, shows why the issue is relevant for this article. We don't need to disentangle what she means or agree with her. Second, I don't see how the sources ail to give an accurate or neutral description of the EDM, especially if we add the Mirror one which mentions IJAN: the Ha'aretz source actually links to and quotes the entire text of the EDM; what more could they do? Third, on whether the sources are reliable. You seem to be blurring point of view with reliability and lumping news and comment together Wikipedia has policy on what constitutes a reliable source and consensus on which sources are reliable. I am fairly certain Ha'aretz is considered reliable. I'm not sure what the purpose is of your list of sources, as they don't seem to mention the EDM at all, but they are a very mixed bag, including a mix of news items and opinion pieces. JVL is a reliable source for JVL's opinion, but not for claims of fact. Strategic Culture Foundation seems like a marginal Kremlin-backed conspiracy site and opinion aggregator and everything you list from there is an opinion piece not a news article (reblogged from elsewhere - specifically from another pro-Russian conspiracy site TruePublica and from a Wordpress blog). The Gush Shalom link is a petition. Al Jazeera is an RS and some of the links are to news items we could cite in the relevant section, but at least for clearly marked as "opinion". I don't know if Media Lens, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada or Middle East Monitor are considered RSs, but your links are all clearly opinion pieces. American Herald Tribune is a very dodgy conspiracy theory site which publishes 9/11 denialism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial - please don't consider us linking to it. Russia Today is at best a borderline source, but this link is an opinion piece. Information Clearing House seems pretty WP:FRINGE to me. OpenDemocracyUK is a respected website, but it is opinion not reporting. Finlayson is discussed elsewhere on this talk page, and is, in my view, non-noteworthy opinion. Personally, I think we should minimise opinion and neutrally report what reliable sources say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pollock mentions antisemitism, but in connection with the Holocaust rather than as an accusation directed at signers of the early day motion. Her statement is so ambiguous that, in discussing it, we have actually had to try to disentangle it or interpret what it means. That's at the heart of why we're arguing about whether she's making accusations of antisemitism or not.
 * I did write: "I'm not, by the way, trying to argue that any or all or the following are reliable for anything apart from their author's own views, just supply examples of what the anti- [or post-] Zionist viewpoint looks like." Having said that, I do think that the anti-Zionist viewpoint is under-represented in the article and that using pro-Zionist/pro-Israel sources to supply that viewpoint is a seriously deficient approach. There are two problems (though, from the pro-Zionist viewpoint, of course, they may actually be seen as beneficial). One is that the pro-Palestinan/anti-Zionist viewpoint tends to be contained in alternative news sources or sites. The other is that the reporting in conventional news sites tends not only to be biased, but factually deficient, as outlined in the Media Reform Coalition's report. The situation is that many of what are being used as reliable sources have a common bias and that they are not actually reporting reliably on the matter in hand. One of the results is that what should be regarded as viewpoint is being presented as fact. You wrote: "I think we should minimise opinion and neutrally report what reliable sources say." How should the fact that a report from a university research group says that, bearing in mind that news sources are at the bottom end of the reliability spectrum, many of what would normally be regarded as reliable news sources here are misreporting on antisemitism in the Labour Party?
 * Although you've written off a lot of the links as opinion, opinion, of course, does have its place in the article. Much of the content of the used "reliable sources" is reportage of opinion, those sources having a rather one-sided bias meaning that the opinions selected have a one-sided bias also. Finlayson is, if I'm correct, a professor of political philosophy. Is her opinion really worth less than a lot of those chosen for inclusion? For the present, I'll avoid embarking on a detailed discussion of any of the linked sources, but just mention that the reason for including the RT piece was because it's a defence written by Ken Livingstone, a rather central figure in the antisemitism controvery.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the relevance of the Zionist/anti-Zionist issue here. Although the EDM was inspired by an anti-Zionist group, IJAN, it was not actually about Israel/Palestine, and Pollock made no reference to Israel/Palestine in her response, and the Ha'aretz and Mirror articles. The article already devotes two paragraphs to the Media Reform Coalition report, and it was discussed on the talk page here and it was raised on the RSN, so I probably shouldn't devote more words to it in this section, but my view is that the report is very flimsy. As for opinion, a separate section of this talk page is devoted to that question, where I list the 33+ opinion pieces already cited in this article, of which all but about 4 are pro-Corbyn and anti-Zionist or Israel-critical. I also argue there that Finlayson (a lecturer, not a professor, in political philosophy, with no record of publishing on antisemitism or the Labour Party) is not a particularly noteworthy source, although we continue to quote her in this article for some reason. Yes, the reliable secondary sources report opinions expressed by people they consider noteworthy, and we should use that to determine whether opinions are noteworthy enough for us to mention, which is proper (hence the quotations from e.g. Jenny Manson or Jon Lansman in this article - or, for that matter, Ken Livingstone, who we already quote twice from reliable sources with no need for recourse to RT, because he's obviously noteworthy), but that is different from citing opinion pieces without having any yardstick by which to establish their notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

At this time we are just discussing inclusion, discussing the nature of that inclusion just clouds the issue, I will note that agreeing to include a mention is not agreeing to the any old text. So even if the RFC passes that is not cat blanche to add a specific form of text.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I probably didn't manage to make my personal position very clear above. I don't have any major objections to Pollock being quoted briefly (a minor one is that, as far as I can see, she doesn't actually refer to antisemitism explicitly) so long as, for the sake of neutrality, accurate descriptions of the early day motion and the Never Again for Anyone initiative which it revolves around (which would include the rationale behind the initiative) are also given.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you propose some wording? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording is linked in the RfC so we are discussing the inclusion of that specific text. That said, if we can find consensus for some other text here, that's also fine of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The question posed at the top is about whether to include at all, not whether to include a specific wording: "Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page?" <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It links to the content. Seems pretty straightforward. If you don't like that specific text, feel free to propose something else. The RfC will run for a while so there's time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's been mentioned already, but it might be worth noting that Karen Pollock was heavily involved in the mural controversy, being the person who criticised it for containing stereotypically antisemitic images. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  16:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is that worth noting? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason it 'might' is because the more she has been involved in the controversy, the more significant she becomes in her own right in this article. It looks to me as though she may have been one of the key figures in the mural-part of the controversy. I see she also made comments about Jackie Walker.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say it is worth noting that she is a (not the) person noted by reliable sources who criticised the mural for containing stereotypically antisemitic images. In fact, she is widely quoted by reliable sources in relation to antisemitism in the Labour Party, suggesting she is somebody who is noteworthy for us to be referring to on this page (in much the same way as, say, Jenny Manson or Jon Lansman are (but Lorna Finlayson or Richard Seymour aren't)). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She is widely quoted as an authority on antisemitism and Holocaust denial in the UK - by dint of her rather significant position in the Holocaust Educational Trust - one of the main UK bodies dealing with these issues. Her being quoted as an authority only increases the weight of her comments. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As this RFC is about the inclusion of specific text, and as there is no clear consensus for inclusion of that text I have removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Making reference to it being "a form of denial and distortion" is not the same as calling it antisemitic. Such a serious accusation of placing this content on this article based on such vague wording isn't appropriate. Wikipedia needs to be careful for such a strong allegation and would need better reasons for inclusion. Ultimately, there's no evidence that the EDM was antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article beyond the vague comment. RevertBob (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Question added at the top of this section.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed it. You can't add a question after people already commented. You can open a new RfC if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a request for clarification addressed to RevertBob, the initiator of the RFC, not a new question. The request for clarification arose directly from your intervention here: I think you have misinterpreted the purpose of the RFC. Before your intervention, I and at least one other editor commented in the RFC on the basis of a different interpretation of what the RFC is about than yours. Please don't delete my comments again without excellent reason, you know that you wouldn't like it if I did it to you.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It m=is clear the RFC is about the specific text linked to, it is the inclusion of that (and it's placement) we are voting on.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-posing the request for clarification about the purpose of the RFC to RevertBob which was originally posted at the head of this section, then deleted by No More Mr Nice Guy:
 * "Per No More Mr Nice Guy below, is this RFC about whether this specific text should be included or whether the early day motion should be mentioned at all?   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)"

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the RFC is whether the content is relevant enough to be included in this article, i.e one vague reference to it being "a form of denial and distortion" warrants inclusion in an article about accusations of antisemitism. RevertBob (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So it is not about the specific text (which is what has been suggested as being what this RFC is about)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You lost me at the top with "EDM proposal"–is that a wiki-thing, a UK Labor thing, or what? Aboudaqn (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please write clearer requests before inviting in the random hordes...Aboudaqn (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An EDM is a UK parliamentary thing, an Early day motion. Probably the text would be better if it opened "In January 2011, a Early Day Motion motion was submitting to parliament to rename---" I think the question to the random hordes is whether this is DUE in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)